The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

[Saab]

Whats Opsec?

We are not asking about the mechanics of doing ther job.

If DFRs say you must have done X,Y,Z before you are permitted alone in an armory and it is not possible for an RDF man of any rank to have done x,y and z then fair enough.

But if DFRs say that only someone above the rank of X shall hold the keys then a PDF CQ had no business standing in the way of someone above that rank.

So if it is a matter of rank and courses being done then why would someone want to stand in the way of those that fit the bill?

I don't see how any of that can be opsec??

[hptmurphy]

Really if you don't have good reason and regulation to back up that then stand aside and let those who are competent get on with it!!

No apparent reason as my former unit drew the keys to its own weapons stores as required.... didn't even need an RDF SQMS to do it.

Fifedoms and their associated bullshit!

[The real Jack]

I think changes are needed to make RDF officers and NCOs more responsible for their units. As it stands now there is not a hope in hell I would leave an RDF CQ access to my armoury.

So at the moment when RDF CQ's go in and out of their stores which are in the ministers armoury...this would be impossible for you? A trained monkey could sign in and out shit and manage the incredibly complex matrix of locks and keys, how many PDF CQ's have leaving certs let alone Degrees? It's not rocket science.

[DeV]

Opsec is who can draw keys, it seems to vary in barracks and OC.

[Saab]

The names of who can.

But surely not the you must do this or have that to be named?

Like it would be assumed that a PDF CQ can draw keys. Or are you suggestint that such an assumption would be opsec?

BTW havig LC or a degree in no guarantee of a guy being able to do the job of a trained monkey!!!

[midnight oil]

Fine : in detail - lay out the changes you think are needed to bring up an RDF CQMS to have "access to your armoury" .

Tell me in detail the DFRs, * e.g. L2, L3 change ( and why ) , Admin Instructions and even Defence Act amendments needed because if you can't clearly spell them out you're part of the problem. I'm not asking for detailed paragraph numbers but state a case.

Is completion of a Logs Admin course, for example, a prerequisite ?

The major change as I see it that is needed is for para 119 of the DA to be amended to make RDF pers subject to military law at all times like the PDF are.

As things stand now something can go wrong with a RDF store man and he or she can just disappear into the ether until such time as the problem does go away. Ask any Cadre staff what is the biggest problem they face with RDF and I am sure you will get the same answer "accountability".

Before joining the PDF I was a member of the FCA myself so I do understand the sense of satisfaction that comes from togging out for the DF and getting a sense of pride when a job is done well.

A modularised version of the Logs accountancy course would be very useful indeed, but I was recently informed much to my surprise by both a RDF Bde Commander and a senior NCO in an RDF Bde HQ that the only course an RDF soldier HAS to do to become a CQ is a PNCO Course!

A PDF CQ would already have significant logs experience before getting promoted, probably a few years as a Cpl and probably all of his service as a sergeant.

Account holding is account holding.

RDF officers and NCOs do not hold accounts, I do not know any that even operate them i.e. have account operator rights on the MIF.

Are you actually a CQ or just offering an opinion.

I have been in the armoury in both McKee and CBB many times with no PDF CQ in sight.

In fact I have even see RDF Sgts and Cpls signing out weapons under the watchful eye of an RDF officer.

So what is your problem?

Or is this just a little bit of personal job protection?

Really if you don't have good reason and regulation to back up that then stand aside and let those who are competent get on with it!!

No I am not a CQ and no I am not just offering an opinion here, there are more ranks than CQMS involved in unit logistics accountancy.

I am sure the NCOs you refer to did a good job of that too. The issue is when things get signed back in.

I am aware of at least 1 incident quite recently where an RDF CQ was receiving ordnance back into stores and it was noticed that items were left on the range (yes, I know it happens all units at some point ) and the solution was "sure the Sgt lives out that way, he can go and get it and drop it in next Tuesday". Efforts were made to keep it from the Cadre meaning that in the event of an ordnance check, the PDF NCO and officer would have got screwed!

There are PDF Ptes that are trusted to operate as a storeman. The difference as I see it is that when something goes wrong they can get hauled in and nailed to the wall if the mistake is theirs. As I said earlier on the same does not stand for an RDF soldier.

There's an allowance for having a stores isn't there?

Just saying.

Not for ordnance accounts, an NCO CANNOT hold an ordnance account it has to be an officer. Officers do not get account holders allowance, it is seen as part of your job.

[midnight oil]

The names of who can.

But surely not the you must do this or have that

A unit's SOPs will very much specify who is entitled to draw security keys and will also spell out exactly what is expected of a storeman in the performance.

When all goes well there is nothing to worry about, it is the once in a decade **** up that gets people into a world of trouble.

[trellheim]

Midnight Oil : Your point about Holder and Operator are mostly correct, except an RDF Officer may be a Holder.


With regard to the Defence Act ( S119 ) That is correct as far as it goes
( let's look at it )

119.—Each of the persons mentioned in this section shall, for the purposes of this Act, be a person subject to military law as a man—

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1954/en/act/pub/0018/sec0119.html

(a) a man of the Permanent Defence Force at all times,
(b) a reservist when—
(i) he is called out on permanent service or in aid of the civil power, or
(ii) he is called out for training, exercise or other duty under this Act, or
(iii) he is voluntarily attending training, or
(iv) he is undergoing treatment in a military hospital, or
(v) he is employed on military service under the orders of an officer, who is himself subject to military law, or
(vi) he is in uniform,

So. As far as that paragraph goes. you are correct. But read on to Para 120

120.—(1) Where an offence against military law has been committed by any person while subject to military law,
such person may,
subject to subsection (2) of this section,
be taken into and kept in service custody and tried and punished for such offence,
although he or the unit to which he belongs has ceased to be subject to military law,
in like manner as he might have been taken into and kept in service custody, tried or punished, if he or such unit had continued to be so subject.


