British Military Current Events

[daftandbarmy]

By that logic, after this year in Parliament, England should have won hands down.

 

[daftandbarmy]

British Army accommodations... semi-waterproof

https://twitter.com/x/status/1604574380272803840

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm sure that the Admiral will take this well

Military should 'do what they're told' and not express views on strike cover, Rees-Mogg says​

The job of the military is to "do what they're told by the civilian authorities", MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has said in response to the head of the Armed Forces saying personnel should not be used as the "ultimate backstop" to cover striking public sector workers this Christmas.

The former business secretary and Tory back-bencher was responding to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin's comments when asked how long the military can be relied upon to provide cover.

"Military Aid for the Civilian Authority (Maca) is a completely routine aspect of how this country is governed and they're called upon when necessary," Mr Rees-Mogg said.

"I'm a bit worried about senior military figures sounding off on their opinions.

"I think the job of the military is there to do what they're told by the civilian authorities, it's not for the military to be expressing their views.

"I don't think this is constitutionally how it should be.

"The military are not there to be making political statements about what they will or won't do, that should be carried out in private.

"I'm surprised they're making these comments."

Mr Rees-Mogg's comments come after Admiral Sir Tony told the Sunday Telegraph it would be "slightly perilous" to expect the British military to regularly stand in for striking public sector workers.

He added that military personnel are "not a spare capacity".

"We're busy and we're doing lots of things on behalf of the nation," Admiral Sir Tony added.

"We've got to focus on our primary role."

It comes after confirmation that 1,200 military personnel will be used to cover striking ambulance and Border Force staff in the coming weeks.
Admiral Sir Tony has said that the deployment is "miles off" impacting operational effectiveness, but it "has an impact on individuals and we have to acknowledge that".

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said strikes over Christmas are 'ruining lives' of Armed Forces personnel.
And the former commanding officer of 1st Battalion Scots Guards, Colonel (retired) Lincoln Jopp, said military personnel called in to cover striking workers should get a daily bonus for their efforts.

Military should 'do what they're told' and not express views on strike cover, Rees-Mogg says

The Conservative MP said the military "are not there to be making political statements about what they will or won't do".

www.forces.net

 

[dimsum]

I'm sure that the Admiral will take this well

Military should 'do what they're told' and not express views on strike cover, Rees-Mogg says​

The job of the military is to "do what they're told by the civilian authorities", MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has said in response to the head of the Armed Forces saying personnel should not be used as the "ultimate backstop" to cover striking public sector workers this Christmas.

The former business secretary and Tory back-bencher was responding to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin's comments when asked how long the military can be relied upon to provide cover.

"Military Aid for the Civilian Authority (Maca) is a completely routine aspect of how this country is governed and they're called upon when necessary," Mr Rees-Mogg said.

"I'm a bit worried about senior military figures sounding off on their opinions.

"I think the job of the military is there to do what they're told by the civilian authorities, it's not for the military to be expressing their views.

"I don't think this is constitutionally how it should be.

"The military are not there to be making political statements about what they will or won't do, that should be carried out in private.

"I'm surprised they're making these comments."

Mr Rees-Mogg's comments come after Admiral Sir Tony told the Sunday Telegraph it would be "slightly perilous" to expect the British military to regularly stand in for striking public sector workers.

He added that military personnel are "not a spare capacity".

"We're busy and we're doing lots of things on behalf of the nation," Admiral Sir Tony added.

"We've got to focus on our primary role."

It comes after confirmation that 1,200 military personnel will be used to cover striking ambulance and Border Force staff in the coming weeks.
Admiral Sir Tony has said that the deployment is "miles off" impacting operational effectiveness, but it "has an impact on individuals and we have to acknowledge that".

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said strikes over Christmas are 'ruining lives' of Armed Forces personnel.
And the former commanding officer of 1st Battalion Scots Guards, Colonel (retired) Lincoln Jopp, said military personnel called in to cover striking workers should get a daily bonus for their efforts.

