Right. This is really frikkin getting to me now. Can we please stop perpetuating the myth that being a member of the reserve forces is casual labour? The Court of Appeal decided in Manson v Ministry of Defence  EWCA Civ 1678 that a member of the TA is engaged in part-time work when performing his or her mandatory training obligations only. Only if he goes beyond that is it deemed to be casual labour. You can read the full decision here. Now, let me make the same point a different way. Members of the TA are engaged in part-time employment while performing their mandatory training (27 days a year if in an independent/regional unit, 19 if in a specialist/national one). More than that and it's casual labour. Got it? A few consequences of what I have just said, as far as I see things: 1. Under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, we are entitled to a pension in respect of the part-time work we do. 2. Expenses incurred in order to perform mandatory training (eg, pass the phys MATT) are tax-deductible. Going slightly beyond what the Court of Appeal held: in the opinion of my learned self, the Court of Appeal had the wool pulled over their eyes slightly. As those who have been in the TA for a while know, the TA relies on quite a few people operating under a sort-of obligation to do a lot more than the minimum. The reason the Court thought that service beyond the mandatory was casual labour is because they were told that it is entirely voluntary. In my view, there is sufficient consistent pressure of duty/obligation placed on many of those serving more than the minimum that they are in fact performing part-time work and not casual labour. Yes, ultimately any of those people could refuse to do the extra work but they would face demotion/dismissal. Anyone want to go to the House of Lords with me on this?