PVR'ing from the R.A.F.-Help!
Gordon Clark
January (20th)
I then got a job working in London starting on April 19th. So I took my gen
application & job offer down to gen office & it was faxed to PMC only to
return with a REFUSED due to operational requirement & a leaving date of 20
July!!! So my question is this, has anyone else come up against this problem
& if so how did you get out? It's like leaving a cult or something!
p.s. I know of at least 10 people who would love to get posted to my
unit.(saddo's!)
p.p.s. I'm not too keen on the 'coming out of the closet' (sexually) option.
Cheers, Gordon.
Roddy K Macdonald
you think you can fool a shrink that you are a nutter. However, you are
then up against Heller's Catch-22: Only a nutter would want to stay in
therefore if you want out you can't be a nutter!
Go on, give your Flight Sergeant a big kiss and tell him you love him.
The bigoted old farts will have you suspended and out the mob before your FS
can thump you. The only risk is, of course, your FS may enjoy it (I hope
you're not at Saxa Vord - he could be desperate).
Regards
Roddy Macdonald
Formerly an OC PSF
Gordon Clark wrote in message ...
David McElhoney
job instead. You could try smoking a joint with the CO.
Roddy K Macdonald
Roddy Macdonald
Edinburgh, Scotland
David McElhoney wrote in message <7deb3r$i29$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
James Dawson
>Hello all, I'm a CPL scopie in the RAF & I put my 6 months notice in in
>January (20th)
>I then got a job working in London starting on April 19th. So I took my gen
>application & job offer down to gen office & it was faxed to PMC only to
>return with a REFUSED due to operational requirement & a leaving date of 20
>July!!! So my question is this, has anyone else come up against this
problem
>& if so how did you get out? It's like leaving a cult or something!
>p.s. I know of at least 10 people who would love to get posted to my
>unit.(saddo's!)
>p.p.s. I'm not too keen on the 'coming out of the closet' (sexually)
option.
>Cheers, Gordon.
>
leave for 18 months and I had to pay 750 pounds (both of which were the
maximums at the time).
--
James Dawson - jamesd...@hotmail.com
If you don't like people being sarcastic, pedantic, inflammatory or just
plain obnoxious, boy have you taken a wrong turning.
Stephen Mee
David McElhoney wrote in message <7deb3r$i29$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>I bet it was some civvie who turned you down, and they have gone for your
>job instead. You could try smoking a joint with the CO.
>
>
>
Brett Palfrey
Gordon Clark wrote in message ...
>Hello all, I'm a CPL scopie in the RAF & I put my 6 months notice in in
>January (20th)
>I then got a job working in London starting on April 19th. So I took my gen
>application & job offer down to gen office & it was faxed to PMC only to
>return with a REFUSED due to operational requirement & a leaving date of 20
>July!!!
Sorry you think you've been hard done by. The RAF does have the option to
keep you as long as its an "operational requirement" What did you expect -
this is an armed force we are talking about here not the 1st Cricklewood
Brownie Guide Troop. On the other hand you could get out quick, become
famous and make yourself a packet into the bargain if you could just get
pregnant....
Tofty
David McElhoney
Brett Palfrey wrote in message <7dguc7$rj2$1...@epos.tesco.net>...
David McElhoney
Stuart Beale
palm of his hand, he then saluted the CO (LtCol) who missed it the point, so
he then saluted the RSM. That did the trick.
He was out of our Regt within 48 Hrs.
The quickest that Ive seen?
Stu...
Roddy K Macdonald wrote in message <7de7is$f8l$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Sorry mate, the 'coming out of the closet' option is the only one, unless
<SNIP>
Gordon Clark
>keep you as long as its an "operational requirement" What did you expect -
>this is an armed force we are talking about here not the 1st Cricklewood
>Brownie Guide Troop. On the other hand you could get out quick, become
>famous and make yourself a packet into the bargain if you could just get
>pregnant....
>
>Tofty
>
>
& the 1st Cricklewood Brownie Guide Troop... One is a fine bunch who love to
travel & shag anything & the other lot get 'great' postings like Buchan &
Saxa Vord!
Seriously though I did expect to be able to take advantage of a great job
opportunity & not just stay as a 'bodge' until someone else arrives. i.e.
For 'Operational requirement' read '[other watch member] is on stand-by so
we'd better not let anyone leave.' Do you think the gen app would have gone
through if they'd put "Just in case of an operational requirement". I think
not.
Poison Dwarf
the Adjutant and say "Sir, I'm taking drugs" and it worked well.
You could try standing for parliament (a bit extreme) or saying you're a
pacifist. Good luck.
Stuart Beale wrote in message <7dh75v$7fn$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Paul Giverin
<agc...@bigfoot.com> writes
>When I was in the Royal Highland Fusiliers, we had loads of guys go up to
>the Adjutant and say "Sir, I'm taking drugs" and it worked well.
>
>You could try standing for parliament (a bit extreme) or saying you're a
>pacifist. Good luck.
>
election.
Some time ago, a colleague of mine PVR'd because he was a pacifist. He
was a fully signed member of CND and genuinely disliked being part of a
military force. Just to mess him about they stuck him on guard duty for
his last two weeks. Can you imagine how secure the base must have been
with a CND member controlling access?
--
Paul Giverin
Paul Gledhill
<gordo...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Hello all, I'm a CPL scopie in the RAF & I put my 6 months notice in in
>January (20th)
>I then got a job working in London starting on April 19th. So I took my gen
>application & job offer down to gen office & it was faxed to PMC only to
>return with a REFUSED due to operational requirement & a leaving date of 20
>July!!! So my question is this, has anyone else come up against this problem
>& if so how did you get out? It's like leaving a cult or something!
>p.s. I know of at least 10 people who would love to get posted to my
>unit.(saddo's!)
>p.p.s. I'm not too keen on the 'coming out of the closet' (sexually) option.
>Cheers, Gordon.