Military should 'do what they're told' and not express views on strike cover, Rees-Mogg says

The Conservative MP said the military "are not there to be making political statements about what they will or won't do".

www.forces.net

 

[Halifax Tar]

You took the .gif right out of my reply box lol

 

[Spencer100]

Yet?

The PA has been screaming an announcement for ten years could a Mrs Margaret and a Mr Ronald to please pick up the red courtesy phone the globe is in need.

And if you have a seen Winston we could use him too.

 

[daftandbarmy]

20 quid! Now I can pay off my tab at the pub... for yesterday

£20 daily bonus for troops covering Christmas strikes​

Military personnel covering public sector strikes over the Christmas period are to be paid daily bonuses of £20.

The Ministry of Defence said the payments were for those asked to step in from 19 December to 2 January.

Around 625 personnel are filling in for Border Force staff striking at UK airports this week.

Members of the armed forces do not have the right to strike, and can be called upon to guarantee emergency services during industrial action.

But Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin recently cautioned against seeing the military as an "ultimate backstop" during walkouts.

The MoD said the £20 payments would come out of the department's budget, and be made for each day of cover or training beforehand.

The payments are after tax and would be paid to military staff as part of their monthly salary, the department added.

Military staff covered ambulance strikes earlier this week during action by the Unison, Unite and the GMB unions striking over pay.

Ministers said they would help get people to A&E more quickly, but would not be allowed to drive ambulances under blue lights, go through red lights or break the speed limit.

Military staff have also been asked to cover striking Border Force officials from the PCS union at six airports and the Port of Newhaven in Sussex.

Military payments review​

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said he was "incredibly grateful" that the armed forces were going "above and beyond" at short notice to keep services going.

He blamed unions for the industrial action, accusing them of holding "our public services to ransom".

Shadow defence secretary John Healey said the government's "small gesture is better than nothing" but forces were "once again having to bail out Conservative ministers who are grinding our country to a halt".

The MoD also said the current rules under which it charges for the use of military staff would be reviewed early next year.

The procedure, under which the MoD bills other government departments for using the armed forces, has been used increasingly in recent years because of their role in the response to the Covid pandemic.

The government has set out a long-term ambition to reduce its reliance on the regular armed forces during emergency situations.

In a strategy document published earlier this week, it said using military staff should be a "last resort" and in future it wanted to make greater use of reservists.

Last week, the top civil servant at the MoD told MPs it was charging other parts of government £4,000 per week per staff member to ensure they were being used as a "last resort" during industrial action.

£20 daily bonus for troops covering Christmas strikes

About 1,300 members of the armed forces are covering for ambulance and border staff walkouts.

www.bbc.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

Pay attention to this demonstration....

Airports running ‘better than usual’ in ‘embarrassing’ blow to Border Force strikes​

Government had been braced for disruption as a week-long strike by 1,000 passport staff at six airports began

Passengers have said they wish the Army could man the borders permanently after airports ran smoothly on Friday in an “embarrassing” blow to striking Border Force workers.

The Government had been braced for disruption as a week-long strike by 1,000 passport staff at six airports began.

Families with young children, who cannot use electronic gates, were expected to bear the brunt of delays at border control, but there was no widespread disruption as travellers arrived home.

Military personnel and civil servants filled in for Border Force at major airports, including Gatwick and Heathrow, with passengers who had expected “carnage” suggesting border checks were quicker than normal.

Oliver Cohen, 31, from London, whose flight from Antigua to Heathrow landed at 9am, said the “military precision” of passport control was “embarrassing” for striking Border Force officers.

“It was probably the best experience I’ve had – no more than five minutes,” he told The Telegraph. “The e-gates were all open and the Army on all the border control desks were rapidly getting people through – far better than usual, to be honest.

“I was expecting huge delays and have engagement celebrations this afternoon, so it was a big relief. You can see when it’s run by the Army it’s on a different level of efficiency, they’re working at pace.

“To a large degree I think it makes the strike somewhat irrelevant and maybe even embarrassing for border control. Can we have the Army in charge every day, please?”

