What are these people on?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Perevodchik, Feb 13, 2006.

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. Where did we suddenly get a strength of 200,000 troops in the Army? I was led to believe that after Gordons last Defence Cut, the strength of the regulars was down to 95,000.
  2. Hmmmmmm....
  3. Anyone remember what size an army becomes a defence force?
  4. Do you think he may be including the RAF, Navy, Royal Marines and the Sea Scouts?
  5. All them and the WRVS I reckon
  6. Well the Japanese Defence force is 22,000.
  7. They are probably refering to the strength of all three armed services combined (more or less). Still disengenious for the 'Ministry of Defence spokesman' to claim that because only 14,000 of these are employed in Iraq or Afghanistan at any one time, that the forces are not overstretched - conveinently forgetting to mention the army bears the brunt of these two operations, as well as contributing troops to tours of all the other places we know and love so well. Also seems to have slipped his mind that you can treble the 14,000 at a stroke with troops just returned from theatre and troops preparing to go six-months down the line. Oh, and the sizeable numbers of soldiers employed in essential but non-deployable posts.

    I refuse to believe that an MOD spokesman would not be fully aware of the above and so, once again, can only conclude that we are run by liars or idiots or both.
  8. Don't know what the Taliban would make of WRVS but i know a couple of really really scarey ones
  9. That is the whole point.... the spokesman is deliberatly fudging the figures to make things look a lot better than they actually are. There can be no other reason for it.

    Also don't forget you can add to "the sizeable numbers of soldiers employed in essential but non-deployable posts" all the troops that are under phase 1 and phase 2 training, those that are on the long term sick, those marking time ready for discharge and plenty of others tah are on non-essential but non-deployable posts and you can see that the number of civil servants that 'control budgets' out number and cost more than the troops that are deployable.
  10. Plus if the spokesman is referring to the strength of all three services he ought to refer to the numbers committed for all three, not just the army.

    There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
  11. This use of this kind of mis-information is despicable. Unfortunately, the whole P Info organisation in MOD Centre is now run by the kind of political place-men that would see nothing wrong in distorting the facts in this way.

    Before going off on one, though, I'd like to check that the BBC have actually got the quote right. We remain blessed with a media that would not know the difference between an Army of 2,000 or one of 200,000. Anyone know how to contact the Beeb to check up on this?
  12. If anyone is into the stats I beleive we are now "malita" sized.
  13. ''Itching to go'' sounds like a quote from 1914 or 1939. What a load of horse sheet. For anyone who thinks that individuals who are in essential, non-deployable posts, think again. They do get deployed, as long as a penalty/impact statement is submitted. But as we all know, that means fek all.

    I would like to see the ratio of deployable strength to that of deployed strength.
  14. I'm in a non-deployable post, so there.

    However, that will change very shortly......