sideburns is it true

#1
sideburns should be in the middle of the ear lobe.
is this true.

is it in queens regs.

if so where can i get a copy.

looked every where but i cant find it. so any funny comments welcome .

standby for a grilling.
 
#2
Sticks in the mind after a few years, 'middle of the ear'. Don't know if its written down anywhere but as true as a very true thing uttered by an honest man.
 
#3
still21inmymind said:
Sticks in the mind after a few years, 'middle of the ear'. Don't know if its written down anywhere but as true as a very true thing uttered by an honest man.
thank you just had some cnut say that i cant agai him as its not known any where I.E. queens regs.
 
#4
WRAPJOBAGAIN said:
still21inmymind said:
Sticks in the mind after a few years, 'middle of the ear'. Don't know if its written down anywhere but as true as a very true thing uttered by an honest man.
thank you just had some cnut say that i cant agai him as its not known any where I.E. queens regs.
Are you going to tell him he's wrong, because somebody on ARRSE told you it was true?
 
#5
Doesn't state at what level sidies should be in QR. It is usually stated in Corps dress regs, or part 1s. Its the RAF QR that state the middle of the ear
 
#7
I am certain that this is a topic usually, and best, covered by the CO in Part One Orders where he will direct that "haircuts will be in neat and tidy with sideburns in line with....". The wearing of jewellery is then covered etc. It's the CO's trainset. Speak to the RSM!

I don't think that it features in QRs.

Litotes
 
#8
Grip him!!

Personal Appearance
5.366.
a. Hair
Males. The hair of the head is to be kept well cut and trimmed, except where authority has been granted otherwise on religious grounds; style and colour (if not natural) is not to be of an exaggerated nature. If a moustache is worn, it is to be trimmed and not below the line of the lower lip. Beards and whiskers are only to be worn with authority, which will usually be granted only on medical or religious grounds, or where tradition permits. The appearance of the beard and whiskers is to be neat and tidy.



side-whiskers definition
pl.n.
Whiskers worn usually long on the sides of a man's face.
 
#9
Who was it wrapjob - someone who works for you or just some random scrote who has annoyed you.
 
#10
Who gives a fuck about the length of someones sideburns...

I've had this all my career. I like my sidies, however, I agree that certain Regiments are arrsey about it , but who cares??

I'd rather have a scruffy professional soldier under my command than a smartly turned out fuckwit...........

I have banged heads with many of my bosses ref: sideburns. It does not affect my ability to my job. There are some people out there are so blinded by the "book" it's bizarre..........Get a life people.....And crack on!
 
#11
northern_warrior said:
I'd rather have a scruffy professional soldier under my command than a smartly turned out fuckwit...........
oxymoron?
 
#12
dingerr said:
northern_warrior said:
I'd rather have a scruffy professional soldier under my command than a smartly turned out fuckwit...........
oxymoron?
True, but you get my meaning. I was getting at the bloke that is shithot at his job no matter what they look like.

I agree that professional and scruffy should not have appeared in the same sentence................I'm off to see the badge for extra duties!!!!
 
#14
northern_warrior said:
dingerr said:
northern_warrior said:
I'd rather have a scruffy professional soldier under my command than a smartly turned out fuckwit...........
oxymoron?
True, but you get my meaning. I was getting at the bloke that is shithot at his job no matter what they look like.

I agree that professional and scruffy should not have appeared in the same sentence................I'm off to see the badge for extra duties!!!!

We are an army based on a discipline system. It is not down to the scrote or professional to decide at which point he agrees or disagrees with whatever rule has been set. Of course, rules are for the abeyance of fools etc..

With regard to sidies. As has been stated, it’s not actually laid down in QRs as to what length they should be. The point should be that a subordinate has questioned what an NCO has directed (lawfully I might add) his standards should be. That is the real issue, not the length of a few facial follicles.

For example. Does it state how shiny boots should be in QRs? Who is to judge what a pair of polished boots should look like?

I'd say an NCO should regardless of what QRs state.

If a chap tipped up with a pair of boots that were clean and serviceable (which is what QRs pretty much state) but looked a bag of shite due to him not polishing off, an NCO would quite justifiably be allowed to request the chap presented himself in a soldier like manner that befits a smart, well turned out soldier. In a similar vein, if said soldier tipped up with a set of sidies Alvin Stardust would be proud of, said NCO would be well within his remit of power to request that the soldier adjusted his appearance.

To get to a stage where a soldier questions a request such as this must mean that said soldier has either no respect for the NCO or has no concept of the way the army does business to ensure our impeccable standards are maintained.


