Officers vs Common Soldiers... what exactly IS the difference...

Not really sure what you're driving at? (I assume you're just being sarcastic?).

I'm only offering advice based on my own knowledge and experience mate. Take it or leave it. :)

I'm driving at the fact its easy to say you wont/don't on an online forum. Its very unusual in real life.
 

Stibbon

Old-Salt
I'm driving at the fact its easy to say you wont/don't on an online forum. Its very unusual in real life.

Maybe. All that's needed is the courage of your convictions and the right knowledge.

There were no "service complaints" or welfare officers or bullying or "unfair treatment" hotlines to go through when I was a Regular.

If soldiers complain about having to pay something they clearly don't have to in the modern army then they either need to grow a pair and do something about it or stop complaining.

Like I said, I opted out of paying PRI subs many moons ago. That's not a keyboard claim - that's the truth. :cool:
 
Maybe. All that's needed is the courage of your convictions and the right knowledge.

There were no "service complaints" or welfare officers or bullying or "unfair treatment" hotlines to go through when I was a Regular.

If soldiers complain about having to pay something they clearly don't have to in the modern army then they either need to grow a pair and do something about it or stop complaining.

Like I said, I opted out of paying PRI subs many moons ago. That's not a keyboard claim - that's the truth. :cool:
Again, how strange that FYB and occasionally the soldier magazine still get complaints its almost as if its not as easy as you say.
 
I recall mention of PRI and unit sports subscriptions being in QRs, and it being specifically stated that these were voluntary.
I didn't really mind paying, but I objected to being told that it was compulsory, so I looked it up when I was still a sprog.
The usual reaction was "Don't you dare quote Queens Regulations at me."
 

Stibbon

Old-Salt
Again, how strange that FYB and occasionally the soldier magazine still get complaints its almost as if its not as easy as you say.

Either that or the individuals in question are too stupid to take the advice given or just prefer having something to moan about.
 
Either that or the individuals in question are too stupid to take the advice given or just prefer having something to moan about.

There seems to be dozens of them, including a sizeable chunk of the Royal Signals when they had to buy a belt, although even when they told someone, they were told to take it up with the unit.

But its must be them at fault.
 

Stibbon

Old-Salt
There seems to be dozens of them, including a sizeable chunk of the Royal Signals when they had to buy a belt, although even when they told someone, they were told to take it up with the unit.

But its must be them at fault.

I get your point mate really I do, but writing to a magazine or chopsing about it on an internet forum isn't going to change anything. There are systems and avenues in place for any service person to exploit if they feel they're being done a disservice or being shat upon. They weren't there when I was a Regular. Change comes about through directly addressing the issue - not through complaining about it via a passive third party like Soldier magazine).
 
Maybe. All that's needed is the courage of your convictions and the right knowledge.

There were no "service complaints" or welfare officers or bullying or "unfair treatment" hotlines to go through when I was a Regular.

If soldiers complain about having to pay something they clearly don't have to in the modern army then they either need to grow a pair and do something about it or stop complaining.

Like I said, I opted out of paying PRI subs many moons ago. That's not a keyboard claim - that's the truth. :cool:
Many many moons ago they used to have something called a 'unit admin inspection' where a team from somewhere or other used to decend on a unit for a week and check all their documentation, admin and procedures were up to date and being complied with. The CO and the unit were judged on the results and censured if they weren't up to scratch. Recommendations were also left by the team on how to improve things.

In Hong Kong in the mid eighties the Deputy Commander British Forces HK (Also Commander Support Troops) a Brigadier, when he used to come around units on his visits used to ask soldiers if they were getting all their authorised leave. He had a big bee in his bonnet about this as some units were boasting about about how busy they were and that they didn't have time to take all their leave (this was army wide, not just HK).

It doesn't seem acceptable that these senior officers who reply to complaints in soldier magazine to fob off the complainant with the reply "take it up with your chain of command." They must know that nothing happens about it and the complainant's 'cards get marked.'

If a high powered team came round and as part of their remit checked these things and questioned soldiers in person without seniors hovering about to ensure that juniors are not get illegaly ripped off with such things as forced voluntary PRI contributions, forced to buy tat that they don't want etc, and sanctions taken against units who are carrying this out, with final reports brought to the attention of Gav and Mark. Then finally the culture might change.
 
I get your point mate really I do, but writing to a magazine or chopsing about it on an internet forum isn't going to change anything. There are systems and avenues in place for any service person to exploit if they feel they're being done a disservice or being shat upon. They weren't there when I was a Regular. Change comes about through directly addressing the issue - not through complaining about it via a passive third party like Soldier magazine).

People complain through the soldier magazine in the misplaced hope that senior officers would do something to improve the soldier welfare.

I think this and the court martial thread shows some of the faults that are in the Army in 2021, 18 year old pte bloggs is not going to tell the SSM/RSM to poke his fund, anyone chasing promotion wont tell them to poke their fund, anyone who doesnt want to be in the spotlight wont tell them to poke their fund.

