I don't think the right point came across in the show. Jeremy Vine and some of the callers seemed to think that Reservists can say no when called up, and that that is what was happening. As far as I am aware, about 95% of people go without complaining.
Whereas, the problem that the Govt (or at least this "Senior Officer") are putting across is that they are expecting serving TA soldiers to volunteer for service abroad, ie Iraq, as part of their normal time in the TA without calling them up.
i listened to the debate on the radio and as a serving soldier who has worked with TA and reservists recently on operations all i will say is thank you for the support. If there are any in your number however(and i dont think there are from what i have seen) who think you are the last line for an invasion i do think they should hand there kit in. In my mind you are a part time force to aid the full time army. You are getting used a hell of a lot more these days and there are problems that should be addressed with the full time army but when all said and done we are alll the same army.
It nevers ceases to amaze me just how BLOODY LAZY journalists are. I have posted a reply in that BBC forum (under another name, as some damned impostor has already pinched my moniker) which corrects that completely bogus figure USING INFO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE BY GOOGLING.
Such lack of professionalism would get me sacked from both my civvie and my weekend warrior jobs. Makes me so mad! Grrrr. Roar! Woof. Woof.
Just waiting to see if the moderators will let it appear. I have tried correcting BBC mistakes before and my posts have not been allowed through, even though I held back from slagging their lazy journos off.
Thinking hard about it, I don't personally know anybody who appealed against their call-up (of course, it does happen for completely legitimate reasons), though I do know of several whose employers - including, ironically, the MOD - successfully appealed, which is a completely different kettle of fish. This example of slack, lazy journalism really should be corrected: can I suggest some concerted emailing/letter-writing to the BBC and other news media so that they realise they are spouting shite.
Well Koolkullin has certainly corrected the false impression given by 'Senior army officer' well done but not overdone.
I think we'd have to go back to the 'Ever Readies' in the 60's to find such wholesale call up of reserves as has happened under these pratts. I believe Ever Readies had quite different terms of engagement. It was probably too expensive which is why the concept was culled.
What everyone is missing here is that the country shouldn't have to call up so many reserves to fight what is essentially a police action. The regular army should be large enough to do it with maybe some specialised reserve assistance, loggies, translators, pr people etc. Alternatively, we should keep our noses out.
Perhaps 'Senior army officer' would like to contribute to the debate on Arrse? Then we could see his credentials for making such an offhand and insulting comment. Probably a retired Colonel in the 42nd Beancounting Quills sat in the cellar of the Old War Office building.
I don't personally know anybody who appealed against their call-up (of course, it does happen for completely legitimate reasons), though I do know of several whose employers - including, ironically, the MOD
True but wouldn't it be nice if someone in MoD put out a statement to correct the impression. Too late, I know, cos the redtops would never pick up on it but at least you could point any other smartarse to it.
I seem to remember from a briefing I was given that the take up rate from the TA was 75% and that from reservists less than 50%. Course that was for compulsory mobilisation. The 25% of TA who weren't accepted were for either Employer appeals (a friend of mine still hates his boss) dental failures (the MOD didn't want to pay for a chap to get a filling) or genuine family problems.