Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Purple_Emperor, Feb 8, 2005.

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. From:
    From the looks of it, this is the document which shows just how much we are going to be used over the next few years. However, I cant find it anywhere on the web. Can anyone provide a link?
  2. Seen it and there ain't much different except the one-in-five bit. The change from one-in-three looks reassuring to employers but it also introduces a get-out clause that removes the strict interpretation of the rule i.e if the reservist wants to go again inside five years, he can. Apparentlythere have been a lot of complaints on this very issue from people who want to do more than one-in-three. Must like camel spiders or something! 8O
  3. I had a feeling that if they could only bring out two points in their press release and they surrounded those with words such as 'an intention to' and 'whenever possible' that it wouldnt exactly be earth shattering news :roll:

    edited once by Purple_Emperor for unrelated political rants
  4. Your Googling skills have failed you, your Purpleness.


    It's a massive four-page document. Worth the wait!

    See also

    These whetted my appetite for a substantial Civil Servicese dish, so I went on to devour the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the MOD's proposed changes to financial assistance paid to mobilised reservists:


    It seems that the plan is to pay reservists their full salary up to a cap of £200k (or £300k for medics). A small number of reservists on Elton-John-level salaries will still lose out, though (cue violins). Which is good. We don't want soldiers redecorating their apartments in Milan with carpets made out of fresh flowers every day on taxpayer's money.

    Says Ivor Caplin MP, wittily: "I have read the regulatory impact assessment and I am satisfied that the benefits justify the costs." What a geezer!
  5. hey, that wasnt up on the sabre site when I looked!

    Looks to be a well thought out and comprehensive document as I expected.

    Caplin's so great, he's almost as competent as TCH :wink:
  6. As far as I can see the 'Future of the Reserve Forces' is more of a summary of the current situation rather than any great new announcement.

    It is well worth a read as it might help correct some of the misconceptions / pure b****cks which are floating about. Hopefully they're going to dish it out widely - at the very least anyone in a comd position or involved in recruiting should know the stuff in it.
  7. '... and experience gained through the use of Reserves on recent operations,':

    whoops we didn't get it right.

    'The Reserves, comprising the Territorial Army, Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Marines Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Airforce are an integral part of the UK's Armed Forces'

    now that it suits us

    '* an intention to limit Reservist mobilisation to one year in five'

    but we can do it every three years or indeed, 3 times in a 6 year period

    ' extending the notice period for employers of Reservist mobilisation to 28 days, whenever possible'

    Wow! - that'll have them ringing up in their droves.

    'The Government recognises the vital contribution that employers make when Reservists in their employ are called out.'

    because they can appeal.

    'careful account is taken of their views and attitudes and support is maintained through SaBRE (Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers), a national information and support campaign'

    but only of those with whom SaBRE has contact - not Joe Bloggs Exhausts in Bognor Regis.

    It's all very "state of the nation" but there's nothing new - it's just a way of tidying up the edges of the long term plan to accommodate Regular shortage by using the TA. Ultimately, it'll backfire as when the Army is cut again, and even the TA can't make up the shortfall, they'll realise that we should have been increasing the Army in the interim.
  8. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Nothing very new here.

    I notice that they are still using the name Territorial Army. I thought it had been decided to retire that title in favour of us being the Volunteer Reserve element of the Army. Has this bit of re-labeling died a death?
  9. I think it was decided a while ago that 'Territorial Army' is just too well known as a name to ditch.
  10. On a related note I was told this weekend that forthwith the (V) was being dropped from all TA formation titles.
  11. A reg once pointed out to me that they are volunteers, as well.

    fair one.
  12. True. But only a useful point if the proposed new name for the TA were going to be "Volunteer Army".

    "Volunteer Reserve" is used here in opposition to "Drafted-hell-no-we-won't-go Reserve".

    Ah, feck it. Just call it the TA and change what it DOES. Respect don't come from a change of name - ask Prince.
  13. I don't know about anyone else but I look on the "Volunteer" label as a mark of honour - there's a lot of history and tradition there.

    Of course the paranoid would see this as a plan to mobilise everyone full time in a few years by making TA units regular ....
  14. Quite and this was one of the reasons stated to me why the (V) was being dropped.
  15. So just adopting a symbol is out then, something simple like ...a (v). Or writing "slave" (!) on your cheek. Because it would lead to comedians calling you the military organisation formerly known as the TA or tmofkatTA.

    I've got me coat......