Soldier sticking two fingers up to MOD rules

#1
A controversial blog from Mr Mick Smiths pages, a currant arrser I believe and Times hack.

So who on ARRSE is the jap behind the wire. :D

On a serious note, how many have contemplated braking the rules out of frustration at the way our forces are currently managed?
Are the rules banning servicemen and women from giving their opinions really worth the paper there printed on?

Fighting Behind the Wire, The View From the Serviceman
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2008/04/fighting-behind.html

I liked the last line.


As for DIN 2007DIN03-006.......catch me.
 
#6
Oh god, not these f*cking chairs again. They were bought because we live in a litigious society and many firms are now worried that they'll get sued if they don't cover every aspect of H&S - back injuries and illness included.

People keep quoting the one off price, but as has been discussed here time and time again, the MOD paid nowhere near that price - I understand it was in the order of over 50% off the list price.

Where's the irony in all this? Well the HQ I work in doesnt have these 'vunder chairs' - it has the usual shite chairs that we've had for decades which are cheap as chips. End result, endless moans by the soldiers (and yes I mean soldiers and not RAF or Navy or CS) about how the dire chairs they're sitting on are causing them back problems and they're concerned about their ability to deploy. Let me guess though, the moment we do something about it, we'll be accussed of wasting money on chairs.
 
#7
jim30 said:
Oh god, not these f*cking chairs again. They were bought because we live in a litigious society and many firms are now worried that they'll get sued if they don't cover every aspect of H&S - back injuries and illness included.

People keep quoting the one off price, but as has been discussed here time and time again, the MOD paid nowhere near that price - I understand it was in the order of over 50% off the list price.

Where's the irony in all this? Well the HQ I work in doesnt have these 'vunder chairs' - it has the usual shite chairs that we've had for decades which are cheap as chips. End result, endless moans by the soldiers (and yes I mean soldiers and not RAF or Navy or CS) about how the dire chairs they're sitting on are causing them back problems and they're concerned about their ability to deploy. Let me guess though, the moment we do something about it, we'll be accussed of wasting money on chairs.
Whilst I agree with your contempt of the compensatin culture that we live in nowadays, the article was referring to the chairs at Whitehall. How many of the people who work there are likely to deploy? ( or have ever deployed for that matter considering the place is made up of senior civil servants).

If they were so worried about people claiming then I suggest they put their money not into chairs but into mouse mats and wrist rests. I hear the current bidding for RSI is about £450,000....
 
#10
jim30 said:
Oh god, not these f*cking chairs again. They were bought because we live in a litigious society and many firms are now worried that they'll get sued if they don't cover every aspect of H&S - back injuries and illness included.
Does it mean if I'll complain of bad back I'll be given one of those chairs? Don't think so.
Are you saying MOD would be unable to fight off "Oh, my back hurts, I need an expensive chair" claims?
 
#11
Proximo said:
This chair 'story' is months old...and I believe we all just 'shrugged' and got on with our lives then, just as we will do now.
Four years old proximo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/12/nmod12.xml

and I think that is the crux of the article. It keeps getting brought when issues that have effected servicemen and women, who being asked to do a difficult job with inadequate kit. Kit that could have cost a lot less then a Herman miller chair, and possible saved a life, not just the MOD from a comp claim for a bad back,,or typist with a bad wrist. Officers who resign as a gesture ten to make the headlines for a few days then its forgotten and hardly brought up again.

Is it possible that this was what POD was up to? I remember many on these forums posting that he should have resigned in protest during the last sweeping cuts. Would those cuts have been more or less harsh had he resigned in protest at the time?

Again one if the points raised, just proved by Jim30

Not these F*cking chairs again
:wink:
 
#12
Domovoy said:
jim30 said:
Oh god, not these f*cking chairs again. They were bought because we live in a litigious society and many firms are now worried that they'll get sued if they don't cover every aspect of H&S - back injuries and illness included.
Does it mean if I'll complain of bad back I'll be given one of those chairs? Don't think so.
Are you saying MOD would be unable to fight off "Oh, my back hurts, I need an expensive chair" claims?
You would of thought so, I mean, they seem to fight off "my son died because you didn't give him body armor/enough rounds/enough water."
 
#13
jim30 said:
Oh god, not these f*cking chairs again. They were bought because we live in a litigious society and many firms are now worried that they'll get sued if they don't cover every aspect of H&S - back injuries and illness included.

People keep quoting the one off price, but as has been discussed here time and time again, the MOD paid nowhere near that price - I understand it was in the order of over 50% off the list price.

Where's the irony in all this? Well the HQ I work in doesnt have these 'vunder chairs' - it has the usual shite chairs that we've had for decades which are cheap as chips. End result, endless moans by the soldiers (and yes I mean soldiers and not RAF or Navy or CS) about how the dire chairs they're sitting on are causing them back problems and they're concerned about their ability to deploy. Let me guess though, the moment we do something about it, we'll be accussed of wasting money on chairs.
So why dont we supply those units who are required to deploy with these chairs, i can pretty much guarentee that 99.999% of those at Whitehole are not required to deploy on operations, regulary!
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#14
It's a fine line between maintaining the appearance of the political neutrality of the Armed Forces as a collective body and gagging legitimate whistle blowing.

