• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Dress Regs 🤣

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,017
Points
1,010
It does not contravene the NDA. The NDA states that rank designations are found in regulations made by the GiC. That regulation is QR&O 3.01. QR&O 1.23, however, gives the power to the CDS to issue orders that are not inconsistent with the National Defence Act or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister. An interim order directing the use of « sailor » instead of « seaman » while different, is not inconsistent with 3.01.

You can’t possibly tell me that using sailor is contrary to using seaman to the extent that it implies its negation, or that it brings ambiguity.
Its a willy nilly change on the fly to meet the trends of a small segment of society, a SMALL segment.

Hey why use the term "Master" in the ranks Master Corporal and Master SeaMAN? Isn't Master an "oppressive" term from days of slavery? Maybe we can call them "Executive Corporals" instead?

Hey since we are in a willy nilly, anything goes mood (like hair styles and cuts are a free for all sh*tshow as an example), why not have the members of the CAF just wear whatever DEU they feel like?

Screw it, why bother with rank? Lets just hold a free for all style of chain of command.

Or maybe the CAF (you know, the MILITARY) can actually have lawful orders and directions, established and purposeful chain of command and some respect for uniformity along with history and tradition?

What do I know? I am a crusty old retired grunt WO
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
5,576
Points
1,260
Not as dramatic but I started carrying around the page from the dress manual allowing leather belts with NCDs because it seemed stupid to me to wear a flammable belt in FR clothes (plus the CAF dress belts generally suck and don't stay done up anyway). Had to whip that paper out a few times but was fun stopping a few people before they really got wound up; it was a bit like deflating a balloon.

Making friends and influencing people one day at a time I guess.

I've worn a leather fireman's belt for the best part of my career and never been questioned on it. In fact members of ST(A) wore the same belt.

Could it be a wardroom thing ?
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,427
Points
1,140
Nope. Big Nope. That's NOT how its supposed to be done. Are you an "ends justifies the means' kind of guy? That's now the army functioned when I was in. Or wasn't supposed to.
In fact, there is a legal and regulatory framework to do exactly this…

I am the kind of person that tries to do the right thing by doing things right but when doing things right prevents me from doing the right thing, I’ll find grey space that allows me to do the right thing.
 

kev994

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,018
Points
1,260
Or CAF Reddit 😆

The problem seems to occur when some of us can read, we begin to question things instead of blindly following 😉.
That reminds me of a Chief being upset because Cpl Bloggins had “found an obscure QR&O” stating that he could meet with the CO, and insisted that this was not going to be a pleasant conversation for Bloggins. Shortly thereafter Bloggins’ boss’ boss was relieved of their supervisory position for burying a harassment allegation. It’s almost like that QR&O was put there for a reason.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
18,048
Points
1,160
That reminds me of a Chief being upset because Cpl Bloggins had “found an obscure QR&O” stating that he could meet with the CO, and insisted that this was not going to be a pleasant conversation for Bloggins. Shortly thereafter Bloggins’ boss’ boss was relieved of their supervisory position for burying a harassment allegation. It’s almost like that QR&O was put there for a reason.

Angry Badass GIF by Yellowstone
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
7,105
Points
1,110
I've heard some people still think the rain jacket/toque/gloves joke is a real thing.
It was at one time a very real thing. A former BCWO in Shilo made it his duty to “counsel” soldiers exiting the Canex they were in violation of the dress regs.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,876
Points
1,160
It was at one time a very real thing. A former BCWO in Shilo made it his duty to “counsel” soldiers exiting the Canex they were in violation of the dress regs.
Pre Deployment trg for Bosnia, 2VP Bn Gp. We had to walk around Wainwright with four different hats in our pockets. Where we were on the camp determined which hat we had to wear. Shit. You. Not.

Ooh, almost forgot. Could only wear the white balaclava if you were wearing mukluks. White hats and black boots was just soooo last year.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,853
Points
1,360
Pre Deployment trg for Bosnia, 2VP Bn Gp. We had to walk around Wainwright with four different hats in our pockets. Where we were on the camp determined which hat we had to wear. Shit. You. Not.

Ooh, almost forgot. Could only wear the white balaclava if you were wearing mukluks. White hats and black boots was just soooo last year.
My first CSM was at Sarajevo Airport in 1992. We got to talking about "stupid stuff in the Army" one day and he told me about what happened when they arrived in Sarajevo as a sort of lesson from when he was a young Private.

