Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by sendthreenfourpenc, Jan 26, 2002.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. What are the thoughts on these TA chaps who've decided that they only joined to defend dear old blighty from the Hun (or similar) and don't now wish to go to Afghanistan?
  2. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    See associated threads on TA forum regarding loss of pay and that will answer your question.
  3. well as a TA soldier I'm disgusted by them decieding this course of action. I hope the INT corps dispenses with their services quickly. I wonder if they could be done for fraud? :mad:
  4. I think most of us Reg and TA could be done for fraud at some time or another and in the case of the Cav and AAC at both sometime and another, judging by their comments!!
  5. I only popped in from the to see if anyone's here...of course you don't need to leave the compfort of your sofa to enter this int cell...
  6. Much as it grieves this ex-Regular to defend the TA, in this case, I think 3 MI Bn are the victims of preemptive spin, perhaps from a political adviser to Saint Geoffrey Hoon.

    From sources close to the Bn, it appears that 140 were in fact mobilised, at short notice, but that 60 or so were informed that they would not be required. A cynical man might suspect an excess of enthusiasm, followed shortly afterwards by a cry from DIS or whoever "My God, what are we going to do with 140 of them?".

    My sources know of no refusals - in fact, the contrary, a number of Volunteers made very expensive arrangements to cover their absence on a comparative pittance and were then, inside a week, in the position of going back to empoyers or clients and saying "Sorry, wrong, after all".
  7. If this is the case I completly withdraw my comments.
    But yet again the govt mucking TA & our employers and they wonder why there is problems with employers when we want to go to camp or on deployment etc.
  8. I appear for the first time as an "informed voice" from the centre (if there is such a thing!) here at the Mystery of Defence.

    The press took the 3MI thing well during the opening volleys but have recently lost the plot. Bottom line is that "up to 140" were potentially required and the unit in question then headed off to tell all and sundry to get ready to pack. Very much a case of "send three and fourpence..."!!

    Only when the final totting up was done and the paperwork prised out of Glasgow were the numbers reduced (a good thing, surely?) and of those actually being called out only four have kicked up a fuss, with two of those being let off the hook.

    The really interesting time will come when the second "tranche" is required later in the year!! :eek:
  9. Well I think that an organisation as large as ours is allowed one cock up, so I think we should forgive all concerned.
  10. I spoke to a mate last night who is being mobilised with 3 MI.  Apparantly the numbers required has decreased 3 times since the original request for troops.

    I suspect this whole episode has been the usual escapade of politics driving the MOD, and then the MOD finally stating what really is possible.

    Very few have changed their minds.    

    As a note.   As good a paper as the Telegraph is not that worried about getting the facts wrong.

    The CO of 1RWF wrote to the Editor of the Telegraph to correct some facts in a Telegraph article during the time 1RWF was getting a hard time in Bosnia.   The Editor replied thanking the CO for his contribution but caveating by saying that the Telegraphs primarily role was to entertain the reader, even if that does mean distorting the facts.

    If the Telegraph follows this policy one can only imagine how little the Tabloids care about getting the facts right.  The important thing is to sell papers.
  11. For those who may have missed it, the following was a letter in the Telegraph yesterday