Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Reveived your begging letter?

Ord_Sgt said:
Your argument is flawed Exrivofrigido. An organisations workers should not have to fund themselves period. Very simplistic I know but can you imagine MoD civil servants being asked to contribute twenty quid to maintain Main Building? Ridiculous isn't it.

I agree - it is ridiculous, but the problem is, we aren't being asked to fund ourselves in the 'bullets/beans/fuel' sense. What we're being asked to do here is to pay to maintain a standard that we think is important, but they don't. I can wave the H&S flag or employment law if my office is without heating, or if a bit of the roof falls on my head, but that won't work if, say, a priceless painting is suffering water damage through poor maintenance, or if the peeling paint on the outside of the building makes all that sweeping and polishing look pointless.

We are governed by Phillistines who lack even the most basic understanding of service, but accepting that won't stop the old place falling down. I'm not defending it, but if we don't shift for ourselves, who will?
 
Exrivofrigido said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Your argument is flawed Exrivofrigido. An organisations workers should not have to fund themselves period. Very simplistic I know but can you imagine MoD civil servants being asked to contribute twenty quid to maintain Main Building? Ridiculous isn't it.

I agree - it is ridiculous, but the problem is, we aren't being asked to fund ourselves in the 'bullets/beans/fuel' sense. What we're being asked to do here is to pay to maintain a standard that we think is important, but they don't. I can wave the H&S flag or employment law if my office is without heating, or if a bit of the roof falls on my head, but that won't work if, say, a priceless painting is suffering water damage through poor maintenance, or if the peeling paint on the outside of the building makes all that sweeping and polishing look pointless.

We are governed by Phillistines who lack even the most basic understanding of service, but accepting that won't stop the old place falling down. I'm not defending it, but if we don't shift for ourselves, who will?

It's the thin end of the wedge though, what next supply your own uniform?

I agree theres a certain pride that won't allow things to fall apart, but there comes a time when you have to let a wheel fall off the bus to show how bad its become. if not they'll keep pushing until something else snaps with perhaps much more serious consequences than a few paintings, priceless or otherwise.
 
what do you mean supply your own uniform "next"...that is one of the first things you dip into your pocket for!
 
I think we need to think about this on a different scale. Going cap in hand to serving officers is a very short- term solution. If the issue is one of peeling paint on the front of Old College and damaged paintings, I have two suggestions. First, we should take some ideas from other similar buildings, which need a similar amount of upkeep. There are loads of them, all over the country- they make money by either letting people in on tours or holding big events in the grounds. they don't necessarily need to be music events- the Goodwood Festival of Speed makes an absolute packet (as an example). Security concerns will be quoted; all I will say is if Buckingham palace can let in visitors, then Old College can too.
Second, I suggest the Foundation could manage the collection, as most art galleries are run. Paintings and artefacts should pay for themselves: on show, on loan to other galleries, or ultimately some items could be sold. Money made should be used not just for restoration, but in acquiring new pieces. If I were being asked to become a member of such a foundation, I would be much more likely to contribute.

Finally, an issue of perception. I find it hard to understand who thought it would be a good idea to raise a significant amount in sponsorship (from the King of Bahrain), then spend this on reducing members' rates rather than on the other issues that are pressing enough for CGS to put pen to paper over.
 
Whilst living in Daedalus Mess, RAF Cranwell, for a few months I was interested to see that I was contributing to the 'College Heritage Fund' or something similar. To be fair it was not a great amount however I did wonder what gave them the right to liberate this from my bank account given that I had never been there and was not even a member of their Service - Theiving ****s! Perhaps RMAS should adopt the same approach and rob people without consent?! I consoled myself with the thought that at least they were being honest in their theft; I am convinced that Pay As You Dine has allowed the lining of the coffers of ESS et al but that has been a hidden and much more dishonest process.

I'm not sure I think it's wrong that people should be given the oppertunity to contribute but I agree with many sentiments above - more important things at hand and should the treasury not provide the cash? Then again, if this releases funding for the front line then thats not a bad thing - except....
Can you imagine the headlines (and PMQs) if General D was asking for contributions to supply the Army with ammunition, Apache spares etc?!
 
My point exactly Flot_gear. If HMG want an armed forces which is tip-top, tidly and up to date, with lashings of heritage et cetera, then it has to pay for current needs AND the upkeep of heritage. It is bad enough that provision for disabled servicepeople and retirees is insufficient but surely the coroner's reports are highlighting the wickedness of insufficient provision for current operations AND training facilities?

I wonder how much of Pa Broon's royalties from his puffy, pathetically ill-researched and no doubt ghost written book on valour is going to this and other service charities?
 
How does this compare and contrast to the £750K that has been spent on the Speaker of the House of Common's residence?

Did they go cap in hand to former MPs for contributions?
 
I shall not be contributing just like I didnt the first time around.

As a graduate of the place, I have the right to go back. In fact, one of my children was christened there (A donation to the relevant funds was made at the time). Then I get a letter saying that if I pay to join their little club, I will be allowed to use the facilities that I was always allowed to use anyway. I would rather drink my own - you get the picture!