It is often mentioned that those officers who where giving Winston Churchill information in the 30's were doing so in breach of the rules.

I would make one major change to the rules. When a minister or senior civil servant lies, or lets be charitable, asserts something that is not correct, all members of the armed forces should have the duty to state the truth publicly.

If applied retrospectively the cacophony would be deafening, but actually the effect would be to keep them honest (less dishonest) as they would know that their inaccuracies (lies) will be found out.

In particular we would never again hear the SoS Def (V) mutter the likes of:

"....it's all very well for arm chair Generals and Colonel Blimps to make speeches in the House of Lords and in letters to the Daily Telegraph, but serving soldiers are right behind me..."
 
#15
I totally agree with this part of Swiss Des's statement "but serving soldiers are right behind me..." but the trouble I have with it is when will some cnut give the command "Target will fall when hit, in your own time, carry on!"
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#16
BuggerAll said:
...

In particular we would never again hear the SoS Def (V) mutter the likes of:

"....it's all very well for arm chair Generals and Colonel Blimps to make speeches in the House of Lords and in letters to the Daily Telegraph, but serving soldiers are right behind me..."
Serving soldiers are probably right behind him - and advancing.
Particularly if he's facing France from Beachy Head.
 
#17
" or have ever deployed for that matter considering the place is made up of senior civil servants). "

MOD MB is not made up of senior civil servants - there are 3000 people in the building. Roughly two thirds of them are military - usually at SO2 level upwards. There are some civil servants there - but not as many as you might expect and most of them are in pretty junior positions anyway outside of the HR area.

I'm a huge advocate of uniform being worn in MB, mainly because when you visit you might realise just how many of the people there are in the forces and have either just come back from a tour, or are on their way to another tour very shortly. The idea of a huge corps of desk bound colonel blimps who haven't handled a rifle since the battle of Inderman is completely false. As for the CS in the building, you might be surprised just how many CS working there have now done tours in some prety unpleasant places - working in theatre is now seen as essential for career progression.

I understand the anger at the idea that these chairs are somehow dragging money away from kit on the front line, but they wered ordered many years ago, in pre TELIC and possibly pre Afghan times. They came out of a totally different budget to the kit one (sort of like blaming fleet for a lack of expenditure on an RAF UIN). Yes there were problems, yes there still are problems in places, but to think that the CS actively sought to put the procurement of chairs above keeping guys on the front lines equipped is absolute bullsh*t. As 2nd PUS put it the other day - everything we do in the CS is about ensuring the people on the front line are supported - if you're not doing that then you're not doing your job properly.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#18
Airfix said:
I totally agree with this part of Swiss Des's statement "but serving soldiers are right behind me..." but the trouble I have with it is when will some cnut give the command "Target will fall when hit, in your own time, carry on!"
Hopefully shortly after they have given the order:

"With a belt of 250 rounds load.... ready!..."
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#19
Jim, It is commendable of you to show loyalty and support. (I don't mean that to sound patronising although I know it probably does) and everything you say is correct, but I'm afraid spending £500 of tax payers money per chair on chairs is wrong whatever budget it comes from (ultimately it's all from the tax payer) and whenever it was done.

It shows a basic disconnect from planet earth of whoever authorised it.

2nd PUS is entirely correct in what he says but I would have to say that flicking through the dross pushed out on the IntraNet by HR wallahs and the like doesn't give you impression of an organisation that has that as it's priority. Unfortunately service pers read this as well and maybe that's where they get their ideas from.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
re: Chairs debate not being new

I looked up a few pictures on Army Net of the then new open-plan offices at Whitehall, at first glance nothing out of the ordinary to any other office you would see, but then something caught my eye, “those chairs look odd”. I took a snap shot of the picture and magnified it several times, at first I could only make out the word Herm. I then searched the Internet for Herm office chairs, within fifteen minutes I had found it. Herman Miller, full recommended retail price of £1,050 and they had bought 3,150 of them, busted. The MPs had been trying for months to tease something like this out. It took me minutes.

The MOD has never lived it down and even to this day it is rubbed in their face in news articles when yet another coroner announces a verdict into a soldier’s death as avoidable, or poor accommodation is exposed due to a lack vital funding. There are many more examples I could write about that I have been involved in, but I will hold fire for now. Unlike some officers, who are far more interested in professional advancement to notice, I cannot look the other way
Implication seems to be that he had a hand in blowing that particular whistle, not that he's claiming it as a new case now.

Anyway, whoever Batman is behind the mask (and I'm sure there's an offchance that he reads here), & whatever one thinks about right'n'wrong of whistleblowing, it might be a little more effective if the writing was less personalised. Last bit sounds a little like a grudge match against the unrighteous who aren't standing up to be counted, might meet more sympathetic ears if it was just plain fact.
 

Latest Threads

Top