He said their Company Commander wasn't the sharpest knife and the only experience anyone in the Company had was some people had in an area of "operations" was a few had done a "peacekeeping" tour in Cyprus (so basically none).

When they arrived in Sarajevo, the OC ordered the Company to form up in a hollow square with all the vehicles parked behind them in parade format. As they had done in Cyprus they placed all their weapons and FFE in the vehicles and then locked them up with padlocks, like they do at the Infantry School.

He laughed about it but he said the Serbs and Bosnians who were fighting on other side of them must have been pondering just who "these idiotic Canadians were?". One of the belligerent parties decided to send the Company a welcome gift and decided to shell their position with mortars. Everyone was sent scrambling and the drivers, who had the keys to the padlocks ended up under random vehicles and nobody was able to get their weapons or FFE 🤣.

He ended the story with a "Don't worry Sir, if you think things are stupid sometimes, trust me, it used to be a lot worse!" 🤣
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,276
Points
1,040
I've worn a leather fireman's belt for the best part of my career and never been questioned on it. In fact members of ST(A) wore the same belt.

Could it be a wardroom thing ?
I don't know, only one person that said anything was an officer, the rest were NCOs.

Maybe because I'm an officer they thought I should wear the stupid plastic belt (with the crappy fastener)? 🤷‍♂️ It's not like a commision comes with some kind of fire resistant spell (although that would be cool).

I don't like to tell folks what to do without being willing to do it myself, so kept my second layer nearby etc, so this just seemed like a normal extension of that, as I would normally suggest to folks they wear a leather belt vice the DEU one. I've seen the FR testing on our NCDs, and makes a huge difference to have the layers on, so makes zero sense to have a belt on their which would turn into a molten burning mess within the same test, and the post fire burns from people having synthetic tshirts etc melt onto them is pretty grim.
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
9,267
Points
1,110
For « shall », yes, we need to use the rank designations in 3.01, until an order, which is NOT inconsistent with but may be different from the QR&Os, is issued by the CDS and supersedes 3.01..

If a QR&O explicitly names the different ranks with the imperative ‘shall’ (which it does), and if a QR&O is a regulatory instrument issued by the GiC (which it is), that how is an order, NOT of a regulatory nature, by the CDS, to use different ranks possibly not inconsistent with a regulation (the aforementioned QR&O). ‘Different’, in the context of “the law says call you that rank but instead I’ll call this other one”, is inherently and unequivocally inconsistent with the regulation.

You’re trying to tap dance around this one with a Bill-Clintonesque redefinition of what ‘inconsistent’ means, but it’s a word with plain meaning and plain definition.

QR&O is law and prescribes the ranks. The only legal way to change those ranks is to change that law, which in this case can be done by regulatory instrument.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,853
Points
1,360
If a QR&O explicitly names the different ranks with the imperative ‘shall’ (which it does), and if a QR&O is a regulatory instrument issued by the GiC (which it is), that how is an order, NOT of a regulatory nature, by the CDS, to use different ranks possibly not inconsistent with a regulation (the aforementioned QR&O). ‘Different’, in the context of “the law says call you that rank but instead I’ll call this other one”, is inherently and unequivocally inconsistent with the regulation.

You’re trying to tap dance around this one with a Bill-Clintonesque redefinition of what ‘inconsistent’ means, but it’s a word with plain meaning and plain definition.

QR&O is law and prescribes the ranks. The only legal way to change those ranks is to change that law, which in this case can be done by regulatory instrument.
I have no problem with the rank change but I want to law to change and for it to be done properly.

I don't think that's difficult to ask is it?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,276
Points
1,040
The Navy is great at saying we'll do stuff later but we want to announce it now; we've been doing it for decades with maintenance so not surprised they did it with a simple rank name change (despite there being plenty of time to update it).

There is at least 1 NAVORD that includes direction that runs counter to CDS CAF general safety orders that the RCN has known about for well over 18 months but won't rescind that portion. Not sure if that's actually an illegal order, but as it's a life safety issue they won't address, don't think this (or the stupid moustache pin, or whatever other stupid things they have done/will do) will get prioritized to actually do properly.
 
Top