>
You'll hate me for this Gordon. I PVR'd in March 97 and only got out
last Sept. I was surplus to station requirements, the new civvy boss
<spit> was happy to let me go. My old CO Gp Cpt Luke at Brampton
helped me all the way as did the exo and the Padre who I almost had to
shag :-) But all of it got me nowhere, and that's WITH station help.
Happily me new employer waited the eighteen months but I am fully
aware that it's not the case for 99% of people. Sorry to be a wet
blanket but even my old MP tried to help and they didn't want to help.
When I left, PVR's were allegedly running at 500 a month, so doesn't
take Einstein to suss that they haven't got many people spare.
Regards,
Paul Gledhill
Ex Eng Mech EL or whatever they are this week.
*Remove COMPASS to reply*
Ged Higgins
Hi
As those of you like me, who are in, will be aware, strong rumours
have been circulating for some time that we an simply give 28 days
notice and leave. This is of course untrue, no one has yet tried to
challenge the legality of the 18 month ruling in the courts. An
industrial tribunal recently dismissed the case of a naval officer who
tried.
So there is very little scope to do much about it, You can refuse to
undertake a compulsory random drug test and accept the compulsory
admin discharge that will follow.
Try your MP, don't give up!!
Ged
David Jones
You must have a pretty good job to come out too, if your so intent on PVR. I could for
the life of me understand soldiers at my particular Regt applying for PVR. The way I
looked at it they were paying to get out of job.
I know the grass looks greener from the other side etc etc, but life in civvy street comes
as quite a big culture shock to some. Nothing against lorry drivers, but almost every
other one seems to be an ex-squaddie.
Personally I would stick my time out with the RAF. It could be a lot better than the dole
& having been in your situation myself, I'm glad that I didn't PVR.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
--
David Jones
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
email dav...@forave.demon.co.uk
You're never alone with schizophrenia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Clark
David Jones wrote in message <669984...@forave.demon.co.nospam.uk>...
I am very intent on
coming out, mainly as I would have to wait at least 4-5 years from now to be
promoted to SGT & to be honest there aren't many postings left in my trade
that I'd like to go to. The job I'm coming out for is a good one, my mate
left the RAF to join the same company & he's now contracting in Belgium
earning ŁŁŁ's & has a contract lined up in Florida. I know money isn't
everything so even if I stayed at the firm the promotion prospects are very
good, the guy who interviewed me had only been with the firm 2 years (he
joined in the same position as me) now he has a Ł35,000+ a year job, car &
expense account! Also I have been working in civvy street part time for the
past year training people which definitely helped me to get the job. This
also helped me come to terms with the differences between forces/civvy life.
Anyway mate thanks again & all the best.
ttfn Gordon
Bill Davidson
Can someone please enlighten me? What's this PVR thingie? Is it something
peculiar to the RAF 'cos I don't recall it in my twelve years as a "pongo".
Bill Davidson in Hackney
Hardman
Voluntary
Release
Same terminology used in Army (at least when I served 71-85) probably not
used till after National Service ended, as you can only PVR if you join
voluntarily and not conscripted.
Hope that this clears it up
GlasshouseJohn
James Dawson
something different, it is often used as the term for buying yourself out
(proper name is Discharge By Purchase). Premature Voluntary Releases are
free and are usually available for other reasons, such as becoming an MP.
Bill Davidson
Oh I see! Discharge by Purchase? Yes that I knew about. I even tried it once
but the Army reserves the right to tell you to go take a running jump, which
they did in my case. So I had to stay in a while longer. Thank you all.
Bill Davidson
falcon
Bill Davidson wrote in message <7dv7u6$ql1$1...@supernews.com>...
:
:Oh I see! Discharge by Purchase? Yes that I knew about. I even tried it
S'funny, they paid me to leave.... such is life (and a bad reputation).
Falcon
Staffordshire, England
(Remove the Falcon's wing to reply)
--------------------------------------------------------
My PGP Key ID 0x96FFA8D6
G.C...@eastlant.nato.int
take the Gimp mask back to the shop, to stop drooling on the p.c's & to stop
eating the furniture. I have managed to sort things out with the Air Force &
they're releasing me around the middle of May which is okay with the company.
The company's paying me to go on a course (while I'm still in) which I get
time off for on resettlement. Anyway thanks to all for your suggestions
although I can't think of any civvy firm who would employ me with a)a
straitjacket on b)a dress on c)a 'f**k off' tattoo & d)a needle sticking out
of my arm!! Cheers, Gordon.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
newby
Walrus
newby wrote in message <7ej5qv$2vj$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>sad that when a war breaks out you decide to PVR - money well spent!!!
>
>
>
Hmm....
Can't decide if you're a wanker or a tosspot. I don't suppose you
considered that he had to give lots of notice or that there is likely to be
a war going at just about any time.
Grow up you pillock.
N.Elk...@lboro.ac.uk
life, w.h.y., isn't it an accepted fact that any service will have the
civvy type stuff, and add to it whatever the government of the day wants?
Fireman, dustbin man, policeman, sometimes a soldier......Done all that.
Good or bad, it comes with the territory. Why join the army (air force
etc.) if you don't want or worse still are scared of a fight?
And before anyone accuses me of war mongering, I'm one for talking before
scrapping, but if its scrapping thats required, then get stuck in and get
it over with.
I certainly accepted that there might be times when I may find myself doing
something that I might not like, but I took the Queens shilling, and signed
a contract for a period.
Once signed, not much use belly aching about being held to it.
Or am I wrong.?
--
Folding Norman
Walrus <w...@walrus.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<923654263.16394.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Paul Giverin
N.Elk...@lboro.ac.uk writes
>
>I certainly accepted that there might be times when I may find myself doing
>something that I might not like, but I took the Queens shilling, and signed
>a contract for a period.
>Once signed, not much use belly aching about being held to it.
>
>Or am I wrong.?
I think so. The contract works both ways. HM Forces reserve the right to
make the serviceman redundant so why should he not be able to terminate
the contract at a time of his/her choosing?
I think the suggestion made by someone else, to the effect that the
original poster was leaving the Forces to avoid serving in a conflict is
despicable. For one thing, the only RAF servicemen at risk at the moment
are the aircrew.
