Identify Friend or Foe

#1
I am a firm believer that ARRSE is an excellent website, full of useful information, gossip and stories. However it is also a very dangerous one and I would urge everyone posting to the site to be very wary about what they write and the wider implications that could be attached to the words placed into a public forum.

It would be foolish to think that the chain of command, v.v. senior officers and politicians do not read what is written here; because we do. Hanging a units ‘dirty washing’ out in public as occurs here on a regular basis, or slating a particular unit because there is something you do not agree with or like is also a very dangerous practice and implying that there is no role for a particular organisation is even worse.

Having spent the last 2 years fighting to save as much as possible of the TA and specifically Royal Signals TA (although I have also been involved with others Arms and Services fighting with them) in a culture of cuts and efficiencies has been a depressing and difficult time. Time and time again those wanting to make savings in one place to give more money somewhere else have pointed to ARRSE as a justification to cut a specific Bn or Regt.

As we emerge from FAS there is to be a Comprehensive Spending Review across Government. With priorities being Health, Education and the Home Office you can guess where savings will be sought – Defence for one. If after FAS you think everything is secure then think on.

It has frequently been the case that poor quality Regular personnel cause damage to a TA unit when they are posted to it but that the TA weather the 2 years before they move on. Now it is the case that the TA are causing more damage to themselves by making posts that damage the profile and credibility of a unit, whether justified or not.

My plea to everyone is that if you do post here and that your post criticises your unit then do not be surprised that in the coming couple of years YOUR unit is the one to be cut. It is hard to argue value for money to a politician when he is holding a piece of paper originated by people from that unit stating that it is a failing, inefficient or poor organisation. It almost happened in FAS but it will certainly happen in the future if we are not careful!
 
#3
Is this thread refering to the 36 Sig thread?
 
#4
Not specifically no, it is a general comment spurned on by reading the current 36 thread. Having spent literally days during FAS addressing damage made to the TA case to save units (and 3 Royal Signals TA units almost went under FAS), the CSR (spending review) is about to start and the microscope will be on individual TA units again if we are not careful.

My reason for posting this comment is to ask people to be careful and to consider if this is the best way of dealing with the issue at hand – let the world know the woes. We all know the effects of the media and this is really the same. It will be disheartening if a unit disbands solely because of comments posted here – and I can not emphasise enough it did almost happen
 
#5
Wench3000 said:
Is this thread refering to the 36 Sig thread?
_________________
celui qui sème le vent récolte la tempête
As you sow the wind, reap the whirlwind - very apt!

Witchy
 
#6
royal_corps_offr said:
However it is also a very dangerous one and I would urge everyone posting to the site to be very wary about what they write and the wider implications that could be attached to the words placed into a public forum.
I guess your refering to many of my posts. So you'd like us to stick our heads in the sand and ignore all the issues. I find that very, very wrong.

The corps has a number of issues that aren't being dealt with, take class 1 courses, I know for at least 10 years a large number of these courses have had complaints raised against them. I now believe its been dealt with, but the prime driver was this site, not the internal letters of complaint.

Then take FAS, their was little information reaching soldiers and yet again the primary source of info was this site, I partially believe information was released, due to pressure from this site.

But then take the current role, by accident I've found out quite a lot about it (many regional and sigs bde ex's under my belt) . Consequently I don't make many posts about it.

I do agree that too much information is coming via this site, I partially believe some of my course reports are far better than they would have been if I wasn't a regular member of this site. I don't think its a difficult task to reduce information coming online. Newsletters, annual SNCO conferences, ArmyNet site, Bde run courses, etc would all provide methods of internal communication.
 
#7
Polar - actually my comment was not directed at any individual and I am well aware of a number of your posts and no I did not in any way what so ever suggest we should stick our heads in the sand – I think my first paragraph indicated how important this site is.

Moreover, the examples that you give are actually all valid examples of where this site can serve some good and where it does influence to a degree change. My initial post made no mention of these.

The Class 1 course for example is being reviewed as we speak and you are right that it has taken a long time to do so but then it took 1.5 years to redefine the role, mission etc. Now that that has all be firmed up the Bde in which you serve and TDT are doing the Statement of Trg Requirement, an exercise which is being fast tracked by your Bde notwithstanding the fact that all the dots and tees have still not been crossed after FAS yet – remember your Bde implemented the FAS changes immediately, some units will wait until 2012!.