Ive seen people who stand up to the system, I did myself when I was younger, it does you no favours.
 
People complain through the soldier magazine in the misplaced hope that senior officers would do something to improve the soldier welfare.

I think this and the court martial thread shows some of the faults that are in the Army in 2021, 18 year old pte bloggs is not going to tell the SSM/RSM to poke his fund, anyone chasing promotion wont tell them to poke their fund, anyone who doesnt want to be in the spotlight wont tell them to poke their fund.

Ive seen people who stand up to the system, I did myself when I was younger, it does you no favours.
Which is why Mark and Gav, if they really are interested in improving the system and making life better for the lower ranks, should be pro-active and get a grip of the system. I assume they are, they both seem to be switched on and want to improve things.
 

Stibbon

Old-Salt
Many many moons ago they used to have something called a 'unit admin inspection' where a team from somewhere or other used to decend on a unit for a week and check all their documentation, admin and procedures were up to date and being complied with. The CO and the unit were judged on the results and censured if they weren't up to scratch. Recommendations were also left by the team on how to improve things.

In Hong Kong in the mid eighties the Deputy Commander British Forces HK (Also Commander Support Troops) a Brigadier, when he used to come around units on his visits used to ask soldiers if they were getting all their authorised leave. He had a big bee in his bonnet about this as some units were boasting about about how busy they were and that they didn't have time to take all their leave (this was army wide, not just HK).

It doesn't seem acceptable that these senior officers who reply to complaints in soldier magazine to fob off the complainant with the reply "take it up with your chain of command." They must know that nothing happens about it and the complainant's 'cards get marked.'

If a high powered team came round and as part of their remit checked these things and questioned soldiers in person without seniors hovering about to ensure that juniors are not get illegaly ripped off with such things as forced voluntary PRI contributions, forced to buy tat that they don't want etc, and sanctions taken against units who are carrying this out, with final reports brought to the attention of Gav and Mark. Then finally the culture might change.
They still do, although these days with everything being mainly IT based, these "G1 Admin" visits as they're now called, generally only last 2-3 days tops and consist of an SO2, a couple of WOs and a SSgt visiting the unit and pouring over it's Assurance protocols like the accuracy of database held information on JPA and any evidence of fraud.

The unit's Service Funds (non public) accounting is normally scrutinised and checked by the SSgt whose job it is to check the unit's accounting procedures and compliance with the regulations. They would largely be looking at whether the unit's G1 team are doing their jobs correctly in relation to how PRI money was being spent rather than collected, but by and large, so long as nothing jumps out at them as "illegal" a CO is left to run his non-public funds as he sees fit since he is the Managing Trustee.

I totally agree with your sentiment in the above post however.

My advice to anybody who is being "forced" to pay PRI subs against their wishes, would be to approach their FSA or RAWO in the first instance and after asking the obvious question "why do I have to pay PRI subs?" ask to see the relevant regulations that govern the subject. It's most likely Service Funds Regulations. This should then be compared to Unit Standing Orders and there the discrepancy in practice verses correct protocol should reveal itself.

I'll try and dig out a couple of references this week and post them up if it please anybody?
 
They still do, although these days with everything being mainly IT based, these "G1 Admin" visits as they're now called, generally only last 2-3 days tops and consist of an SO2, a couple of WOs and a SSgt visiting the unit and pouring over it's Assurance protocols like the accuracy of database held information on JPA and any evidence of fraud.

The unit's Service Funds (non public) accounting is normally scrutinised and checked by the SSgt whose job it is to check the unit's accounting procedures and compliance with the regulations. They would largely be looking at whether the unit's G1 team are doing their jobs correctly in relation to how PRI money was being spent rather than collected, but by and large, so long as nothing jumps out at them as "illegal" a CO is left to run his non-public funds as he sees fit since he is the Managing Trustee.

I totally agree with your sentiment in the above post however.

My advice to anybody who is being "forced" to pay PRI subs against their wishes, would be to approach their FSA or RAWO in the first instance and after asking the obvious question "why do I have to pay PRI subs?" ask to see the relevant regulations that govern the subject. It's most likely Service Funds Regulations. This should then be compared to Unit Standing Orders and there the discrepancy in practice verses correct protocol should reveal itself.

I'll try and dig out a couple of references this week and post them up if it please anybody?

And then what do you think happens to the smart arse, do you think the CoC stands back and admires his morale courage?
 

Stibbon

Old-Salt
And then what do you think happens to the smart arse, do you think the CoC stands back and admires his morale courage?

If they're as cynical as you then probably not. That's outside his, mine or your control.

In days gone by, the army has relied upon the fear and ignorance of it's subordinates to continue to do as it pleases where things like this are concerned but these days, every soldier has access to MODNET, JPA and other sources of info.

If you (or anybody) feels that strongly about paying a what, £5 a month (?) subscription when weighed against all the other "perks of the job" that a service person gets these days then like I've said half a dozen times already - don't pay it.

