# CF issued kit use for civi purposes



## PTE Fader (26 May 2001)

What‘s CF‘s Regulation of usage of kit and equipment while off duty?  I mean, I‘m sure it‘s not against the rules to wear combat t-shirts or combat boxers since they‘re not blatently obvious as something military issue, but what about combat pants/shirts?  I‘m just wondering if it‘ll be ok to wear some crappy, worn down combat pants and shirt to go paintballing.  Neither have Canadian flags, epeuletts, maple leafs, or anything else identifying them as CF (army btw) issue, except for the fact that they look like Canadian army issue.  Whatchya think?


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (26 May 2001)

Well seeing how you can but them at an Army Surplus store anyways, I think its ok to wear them paintballing and stuff as long as they dont have any epaulets, ect. on it.


----------



## PTE Fader (27 May 2001)

lol, thats funny, since i bought a combat shirt at army surplus today and used it for paintball.  Hella fun, and you don‘t stick out like a sorethumb (surprisinlgy)


----------



## RCA (27 May 2001)

The basic rule is that you can wear anything bought. Anything issued to you can not be worn for civvy purposes.


----------



## echo (27 May 2001)

i‘ve found that CF combats are the BEST to use for paintballing.
much better than the ammerican camo because the puffyness of the CF combats make the paintballs not break as easily and doesnt give you a definate shape when ur sitting in the middle of the woods in some godforsaken thornbush     

personally i use my combats a lot for paintballing and camping just because of their comfort and easy clean up.


----------



## PTE Fader (28 May 2001)

Well, I use my combat t-shirts as undershirts, or if it get‘s too hot out, just as a regular shirt, or to just work/play.  I sleep in the issued boxers, but people say the boxers are pieces of crap.  Plus, from time to time, i wear my belt  as it‘s one of the few ones i own that fit me.  I was contemplating going for a run one day and wearing my  webbing with a few 5 pound weights in the asspack, but decided against it... would look a bit strange running around with one of those.


----------



## Grunt031 (28 May 2001)

Passion Killers are not "pieces of crap"!


----------



## Disturbance (28 May 2001)

So am I allowed to be training with my ruck? I wanna start doin some hiking in prep for my 2/3 this summer and figured it would be alright. And what about breakin my boots in with runnin training. I have been using normal running shoes but time is getting closer so I wanna start goin balls out with my trainin.


----------



## Bloggins (29 May 2001)

Disturbance, I have absolutely no idea about the rules as far as doing a little extra training with your ruck on, but I can‘t imagine for a second that anyone could complain. So long as you‘re not out there running around the streets in uniform, who‘s going to know anyways? In my humble opinion you‘re doing yourself a huge big favour by breaking your kit in a bit before you go on course. It‘s definitely a good thing not just to knock some of the newness out of it, but also to get used to how it feels moving with it on. That said, I really can‘t advise running with your boots on. By all means hike in them, but the chance of screwing up your feet or legs by running much over a couple hundred meters in boots just doesn‘t make it worth your while. One month before course is not the time to overstress a tendon or what have you.


----------



## Disturbance (29 May 2001)

Thanks Bloggins


----------



## drmann (31 Aug 2005)

yes:  don't run with combat boots, but DO train with your issued kit...
however, you don't need to wear combats to carry the rucksack... throw your webbing in the rucksack if you want to simulate it's weight, and you'll just look like a fool with a heavy backpack to most people, and no one will hassle you


----------



## HollywoodHitman (31 Aug 2005)

Wearing issued kit for civillian purposes can get you charged in the CF. If you're wearing Cadpat stuff that you bought at a local surplus store, I believe you can still be charged, if a member of the CF, because you are representing yourself as such. When in CF uniform, even if you're a reservist, you're subject to the CSD, signed in or not......

As for wearing your rucksack to train for your course, I don't see a problem with it, as many people DO use theirs, myself included, for training outside of military time.

Going on a personal 13km ruckmarch vs wearing your cadpat while drinking beer and playing paintball, are 2 different animals.......

my $.02


----------



## KevinB (31 Aug 2005)

and a special thanks to drmann for resurecting a thread from PRE 9/11  :


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2005)

Funny, one of the FNG's asking the questions is now an 18-series stud in the SF.  Oh, how time flies.