--
Paul Giverin
LesB
>In article <01be8280$efd39c00$0ed6...@pc95-adne.lboro.ac.uk>,
>N.Elk...@lboro.ac.uk writes
>>
>>I certainly accepted that there might be times when I may find myself doing
>>something that I might not like, but I took the Queens shilling, and signed
>>a contract for a period.
>>Once signed, not much use belly aching about being held to it.
>>
>>Or am I wrong.?
>
>I think so. The contract works both ways. HM Forces reserve the right to
>make the serviceman redundant so why should he not be able to terminate
>the contract at a time of his/her choosing?
I don't think that joining one of the services should be looked on as
a *contract of employment* - you join up to serve your country. In
essence you say that you volunteer to do what your country wants you
to do - 24 / 7 / 365 - for as long as you're in.
This notion of *service* may seem to be an old fashioned viewpoint and
probably not PC, but it was the fundamental view taken by many when I
was in. OK, there were those who joined because they had nothing
better to do, and those who wanted a trade, and those who were
*running* from something, and those who wanted *out*, but essentially
the majority of the guys I was in with, even those mentioned above,
accepted the fact that once in you *hacked* it. Cliches like rough
with the smooth come to mind, but mostly it comes down to personal
attitude. If you want a 9-5 job with occasional trips abroad stay out
of the services and do as I suggested in a previous post - join an
international company. If you want to have a period in your life that
you can look back on with a certain measure of pride - well, work it
out for yourself. [Although *pride* is not a thing to mention in these
PC days, is it!
Anyway, I tend to agree with the view posted by Folding Norman - he's
sounds as if he's of the same generation as me, and we seem to have a
whole different set of values in this regard.
>I think the suggestion made by someone else, to the effect that the
>original poster was leaving the Forces to avoid serving in a conflict is
>despicable. For one thing, the only RAF servicemen at risk at the moment
>are the aircrew.
I'm with you there. Really immature. Such a thing only becomes a joke
when you've served for a while alongside the guy you're saying it to.
LesB
{take out one to mail}
EE Canberra Tribute Site
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lesb/canberra.html
ian hollis
If you takes the money you fight the war as it were
>
>I certainly accepted that there might be times when I may find myself doing
>something that I might not like, but I took the Queens shilling, and signed
>a contract for a period.
>Once signed, not much use belly aching about being held to it.
>
>Or am I wrong.?
Paul Giverin
<one...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>I don't think that joining one of the services should be looked on as
>a *contract of employment*
I'm sorry but it is a contract and if HM Forces can dispense with the
services of many loyal servicemen/women on 22 year engagements then no
one can complain about people who wish to PVR.
>- you join up to serve your country. In
>essence you say that you volunteer to do what your country wants you
>to do - 24 / 7 / 365 - for as long as you're in.
Yes, "As long as you are in", whether that be 5 years or 22 years. I've
known several PVR'ees to be more loyal and committed than "full timers".
>
>This notion of *service* may seem to be an old fashioned viewpoint and
>probably not PC, but it was the fundamental view taken by many when I
>was in. OK, there were those who joined because they had nothing
>better to do, and those who wanted a trade, and those who were
>*running* from something, and those who wanted *out*, but essentially
>the majority of the guys I was in with, even those mentioned above,
>accepted the fact that once in you *hacked* it. Cliches like rough
>with the smooth come to mind, but mostly it comes down to personal
>attitude. If you want a 9-5 job with occasional trips abroad stay out
>of the services and do as I suggested in a previous post - join an
>international company. If you want to have a period in your life that
>you can look back on with a certain measure of pride - well, work it
>out for yourself. [Although *pride* is not a thing to mention in these
>PC days, is it!
I've got no time for wasters but if someone on a 12 year engagement
realises after 4-5 years that he is unhappy, he would be foolish to
continue and the PVR option would be right for him and the service.
We all laugh about getting conned down at the careers office but a lot
of people have been seriously misled. I don't know when you left the RAF
but you may remember the introduction of the Flight Line Mechanics in
the 70's. Some very well educated people were misled by slick
advertising into a trade who's main task was refuelling aircraft and
who's career ladder stopped at SAC.
As for old fashioned view points Les, even HM Forces change with the
times. You must have noticed attitudes changing during your time in the
mob, I certainly did. I left the RAF 5 years ago and enjoyed every
minute of my time but I would find it difficult if I were joining up
now. I would like to think that the RAF is now a more professional
organisation than it's ever been.
>
>Anyway, I tend to agree with the view posted by Folding Norman - he's
>sounds as if he's of the same generation as me, and we seem to have a
>whole different set of values in this regard.
>
>>I think the suggestion made by someone else, to the effect that the
>>original poster was leaving the Forces to avoid serving in a conflict is
>>despicable. For one thing, the only RAF servicemen at risk at the moment
>>are the aircrew.
>
>I'm with you there. Really immature. Such a thing only becomes a joke
>when you've served for a while alongside the guy you're saying it to.
>
>
>LesB
>{take out one to mail}
>EE Canberra Tribute Site
>http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lesb/canberra.html
--
Paul Giverin
Alec Powell
>probably not PC, but it was the fundamental view taken by many when I
>was in.
crap. Too many people want to treat joining the services a a *normal*
job with all the goodies that go with such work. Well it isn't, (or at
least wasn't when I was in). I joined up, alongside a lot of other
blokes because I wanted to do something with my life that I could look
back on with some pride in later years. The attitude of too many, *I
don't think I'll go into work today, the weathers great- I'll phone in
sick* just doesn't wash.
All the youngsters that have asked me whether it's a good idea to join
up I give the same answer: Think long and hard about what you are about
to do. If you're not prepared to give 100% then don't bother.
It's governments and politicians that make people unhappy with their
service life, not the services themselves.
Here endeth the lesson,
Alec
--
"Remember, sir, that you are an Englishman and have therefore won first
prize in the lottery of life" Cecil Rhodes
Alec Powell Watlington Oxon. UK South Oxfordshire War Memorials
http://www.prole.demon.co.uk The Red Kite
mailto:al...@prole.demon.co.uk THE MIDDLESEX REGIMENT
LesB
>I'm sorry but it is a contract and if HM Forces can dispense with the
>services of many loyal servicemen/women on 22 year engagements then no
>one can complain about people who wish to PVR.