If the CoC then victimises you for being in the right - then that's what the Service Complaints procedure is for.
 
If they're as cynical as you then probably not. That's outside his, mine or your control.

In days gone by, the army has relied upon the fear and ignorance of it's subordinates to continue to do as it pleases where things like this are concerned but these days, every soldier has access to MODNET, JPA and other sources of info.

If you (or anybody) feels that strongly about paying a what, £5 a month (?) subscription when weighed against all the other "perks of the job" that a service person gets these days then like I've said half a dozen times already - don't pay it.

If the CoC then victimises you for being in the right - then that's what the Service Complaints procedure is for.

Were you ever in the Army? The CoC never (if they know whats good for them) say, do not promote this man, he didnt pay for Sqn subs/PRI subs/Cpl Mess/Rank slides/stable belt/T shirt etc, they write something else that cant be pinned to not paying but doesnt do you any favours.

"Team players" always get first dibs on gucci tours/exercises.

Service complaints cant be made because the CoC decided someone was better than you.
 

Stibbon

Old-Salt
Were you ever in the Army? The CoC never (if they know whats good for them) say, do not promote this man, he didnt pay for Sqn subs/PRI subs/Cpl Mess/Rank slides/stable belt/T shirt etc, they write something else that cant be pinned to not paying but doesnt do you any favours.

"Team players" always get first dibs on gucci tours/exercises.

Service complaints cant be made because the CoC decided someone was better than you.

Still serving. (FTRS)

I'm well aware of how it works (or doesn't).

I initially posted on this thread in response to an attachment I saw threatening AGAI action on soldiers not paying their PRI subs. I posted accurate and truthful info. It wasn't intended as a soother for you or your mates (past or present) but sadly, it's morphed into a comment-for-comment pissing contest with you which I haven't the enthusiasm for at the moment.

"Team players" are hopefully always going to get more for the extra fiver than someone who isn't and doesn't pay. That's only fair.

I post facts and you respond with emotion and opinion. That's fine mate but facts are priceless, opinions worth two a penny ...
 
Which is why Mark and Gav, if they really are interested in improving the system and making life better for the lower ranks, should be pro-active and get a grip of the system. I assume they are, they both seem to be switched on and want to improve things.
I know big Gav, who the **** is Mark?
 
If they're as cynical as you then probably not. That's outside his, mine or your control.

In days gone by, the army has relied upon the fear and ignorance of it's subordinates to continue to do as it pleases where things like this are concerned but these days, every soldier has access to MODNET, JPA and other sources of info.

If you (or anybody) feels that strongly about paying a what, £5 a month (?) subscription when weighed against all the other "perks of the job" that a service person gets these days then like I've said half a dozen times already - don't pay it.

If the CoC then victimises you for being in the right - then that's what the Service Complaints procedure is for.
Stacker has hit the crux of the matter. People know that they will be victimised in other ways if they stand up for their rights. It may be a small matter but I am sure it grips people just because it is so wrong. The army demands instant obediance and that you obey all their weird rules and customs, but those charged with enforcing them don't seem to think it applies to them.

Soldiers probably don't think it is worth the hassle of doing what you suggest and incurring the wrath of the management in the ways that Stacker pointed out. They then become cynical about the system in the army and that is how 'Stackers' are created. It needs senior officers outside the immediate chain of command to grip the problem. With all the complaints on Facebook these days it must be easy to indentify offending units, where in the old days they just got away with it.
 
Still serving. (FTRS)

I'm well aware of how it works (or doesn't).

I initially posted on this thread in response to an attachment I saw threatening AGAI action on soldiers not paying their PRI subs. I posted accurate and truthful info. It wasn't intended as a soother for you or your mates (past or present) but sadly, it's morphed into a comment-for-comment pissing contest with you which I haven't the enthusiasm for at the moment.

"Team players" are hopefully always going to get more for the extra fiver than someone who isn't and doesn't pay. That's only fair.

I post facts and you respond with emotion and opinion. That's fine mate but facts are priceless, opinions worth two a penny ...

Im sure we are all aware of the accurate and truthful info, people havent supposed to have been forced to pay for something they didnt want or need by their employer for decades.

Team players are people who work well in a team, not people who pay into the CO/OCs slush fund, but its interesting you have a different view.
 
I know big Gav, who the **** is Mark?
FFS don't you know your own boss?


download - 2021-03-01T194942.729.jpg
 
There seems to be dozens of them, including a sizeable chunk of the Royal Signals when they had to buy a belt, although even when they told someone, they were told to take it up with the unit.

But its must be them at fault.
The "day's pay" scheme now covers the stable belts....according to the CRSM last week. I believe that the Master of Signals could resolve this with a squint of an eye. That was the last one, not sure what SN's take is. the "day's pay" generally gets mentioned on each CLM (?)and selection cadre, apparently there's a list etc. Another unofficial tax I've been paying into for years.
 
Top