----------



## Armymedic (31 Aug 2005)

Wow, thats an old thread...is this some type of new record?

BTW has he finished his training now?


----------



## jswift872 (31 Aug 2005)

I train with my ruck alot on my own time, no one complains and as mentioned, I just look like a fool with a big back pack.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (1 Sep 2005)

As I recall (correct me if im wrong) you can wear your combat boots while off duty.  I wear them sometimes when I play paintball.  I have my own pair of MARPATs I wear when I play.  I sometimes wear my gortex combat boots though depending on the terrain (if it swampy, I wear them to stay dry)


----------



## gun plumber (1 Sep 2005)

IIRC there is a para in the CF Dress Regulations stating that you can wear accessories(ie rainsuit,greatcoat,gloves etc)while in civilian dress,and not have to worry about being dragged off kickin and screamin,as long as it doesn't identify you directly as a member of the CF.
I wear my long undies,fleece and gore-tex boots hunting on a regular basis,and have yet to be questioned about it except"nice boots.Where can I get a pair?"
I will post Pub #,chap and para if anyone wants it tomorrow.


----------



## theoldyoungguy (1 Sep 2005)

i personally use almost all my kit civi side, the only thing i dont use is my cadpat combats. other than that i use gortex boots for hunting, gortex gloves for skiing, smallpack for hiking(friggen comfortable), and rain gear for fishing. i use others as well, just b4 i use them i make sure any nametags, epillets, or anything that could identify it as CF issue rather than surplus bought is removed. At one point i remember a senior NCO telling me u can use any issue kit u want as long as u have all CF markings off of it such as nametags, flags, epiletts. and i dont know if u also meant to imply DEUs but from my understanding if u have a special occasion to attend to requiring fancy dress non military related, they encourage u to wear ur DEUs, just keeping in mind while in uniform u represent the CF and ur conduct should be as such. so i think that applies to pretty much everything, just make sure all CF markings are removed and ur conduct fits that of a Canadian Forces soldier and i dont think ud ever get hassled.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Sep 2005)

gun plumber said:
			
		

> IIRC there is a para in the CF Dress Regulations stating that you can wear accessories(ie rainsuit,greatcoat,gloves etc)while in civilian dress,and not have to worry about being dragged off kickin and screamin,as long as it doesn't identify you directly as a member of the CF.
> I wear my long undies,fleece and gore-tex boots hunting on a regular basis,and have yet to be questioned about it except"nice boots.Where can I get a pair?"
> I will post Pub #,chap and para if anyone wants it tomorrow.



I'd like to see this.  Surely it refers to privately purchased examples of military kit rather than military kit you were issued?  Wearing a pair of combat boots you bought is one thing, using boots issued to you strikes me as misuse of government property - even if the two pairs of boots are identical.  One was paid for by you, the other by the Crown.


----------



## BDTyre (1 Sep 2005)

I've been wearing my boots periodically throughout the summer, not because I want to or because they are great accessories to any outfit, but solely for the purpose of breaking them in.  

When I was first issued them, I wore them quite a bit to get them broken in, and then I wore them very little at all.  Now with stand-to just over a week away, I'm wearing them a bit more to help break them in some more.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (1 Sep 2005)

> I'd like to see this.  Surely it refers to privately purchased examples of military kit rather than military kit you were issued?  Wearing a pair of combat boots you bought is one thing, using boots issued to you strikes me as misuse of government property - even if the two pairs of boots are identical.  One was paid for by you, the other by the Crown.



I think these guys might be right.  I remember hearing an officer while on course talking to one of our course staff.  He pretty much said what loyaleddie87 said.  As long as there is nothing on the kit that distinguishes you as CF, you can wear it.  The officer was refering to his boots to be more specific.


----------



## gun plumber (1 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'd like to see this.   Surely it refers to privately purchased examples of military kit rather than military kit you were issued?   Wearing a pair of combat boots you bought is one thing, using boots issued to you strikes me as misuse of government property - even if the two pairs of boots are identical.   One was paid for by you, the other by the Crown.



