Jerome

According to the Sunday Times, defence chiefs want to force Territorial Army (TA) soldiers to serve 1 year in every 5 years on operational service (ie Iraq, Afghanistan). See here for the story.

Personally, as a serving TA soldier, I think this is outrageous.

Firstly, the TA is having huge problems with retention and recruitment. The TA being routinely used for Iraq and Afghanistan is putting many off. That is with the possible prospect of about 6 months operational service every 5 years, because you are not certain to be called up. What would a guaranteed year away every 5 years do?

Not only that, but what employer in his right mind would employ a member of the TA? I bloody wouldn't for starters. I'd be in 2 minds with the current situation, let alone if this madness goes through.

I work in IT as contractor. I would find it very hard to get work after having barely touched a computer for a year, as current experience is everything in IT. Also, I doubt the Army would pay anywhere near my full salary.

Typical that successive defence budget cuts have lead to this situation. A TA soldier cannot compare to the experience of a regular soldier. That was fine for the home defence role, where you might be guarding a site of importance in the UK. But it is not fine in a fully operational environment such as Iraq/Afghanistan. When I was called up in 2003, I got 8 days extra training to prepare me for Iraq. Yet I was doing the job of someone who had spent at least 7 years doing the same job full time.

I can only hope that these defence chiefs are trying to embarrass this government into increasing the size of the army. If they proceed with this, I shall take my 20 years of military experience off to another non-military volunteer service.

davyboy

Whats the problem, you wanted to play soldiers and now you can do it for real.

Coffin Dodger

You've got to be a ******* idiot to join in the first place. Don't see any problem with using the TA's in Afganistan / Iraq, just suitably rewarding stupidity. What exactly did you think you were signing up for Playing with big guns at the weekend and having a bit of fun with the lads?

KiwiGTI

WTF did you join for? You are obviously there just to have a play and further your own ego. Cowards like you don't deserve to be in the TA.

DCI Gene Hunt

Why sign up for it if you aren't prepared to do it



They should make you pay all the money you've fiddled out of the TA back

Geezer

AFAIK the TA has been used in all armed conflicts since it's inception. If you want to play at being soldier, go paintballing, don't join the TA!!! Some people......

From the TA website "The TA is not a separate Army. It is an integral part of the Army’s organisation and is designed to reinforce the Regular Army wherever necessary. " Perhaps you should read up a bit more before signing stuff.

Geezer

KiwiGTI

The Home Guard was disbanded in the 50's.

Jerome

Even if you think anyone is mad for joining, this proposal could cause so many people to leave, that there isn't a TA. Would this be an improvement on the current situation?

For the record, when I joined, it was more of a military drinking club. The Iraq war in 2003 changed all that. Having recently rejoined after leaving, I knew what I was letting myself in for. However, I didn't sign up to devote a quarter of my time to the whim of politicians.

How would most peoples careers be affected? What about their families who have to see there loved ones disappear for a year at a time?

You may as well be in the regular army. At least you get decent amounts of training (not to mention kit) before you find yourself in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Jerome

I know. The TA's role used to be split into 2 roles. One to support the regular army and one to defend the UK, which was called home defence.

DCI Gene Hunt

For the record can we have all our tax back, you know the cash which you've fiddled out of us in expenses over the years, while you were a member of your 'drinking club'

Jerome

Who the **** gave you the right to call me a coward? I had the option of getting out of active service in 2003. I chose not to exercise that option because I felt it my duty to serve.

Also, if need be, I would go again. My point is I shouldn't be forced to go every 5 years. They have moved the goalposts.

You are rather brave when behind the keyboard, I bet you wouldn't be as brave face to face. Who's the real coward here?

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

According to the Sunday Times, defence chiefs want to force Territorial Army (TA) soldiers to serve 1 year in every 5 years on operational service (ie Iraq, Afghanistan). See here for the story.

Personally, as a serving TA soldier, I think this is outrageous.

Firstly, the TA is having huge problems with retention and recruitment. The TA being routinely used for Iraq and Afghanistan is putting many off. That is with the possible prospect of about 6 months operational service every 5 years, because you are not certain to be called up. What would a guaranteed year away every 5 years do?

FTRS can forefit there employer protection and go when ever they volunteer.
Only Volunteers now. No compulsory Mobilisation.
Longer distance between tours would help retention and recruitment.
My unit op tours is retention positive. Going with your own Capbadge helps.
RFA 96 etc is being updated. Make yourself aware of the facts first.
Having served 24 years regular and 2 years as TA NRPS I think I know whats going on and done 3 tours in three years.

