Philip Hammond - telling it like it is, or an insulting idiot ?

#1
Reported in this morning's Telegraph, Hammond has said : “At the moment not all reservists take their duties very seriously. The time for that is over. We’re not interested in reservists who want to play at being a soldier. It will be a serious commitment. We’re looking for people who will join up and turn out when we need them.”

How many of you in the TA still "play at being a soldier" and regard your current commitment as anything less than serious. How many of you don't "turn up" when required. Where do you think the Secretary of State got that impression I wonder ?

Full article - which makes you wonder about the truth behind Gerald's retirement - here :
Territorials to lose their name in Armed forces shake-up - Telegraph
 
#2
Yes there are those who turn up for a bit of beer money and a laugh. Those numbers have reduced massively over the last decade because of the threat of mobilisation. In my (infantry) unit I can think of only a handful who haven't been deployed. Below the rank of C/Sgt there are very few indeed, above that rank there are some (of those you will find a good number who have good reasons eg single parent widower, run a small company etc, but they support trg well). My Regiment can hold it'ss head high, as can most- if not all.

There are plenty in Parliament who don't take their jobs seriously, they concern me more tbh.
 
#3
The problem with the TA isn't the chaps who put themselves out to deploy: it's the entire structure and governance of it which had led to the terribly senior chap heading up the review into the TA describing it as "terrifyingly unsuited to modern requirements".

Having a gang of keen fit 20-and-30-somethings on call is one thing: keeping them trained and motivated is another - that's a senior leadership challenge in every sense and the current TA cannot deliver it.

The problem with discussing the TA on ARRSE is that you absolutely cannot discuss it (cue rabid posting and mouth frothing) but anyone who thinks change isn't needed in the upper echelons is in serious denial.
 
#4
**** 'em. 20 odd years ago I'd have been more than prepared to deploy. It's not my fault they were too bloody lazy to start a contained war like the one in Afghanistan.

In fact I might sue them for the PTSD that comes of being a no mark, cold war warrior, SLR loving STAB who it now appears did nothing but get pissed and pose about.
 
#5
Maybe the current TA could all be persuaded to act like super-soldiers if the ********* in Parliament telling them what to do could just act like adults...
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
#6
Does that include the TA lobby in parliament? who, to my mind, are using parliamentary privilege to undermine the chain of command.
 
#8
When the "system" starts looking after those who have deployed at least as equally as those "enablers" who remain behind to prop up the bar, then things might start improving. Example guy goes on a couple of deployments, whilst deployed he cannot be promoted and comes back to see wasters who do their mandatory 27 days and no more bouncing up the ladder, when the next board comes around guess what "not enough face time in the unit sorry try again next year". It's no wonder so many of the youngsters do one or maybe two tours and then wrap their hand in.
 
#10
Completing a minimum of Junior Brecon, but more usually Senior Brecon used to be mandatory to be promoted to Pln Sergeant in my Infantry Bn - 7 (V) Royal Anglian

Surely completing a deployment should be added to that criteria as long as Operations of this nature continue. Being overlooked for promotion while you are away is plain wrong
 
#11
PBUH - I think the issue here is the difference in timescale between regular and non-regular versions of SCBC et al.

Now clearly, the overwhelming majority of non-regular SP cannot afford the 12-odd weeks that SCBC requires. However, the whole point behind SDSR and the Adaptive Force is that your paired regular Bn will take on a much MUCH greater share of the training bill for their non-regular kin. So the challenges inherent in maintaining a pool of trained depth in the TA (as is now) will slowly reduce.

But you're right: penalising someone for going on tour (which happens a great deal apparently) is plain wrong but it's symptomatic of a broken system across the TA and exactly why it's going to be broken up and - effectively - started up all over again.
 
#12
Reported in this morning's Telegraph, Hammond has said : “At the moment not all reservists take their duties very seriously. The time for that is over. We’re not interested in reservists who want to play at being a soldier. It will be a serious commitment. We’re looking for people who will join up and turn out when we need them.”

How many of you in the TA still "play at being a soldier" and regard your current commitment as anything less than serious. How many of you don't "turn up" when required. Where do you think the Secretary of State got that impression I wonder ?