Sounds like a challenge! 
Tomorrow I will post pub#,chap and para for everyones info.The dress regulations are very clear on the point that such items DO NOT identify the individual as a member of the CF.The wearing of combats with an epulatte and flag would constitute a no no,but a pair of black boots or green undies is fine.


----------



## gun plumber (1 Sep 2005)

Quote from: CF Publication A-AD-265-000/AG-001
Canadian Forces Dress Instructions from 2001-06-15
Wear of Civilian Clothes
47. Visible civilian items of apparel shall not be worn my members with any uniform, except where specifically authorized in these instructions. Conversely, items of uniform shall not be worn with civilian attire, *except for accessories and garments (e.g., top-coat, raincoat, gloves, scarf and footwear) which do not include any CF insignia and by themselves do not explicitly identify the wearer as a member of the CF.*


----------



## theoldyoungguy (2 Sep 2005)

dude u could probably get away with wearing anything, just make sure b4 u wear anything or use anything that all flags and rank insignia are removed. and as far as combats go i think thats the only thing i wouldnt use for civi purposes but u can get away with it if u have all rank insignia and flags removed as stated above. but just remember even tho its arguable as to whether or not u can "readily identify" as a CF member, ppl will assume u are if u got a short haircut, clean shaved and have anything cadpat. so just present urself in a manner befitting a CF member and ull never have any problems.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2005)

loyaleddie87 said:
			
		

> dude u could probably get away with wearing anything, just make sure b4 u wear anything or use anything that all flags and rank insignia are removed. and as far as combats go i think thats the only thing i wouldnt use for civi purposes but u can get away with it if u have all rank insignia and flags removed as stated above. but just remember even tho its arguable as to whether or not u can "readily identify" as a CF member, ppl will assume u are if u got a short haircut, clean shaved and have anything cadpat. so just present urself in a manner befitting a CF member and ull never have any problems.



After this sound advice, I would say that to be safe...Don't wear CADPAT.


----------



## mudgunner49 (2 Sep 2005)

loyaleddie87 said:
			
		

> dude u could probably get away with wearing anything, just make sure b4 u wear anything or use anything that all flags and rank insignia are removed. and as far as combats go i think thats the only thing i wouldnt use for civi purposes but u can get away with it if u have all rank insignia and flags removed as stated above. but just remember even tho its arguable as to whether or not u can "readily identify" as a CF member, ppl will assume u are if u got a short haircut, clean shaved and have anything cadpat. so just present urself in a manner befitting a CF member and ull never have any problems.



loyaleddie87,


Not to be an ass, but would you mind using the King's English and spelling words in their entirety??  I'm know for a fact that I'm not the only one on this board who finds "chat room slang" to be more tha just annoying.  I really have a hard time taking anyone who communicates in such a manner seriously at all, in spite of how much they may in fact actually know...

cheers,

blake


----------



## Mineguy (2 Sep 2005)

Oh my...I have to say this one:

Got a freind who joked about how he had a small triwall of surplus cf great coats and a stack of new generals epaulets..he was gonna put them on the coats and hand them out to all the homeless in ottawa...wonder if he ever did....  ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Sep 2005)

gun plumber said:
			
		

> Quote from: CF Publication A-AD-265-000/AG-001
> Canadian Forces Dress Instructions from 2001-06-15
> Wear of Civilian Clothes
> 47. Visible civilian items of apparel shall not be worn my members with any uniform, except where specifically authorized in these instructions. Conversely, items of uniform shall not be worn with civilian attire, *except for accessories and garments (e.g., top-coat, raincoat, gloves, scarf and footwear) which do not include any CF insignia and by themselves do not explicitly identify the wearer as a member of the CF.*



This doesn't say anything about wearing issue stuff.  It could refer to stuff you buy at a surplus store. Since these items are available online from the logistikcorp site, I would guess that it isn't a big deal - you can be said to have "purchased" the stuff yourself if using your points, and you really can purchase the stuff by credit card.

It says absolutely nothing about wearing your Gore-Tex jacket or operational kit out hunting.  And I still say that represents a misuse of government property.  This snippet just justifies wearing certain items of DEU with civilian clothes.