Not only that, but what employer in his right mind would employ a member of the TA? I bloody wouldn't for starters. I'd be in 2 minds with the current situation, let alone if this madness goes through.

See above.

I work in IT as contractor. I would find it very hard to get work after having barely touched a computer for a year, as current experience is everything in IT. Also, I doubt the Army would pay anywhere near my full salary.

SaBRE - Support for Britain's Reservists and Employers SI 2005/859 gives gudance on retraining bonuses and Financial incentives given to employers for Mobilised Reservists. You will also receive an uplift in pay if your Mobilised wage is less than your civilian wage. So you could end up getting more than a guy that does the job full time 365 days of the year and not as a hobby/money/social career. + Operational Bonuses and your TA Bounty!!!!! So, your already £3700 up on a regular anyway!

Dad's Army TA Dinking clubs are gone. It's real now and not just games. Doing the minimum for your Bounty is not enough now.


Typical that successive defence budget cuts have lead to this situation. A TA soldier cannot compare to the experience of a regular soldier. That was fine for the home defence role, where you might be guarding a site of importance in the UK. But it is not fine in a fully operational environment such as Iraq/Afghanistan. When I was called up in 2003, I got 8 days extra training to prepare me for Iraq. Yet I was doing the job of someone who had spent at least 7 years doing the same job full time.

Times have changed. You recieve a minimum of 12 weeks training, preparation and leave before hand as long as you are organised and your receiving unit is switched on.

No-one is perfect however and mistakes are made, just like civilian street. And yes there are life threatening jobs in civvy street too!


I can only hope that these defence chiefs are trying to embarrass this government into increasing the size of the army. If they proceed with this, I shall take my 20 years of military experience off to another non-military volunteer service.

20 years of Military service and you are not as experienced as someone who as done 7 years!!!!!

john_s

iTrader: (1)

I agree with Jerome. The TA was itended to augment the Regular Army as required, not to provide cheap replacements for Regular units after successive defence cuts and during the current period of the Army being under-strength.

If that proposal were implemented, I believe people will leave the TA en masse, and there will be a huge problem for future recruitment. All those currently serving know there is a chance that they could be called up for active service, but they have not joined to spend a guaranteed 20% of their time as a soldier. I image that will be a large deterrent to potential recruits.

The TA now is completely different to how it was only 5 or so years ago, and it changed massively in the few years prior to that.

One of our employees is in the TA has recently been called up. He's getting 3 weeks training (though how much of that will be actually spent training I don't know), before being flown out to serve in Iraq.

John.

pslewis

You have taken the Queens shilling ..... now play soldiers for real.

DCI Gene Hunt

Augment = to increase, make larger or supplement

And that is what they're intending to do

KiwiGTI

Well I completely disagree. I was in the TA in NZ and spent 3 months in the first Gulf War. When I joined I knew that it was always a possibility, I never joined under any illusion that I was joining a drinking club.

The TA, especially in the last 15 years, has always been designed to supplement and backfill RF units.

ScoobyDoo555

I've just been having a debate with my work colleague about this. and it's escallated to the whole armed forces thing.

I personally think that regardless of what capacity you sign up for, as part of the armed forces, it is your duty to protect Queen and Country (ie, us civillians). My example is that I'm on the white cliffs of Dover, having a picnic with the family, when a Bad-Guy climbs the cliff face in preparation to firstly kill me, then go on to wipe out the population.
Between me and the baddy, is an armed forces member. Regardless of job, I expect them to protect my life.


His arguement is based on the questioning the contract you sign when signing up. (Basically he thinks it's wrong!) His arguement is that there are plenty of roles within the armed forces that do not require any form of conflict.
My arguement is moreso that in practice, this is true. However, in theory, once the "real" army haved been mowed down, then those in a non-conflict job will be called upon to defend/fight.


I've digressed slightly though, as I'm of the opinion that as TA, you sign up as a part-time soldier. Therefore, you are a member of the armed forces. If your tour of duty arrives, then tough. Only an idiot signs up for a potentially life-threatening pass-time in the knowledge that by the very nature of what they're doing (in this case, playing toy soldiers) could result in them being put in a situation where their life WILL be at risk.