Trevor Boswell, who arrived into Heathrow Terminal Four from Jeddah, said he had “flown many times” into the airport but the soldiers “showed how it could and should be done”.
“I was very impressed with the number of servicemen manning both the counters and guiding passengers – they handled me with professionalism and in a calm manner, and within a few short minutes I was through,” he told The Telegraph.

“In comparison, I would say that 80 per cent of the time, you are processed and receive a cold and rude reception by the usual Border Force staff. Do I think this puts the position of the striking force under scrutiny? Yes, and rightly so.”

Travellers were warned to prepare for disruption at Heathrow, Birmingham, Cardiff, Gatwick, Glasgow and Manchester airports, and the port of Newhaven in East Sussex, with members of the Public and Commercial Services Union striking every day other than Tuesday until the end of the year.



As the union warned that the strikes could go on for months, the Ministry of Defence said members of the Armed Forces would get a £20 bonus for every day they spend training or deployed during the festive period.



In Manchester, Paul Simon, 42, from Wales, arrived at 11:35am and said he was out on the M56 just half an hour later thanks to the Royal Navy’s efficiency after the e-gates did not work.

“The Navy was at the available gates and asked the normal questions,” he said. “They scanned my passport and I was on my way.”

“I fully support strikes and I believe people deserve a decent wage, but after coming back from Dubai, where even trains are driverless, I also believe some services need to be modernised and maybe that sometimes means jobs have to go.”

Sneha Mistri, a choreographer, said there were “no delays at all” arriving at Birmingham from Madrid, adding: “It was totally clear at the gates on arrival, I didn’t notice any disruption. It seemed efficient – I’ve had delays at Birmingham before, but today was all clear.”

Data compiled by Cirium, an aviation data company, shows that 1,290 flights will arrive at airports affected by the strike on Friday, equating to over 250,000 seats. A further 1,009 flights, carrying up to 200,000 passengers, will arrive on Christmas Eve.

The airports facing strike action are set to process around 60 per cent of all arrivals in the UK by air over the two days.

Aviation sources also said queues were moving faster than they could have hoped. One said: “They are moving smoothly. Most people are making connections easily, which shows little disruption. Border Force will know whether it’s operating quicker, but maybe they won't want to admit that.”

Heathrow said immigration halls were “free flowing” while Gatwick said it was not experiencing any delays.

The Home Office said it had “robust plans in place to minimise any delays” but said “passengers should be prepared for disruption and take action to plan ahead”.

A spokesman said: “Those intending to travel into the UK over strike days should keep up to date with the latest advice from operators to check how the strike action will affect their journey.”

Airports running ‘better than usual’ in ‘embarrassing’ blow to Border Force strikes

Government had been braced for disruption as a week-long strike by 1,000 passport staff at six airports began

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[OldSolduer]

Yet?

The PA has been screaming an announcement for ten years could a Mrs Margaret and a Mr Ronald to please pick up the red courtesy phone the globe is in need.

And if you have a seen Winston we could use him too.

Agreed and maybe Stephen could make a guest appearance? I think he'd get along well with the above three.

 

[MilEME09]

UK border forces went on strike, Government sent in the military to take over temporarily. The result? Everything is running even smoother then before, who knew a few Corporals could do the job better...

Airports running ‘better than usual’ in ‘embarrassing’ blow to Border Force strikes

Government had been braced for disruption as a week-long strike by 1,000 passport staff at six airports began

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[dimsum]

UK border forces went on strike, Government sent in the military to take over temporarily. The result? Everything is running even smoother then before, who knew a few Corporals could do the job better...

Airports running ‘better than usual’ in ‘embarrassing’ blow to Border Force strikes

Government had been braced for disruption as a week-long strike by 1,000 passport staff at six airports began

www.telegraph.co.uk

Next minute - British Army deserts en masse to work at Heathrow

 

[daftandbarmy]

Next minute - British Army deserts en masse to work at Heathrow

Until they find out they've nicked all the gucci kit from the luggage

 

[daftandbarmy]

 

[Gunnar]

It seems to me that only in the armed forces does the concept of responsibility still carry any weight. What I mean is, soldiers are tasked with carrying out orders of those above them, and to accomplish the end mission in accordance with those orders. Similarly, officers are accountable for having their tasks accomplished by providing clear direction and motivation to accomplish the task. I find today too many people are unwilling to a) give clear-cut orders (not suggestions, direction, or assistance) and b) take responsibility for receiving instruction and carrying out the orders, regardless of how they may feel about them.