OK, if that's what you think. However, my belief is that when joining
you don't sign a *contract* of employment, you sign to declare that
for the next n years you are willing to let whatever politicos are in
power put you in harm's way at virtually a moment's notice and that
you'll train like f**k towards that end - there is no other reason for
the forces - they don't turn a profit and only compete in the world
market in times of peril. Can't see that sort of undertaking as a
*contract* nor does it happen anywhere except in a country's armed
forces.
>>essence you say that you volunteer to do what your country wants you
>>to do - 24 / 7 / 365 - for as long as you're in.
>
>Yes, "As long as you are in", whether that be 5 years or 22 years. I've
>known several PVR'ees to be more loyal and committed than "full timers".
And I've known guys who bitch and moan about anything and everything
but still maintained the *hack it* attitude. Jeeze I've done it
myself! We all remember the famous whinge lines - *they pay overtime
in civvie street*, or *20 million civvies can't be wrong*, or *what
the f**k am I doing here?* There were always guys who wanted to buy
themselves out - always have been always will be. It was/is not a
stigma, shit, it was an ambition! But for every one that did,
thousands didn't - they bitched, *hacked it* - and served.
>>you can look back on with a certain measure of pride - well, work it
>>out for yourself. [Although *pride* is not a thing to mention in these
>>PC days, is it!
>
>I've got no time for wasters but if someone on a 12 year engagement
>realises after 4-5 years that he is unhappy, he would be foolish to
>continue and the PVR option would be right for him and the service.
There's a world of difference about being *unhappy* and being
*unable*. Unable was/<is?> generally not a problem. This meant that
a person just didn't have the wherewithal to continue in the
trade/task that had been set. Not everybody has the ability to do all
jobs, its one of the reasons for basic training. Not only does it
acquaint you with the requirements of your life for the next n years,
it is also meant to filter out those who, although seemingly willing,
would never be able to do it - may even become a liability. It was no
picnic, but if a person is unable to continue they would be moved -
out if that's what it took. But *unhappy*! No, don't buy that as a
*reason*. *Unhappy* goes with the task - its part of the *hacking it*
attitude, like *uncomfortable*.
>We all laugh about getting conned down at the careers office but a lot
>of people have been seriously misled. I don't know when you left the RAF
>but you may remember the introduction of the Flight Line Mechanics in
>the 70's. Some very well educated people were misled by slick
>advertising into a trade who's main task was refuelling aircraft and
>who's career ladder stopped at SAC.
Yes, I just remember FL Mechs. I was demobbed in 74 and they were just
starting. From what I remember of the few I came across they were
mostly short termers - not *career* types at all. The rank ceiling
was also well explained and known about at the time as well. But ISTR
that they had the opportunity to transfer to trade of choice after
doing a certain time. I also recall that they tended to *get in the
way*, especially on a busy flight-line as, although willing they
didn't have the depth of background to be flexible in times of stress.
Not their fault though, they were generally willing but needed
watching. BTW, I also think (and thought - along with thousands of
others) that this was a bad move on the part of the RAF (or MoD).
Should never have happened.
>As for old fashioned view points Les, even HM Forces change with the
>times. You must have noticed attitudes changing during your time in the
>mob, . . .
Right. Its a damn sight more professional these days and, I guess,
the pressures to *keep current* are much higher. Also, eg, knowing
that, say, your brother-in-law has a company car and 20K just adds to
the pressure - the *Jones* syndrome. When I was in, it was mostly
service guys that had cars - an equivalent civvie usually didn't. So
yes, social pressures are prob part of the equation.
>. . . I certainly did. I left the RAF 5 years ago and enjoyed every
>minute of my time but I would find it difficult if I were joining up
>now. I would like to think that the RAF is now a more professional
>organisation than it's ever been.
5 Years ago! What's that (counts on fingers . . .) - 1994. Jeeze
lad, I'd been *out* 20 years by then. ;-) Maybe you're right, its a
whole different world. But me an' Folding Norman and others
unannounced in this group of the *previous* generation will *still* go
on about *hacking it* an' about *things are not the same these days* .
. . we put up with it when we were younger . . .
. . . now its your turn. ;-)
newby
for your information there are ground troops on the ground now!!
surely you know that, politics and publicity are one thing the truth is
another.
>
>I think the suggestion made by someone else, to the effect that the
>original poster was leaving the Forces to avoid serving in a conflict is
>despicable. For one thing, the only RAF servicemen at risk at the moment
>are the aircrew.
>
>--
>Paul Giverin
newby
months on attachment with the harrier force ( was 3 & 4 squadron at raf
gutersloh) and other than the raf regiment i saw no indication of roughing
it in any sense!! and the harrier force are the only raf unit that deploys
in the field to my knowledge
when i returned to real soldiering it was a shock being brought back to
reality. that was a time for contemplating PVR
further it is my understanding that the 22 engagement is long dead with the
max being 9 years. anyone unsure should sign on for 3 and see how things
are rather than signing on for 9 getting the extra pay and then moaning they
dont like it any more.
LesB
>i have read about the hacking and tough times the raf endure, i spent 18
>months on attachment with the harrier force ( was 3 & 4 squadron at raf
>gutersloh) and other than the raf regiment i saw no indication of roughing
>it in any sense!! and the harrier force are the only raf unit that deploys
>in the field to my knowledge
The term *hack it* does not mean *rough it*. It can do of course, but
in general context the meaning is much broader.
Paul Giverin
freeserve.co.uk> writes
>i think you will find that the groundcrew are not at risk only the pilots,
>for your information there are ground troops on the ground now!!
