top brass fight for the rank and file

#1
In the Sunday Telegraph today. page 16 under the pic of a B52

A group of Britain's most senior military figures is to establish a campaigning organisation to lobby the Government over its "neglect" of the armed forces.
The National Defence Association features household names including Colenels Bob Stewart and Tim Collins, as well as three former heads of the armed forces as patrons - Lords Guthrie, Boyce and Craig.
Winston Churchil, the former MP and Grandson of the wartime leader is to be the president of the Organisation. The Move is being seen as evidence of the gulf between ministers and forces over the course of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with claims that the Government ia no longer honouring the military covenant. its duty of care to servicemen and women.

It has got to the point, where someone has got to step up to the plate.

there is more to the aricle but that is the jist of it

Dunc
 
#5
FaceLikeAPingPongBall said:
Has it really come to the point when we have to wheel out Bonking Bob to 'lobby' for decent treatment...... sad, very sad!

If you can't talk sense,shut up. He at least is doing something for the forces which is more than can be said for a lot of ex officers.
 
#6
This could be a good time to hit the message home. It will be most sucessful if they can attract prominent people with no connection to the military to the campaign as these are the people the public will respond to most readily.

I think that there are plenty of well known (and well respected) figures who would be happy to get involved.

I am neither well known (nor well respected :wink:) but I would donate money and time to such a cause as would most other ex soldiers.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#7
Letterwritingman said:
We already have BAFF...........are we in danger of diluting the message here?
If I were the suspicious type, I'd suggest that this is one of the main reasons - BAFF is too close to the soldier, too much of a loose cannon. I'm sure that an organisation with plenty of 'safe' hands running it will be much more, let's say, reasonable? You can always offer them a nice media contract, or a good dinner, and they'll see the reality of things.............

A highly, highly suspicious move IMHO.
 
#8
Equally these people are likely to have better access to the powers that be as lobbyists than BAFF. I do agree though that there is a possibility of a diluted message or maybe it could be viewed as an attack on two fronts. Only time will tell I guess......
 
#9
OldSnowy said:
Letterwritingman said:
We already have BAFF...........are we in danger of diluting the message here?
If I were the suspicious type, I'd suggest that this is one of the main reasons - BAFF is too close to the soldier, too much of a loose cannon. I'm sure that an organisation with plenty of 'safe' hands running it will be much more, let's say, reasonable? You can always offer them a nice media contract, or a good dinner, and they'll see the reality of things.............

A highly, highly suspicious move IMHO.
I have to agree, im thinking why and why now. Is Baff now seen by those in the clouds as being to popular, and rather than raise a stink by having a 'go' at Baff, its easier to 1/ try to dilute Baffs popularity and 2/ By being who they are and the old boys network can 'appear' to be more in the know.

Something fishy here.
 
#10
FaceLikeAPingPongBall said:
Has it really come to the point when we have to wheel out Bonking Bob to 'lobby' for decent treatment...... sad, very sad!
'We' haven't wheeled him out. He has wheeled himself out...

Big difference ;)

msr
 
#11
Probably chucking a thunderflash into this debate, but I've been looking at both BAFF and UKNDA for a while now without committing myself.

My gut feeling may simply reinforce prejudices (both mine and everyone else's) but BAFF appear to be the 'blue-collar, trades union shop stewards' end of the business, whereas UKNDA seem to be a bit more like a 'professional' organisation.

The parallel might be lost on people, but I'll try anyway. Back in the late '80s when I started nurse training the professional bodies available to support us were COHSE, NUPE or the RCN. Now, to a simple country boy like me, COHSE and NUPE (later UNISON) were full of pinko, commie, trades union types, whereas the RCN was, after all, a 'Royal College', and much more of a reputable outfit.

Perhaps that is what colours my thinking on BAFF and UKNDA?

Happy to have any (of the many) BAFF supports on here convince me otherwise!
 
#17
kennys-go-nad said:
Please explain as I do not see it that way. BAFF has contributed in my opinion to many causes that effect all three services.
Indeed. Not only does BAFF have serving members from all three services, but the vast majority of the issues which we have campaigned or commented upon are tri-service. This should surprise no-one who is familiar with current conditions, given that so much personnel administration is now centralised (dare I mention JPA?). Issues have included, off the cuff:



Accommodation - both SLA and SFA

'Social Housing Discrimination'

Operational Pay Allowance (in the BAFF Steering Group period)

Armed Forces Bill (also in the Steering Group period)

Medical Care for the Armed Forces - evidence to Defence Select Committee

Support to SSAFA/ARRSE, Ashtead planning application (Headley Court)

Council of Europe negotiations on rights of members of the armed forces

Service Voting

Priority Medical Treatment for Veterans

PTSD - support for Combat Stress

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Inquests

DIN 2007DIN03-006

HMS Cornwall incident - the personnel were RN/RM, but the issues were arguably universal - in any case hardly Army-centric

Political letter-writing in support of the Tul Bahadur Pun VC campaign - Army-centric? Perhaps, but it was supported by BAFF members from all three services

Iraqi Interpreters - Army-centric? Probably, but not actually a single-service issue and, again, has support from BAFF members from all three services.

Homecoming Parades. Army-centric? Probably, but hardly to the detriment of either of the other two services.



The above brief list is simply to make a general point and not to reopen argument about the individual issues ;) But I think the point will be fairly clear to most.

Good luck to the UKNDA! The differences between the NDA and BAFF are not as some posters seem to think, but there is quite rightly a clear difference in role.
 
#18
hackle said:
................

Good luck to the UKNDA! The differences between the NDA and BAFF are not as some posters seem to think, but there is quite rightly a clear difference in role.
Hackle,

We meet again !!

For the sake of good order and the avoidance of doubt could you please explain in detail the differences, as BAFF sees them, between it and the UKNDA.

UKNDA raised its head about 2 years ago, so I am sure you will be able to do this very easily and swiftly - the principle of "know your competition"

If UKNDA is not in competition with BAFF, then what makes it impossible for the two organisations to be amalgamated?
 
#20
Recruiting_Office_reject said:
As I see it BAFF is about the employee (for want of a better phrase) and UKNDA is more about the overall defence strategy.
Interesting you should say that.

So, BAFF is a bit like a trade union, without the ability to strike, whereas UKNDA is like the CBI – overall commercial policy.

Not sure Hackle will like that analogy but you at least see it so.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top