----------



## theoldyoungguy (2 Sep 2005)

ur right it doesnt say anything about some items such as combat jackets. thats why almost all senior NCOs ive heard from have told me the same thing. use kit as u wish, just take into account if damaged from ur own personal use you are morally obligated to take responsibility for it. also again making sure all insignia is removed from it. as far as cadpat goes i use my cadpat small pack all the time. even those cadpat gortex gloves. its not hurting anyone by you using them. ive been told repeatedly by senior and junior NCOs use what u want as long as its not the uniform, and if u are using the uniform for say paintballing... make sure al rank and flags are removed. so my advice would be to just be careful. act as a canadian soldier should, if youve damaged kit thru personal use step up, and make sure all rank insignia is removed along with flags and i cant say u getting in shit.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2005)

loyaleddie87 

Could you clean up you English?

You are a real pain in the butt to read. [Edit} and take serious.


----------



## theoldyoungguy (2 Sep 2005)

sorry im used to trying to type as fast as possible, disregarding proper grammer.


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> This doesn't say anything about wearing issue stuff.   It could refer to stuff you buy at a surplus store. Since these items are available online from the logistikcorp site, I would guess that it isn't a big deal - you can be said to have "purchased" the stuff yourself if using your points, and you really can purchase the stuff by credit card.
> 
> It says absolutely nothing about wearing your Gore-Tex jacket or operational kit out hunting.   And I still say that represents a misuse of government property.   This snippet just justifies wearing certain items of DEU with civilian clothes.



Perhaps someone (not me) will be ambitious enough to do a pub crawl and find the order or regulation that supports that side of the argument.


----------



## D-n-A (3 Sep 2005)

For those who want to wear their uniforms for paintball, airsoft, etc read this

copy an pasted off another forum

"This is just a reminder for everyone serving, both reserve and reg force, that wearing your uniform, or any of the highspeed tac gear you have been issued to an airsoft game is strictly verboten.

There has recently been an incident involving some members of a reserve unit based out of Toronto - you guys know who you are. This was a serious incident that could have potentially led to charges for the members, and a whole whack of negative publicity for airsoft. It behooves us all as CF members to police ourselves to avoid such incidents in the future.

As CF members, we have to always strive to project a positive image of both the Canadian Forces and ourself both on and off duty. Behaviour such as previously mentioned brings immense dishonour both on the individuals and on the CF as a whole.

Most of us play by the rules, as always, it's the select few ruining things for the rest of us. Please, post and discuss below, but keep it clean guys, no need for a flame war or any res/reg bashing.

For the barrack-room lawyers amoung you;
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/vol1/ch017_e.asp#17.06 "


----------



## kyleg (4 Sep 2005)

To quote an aquaintance of mine: "Cheating is allowed. Getting caught isn't."

Now, I understand and accept that some - perhaps many - people will not be pleased by this comment. However, I tend to live by the rule "no harm, no foul." Usually. There are always exceptions, of course.

What ACTUAL harm is there in, say, wearing one's issue gore-tex jacket hunting? "The _problem_ is that you're breaking the rules!" I can hear some of you shouting at your computer screens. And that is a very valid argument. But ask yourselves, who do these rules protect? Is that not the reason we have most rules in our society, to protect ourselves and others from harm? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, disallowing the wearing of a gore-tex jacket by a member of the CF while hunting does not protect anyone. The uselessness of this regulation is accentuated by the fact that civilians are not at all forbidden from wearing the same gore-tex jacket during the same activity (or any activity for that matter).

As a second example, my CF issue sleeping bag happens to be the best I own for cold weather. Regulations aside, how is there any harm in me using my CF issue sleeping bag during a winter camping trip?

The long and the short of it is, I see no problem in using issued kit civy side if it does no actual harm to yourself or anyone else.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## BDTyre (5 Sep 2005)

I can agree with your stance, but I can also agree with the others.

Technically, none of this stuff issued to me is mine.  It still belongs to the Crown.  Therefore, if I damage something, I've damaged an item loaned to me in good trust.  Of course, if someone happens to ruin something on their own time, they should be made to pay for it.