>
>>
>>I think the suggestion made by someone else, to the effect that the
>>original poster was leaving the Forces to avoid serving in a conflict is
>>despicable. For one thing, the only RAF servicemen at risk at the moment
>>are the aircrew.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Paul Giverin
Max White
"From Jan 1991, all recruits are enlisted on an Open Engagement, for a
period of 22 years service from age 18 or the date of enlistment, whichever
is the later. Subject to giving 12 months notice and any time bar that may
be in force, all soldiers have the right to leave on the completion of 3
years reckonable service from the age of 18".
Essentially a 3 year rolling contract, up to 22 years
--
Paul Giverin
<one...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Paul Giverin wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry but it is a contract and if HM Forces can dispense with the
>>services of many loyal servicemen/women on 22 year engagements then no
>>one can complain about people who wish to PVR.
>
>OK, if that's what you think. However, my belief is that when joining
>you don't sign a *contract* of employment, you sign to declare that
>for the next n years you are willing to let whatever politicos are in
>power put you in harm's way at virtually a moment's notice and that
>you'll train like f**k towards that end - there is no other reason for
>the forces - they don't turn a profit and only compete in the world
>market in times of peril. Can't see that sort of undertaking as a
>*contract* nor does it happen anywhere except in a country's armed
>forces.
>
disapprove of service personnel taking the PVR option. Do you also think
it is wrong for a serviceman/woman to be made redundant while in the
middle of his/her engagement? If one is wrong then so is the other.
>There's a world of difference about being *unhappy* and being
>*unable*. Unable was/<is?> generally not a problem. This meant that
>a person just didn't have the wherewithal to continue in the
>trade/task that had been set. Not everybody has the ability to do all
>jobs, its one of the reasons for basic training. Not only does it
>acquaint you with the requirements of your life for the next n years,
>it is also meant to filter out those who, although seemingly willing,
>would never be able to do it - may even become a liability. It was no
>picnic, but if a person is unable to continue they would be moved -
>out if that's what it took. But *unhappy*! No, don't buy that as a
>*reason*. *Unhappy* goes with the task - its part of the *hacking it*
>attitude, like *uncomfortable*.
>
gained by retaining personnel who don't want to be there. The RAF is no
longer overmanned and everyone must pull their weight. If my son joined
the RAF and decided 2 years into a 9 year engagement that he wasn't
happy, I'd certainly want him to come out. You are obviously a bit older
than me so perhaps it is a generation thing and that our minds will
never meet.
>>We all laugh about getting conned down at the careers office but a lot
>>of people have been seriously misled. I don't know when you left the RAF
>>but you may remember the introduction of the Flight Line Mechanics in
>>the 70's. Some very well educated people were misled by slick
>>advertising into a trade who's main task was refuelling aircraft and
>>who's career ladder stopped at SAC.
>
>Yes, I just remember FL Mechs. I was demobbed in 74 and they were just
>starting. From what I remember of the few I came across they were
>mostly short termers - not *career* types at all. The rank ceiling
>was also well explained and known about at the time as well. But ISTR
>that they had the opportunity to transfer to trade of choice after
>doing a certain time.
Unfortunately FLM's had a bad deal. They were told that they would be
doing the work of riggers, sooties, leckys, and fairies. They were told
that they would be able to chose to retrain in one of the trades. In
reality it was more difficult for them to get a fitters course up until
the time when the FLM trade was abolished and they then got priority for
retraining.
>
>5 Years ago! What's that (counts on fingers . . .) - 1994. Jeeze
>lad, I'd been *out* 20 years by then. ;-) Maybe you're right, its a
>whole different world. But me an' Folding Norman and others
>unannounced in this group of the *previous* generation will *still* go
>on about *hacking it* an' about *things are not the same these days* .
>. . we put up with it when we were younger . . .
I think Folding Norman is closer to my generation than yours...although
maybe not spiritually :)
>
>. . . now its your turn. ;-)
>
I'm glad you put the smilie after that one. I would hate for you to
think that because I have defended someone's right to PVR, I am not one
for "hacking it". I served my country in peace and war with enthusiasm
(and for some time longer than you did). I signed on for 22 years as
soon as I could and would have happily went to age 55 but at the time
only Flt Sgt's could take that option. I loved my time in the RAF and I
loved my trade (propulsion). I still do the same job with a civvy
airline.
Having as a child listened to criticisms of the "younger generation", I
am, as a parent, wary of perpetuating this practice.
--
Paul Giverin
LesB
>We obviously differ in our definition of what a contract is. >
No, not really, only the definition of *contract* as applied to the
armed forces.
>You seem to disapprove of service personnel taking the PVR option.
Nope. Never said I disapproved of the *buying-out* option. I was
initially railing against whinging about it if it didn't come off.
>Do you also think it is wrong for a serviceman/woman to be made
>redundant while in the middle of his/her engagement? If one is
>wrong then so is the other.
Again, I can't see where you get the idea that I think that isn't
wrong. Whole squadrons, airfields, ships, regiments, personnel,
material, overseas bases, et al were, have been and are made redundant
- and this applies across all three services. I don't see it as
*right* or *wrong* - I see it as politics. It was and is a disgrace,
an affront to thousands who had signed up to serve their country - but
essentially it was politics - just like the TSR.2. I don't agree with
it, but then I'm biased I guess. {The cancellation of the TSR.2
really killed the morale of the RAF I was in - it seemed to be all
downhill from that and that was 1965}.
>Again we disagree. From a service point of view there is little to be
>gained by retaining personnel who don't want to be there. The RAF is no
>longer overmanned and everyone must pull their weight. If my son joined
>the RAF and decided 2 years into a 9 year engagement that he wasn't
>happy, I'd certainly want him to come out. You are obviously a bit older
>than me so perhaps it is a generation thing and that our minds will
>never meet.
OK, lets leave it at that.
>Unfortunately FLM's had a bad deal. They were told that they would be
>doing the work of riggers, sooties, leckys, and fairies. They were told
>that they would be able to chose to retrain in one of the trades. In
>reality it was more difficult for them to get a fitters course up until
>the time when the FLM trade was abolished and they then got priority for
>retraining.