I'm not an A-type personality. I'm not a huge fan of following the rules to the exception of all else. That being said, I am a huge fan of following rules that make sense, or understanding that while the rule may not make sense in a particular case, that if following it doesn't get in the way of accomplishing the mission, that you follow the rules. Rules, in general, are good thing. Hierarchies were established for a reason. If you signed up for a job, or a task, or hell, even volunteer work, then you follow the rules or the established hierarchy. Yet today bosses are afraid to say "this is what I want you to do, go do it" and employees don't say "yes boss, I will carry out your instruction" and then proceed to actually do it. Worse, in volunteer positions you get "Well, I'm a volunteer" when someone is asked why they didn't accomplish X task they didn't feel like doing. To my mind, if you sign up, volunteer or no, then you accept how things are, and you carry out instructions because you said you would. It's called integrity. Sometimes you need to go outside the rules to make things work, and that's a personal risk, but without a command structure and basic plan in place, there is little room for such initiative, because you can't count on anyone following through on the basics.

Armies, by definition, have to be an anachronism in that they have to get the job done. Taking the hill, delivering the ammo, or bringing the dispatch to HQ have to be accomplished no matter what, or people die and battles are lost, all for the want of a horseshoe nail. Your feelings, anxiety and sense of self-importance need to be subordinated to the needs of the organization, because that is what you said you would do - the system has to work, and the closer you adhere to the overall plan, then provided it is a good, or at least not terrible plan, then the more efficiently the process will work.

Armies are being poached by governments for all sorts of non-military tasks when they need something accomplished, simply because there is a culture of "getting the job done", and some level of pride in supporting the organisation to get the job done. It isn't really a surprise that when the army takes over, then the job gets done. The question is, while they are doing so, who is doing their job?

 

[dimsum]

It seems to me that only in the armed forces does the concept of responsibility still carry any weight. What I mean is, soldiers are tasked with carrying out orders of those above them, and to accomplish the end mission in accordance with those orders. Similarly, officers are accountable for having their tasks accomplished by providing clear direction and motivation to accomplish the task. I find today too many people are unwilling to a) give clear-cut orders (not suggestions, direction, or assistance) and b) take responsibility for receiving instruction and carrying out the orders, regardless of how they may feel about them.

I'm not an A-type personality. I'm not a huge fan of following the rules to the exception of all else. That being said, I am a huge fan of following rules that make sense, or understanding that while the rule may not make sense in a particular case, that if following it doesn't get in the way of accomplishing the mission, that you follow the rules. Rules, in general, are good thing. Hierarchies were established for a reason. If you signed up for a job, or a task, or hell, even volunteer work, then you follow the rules or the established hierarchy. Yet today bosses are afraid to say "this is what I want you to do, go do it" and employees don't say "yes boss, I will carry out your instruction" and then proceed to actually do it. Worse, in volunteer positions you get "Well, I'm a volunteer" when someone is asked why they didn't accomplish X task they didn't feel like doing. To my mind, if you sign up, volunteer or no, then you accept how things are, and you carry out instructions because you said you would. It's called integrity. Sometimes you need to go outside the rules to make things work, and that's a personal risk, but without a command structure and basic plan in place, there is little room for such initiative, because you can't count on anyone following through on the basics.

Armies, by definition, have to be an anachronism in that they have to get the job done. Taking the hill, delivering the ammo, or bringing the dispatch to HQ have to be accomplished no matter what, or people die and battles are lost, all for the want of a horseshoe nail. Your feelings, anxiety and sense of self-importance need to be subordinated to the needs of the organization, because that is what you said you would do - the system has to work, and the closer you adhere to the overall plan, then provided it is a good, or at least not terrible plan, then the more efficiently the process will work.