The course in the future will be a Class 1 to cover both 2 Sig Bde & 12 Sig Gp allowing freer movement of Class 1 tradesmen across the TA Corps without the need for transitional arrangements. You will see details towards the end of this year. In fact every facet of trg is being reviewed beyond Class 2, including Cpl, SSgt, supervisory and officer courses. As an example, with CLM coming in we will have a Sgts course not SSgt and there will be WO trg as well. The YofS system which you are very familiar with will be streamlined and the bureaucracy taken out. Where possible Regular and TA courses will run either together, sharing common subjects or concurrently. Either aims to allow networking – to develop links under the ‘affiliation’ program and to establish contacts that may be re-established on mobilised tours etc As you are already aware there is to be a WO & SNCO Study WE this November for your Bde. Most of these changes are not as a result of this site and if you are around in November will be briefed then.

However comments on courses etc are not individual unit specific or unit internal ‘dirty washing’ matters. The implications of the latter are my main concern for the future. As you know yours was one of the Regts which almost disbanded, the comments made at that time by a whole variety of people actually made it more difficult to justify its future which I do not think is what anyone intended.

All I am saying is think about the consequences of what is written! If you want to continue this may I suggest PMing me.
 
#8
royal_corps_offr said:
As you are already aware there is to be a WO & SNCO Study WE this November for your Bde.
Damn :D :D I'd forgotten about that....

I need to go into hidding :lol: :lol:, a lot earlier than I thought
 
#10
I agree there should not be so much negative press eminating from this site - but it is an indicator that there are issues at some level.

On one side, I have personally dealt with an individual who posted negatively on this site - the matter in question should have been dealt with in-house. Even though it could have been avoided by a simple process called 'communication' (nothing had ever been mentioned within the unit) said soldier admitted posting because he felt that it was the best way to get the answers he wanted.

Naturally this issue was addressed and will not occur again - but lessons were learned on both sides - notably mine. Soldiers need to feel that they have a forum to express themselves and feel comfortable asking questions (naturally away from the battlefield only); units need to be pro-active in making sure this is the case. Hopefully this type of post will form a tiny minority of the cases we see and not play a part in the downfall of any particular unit.

All units should have approachable leaders who take on board the needs/issues of their personnel and action/resolve or escalate said issues until the matter is dealt with.

This leads onto the other type of post which seems to dominate Arrse; that of the genuinely committed and passionate soldier who really wants the best for their unit, have persued all avenues available to them to get answers and still not got the info/feedback they need or want.

This is a dangerous type of post because their frequency tells us that issues are not being addressed; that soldiers are being ignored and in-house communication is poor.

Grievances should never be raised on Arrse. Simple as that. But if they are the units involved should go away and do a proper 'drains-up' on the matter and deal with it properly. This may or may not be happening.

What's the concensus?

If our lords and masters want to use these threads (which appear next to threads from the NAAFI forum such as 'Why modern porn just doesn't do it for me' and 'Names for male genitalia') as serious ammunition for ridding the Army ORBAT of units, they need to ask themselves the questions:

1. 'If I care so much about grass-roots opinions, from even the smallest minorities in the army, why haven't I set up an internal mechanism to get them?'

2. 'If I'm using printouts of a handful of 'Arrse' threads to decide what units I want to keep, instead of assessing the units' true capability and track record on UK and overseas' ops, how come I'm still in a job?'
 
#11
Gents, if my Corps generated as many whinges on ARRSE as the Sigs do I might just wish to look into why that is rather than stifle the whinges. Just a thought.
 
#12
RCO - the first paragraph of your initial post reads like it needs a huge Garamond 96 point "BUT" at the end...The thing with this type of web-site is that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want lively involved and informed debate, as well as amusing pictures of vegetables shaped like dongers et cetera, then you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Yes, it is not good if we look like turkeys voting for Christmas. However having been fairly senior in the TA CofC, I have seen O5-O7 ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, while lower ranks either complain about or exacerbate the situation!

I would be surorised if G3 Closing Things down and Plans starts it targetting routine by scanning an eye through ARRSE. For a start that smacks rather too much of having a logical approach! "v.v.senior" people are usually better informed than we inform them or indeed would like them to be informed. They might be swayed in a decision they were already making by ARRSE posts but it is rather a big reach isn't it to suggest that they would come to that decision direct from here?