Right. However, I did say - *BTW, I also think (and thought - along
with thousands of others) that this was a bad move on the part of the
RAF (or MoD). Should never have happened. *
>I think Folding Norman is closer to my generation than yours...although
>maybe not spiritually :)
You're probably right. And that is interesting in itself. It seems
that most of the RAF related posts are from people who did their bit
from the mid to late 70s onwards. And interestingly, they seem to be
in comms or related trades (although you say you were a fitter). As an
aside, does this mean that because they had early exposure to
computerisation and electronic communication they more readily take to
this internet thing than, say, riggers or fitters? Where are all the
guys who were *in* in the 50s & 60s? Surely they didn't all emigrate
to Aus. ;-)
>>. . . now its your turn. ;-)
>>
>I'm glad you put the smilie after that one. I would hate for you to
>think that because I have defended someone's right to PVR, I am not one
>for "hacking it".
Glad you noticed that. ;-) But don't think I'm knocking your stance,
or your ability to hack-it. I too think that if someone wanted to buy
themselves out they should be able to, I've known a few. If it works
then great. If it doesn't . . . well, it does no good wittering on
about it does it! Try again, and again. Moaning about it will not
affect the fact that it didn't work because, mostly, the people you
are moaning to will only come back with their own moans which makes
the whole thing negatively self-reinforcing.
I admit that the RAF since, say, the 80s has changed radically, and
for the better, (at least I hope so). I suppose the same pressures
are still there much as they were when I was in, but its obvious that
perceptions and values may have changed radically as well.
OK Paul, thanks for the discourse, its been diverting and seemly in
its way.
--
Smoke on. Go.
LesB
[take out one to mail]
Paul Gledhill
>Once signed, not much use belly aching about being held to it.
>
>Or am I wrong.?
I would suggest that you are, in part.
How many of us had it made clear that the notice period was 18 months
at the CIO? Not many I'll bet. But my complaint is not that there is a
notice period, but rather that 18 months is a little extreme. The RAFs
argument was that it takes time to train people. Well yes that is
reasonable, but the police who also take a while to train allow a
notice period of 30 days. There was always the rider that military
types can't pvr at the sniff of a war.
Peoples lives change, I joined the RAF as a single man of 19, after a
while I became a married man with a child. My RAF wages were not up to
the job of looking after them, so logically I needed a better paid
job.
--
Paul Gledhill
"Et in Arcadia Ego..."
http://www.anomaly.co.uk
** Remove COMPASS from address to reply to me **
Paul Gledhill
<al...@prole.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It's governments and politicians that make people unhappy with their
>service life, not the services themselves.
amen.
Michael `Mike` Crowe
<pa...@COMPASSanomaly.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:31:59 +0100, Alec Powell
><al...@prole.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>It's governments and politicians that make people unhappy with their
>>service life, not the services themselves.
>
>amen.
>--
>Paul Gledhill
And may I add an AMEN from hundreds, if not thousands of National
Servicemen as well? I was one and got `stuck in` just as many others
did. You post elsewhere that you joined as a single man and that when
you married the wages were not enough. Do you think that the wages of a
NS were enough? No they were not, but we had no choice, we had to get on
with it!! However, I was one of those who made sure I `enjoyed` NS `to
the best of my ability`
40 Years later I now see that NS was of a lot of use. Looking back I can
see that the training I received was second to none. Is that the reason
why I have started the H.M.S.Collingwood Association? Is that the reason
why I now, believe it or not `Thank NS?` I went on to build my own
company with the confidence and training I aquired with the Navy.
Service life is something completly different to civilian life. There
can be NO comparison either in wages, conditions, terms of contract,
family life, promotion, prospects or any other situation you can think
of.
Service life is Service life
Civilian life is Civilian life
Whether it is the 40`s, 50`s, 60`s, 70`s, 80`s or 90`s or even into the
next century, if you are going into the services, get on in there,
accept it for what you have signed on for, serve your time, do your
best, get as much as you can out of it, and then come out and moan.
Take it from me, and many more as well, when you reach 60+, you will
look back and say `Hey, service life was pretty good. I wonder where old
`so and so` is. `Hey do you remember that run ashore in ******?` and
when years ahead from now, you go to a reunion with your old shipmates,
RAF Pals or Army buddies, just think of what that old National
Serviceman Mike Crowe said way back in 1999. He was bloody right wasn`t
he? No, you cannot answer now. Wait till laer!!!!!
Mike :-))))
Michael `Mike` Crowe R.N. Ship...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk
H.M.S.Collingwood Assoc...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk
Ex Royal Navy? Read NAVY NEWS, monthly from H.M.S.Nelson, Portsmouth PO1 3HH
Tell your ex R.N.Friends in Birmingham to read uk.people.ex-forces
Paul Giverin
<one...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>
>OK Paul, thanks for the discourse, its been diverting and seemly in
>its way.
>
sure if we met over a pint we would have a lot in common. You, like me
are obviously proud of your service in the RAF and still retain an
affinity with the aircraft you worked on. Oh and I note from visiting
your (very good) web site that you, like me are from Scotland and have
settled down south. Thanks for the e-mail. I'll get back to you.
--
Paul Giverin
Gordon Clark
a tangent from my original post! It is apparent that there are two schools
of thought. The 'old school' & the 'young ones'. Whilst I admire & adhered
to the queens shilling philosophy, there comes a time when you feel that you
could do better both financially & personally in civvy life, hence the
reasons for my PVR. If the old school think that this is deplorable then
they are welcome to that opninion but I feel that should any of their lot
see the 'youngsters' joining up today then they would get a fright. Their
'service' adage would be laughed out of the crewroom. Not that I agree with
them but I believe that an individual should have rights & should he/she
choose to exercise them then that should be no reflection on their integrity
or loyalty, just that they may feel the time is right to move on.
As for the person who alleged my PVR was due to a war then I'm sorry mate
but that was just coincidence (I volunteered to go to Bosnia last year even
though they didn't ask in my section [they sent someone else who was being a
pain in the arse & who they wanted rid of!]). So pardon my french but shove
that up yer pipe!
ttfn Gordon.
Brian White
LesB wrote in message <370f945c...@nntp.netcruiser>...