Not every request (read - veiled order) is laid down in QRs or Part Ones. It’s called leadership and setting an example. If it were about questioning every order that doesn’t appear in QRs, NCOs and officers become nothing more than relay stations for a publication written many years ago.

May as well do away with rank and just give the scrotes a URL to an online version of QRs.
 
#15
Im not sure that its all to do with a lack of respect for the n/snco who has laid down the law so to speak, or if a soldier has sideburns a few mil too long in somebodies eyes, they are unprofessional. It may just be that the length of sombodies 'burns has no direct relation whatsoever on how well they work, professional they are etc.
I would often let my sideburns grow, on occasion, to the bottom of my earlobe, taking them up at the start of the month for the RSM/SSM etc parade, so as not to drop myself or my seniors in the shit.
I (in my opinion) was a happy, professional, productive soldier.
If i was asked by a senior rank to take them up, i did so, without questioning them, but then i would grow them again, why? because i like sideburns.
Sandman, i wouldnt say that whiskers classed as sidies, more for a tash, but im no expert.
 
#16
dingerr said:
northern_warrior said:
I'd rather have a scruffy professional soldier under my command than a smartly turned out fuckwit...........
oxymoron?
Not really. I was one of those who was rifted all through Apprentices' College (run by the Guards and RD types) and through my early years, because I could never iron my kit right or shape my beret. When my kit was ironed right, and I put it on it looked wrong. My hair often grew long because I kept it long, (I think short hair cuts are for lazy people :p ) often been told I look like a cavalry officer.

Then we started to more op tours as an Army and I moved to more operational units, and even though I am still as scruffy as ever, it appears my ability to do my job (helped by a few awards for being top student, or in the top students, on various courses, my trade courses, Skill at Arms, etc).

CS 95 has done be no favours either.

I would argue that it entirely possible to have scruffy professional soldiers. Besides when did we last see Changing of the Guard carryed out by 22 SAS?
 
#17
chocolate_frog said:
I would argue that it entirely possible to have scruffy professional soldiers. Besides when did we last see Changing of the Guard carryed out by 22 SAS?
I'll leave it up to you to tell one of them they are "scruffy".
 
#18
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
northern_warrior said:
dingerr said:
northern_warrior said:
I'd rather have a scruffy professional soldier under my command than a smartly turned out fuckwit...........
oxymoron?
True, but you get my meaning. I was getting at the bloke that is shithot at his job no matter what they look like.

I agree that professional and scruffy should not have appeared in the same sentence................I'm off to see the badge for extra duties!!!!

We are an army based on a discipline system. It is not down to the scrote or professional to decide at which point he agrees or disagrees with whatever rule has been set. Of course, rules are for the abeyance of fools etc..

With regard to sidies. As has been stated, it’s not actually laid down in QRs as to what length they should be. The point should be that a subordinate has questioned what an NCO has directed (lawfully I might add) his standards should be. That is the real issue, not the length of a few facial follicles.

For example. Does it state how shiny boots should be in QRs? Who is to judge what a pair of polished boots should look like?

I'd say an NCO should regardless of what QRs state.

If a chap tipped up with a pair of boots that were clean and serviceable (which is what QRs pretty much state) but looked a bag of shite due to him not polishing off, an NCO would quite justifiably be allowed to request the chap presented himself in a soldier like manner that befits a smart, well turned out soldier. In a similar vein, if said soldier tipped up with a set of sidies Alvin Stardust would be proud of, said NCO would be well within his remit of power to request that the soldier adjusted his appearance.

To get to a stage where a soldier questions a request such as this must mean that said soldier has either no respect for the NCO or has no concept of the way the army does business to ensure our impeccable standards are maintained.


Not every request (read - veiled order) is laid down in QRs or Part Ones. It’s called leadership and setting an example. If it were about questioning every order that doesn’t appear in QRs, NCOs and officers become nothing more than relay stations for a publication written many years ago.

May as well do away with rank and just give the scrotes a URL to an online version of QRs.
Excellent post, Flashy, and I agree, but the whole organisation appears to be following the path that leads, inevitably, to the situation defined in your last line.

Litotes
 
#19
One very handsome, intelligent bronzed god of an Armourer with sideburns mid 1980's . :D

link to pic f*cked
 
#20
so to the point. there is nothing in any publications doctrine's or anything else in the army. to state sideburns must be in the middle of the ear lobe.

if that's the case i for one will be growing mine a lot longer than they are.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
DB_Cooper The NAAFI Bar 90
goatbagthedruid Army Pay, Claims & JPA 115
Empire The NAAFI Bar 21

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top