Full article - which makes you wonder about the truth behind Gerald's retirement - here :
Territorials to lose their name in Armed forces shake-up - Telegraph
If you want them to turn up when needed.

There needs to be better protection for the reservist.
 
#13
When the "system" starts looking after those who have deployed at least as equally as those "enablers" who remain behind to prop up the bar, then things might start improving. Example guy goes on a couple of deployments, whilst deployed he cannot be promoted and comes back to see wasters who do their mandatory 27 days and no more bouncing up the ladder, when the next board comes around guess what "not enough face time in the unit sorry try again next year". It's no wonder so many of the youngsters do one or maybe two tours and then wrap their hand in.
My bold.

Face time = they want arse licking creeps.
 
#14
Reported in this morning's Telegraph, Hammond has said : “At the moment not all reservists take their duties very seriously. The time for that is over. We’re not interested in reservists who want to play at being a soldier. It will be a serious commitment. We’re looking for people who will join up and turn out when we need them.”

How many of you in the TA still "play at being a soldier" and regard your current commitment as anything less than serious. How many of you don't "turn up" when required. Where do you think the Secretary of State got that impression I wonder ?


Full article - which makes you wonder about the truth behind Gerald's retirement - here :
Territorials to lose their name in Armed forces shake-up - Telegraph
If we were required, surely we'd be mobilised? Do we collectively lack the balls or is it someone higher up?
 
#15
As an aside, in the regs an op tour in a reporting year- if completed to the standard expected tends to get an individual at least a half a point on the promotion board automatically.
This gets rid of the face time aspect and means the non deployed have to work their tits off to compete for promotion. This might be something the TA coc types might be looking at......
There's loads of Oppertunity in the regs to go PSI at the mo. I'm after doing it for my next posting, partly out of curiosity of what you lot are all about. Partly because the only part of the army that's getting massive investment and re structuring at the mo for the next 5 years is the TA. And partly because it could save me from the maw of tranche 3!

There's other reasons too, but they're dull.......
 
#17
Sorry, forget to add - cue howls of outrage and 'you dont understand us'
My dear fellow, whether or not 'you'* understand 'us**' or not remains to be seen.

What is patently obvious, however, is that 'you' clearly understand neither procurement nor budgets...which is one of the major reasons that we*** are in the mess we're in right now. So much so, in fact, that a ROCC2 aspiration is to introduce a modicum of business-oriented training into the Regular officer career progression. It may not happen, of course, because 'you' may find that 'you' cannot afford it.

Oh, the irony.

*I'm making the assumption that you are referring to the Regular Army
** I'm making the logical assumption that you are referring to what is currently known as the TA
***By 'we', I mean the Whole Force. It's a concept that you might like to become used to thinking about.
 
#18
I think the SoS is talking out of his backside. I'd also say that any issues with the current TA - and there are LOTS - are down to mis-management over the last umpteen years by the CoC so beloved of R-F and his fellows. ( ...and no, you don't understand us.) I also wait with some amusement for the "massive investment" that Big Jim mentions. So far all I've seen is that we will get WOLF landrovers. Perhaps someone should remind the SoS that these "modern" vehicles were built in 1996.

I suspect that the increase to 30,000 "Reserves" will come via a bit of number-based jiggery-pokery when the 20,000 Redundees of Tranches 1-4 find that their remaining Reserve Liability means that MoD is still including them in the Orbat....
 
#19
There are a number of different issues within the TA.

Face time. If you're not there, cos you're on tour, you miss the boards so you fall behind. Contemporaries of mine are now C/Sgt and CSM. They're attended the right courses, got the required CR's and picked up. I've spent the better part of 5 years out of 18 years away on tour or on FTRS and effectively career fouled myself. Not a big deal to me as I like being a Corporal but....

Kit. I need to sort out a CP for a company weekend and have lots of radios out and I have 4 broken 351's and that's it. Why the f**k should I bother if the supply chain from the Regulars cann't be bothered to supply the kit I need to do my job correctly ?

Come to that, if MoD hasn't got the balls to moblise me as they wish, without the pretense of seeking volunters. Why should I have bothered ?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top