Territorial Army soldiers to be ordered to fight

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Command_doh, Jul 13, 2008.

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. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer


    I remember when we got the brown envelope for Telic 1 and heard that 10-15 of our Regiment had resigned as soon as it was clearly going to happen. I'll be interested to see if the 'Rank structure preservation' allows the old sweats and the fat knackers/biff chitters a free pass again though, as there were a shed load of those skiivers who managed to pull a dodge last time.

    TBH I thought it was a bit surprising that 'intelligent mobilisaton (a misnomer if ever I heard one) allows so many noobs and people withou a tour behind them to opt out. I can't see there being that many left to switch the light off this time around though. Question is - does it prove that National Service is now a necessity for us? Iraq is (allegedly) winding down, but Afghanistan will roll on for donkey's years. Another thing - how can the powers that be guarantee our jobs if it becomes more likely that we HAVE to go in support of continuing OP's every few years rather than 'once in a blue moon'?

    That said, I would go again if compulsory - called. I am just not in a rush to volunteer.
  2. The story raises quite a few questions.

    If it's necessary for the TA to augment the Regular Army at a rate of one tour every six years, is this an admission that our standing Army is under-resourced in terms of manpower?

    Given that few employers will be chuffed at losing their staff for 10 months in every six years, will the TA soon be composed of the unemployed? Wouldn't those few who will be left be better off actually joining the Regular Army? Think of the money that would be saved by closing all the TACs and sacking everybody above the rank of LCpl.

    And a further gripe - it's TA Centenary Year FFS. Couldn't the Telegraph at least get the year of foundation of the TA (or TF, more accurately) right? There have been enough clues.
  3. If some TA personnel, the majority of whom do sterling work like their regular counterparts, refuse to do as their regular counterparts do then is it wrong to weed out the minority who choose to wear the uniform but refuse to answer "the call to arms"? I think not.

    Edited for mongish vocabulary.
  4. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    I believe that the Sunday Times first touted this story in March and it was subsequently revealed to be utter horlicks.
    Sunday Times - March 16th 2008

    OldSnowy's post
  5. I was a stab before I joined up. At that time (1985/86) the TA hadn't been on active service since the Second World War and most of the guys in it thought that situation would carry on forever. Although a lot of them were army-barmy, there was a sizable minority that regarded the TA as a drinking club and a chance to earn some extra beer tokens. I don't think that those guys would last now with the additional commitment being placed on the services. Quite right, though. They take the money the same as the regular forces. They should be getting called up. That's the whole point of having a territorial force.
  6. Full script of interview here

    It hardly adds up to the Telegraph story - although the fact Andrew Marr even asked that question (what are all these 'stories'?) is as good a reason to change the 'TA' name as you'll get.
  7. today i'm going to go in and tell my boss i aint deploying and i refuse to fight however i will shinf and kick off come 4 weeks time when i dont get selected...

    it don't work for the regs so why should the TA have an option??? Lets do a culling across both and lose the wasters....

  8. Wasn't the point of the TA when it was formed to provide terrotorial defence (i.e. defend the british isles) and to be used only in an emergency?

    (I don't know the original "mission statement" if there ever was such a thing - but I'm guessing)

    Using them on a regular, or semi-regular, basis seems to go against that ethos :roll: - regardless if this "compulsory mobalisation" talk is true or not...
  9. Sounds like another smoke and mirrors exercise by some of those within "One Eye's" Ministry of Disinformation, encourageing the divide and rule school of not dealing with the real issue, i.e. The the consistant underfunding and poor resourcing of HMF, not to mention the seeming determination to destroy HMF by reducing them too a people miltia.

    Or am i being cynical... My question is why is The Times rehashing a story that had previously poo poo'ed! Just after 'Part Time Swiss' annouce's that the CDS is extended in post!

    Tin foil time or are the gubiment just a bunch of c**nt**g snakeoil sellers.
  10. Regardless of ethos, the TA exists to support the regular Army. If they are required to deploy on Operations then they should be getting on with it.

    By the way, how do you classify the 'defence of the British Isles'? By virtue of the fact that the British Army has been deployed, then it is safe to assume that we have been deployed under the auspices of British Defence Policy. The clue is in the title. Or do you regard the Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as something else? Are AQ and Terri posing a threat to British security? If your answer is 'yes', then IMO there is an 'emergency'.

    Good on those TA lads who get out there and do the job, my hat is truly 'doffed' in your general direction.
  11. I believe that when they were first formed they consisted mainly of ex regulars and were therefore well trained and more than able to act when called back to the colours.

  12. So it becomes PTRS

    Part Time Regular Service.
  13. The legislation is already in place. This idea of "voluntary-only" mobilisation is a statement of ideals and comes with the caveat that the situation can change. Less implicit is that the stuation can change with immediate effect. It doesn't need to go through the courts because the legislation allows for immediate compulsory mobilisation.

    Deferral is a fair one, but it needs to be understood that defer means "put off until another time" rather than "put off indefinitely." Defer once (with good reason), by all means, but the second call is that other time. If someone's situation is such that they doubt that they could rearrange their lives given an additional 6 months of notice, then they should indeed reconsider their membership of the TA.

    BUT (and this is the crunch), the pivot is whether the mobilisation is compulsory. If mobilisation is voluntary, then why should anyone be pilloried for not putting his hand up? To compare the situation to Regular Service, if somebody were on a career-essential course when his unit deployed at short notice, would he be castigated if he didn't immediately write to his CO demanding that he be taken off the course and returned to his unit? I think not.

    Let's keep things in perspective. To a Regular, deployment could be considered career enhancement. To a TA soldier, it's the opposite and, for many, could be the route to unemployment and unemployability.

    If the Regular Army is so short-staffed that it can't function, then the TA can provide the additional manpower via compulsory mobilisation. If the Army isn't quite so short-staffed, to the extent that it offers places for voluntary augmentation, then there shouldn't be gripes if people don't take up the offer.

    So many of the arguments talk about TA soldiers "refusing" to deploy. Are there really so many instances of them volunteering to be mobilised, then having second thoughts? Or is it merely that it's perceived that failure to volunteer is walting?

    The TA soldier is prepared to give up more than his Regular counterpart, but only if it's necessary. The continuation of voluntary mobilisation rather than compulsory is the indicator that it isn't yet necessary.
  14. Employers are going to love that. "Hey boss, just to let you know that I can only work for you for five out of every six years, thereby reducing my chances of promotion and extra expense for you, and for the first six months back after a tour I will not be quite right in the head until I can get round being back in civvy life again after I got demobbed within 24 hours of leaving theatre."
    "Well thank you for letting me know. Your fired, we don't want your sort here."

    Is HMG going down the road of the National Guard whom i have just spent two weeks with and found out that if you were even considered for promotion in your civvy life and you get called up, by law, when you come back you have to be promoted? No? Of course not, this government actually caring for it troops?? :roll:
  15. You're confusing Reserve and Territorial. Over the last 30 years, the distinction has become somewhat blurred by the frequent misuse of the the term "Reserve", more so now that the TA is no longer considered an army in its own right.