(2) Where—
(a) an offence (other than that of mutiny, desertion or fraudulent enlistment) against military law has been committed by any person while subject to military law,
and
(b) such person has since such commission ceased to be subject to military law,


such person shall not be tried for such offence unless his trial commences within three months after he ceased to be subject to military law, but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of a civil court where the offence is triable by such court as well as by court-martial.


(3) Where a person subject to military law is sentenced by a court-martial to penal servitude, imprisonment or detention, this Act shall apply to him during the term of his sentence, notwithstanding that he is discharged or dismissed from the Defence Forces or has otherwise ceased to be subject to military law, and he may be kept, removed, imprisoned, made to undergo detention and punished accordingly as if he continued to be subject to military law.

So : Still liable for military law once you pull the DPM off , for most offences for 3 months

[midnight oil]

From my discussions with Bde Legal Offr 120 is intended for pers that have left the DF and it is noticed that they have made a major boo boo.

When was the last time that someone from 62Bn was charged for any offence?

Even as far as the RDF goes if you say on a Tuesday parade night that you will attend a field day on the Saturday and do not parade on Saturday you are absent. NEVER heard of anyone in RDF being done for failing to show up for a weekend field day. A PDF soldier on the other hand would be charged with absence for the Saturday and probably the Sunday too as if he didn't come into work until the Monday morning.

[trellheim]

When was the last time that someone from 62Bn was charged for any offence?

It happens. This is not the forum for it but yes it's happened several times including punishment/fine/reprimand

The Act is the Act, if I buggered off with a Lucie or Sophie or some other expensive piece of kit and pulled the beret off I'm pretty sure I'd be chased. The act is a law not a DFR.

As for being absent the Minister has said attendance at training parades is voluntary and not compulsory per para 93. Do you not think we have tried to see if we can get serial non-attenders down?

As

[midnight oil]

As for being absent the Minister has said attendance at training parades is voluntary and not compulsory per para 93. Do you not think we have tried to see if we can get serial non-attenders down?

As

I think we are in general agreement on the implications of that one. That is my biggest issue with RDF.

As I see it, within reason you either want to be seen as a soldier or a hobbyist. I think the way forward is compulsory attendance and grant leave, say for example 10 days per year. If each parade night counted as a 1/2 day and a field day as a full day you are allowed to miss 10 field days or 20 parade nights or a combination of both. Actually looking at it that way 10 days leave is far too many, say 5 days leave

[Truck Driver]

120.—(1) Where an offence against military law has been committed by any person while subject to military law,
such person may,
subject to subsection (2) of this section,
be taken into and kept in service custody and tried and punished for such offence,
although he or the unit to which he belongs has ceased to be subject to military law,
in like manner as he might have been taken into and kept in service custody, tried or punished, if he or such unit had continued to be so subject.


(2) Where—
(a) an offence (other than that of mutiny, desertion or fraudulent enlistment) against military law has been committed by any person while subject to military law,
and
(b) such person has since such commission ceased to be subject to military law,


such person shall not be tried for such offence unless his trial commences within three months after he ceased to be subject to military law, but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of a civil court where the offence is triable by such court as well as by court-martial.


(3) Where a person subject to military law is sentenced by a court-martial to penal servitude, imprisonment or detention, this Act shall apply to him during the term of his sentence, notwithstanding that he is discharged or dismissed from the Defence Forces or has otherwise ceased to be subject to military law, and he may be kept, removed, imprisoned, made to undergo detention and punished accordingly as if he continued to be subject to military law

.....From my discussions with Bde Legal Offr 120 is intended for pers that have left the DF ....

Hmmm, that might be the Bde Legal Officer's opinion, but I agree with Trellheim, it could equally be interpreted the other also...

[midnight oil]

Forgive me, I was under the impression that this thread was about how we would like to see the RDF develop. My stated preference for the future of the RDF is for a professional reserve that has a role, training objectives and the achieves high standards that so many of the current RDF soldiers strive to attain and often are left down by their chain of command.

One of the ways I believe this can be achieved is suggested in my previous posting by making attendance compulsory, granting people a certain amount of lee way due to their day jobs and family commitments etc through a leave system. This will, I believe, very quickly improve the reliability issue that many (myself included) cite as a main issue within the RDF and it's predecessor

[trellheim]

Forgive me, I was under the impression that this thread was about how we would like to see the RDF develop. My stated preference for the future of the RDF is for a professional reserve that has a role, training objectives and the achieves high standards that so many of the current RDF soldiers strive to attain and often are left down by their chain of command.

One of the ways I believe this can be achieved is suggested in my previous posting by making attendance compulsory, granting people a certain amount of lee way due to their day jobs and family commitments etc through a leave system. This will, I believe, very quickly improve the reliability issue that many (myself included) cite as a main issue within the RDF and it's predecessor

You are right to a large extent and that needs to be done. We also need to move from a system that encourages 40%+ personnel turnover per annum ( far less now because of the essentially minimal recruitment ) but the mentality to put a hat on them and call them trained is still there in places.

2nd last : the people who are turning up now are people who want to be there.

Lastly : If someone was put on a detail (cash/checkpoint/regimental/whatever) and didn't turn up without letting me know, **** them send the PAs round to the house or the job,

[kaiser]

you have to be missing a while for the pa,s to go round to a house
and with that they will only knock on the door and ask for the asbsentee