If however, (play Devil's advocate), you're questioning the legality of sending TA to conflict areas on a Tour of Duty, when there are plenty of regular recruits (this is my impression of the whole ethos of the TA - they get used up prior to National Service/General public conscription), then maybe you have grounds for grumbling.

Dan

Jerome

You weren't listening. They are talking about compulsory mobilisation every 4 years. FTRS area different matter altogether, why bring them up?


I am well aware that times have changed and that the days of military drinking clubs are gone. I also guarantee you that I would be worse off, regardless of £3700 over my regular counterparts salary.

Financial incentives to an employer! Women get paid less than men because they may go off on maternity leave. What employer, regardless of incentives, would be prepared for a member of staff to only be there 80% of the time. You would never get passed the interview.

Even before 2003, I never had the TA on my CV because employers assumed you would spend lots of time away. It must be much worse now when looking for another job.

At least that is one thing they have improved.

By my rough calculations, someone with 7 years regular service has done 2100 days (on a 300 day working year). A TA soldier with 20 years service, doing double the minimum number of weekends each year, would have done around 780 days.

Also, I didn't do any of the 3 roles I had trained for when I was out there.

stilover

He could be one of the Scoobynet "Cage Fighters".

Then you'd be fcuked

stilover

Personally, I think if you've joined the TA, then you are prepared to go to war whenever your country needs you. Whether that's 1 week every year, or 1 year every 5 years.
Active Soldiers fighting in Iraq or wherever need time off. Bring in the TA, and give everyone their turn to go home and see their families.

IMHO if you joined then you can't moan. That's why I'd never join.

jasey

The sooner the TA is disbanded the better.

It's clearly now just a way of having a cheap on demand army to go and invade countries with oil that wont give it to you.

And if they get shot on duty it probably doesn't cost as much .

DCI Gene Hunt

Thought we were all 6'1" multi-millionaire cage fighters

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

I am well aware that times have changed and that the days of military drinking clubs are gone. I also guarantee you that I would be worse off, regardless of £3700 over my regular counterparts salary. Quote from jerome

I have mobilised over 150 soldiers in 3 years and not one as been financially worse off.

Financial incentives to an employer! Women get paid less than men because they may go off on maternity leave. What employer, regardless of incentives, would be prepared for a member of staff to only be there 80% of the time. You would never get passed the interview.

Not in the army.Litigation alert!!!!!



Also, if you feel your circumstances would be disadvantaged then you can put in a revoke on your call up.

If your self employed you are very likery to be released. I have only seen one appeal revoked.

"Better a willing volunteer than ten pressed men"

Discuss your situation with your employer and tell him all about the financial benefits to him. Bleating is not an option.

If your unit can't get the Intelligent Mob procedures sorted then go to one who does.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

As I said already, if their civvy pay is more than their TA pay they get pay parity (that me the the same). So, therefore TA are more expensive to send than Regulars.

Muppet alert

jasey

I didn't realise the regular army only got paid 1 year out of 5.

My apologies

OllyK

Unless it's changed in the last couple of years, the pay does get made up to a certain extent, but it is capped.

orbix

When you did tour, was you not on double what a regular was on?
A lot reservists are.
As a contractor you should be use to finding work.

You signed up to be a tool of the government, they've paid for your training why shouldn't they used you?
After 4 years of training I would have thought you've want to put it in practise.

1 year in 5 is still a better deal than being a reg.

But if you don't agree with whats happening don't be a part of it, stop wasting tax payers money.

Jerome

It appears the situation is different now, but when I got mobilised, I earned exactly double the cap for my rank. When I started to try and prove hardship, they took my cohabiting girlfriend's salary into account. If my (rich) civvy company hadn't stepped in to cover the difference, I would have been 10's of thousands worse off.

I gather the cap now, regardless of rank, is £600 per day. I wouldn't be worse off now financially in the short term, but a year of not working in IT makes you less employable than someone who has been in constant employment. I would have this hassle every 4 years for the remainder of my time in the TA. It would be even worse if I decided to be a permie again.


I meant in civvy street women get paid less than men, not in the army. Therefore TA personnel could also find themselves earning less in civvy street. That alone could cause even the most keen soldier to leave.


As I said before, as a contractor, technically I am my own boss.

Any problems I had on mobilisation in 2003 were with the army system as a whole, not with my unit.

Paul3446

Why am I thinking "Gareth" from The Office?

jaytc2003

iTrader: (1)

Im 6'2"