As a cynical retired person I might wonder what benefit it provides to the CofC to not have frank opinions aired and keep eveything sub rosa? Sadly if the CofC cannot a)elicit this type of feedback (whether through apathy or fear) and b)is incapable of dealing with the symptoms, then how can we rely on them to do the job. After all, it may not be the case but if it is a perception then it is real to the perceiving party.
 
#13
invisiblehelper said:
Please tell me that this is a bit of cheery banter between RCO and Polar.
Surely what someone puts on here cannot be held against them? If that is so...move over Polar I need to hide too!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aye it is.

Arrse is more fun when your anonymous, I can't make certain posts e.g. 'I want to dress Mrs Polar Heidi outfits, any recommendations'. Plus the new 2 Sigs Bde comd will know for certain who I am .....

p.s. This outfit looks good Mountain Girl Adult Halloween Costume - Sexy Heidi Costume!
 
#14
How's about this for a complaint in an open forum about something that leads to a sacking or two come the next review, all those bright sparks who think that a Regiment can re-role, increase in size in soldiers, officers and civvy support staff without providing any extra funds or kit.

WTF are they on? Sounds great whatever it is, in fact I'll have two of them.

FAS is a cost cutting exercise (duh!) coupled with pipe dreams and the downright absurd.
 
#15
royal_corps_offr said:
It would be foolish to think that the chain of command, v.v. senior officers and politicians do not read what is written here; because we do. Hanging a units ‘dirty washing’ out in public as occurs here on a regular basis, or slating a particular unit because there is something you do not agree with or like is also a very dangerous practice and implying that there is no role for a particular organisation is even worse.
So, answer this question:

How many 12 Sig Gp personnel have been mobilised and how many of those for Ptarmigan LSN?

msr
 
#16
If i realised that the bosses actually took notice of this would have been ruder about the rrv while i had the chance :D
 
#17
Surely by its very nature members of the TA can 'vote with their feet' when something gripes them and therefore opportunities like this (arrse website) to find out what are the issues effecting soldiers (TA or regular for that matter) should be welcomed IMHO.

I understand that the public domain is not neccesarily the best place for this but in the absence of any other means this will have to suffice.

Unless, the CofC would prefer that soldiers maintain their stiff upper lip, get on with it until a little voice says "I can't be arrsed with all this hassle anymore" and they leave. First one or two, then 10 or 20 and then potentially entire Regiments.

I dont think i'm being dramatic!
 
#18
tearsbeforebedtime said:
without providing any extra funds or kit.
wrong and wrong. New kit is here and that came via extra funding.

I had a brief in 2002 on what was happening with 2 (NC) Sig Bde, did nobody else get that (although I was in a Ptarmigan unit at the time)?
 
#19
msr said:
How many 12 Sig Gp personnel have been mobilised and how many of those for Ptarmigan LSN?
msr, naughty, naughty, naughty.

We both know the answer to that :twisted: :twisted: .

You should have jumped to ship 93 Sig Sqn, then I reckon 2 Sig Bde would have surrendered. :D :D
 
#20
royal_corps_offr said:
It would be foolish to think that the chain of command, v.v. senior officers and politicians do not read what is written here; because we do.

Time and time again those wanting to make savings in one place to give more money somewhere else have pointed to ARRSE as a justification to cut a specific Bn or Regt.

As we emerge from FAS there is to be a Comprehensive Spending Review across Government. With priorities being Health, Education and the Home Office you can guess where savings will be sought – Defence for one. If after FAS you think everything is secure then think on.


It is hard to argue value for money to a politician when he is holding a piece of paper originated by people from that unit stating that it is a failing, inefficient or poor organisation.
i am not TA, however a large number of TA supported our Bde on our last deployment. if that many senior officers / politicians use this forum to justify government policy then surely this is just nothing more than an other indication of the number of left wing incompetants now resident at the MOD who instead of fighting our corner, are merely content to beg for scraps from the new labour/Tony Bliar table. the upshot is that FAS was designed to provide soldiering on the cheap, henace the number of TA soldiers that are now regularly deployed on operations to make regular units up to strength. The civil contingency role again is a cheap way of filling a gap in capability. if this site is so important, could royal_corps_offr possible direct these gentlemen to some of the Bowman threads? or is it a case of they only read what they want to?

END OF RANT.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top