Armies are being poached by governments for all sorts of non-military tasks when they need something accomplished, simply because there is a culture of "getting the job done", and some level of pride in supporting the organisation to get the job done. It isn't really a surprise that when the army takes over, then the job gets done. The question is, while they are doing so, who is doing their job?

I don't disagree, but the other aspect is that the military is one of the few (only?) groups where govt can demand action.

You can't task a Public Servant to do something that's not part of their job description.

 

[dapaterson]

You can't task a Public Servant to do something that's not part of their job description.

TBH, there are days where's it's even hard to get them to do the things that are in their job description...

 

[daftandbarmy]

It seems to me that only in the armed forces does the concept of responsibility still carry any weight. What I mean is, soldiers are tasked with carrying out orders of those above them, and to accomplish the end mission in accordance with those orders. Similarly, officers are accountable for having their tasks accomplished by providing clear direction and motivation to accomplish the task. I find today too many people are unwilling to a) give clear-cut orders (not suggestions, direction, or assistance) and b) take responsibility for receiving instruction and carrying out the orders, regardless of how they may feel about them.

I'm not an A-type personality. I'm not a huge fan of following the rules to the exception of all else. That being said, I am a huge fan of following rules that make sense, or understanding that while the rule may not make sense in a particular case, that if following it doesn't get in the way of accomplishing the mission, that you follow the rules. Rules, in general, are good thing. Hierarchies were established for a reason. If you signed up for a job, or a task, or hell, even volunteer work, then you follow the rules or the established hierarchy. Yet today bosses are afraid to say "this is what I want you to do, go do it" and employees don't say "yes boss, I will carry out your instruction" and then proceed to actually do it. Worse, in volunteer positions you get "Well, I'm a volunteer" when someone is asked why they didn't accomplish X task they didn't feel like doing. To my mind, if you sign up, volunteer or no, then you accept how things are, and you carry out instructions because you said you would. It's called integrity. Sometimes you need to go outside the rules to make things work, and that's a personal risk, but without a command structure and basic plan in place, there is little room for such initiative, because you can't count on anyone following through on the basics.

Armies, by definition, have to be an anachronism in that they have to get the job done. Taking the hill, delivering the ammo, or bringing the dispatch to HQ have to be accomplished no matter what, or people die and battles are lost, all for the want of a horseshoe nail. Your feelings, anxiety and sense of self-importance need to be subordinated to the needs of the organization, because that is what you said you would do - the system has to work, and the closer you adhere to the overall plan, then provided it is a good, or at least not terrible plan, then the more efficiently the process will work.

Armies are being poached by governments for all sorts of non-military tasks when they need something accomplished, simply because there is a culture of "getting the job done", and some level of pride in supporting the organisation to get the job done. It isn't really a surprise that when the army takes over, then the job gets done. The question is, while they are doing so, who is doing their job?

99% of people will do their jobs under the right circumstances, and the military has no particular ‘moral high ground’ in this regard IMHO.

Although, having said that, the UK has seemed more than happy to use troops as scab labour over the years, which is a bit bizarre.

 

[Gunnar]

The frustrating thing about people doing their job description instead of doing what is required is that bad managers have made the job description necessary because they added requirements at random to cover for their lack of leadership, or that of their bosses, thus paving the way for those who do the job description to the detriment of what needs to be done.

<rant>
The forms are filled out, the work is authorized, the work is assessed, approved, safety-analysed, and assigned to the proper department. However the pot-hole that needed repair six months ago when you started this discussion has turned into a huge hole, which is outside of the scope of a pot-hole filling job, so now the road is closed, upgrades are planned, and a new assessment, with consultants, is necessary to see if the whole road needs to be restructured, but this has been tabled for six months while we complete an environmental assessment...

Umm...is anybody going to fix the bloody road?

</rant>

 

[Colin Parkinson]

99% of people will do their jobs under the right circumstances, and the military has no particular ‘moral high ground’ in this regard IMHO.

Although, having said that, the UK has seemed more than happy to use troops as scab labour over the years, which is a bit bizarre.

Well it's a step up from shooting and bayoneting the strikers.....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well it's a step up from shooting and bayoneting the strikers.....

Aww....