Having said that, it is likely far easier to make a regulation outright prohibiting the use of issued equipment in the civy world than to try and deal with all the damage claims and people trying to get out of it by blaming it on someone else, or saying the item was defective from the start, etc., etc.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Sep 2005)

What if you lose/damage a piece of equipment and then get tasked out before you can replace it? You automatically have cut your effectiveness for you and your unit down all because you see nothing wrong with using your issued equipment for personal use.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Sep 2005)

listen up, troops. I don't give a rolling rat's ass about what you "think" is right or wrong, here. The Crown says "Don't do it". So you don't do it. Period. Whether you 'don't see the harm' or not, you were given a lawful command. Do you get to pick and choose which legal orders you will follow now? I must have missed the memo.

You want to be considered a professional soldier, you act like it, and that includes following the lawful orders you don't agree with.

Give your damn heads a shake.  :


----------



## Pte_Martin (5 Sep 2005)

i agree with paracowboy! We soldiers were trained to follow orders, even the ones that the officers tells us to run and take out the machine gun nest. Why disobey a order that's so easy to follow?


----------



## kyleg (5 Sep 2005)

I both understand and agree with your point paracowboy. However I still think that it is our right to discuss and debate the meaning and validity of such orders. Obviously I don't mean that just because we can discuss them we should be able to come to our own conclusions and pick and choose which orders to follow. But in my short experience on this planet it seems to me that progress is only made when people sit down and try to figure out how the current system could be improved.

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Sep 2005)

Take all your Gucci winter sniv kit, and go hunting.  Have one too many barley pops and catch your tent on fire.  About $1500 of John and Jane Q's hard earned tax bucks just went up in smoke.  the system allows for replacement under normal wear and tear while on duty.  Besides you're here to defend democracy, not necessarily live by it.


----------



## kyleg (5 Sep 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Take all your Gucci winter sniv kit, and go hunting.  Have one too many barley pops and catch your tent on fire.  About $1500 of John and Jane Q's hard earned tax bucks just went up in smoke.  the system allows for replacement under normal wear and tear while on duty.  Besides you're here to defend democracy, not necessarily live by it.



I'm going to assume that was a joke...


----------



## D-n-A (5 Sep 2005)

Pinky, your can argue an debate this all day, but whats the point, you won't change any rules or anything. Your not allowed to use your issued kit for non-military uses, simple as that.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Sep 2005)

If you are unwilling to follow lawful commands then I suggest handing in your kit because the military is not for you.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Sep 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> What ACTUAL harm is there in, say, wearing one's issue gore-tex jacket hunting?



The ACTUAL harm is in wearing out stuff when you don't need it, causing unnecessary replacement.  How hard is that to figure out on your own?


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Sep 2005)

I have a hard time seeing where all of you who refuse to budge from your "because it's against the rules" position are coming from. You mean to tell us that you follow every order, every rule and regulation to the letter, 100% of the time?? I call B.S.   :

I think there is plenty of room for common sense in this case, the world will not end if I wear my WWB on my own time, and if they catch fire, self destruct, or are stollen by kit-crazed hippie campers then I will fork over the cost to relpace them.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The ACTUAL harm is in wearing out stuff when you don't need it, causing unnecessary replacement.   How hard is that to figure out on your own?



What about the flip side? The CF's wearing out of my body parts, causing unnecessary replacement?   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> I have a hard time seeing where all of you who refuse to budge from your "because it's against the rules" position are coming from. You mean to tell us that you follow every order, every rule and regulation to the letter, 100% of the time?? I call B.S.    :



This!?!?  From a Reserve OFFICER?!?!

Quite frankly I am Shocked.....


----------



## sdimock (8 Sep 2005)

Mike_R23A,

Some of the kit I've been issued is better than some of my personal items, but for me it's a matter of principle that I buy/use my own boots etc. and not the crowns on my own time. 

Chimo


----------



## kyleg (8 Sep 2005)

I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought that way. Thanks Mike  ;D

Cheers,
Pinky


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought that way. Thanks Mike   ;D
> 
> Cheers,
> Pinky



Insubordination.  Outright disregard for Rules and Regulations.  Now you have a Reserve Officer whom you can hold in high esteem because he agrees with you.  Sick.  Neither of you have what it takes ethically to be in the CF in any capacity.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Sep 2005)

If there's wiggle room, you take it.
If you can convince the Officer that a frontal is not the best way, more power to you.
If you can better accomplish the mission by disobeying orders, then have at 'er, and fight the court martial.