>Paul Giverin wrote:
>
>
>OK, if that's what you think. However, my belief is that when joining
>you don't sign a *contract* of employment, you sign to declare that
>for the next n years you are willing to let whatever politicos are in
>power put you in harm's way at virtually a moment's notice and that
>you'll train like f**k towards that end - there is no other reason for
>the forces - they don't turn a profit and only compete in the world
>market in times of peril. Can't see that sort of undertaking as a
>*contract* nor does it happen anywhere except in a country's armed
>forces.
>
This is where I must admit I had a big problem. When I joined up I was
joining to, quote, "train for a trade", very soon AFTER joining the emphasis
was placed on the soldiering. That I could live with.
I do dowever totally disagree with the idea of letting the politicians do
what they like and that being the only reason the forces exist. I disagreed
totally with the ues of the British forces in the Recent Gulf war
(1990-date) because I joined up to defend THIS Nation not the Kuwaiti's.
The whole war started up, in my opinion because of things outside direct
British interests.
Just because someone has won a parliamentary election it does not make them
wise or knowledgable, nor does it stop them being corrupt. Just because
someone joins the forces, it does not mean that they leave their sense of
reason nor their morals at home until they come out x years later were that
the case then you would get the scenario as seen in WW2 where people use
the excuse of "i was told to do it" as an out for committing the illegal
acts of someone else even if that person is the Prime Minister!
Personally I feel that I did sign a contract nothing more nothing less. It's
just that the contract had some very restrictive clauses. Don't get me
wrong, I did my full service (and even extended) but it was to a contract.
I enjoyed it and if push came to shove I would have gone all the way. But I
joined to defend MY country and MY family not someone else's.
>>I've got no time for wasters but if someone on a 12 year engagement
>>realises after 4-5 years that he is unhappy, he would be foolish to
>>continue and the PVR option would be right for him and the service.
>
I would agree, would YOU really like to fight with someone along side you
who is not interested? I can't see him (her) backing you up under those
circumstances can you?
When I joined up I specifically said I wanted a trade where I worked on
aircraft and electronics. I was told, by the careers office that the
perfect job was Electronics technician Air Defence, I would be working on
the radar systems of the Air Defence aircraft such as Phantoms etc. Utter
bollocks, it was not until I arrived at trade training at RAF Locking (hi
all ex Locking BTW) that I was told that I was a ground trade and that I
would be working on long range search radars, would probably never even see
an aircraft and on most stations probably not even see daylight as I would
be underground! Were I an exception then I might just accept it as a one
off but most of my intake had been led up the same garden path!
Paul Gledhill
<br...@beejaywh.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I disagreed
>totally with the ues of the British forces in the Recent Gulf war
>(1990-date) because I joined up to defend THIS Nation not the Kuwaiti's.
>The whole war started up, in my opinion because of things outside direct
>British interests.
I would disagree with you on your point that what happened to the
Kuwaitis was outside British interest. We had a hand in creating
Kuwait in the first place, and also we have a vested interest in the
stability of the Middle East and oil prices.
People claim that we cynicaly pick and choose which fights we have. We
do pick and choose, why should we get involved in stuff that we don't
benefit from?
Call me mercenary if you will :-)
paul
<gordo...@clara.co.uk> scribbled
So they've got you either way.
--
paul
Eliminate the negative to facilitate a positive reply.
Gordon Clark
>So they've got you either way.
>--
>paul
>
Maybe so but they're hardly at the 'calling up reservists' stage & even if
they were that wouldn't be a problem as it would surely be a national crisis
anyway. So what hardship is reserve service?
What do you have against the PVR? Even as a 'career boy' I understood the
reasons why some people felt they should move on.
Gordon.
newby
Max White wrote in message <923783...@maxw.demon.co.uk>...
newby
picture, such as saddam carrying on into other countries monopolising the
oil reserves and the resultant international crisis
you need to see the big picture, an any event you should consider how you
would feel if britain was subject to the same atrocities and nobody came to
help!
to me **
Tex Bennett
<gordo...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Maybe so but they're hardly at the 'calling up reservists' stage & even if
>they were that wouldn't be a problem as it would surely be a national crisis
>anyway. So what hardship is reserve service?
None at all for me! I got 36 quid a year and that's it. I was in class
E which was last called out during Suez. I think the local OAPs would
get called up before RAF Class E :o)
paul
<gordo...@clara.co.uk> scribbled
>>PVR or not, there's still the Reserve portion of your service to do :-)
>>So they've got you either way.
>>--
>>paul
>>
>
>
>they were that wouldn't be a problem as it would surely be a national crisis
>anyway. So what hardship is reserve service?
>reasons why some people felt they should move on.
>Gordon.
>
>
Paul Giverin
White <br...@beejaywh.demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
>I do dowever totally disagree with the idea of letting the politicians do
>what they like and that being the only reason the forces exist. I disagreed
>totally with the ues of the British forces in the Recent Gulf war
>(1990-date) because I joined up to defend THIS Nation not the Kuwaiti's.
>The whole war started up, in my opinion because of things outside direct
>British interests.
>
defending my country. When I went to the Gulf I did have the feeling
that this was not what I joined up for. However I also felt that I had
been taking the money for years and now was payback time. It also helped
that my squadron was billeted in the five star Regency Intercontinental
hotel for almost five months :)
Of course you felt reassured that you were helping the people of Kuwait
regain their country and I have to say that after seeing the plight of
the Kosova refugees I would have no qualms about serving in that theatre
if I was still in the RAF.
--
Paul Giverin
N.Elk...@lboro.ac.uk
My initial contract was 9 years, not 18 months.
I totally accepted that it was to be 9 years.
(It ended up nearer 15, but thats another story.)
It beacon NOTENG near the end of my career.(i.e. 18 months notice, and even
then the army asked if I would stay another 6 months.....no problem in my
particular case.
I accept what you say about salary, but again, a point was made a few weeks
ago, it would seem that rank
and job progression in the RAF are slower than the army for equivalent type
work/education etc..
