have i read this wrong?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by fusilier50, Jan 28, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. ok i admit i could be paranoid and reading too much into it but the following quote is taken from MOD Oracle and annoyed the hell out of me.

    Due to a reduced threat level and improvements in the peace talks between the two sides, weapons are usually no longer needed and a decision was taken that a Territorial Army unit could undertake the tour which has always been fulfilled by the Regular Army.

    as "weapons are usually no longer needed" the TA can be used for the job? we have fcuking weapons on telic and herrick where there was a very real threat ffs :x

    i found most of the comments regarding TA in this article to be condescending and patronising in the extreme.

  2. Im not sure about condescending and patronising but the author does seem to have conflated the current threat level with the TA angle to make it sound like the TA are only allowed to go because it's not too dangerous.
  3. msr

    msr LE

    Lieutenant Colonel Huw Jenkins, Commanding Officer of 32 Signals Regiment Group, one of the very few regular Army officers on the tour, said:

    So no TA Lt Col good enough?
  4. I think it's quite sweet, you come across as a kind of PCSO type of organisation. :wink:
  5. As you already know, the post is occupied by TA/reg alternately. He just happens to be the boss at the moment.
  6. i actually thought that too but couldnt bring myself to say it :roll:
  7. i like the bit about bikes, matches the plastic policeman image nicely
  8. So will the next regular unit be plastic policemen as well? Tosca is Tosca no matter who does it.
  9. i think your missing the point.i am not interested in yet another TA/Reg slanging match. i am critical of the article not our guys on Op Tosca. i have several friends there at the moment but i think this article does portray us in the wrong light.

    the article highlights a decision that TA were given the job because it was deemed as safe and weapons were no longer required.If this is the case it belittles all the work we have done in iraq and afghanistan since 2002
  10. Only if you take that attitude, I do not see it as a negative piece of reporting, one line seems a bit off

    which could well have been the journalist writing the piece as it does not seem to be a quote.

    So see it as an article showing how the TA can be used as whole sub-units in a flexible fashion in a role that is not normally associated with them.
  11. msr

    msr LE

    Hold on: we've been configured exclusively like that from 1908-2003 and since 2003 have sent a number of formed sub-units on TELIC and HERRICK.

  12. And continue to do so......

    It sounds like the journalist writing the article is out of step with the "party line" and with recent history...no change there then :)
  13. Fair enough just shows how I misinterpreted the MOD headline to the article

    I therefore make the assumption (a dangerous habit I know making assumptions) that the unit is the first carrying out a UN peacekeeping mission, made up from all different cap badges.

    Certainly not meant as criticism by the way.
  14. Well, you wouldn't let the little rascals loose with anything more dangerous than blunt sticks, would you?