In this case, none of that applies. It is purely selfish concerns causing you to disobey a lawful, written command. Whether I like it, or agree with it, is equally irrelevent. I signed a contract and swore an oath.

You want to wear your uniform on Leave, or what have you, write a memo.


----------



## Meridian (8 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The ACTUAL harm is in wearing out stuff when you don't need it, causing unnecessary replacement.  How hard is that to figure out on your own?




I cant believe it took this long for someone tos ay it..

Just because you dont lose it or damage it, doesn't mean added WEAR isnt made to the garment. Im sure everyone's seen how fast the cadpat fades, and we all know everything is lowest-bidder bought...  so why would you expect things to survive additional wear?  If its the Crown asking you to wear it down, then some beancounter can justify that. But as a taxpayer, I dont really feel the need to subsidize your hunting gear, especially when it takes years just to issue new kit in the first place.


----------



## kyleg (9 Sep 2005)

What kind of wear would there be on a gore-tex jacket if I wore it outside one cold winter day while walking my dog? I'm not crawling on the asphalt with it


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Sep 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> What kind of wear would there be on a gore-tex jacket if I wore it outside one cold winter day while walking my dog? I'm not crawling on the asphalt with it



Why don't you ask your RSM that question; see what he tells you.  We'd all be interested in hearing the answer.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2005)

Yer Daft Boy!   

Like Michael says.....Walk up to your RSM while walking yer dog, wearing yer free Gov't Issue Gortex coat.....You sure don't listen well....you are like that guy crunching away on his cereal at work as he is getting fired and giving the big 'thumbs up', not hearing a thing.

Go down to the Armoury right now and turn all that kit in...you are to fr****g St****d to wear it in the first place!  You're worst than a Homeless person getting free cloths from the shelter.  You little scam artist you.   :


----------



## kyleg (9 Sep 2005)

Wallace, I never said I actually use my issued kit when off duty, I just don't agree with the rule (plus, I have better civy gear anyways, despite what my previous posts may suggest). I see no reason for your attacks and take offense at being told that, because of my position on this issue, I should leave the CF for being 'too frigging stupid' to wear the uniform. Your assumption that my ethics are not up to par based on the fact that I disagree with - but still follow - a lawful command is completely false. I highly doubt that you've agreed with every lawful order you've been given.

I have in no way, shape, or form insulted anyone in this forum for holding views different from my own and demand the same respect in return. If you disagree with me that's a-ok. But don't insult me for it.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2005)

Pte.Pinky said:
			
		

> Wallace, I never said I actually use my issued kit when off duty, I just don't agree with the rule (plus, I have better civy gear anyways, despite what my previous posts may suggest).



Pinky, I do believe you actually did say those things, but I will accept your statement above as is and will hold you to it.


----------



## TCBF (9 Sep 2005)

"What about the flip side? The CF's wearing out of my body parts, causing unnecessary replacement?"

- they may do hip and knee replacements, but brain replacements are a ways off yet.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## kyleg (9 Sep 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Pinky, I do believe you actually did say those things, but I will accept your statement above as is and will hold you to it.



I just read through my posts, and yes, I DID say those things. Unfortunately it seemed more obvious that the situations in my posts were hypothetical while I was typing them than it does now. Just to clarify, all situations relating to the use of issued kit civy side in my posts ARE hypothetical.


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2005)

AKKK

Someone kill this thread.

If I (of all people) defend a decision (not wearing issue kit off duty) of the chain of command - odds are there is a point.

Michael Dorosh hit the nail on the head with his post. 
  The kit belongs to the Queen - end stop

Damn I wear as little issue kit as I can even on duty (it causes cancer dontcha know  ;D)


----------



## kyleg (9 Sep 2005)

Haha, KevinB you really do have a way with words. I was actually starting to get a little riled up because of this silly little issue. Thanks for keeping me grounded  ;D


----------



## TCBF (9 Sep 2005)

"darn I wear as little issue kit as I can even on duty (it causes cancer dontcha know  )"

- What causes cancer, Kevin, the kit or the duty?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## KevinB (9 Sep 2005)

I haven't tried the duty excuse yet  ;D (give me time...)


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2005)

Okay, I think we've all had our fun here - as per Kev's request....


----------