PVR at time of war; sorry but IMHO, if you've had the good, the bad is also
in the contract.
As to affording a family.........no difference in civvy street.
Families cost money, and part of the planning is financial isn't it?
BTW don't get me wrong, I wish you well with your PVR if thats what you
really want.
--
Folding Norman
Paul Gledhill <pa...@COMPASSanomaly.co.uk> wrote in article
<370f4072...@news.u-net.com>...
> On 9 Apr 1999 12:03:16 GMT, <N.Elk...@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Once signed, not much use belly aching about being held to it.
> >
> >Or am I wrong.?
>
> I would suggest that you are, in part.
> How many of us had it made clear that the notice period was 18 months
> at the CIO? Not many I'll bet. But my complaint is not that there is a
> notice period, but rather that 18 months is a little extreme. The RAFs
> argument was that it takes time to train people. Well yes that is
> reasonable, but the police who also take a while to train allow a
> notice period of 30 days. There was always the rider that military
> types can't pvr at the sniff of a war.
> Peoples lives change, I joined the RAF as a single man of 19, after a
> while I became a married man with a child. My RAF wages were not up to
> the job of looking after them, so logically I needed a better paid
> job.
N.Elk...@lboro.ac.uk
In my day (1970 to 85 ish BTW), nearly all the better trades could only be
joined via this method.
'Lower' trades were 3 or 6 year engagements.
Must apologise for the inference that someone wanted out when it got tough.
I missed a couple of the early posts, and misread the intent on one.
I do agree that our young should have rights, and that better guidance
ought to be offered prior to signing up, but once signed up......
I also agree that things should progress, but where do we draw the line?
First time anyone disagrees with 'the system' in the form of an order say
after the perverbial has hit the fan, then a whole load of other young
lives could be lost.
By all means question the system, but not when it matters most.
To anyone having the slightest doubts prior to joining, either don't, or
just 3 years.
You can always extend (or not) later if you and the service like one
another.
BTW, the fact that the system can get rid of you, but not the other way
round is again in 'the contract'.
Poor description maybe, but when disputes arise, a 'contract' is what it
is.
I enjoyed every (nearly every(:-))) minute of it also, but comes a time for
us all to move on.
BTW I spent a short time digging bl--dy great holes to put them harriers in
from Gutersloh.
Haven't they got enough garages or what?
Mind you, them pilots used to bring us 'goodies' as a thankyou.
Gutersloh OR mess males didn't like us sappers much though.
But the ladies enjoyed the change. Something akin to comparing Gentlemen
with animals.?????????
--
Folding Norman
newby <scot...@postal50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<7eodud$m4e$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> i have read about the hacking and tough times the raf endure, i spent 18
> months on attachment with the harrier force ( was 3 & 4 squadron at raf
> gutersloh) and other than the raf regiment i saw no indication of
roughing
> it in any sense!! and the harrier force are the only raf unit that
deploys
> in the field to my knowledge
>
newby
Tex Bennett wrote in message <37134e81...@news.btinternet.com>...
Billyboy
Some of the issues seem fall into place if one considers the idea
of inter-personal contracts. In other words, when one forms a
friendship with some-one, an un-written, un-stated contract
exists wherby each party inherently agrees to give a certain
amount of time to the friendship, and agrees to act in a friendly
fashion towards the other etc. Marriage etc breakdowns can often
be seen as one party believing that the other has not upheld
their end of the contract (e.g. 'He still goes out drinking with
his mates on Friday nights leaving me at home' or 'She doesn't
even keep the house clean'). In other words, we make assumptions
about how people are going to behave towards us.
Turning to our service contracts, apart from the formal contract
and oath of allegiance thet we sign, we have expectations about
how we are going to be treated. It is when these expectations do
not come about that we feel disillusioned.
Some examples would be:
- Disabled ex-servicemen (and sometimes even service widows) who
feel badly let down over the level of compensation for their loss
(especially since the services wriggled out of some of their
responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act).
- Folk who believe themselves to be sufferring from Gulf War
Syndrome.
- Guys who marry in the Service, leave, divorce and possibly
re-marry. Neither first or second wife being entitled to the
service widows pension that the service man contributed to during
his service.
All of these people feel that they accepted their side of the
unwritten contract (i.e. to put themselves in considerable
personal danger in support of Brtish Government policies) but
that in return, they have not been properly attended to (as they
see it) when the need for attention arose.
Regarding redundancy. In general, the terms offered for folk
being made redundant from the Services, seem to be fair to
generous. The method of selecting folk for redundancy may be
seen as unfair.
The real problem caused by redundancy is the career effects on
those left behind, and in the recent rounds of redundancy, this
unfairness seems to have been bourne particularly heavily by the
RAF, where young and willing technicians are having their
promotion aspirations blocked, AND are being prevented from
leaving the service to further their careers elswhere.
The notion propounded by the RAF that someone cannot leave for 18
months 'cos that is how long it takes to train a replacement, is
not acceptable. The process of manpower planning, and deciding
how many recruits to accept and train, should take into account
the expected wastage rate within the trade.
Of course, the services are hampered in smoothing out the manning
peaks and troughs by their unwillingness to accept older recruits
who may have already received their technical training in a
non-Service environment. It is my understanding that the Service
Educational Services, and the RN, are now targetting mature
entrants.
Finally, most Service types are endowed with a large dollop of
loyalty, both to their individual Service, and to their country.
It concerns me that this loyalty is sometimes used to cover poor
management practices, as exercised by some Officers, Civil
Servants and politicians.
Toodle pip!!
Bill
Rab Small
but its bloody hard to hit a moving target with one let me tell you !!!!!!!!
hehehehe
rab the rockape (kuckledraging monster LOL )
LesB <one...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3710680...@nntp.netcruiser...
> Right. However, I did say - *BTW, I also think (and thought - along
> with thousands of others) that this was a bad move on the part of the
> OK Paul, thanks for the discourse, its been diverting and seemly in
> its way.
>
>
Paul Gledhill
<li...@druss.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>duh even us Rocks can use computers
falls back in shock :-)
Bet there's no armourers out there though.