This is a National scandal and typical of the current regime and its churlish, class-war, dumbed-down, short-termist, mediochre approach to life in general.

Whats wrong with using National Lottery money for this anyway?
 
The upkeep is "beyond that which we can expect the public purse to maintain". Given the waste on far more exclusive 'public' buildings used by ministers, senior civil servants or politicians I find this hard to swallow. I would join for a tenner, but this puts me off making me think I am covering Govt incompetence.

The telling line "our Royal Military Academy is a unique selling point of the British Army and I believe it absolutely right that we get behind it" - use some of the funds from the income from the 10 per cent of floppys who go there.

A direct appeal, with amounts so we can see what our hard earned is going to might get more interest.
 
Brandt said:
I think we need to think about this on a different scale. Going cap in hand to serving officers is a very short- term solution. If the issue is one of peeling paint on the front of Old College and damaged paintings, I have two suggestions. First, we should take some ideas from other similar buildings, which need a similar amount of upkeep. There are loads of them, all over the country- they make money by either letting people in on tours or holding big events in the grounds. they don't necessarily need to be music events- the Goodwood Festival of Speed makes an absolute packet (as an example). Security concerns will be quoted; all I will say is if Buckingham palace can let in visitors, then Old College can too.
Second, I suggest the Foundation could manage the collection, as most art galleries are run. Paintings and artefacts should pay for themselves: on show, on loan to other galleries, or ultimately some items could be sold. Money made should be used not just for restoration, but in acquiring new pieces. If I were being asked to become a member of such a foundation, I would be much more likely to contribute.

Finally, an issue of perception. I find it hard to understand who thought it would be a good idea to raise a significant amount in sponsorship (from the King of Bahrain), then spend this on reducing members' rates rather than on the other issues that are pressing enough for CGS to put pen to paper over.

There is a certain degree of effort going on to make money out of the place - the Foundation actually organise quite a lot of dinners, conferences and so on, and between them they and IDG are charged for using up as much of the 'spare capacity' as they can. Unfortunately, from day-to-day, there isn't actually a great deal spare. As far as 'big' events go, Music on Fire will be pretty huge, but it will be raising money for rather more worthy causes than the decoration. I think you're right in principle, and the place certainly lends itself to concerts, exhibitions and the like, but I think that any serious public access will only work during recess periods. I do like the thought of lottery cash though....

The bright idea for the King of Bahrain to put in significant amounts of money to the Foundation, and the way in which it was to be used, was that of - er - the King of Bahrain. Whilst it would be great to see it spent on roof repairs and AT, his donation was aimed at putting the foundation on a solid financial footing, part of which was achieved by reducing fees to encourage more to join, and open up the market for events - which is where I understand they actually make money.

I have long been a foundation-sceptic (we have an alumnus organisation already - it's called 'The Army'), but am prepared to be convinced (possibly even to join) if they get this right. Using contributions from serving officers to run the fabric of RMAS is futile and short-sighted. Building up a membership over many years to make regular use of services and to whom they can market products long after we all retire is less so, and I think what they're trying to achieve. There will always be something at RMAS that the public purse won't fund, however well-provided for it is. That's how we got the stable refurbishment, pavilion, new athletics track, some polo ponies and one or two other gucci things apparently in the pipeline. If the SF can add to the funds that can be called upon (including formalising links with our overseas cadets when they go on to seize power), then at least it will ensure that future generations of cadets can continue to do some of the good stuff that politicians and accountants don't think we need.

And overseas cadets don't pay nearly as much as duty rumour would have it - there certainly isn't a profit, even if they are cheaper than a salaried british cadet.
 
Billions are spent each year on keeping old buildings , just when do these old buildings cease to be old and become a few old bits and lots of new bits???
Let the old fall down and then build new , it is cheaper in the long run.
 
I understand what you are saying Exrivofrigido but I still say that we should not be asking the serving and retired officers to fund this. The government should do it. They will slowly reduce funding for other projects and wait until we can bear it no longer and take over the maintenance. Eventually we will be paying for all our 'non essential' infrastructure such as Officers' messes and Sgts' messes as well as P&RT facilities - RT stands for recreational training and therefore is not strictly within the remit of the MOD and all PT can be done outside anyway. it will just go on and on.

We should let the place fall down, beautiful though it is, and then place the blame firmly on the shoulders of the MOD so that they might actually support all the other facilities that they are slowly letting decay.

If the roof is falling down and it is a listed building (The Staff College) then perhaps we should get the council to force the MOD to fix it.

If the buildings are not listed then we should pressure English Heritage or the NT to ensure that they are. That might result in MOD - the owners being forced to maintain them properly.

I am sorry General - I really approve of what you have done in the past and in particular of your stance re the Covenant, but you are just doing the evil treasury bastards' job for them in this case.

Sadly, not yours ever in this case,

Resurgam
 
Cuddles said:
My point exactly Flot_gear. If HMG want an armed forces which is tip-top, tidly and up to date, with lashings of heritage et cetera....quote]


They don't, that is at the root of our problems. They want a cheapo version that does most of what they want worlwide, but for which they pay the absolute minimum without them losing too many votes. There may be some politicians who actually care about the Armed Services, but not many in NuLab.
 
Top