Can't help specifically, CS, one of my seniors went to the gig at RAF Halton for me and his back-brief was that I had wasted half a day of his life!
However, assuming you make it, I'd be interested to hear your and others thoughts about this.
As my username suggests, I'm fairly chilled about bipartisan/tripartisan/purple working, just so long as no one party is shafted by the others.
There will be a natural tendency for the Army to dominate, purely from a numerical POV, but in my view it would be folly to assume 'Army knows best' just because they have the most people.
I was very encouraged recently by some high level Army input to my own little clinical rock-pool that seemed to indicate they would look for the best practice - irrespective of it's Service of origin - and adopt that across the piece. If that sort of philosophy is the cornerstone of future working, I think we'll be OK.
However, if the Pongos just see this as a golden opportunity for some matelot- and crab-bashing, there will be much unpleasantness.
Youâre assuming that the Army will be wrong and that you are right. The Army has formed expeditionary Medical Support for years. As one of your own commented the other day, were it not for the medics on the ground (see muddy breeze-black hole) there would be no casualties for you to fly.
I agree that we should indeed work together and I look forward to a Joint Medical Services. But as you are so quick to dismiss CAPABLE Army Paramedics from your environment can you really expect no hostility from LAND components?
I don't believe I've said anything negative at all at any point about Army Paramedics.
If you're an Army paramedic and so precious about your position that you interpret everything as being negative about you, perhaps you need to come and see me professionally?
The clinical rock-pool I crawl around in is psychiatry. I care not a jot what paramedics do, nor which uniform they wear, so long as they do a good job.
FYI, Army has been identified as the lead Service for mental health and, as I noted in my earlier post, there are encouraging noises from senior pongo types about stealing good ideas from us crabs.
My central thesis was framed precisely because there are those who will ASSUME the Army must be right, as a result of critical mass arguments and so forth, but as we all know, when you ASSUME something you make an ASS of U and ME
Provided that we make no such assumptions - irrespective of clinical speciality - and adopt the best practices regardless of Service of origin, we'll get along famously.
Perhaps the best way to approach this and many other problems is to look at all models and then look to create a hybrid model which will work, all be it with special to arms adaptation. For instance Army and RAF priorities will assume a speed in the evacuation chain, RN may not have that capability; a sub may have to stay submerged for a considerable length of time.
It appears to me that each Service seems to approach tri-service co-operation in the same way: I'm not going to let them screw me over just because they're (fill in service). There has to be pride in the uniform that is worn but that doesn't mean that any given service should not be open to another services way of doing things, particularly if they can be easily adapted to specific needs of each service.
If a system is efficient, achieves its aim and is easily adaptable to local circumstances then we would be foolish to discard it even if it came from an enemy medical service, let alone one of our own!
Surely the main question is does it work, not who thought of it.