Rum Ration
the Navy Network

CheefTiff - Thank you for that. To ensure that we can update you personally please contact us at: ndahq@btinternet.com when I or our General & Membership Secretary will make sure you are kept in the picture.

Frustrated,

Thanks for the literature you very speedily emailed me at work. Much appreciated.

Steve.

Originally Posted by Frustrated

... with all my NDA associates ready, as always, to respond to sensible positive comments and contributions. Have a nice day.

I guess that dig was aimed at me, with my terribly inconvenient question about how many people are involved with the NDA and daring to point out when the question was repeatedly ignored. Jasper asked 2 questions which mirrored the ones I asked, namely:

1. Your paper indicates that you have a steering group of one (plus wife). Is this true? If not how big is the steering group and generally what is their status and experience (no pers details expected)?

2. Your paper seems over focused on wiring diagrams, renumeration for NDA executives and job descriptions rather than identifying the parameters of what the NDA is about (in stark contrast to the simple but clear BAFF 10 point plan). What is the reason for this?

And you ignored these, while writing a typical non-answer about secret emailed plans. All very SMERSH....

If you are only going to respond to positive comments and contributions, frustrated, then you and the other NDA member will have a fairly difficult time as a lobbying group when sensible negative comments are made and you just ignore them. My last post was admittedly fairly negative in tone, but that was entirely due to your ignoring a very simple question and refusal to respond to some difficult but constructive comments from other users.

So then, Commander, I ask for yet another time, (as jasper has given up doing so!)...
How many people are currently involved with the NDA?

And as a supplementary, would you care to respond to some of the points I made at the end of page 2 of this topic and point out which parts are either not true or not helpful? As I said before, all your responses (on here and on ARRSE) tend to indicate that it is about to be an excellent idea badly executed. PLEASE prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Jasper

I see you've had a hard time over on ARRSE but really if you cannot convince the grass-roots of your paper then it's sunk.

Bloody hell - has he ever? (Had a hard time on ARRSE, I mean?! ). From any token page on the topic (and there are 73 of them), it appears that the entire senior membership of ARRSE, everyone working towards an Armed Forces Federation, and most of the people who try and interact with him have come to the same conclusion of the man or men behind the NDA. That no matter how good an idea the NDA is, the people who post under the name Frustrated and Balleh seem uniquely unsuited for running it/setting it up. You will also notice the exact same tendency that shown on Rum Ration, namely the ignoring of good points, a refusal to engage in constructive conversation and generally annoying the precise people from whom support should be cultivated.

May I suggest to the senior Rum Ration members who are currently hitching themselves to this particular bandwagon that they check both that the driver knows the way and that there are any passengers, as it appears that this particular organisation will be an embarrassing, unpopular, and entirely unsupported flop.

I, for one, will have nothing to do with the organisation as it appears to be nothing more than a doomed hobbyhorse for long retired mid-seniority officers with megalomaniac tendencies!

If a pongo from Arrse might be permitted to drop in briefly....?

As some here will know I'm one of the BAFF steering group, currently involved in working up the "purple proposition" for an organisation which will both comply with the Ten Points and provide a voice for, as someone here nearly put it, Jack, Tommy, Wayne and the wider Rupert.

I shan't deny a degree of frustration at the distraction that the NDA/BAFF debate has occasioned. It was and is ultimately sterile and well done to Cdr John for rethinking the main purpose of the NDA - I think this makes it a much more focused proposition. As an ex-SNCO, I know little of grand strategy, but "maintenance of the aim" rings a bell.

Tactically, I think it would be wise for the good Commander to place his latest draft in a separate thread on each forum and make it clear that it is a major rewrite - that'll be much more likely to attract a lively debate.

Another quite gratuitous and unsolicited piece of advice, which Cdr John should accept or not as he chooses, is that he might find his ride a touch easier if he were to engage a little more openly in the debate. It's in the nature of these things that the tone will sometimes be robust, but there's rarely malice in it.

GIAO

I've been asked to post the revised draft of the NDA paper.

I also think it might be worth clarifying the position of Rumration/ARRSE wrt NDA/BAFF. We believe that both initiatives are debates that are worth having and are very keen to facilitate that to the best of our ability. Having said that we do not take a position on which is the best way forward nor are we involved in developing them.

Have now read the amended paper and have the following questions/points:

1. You mentioned in your last post that an interim executive committee was in existance but this is not mentioned in the paper. Do you have reps from the 3 services on your steering group? And what rank and experience range is there amongst them?

2. The paper is still heavy on administrative, wiring diagram detail and light on explaining the range of the NDA's operations. You include detail on remunerating Board members out of pocket expenses but there is no detail on methods of how you will seek member's suggestions on NDA priority objectives, nor how you wil decide which issues ultimately get the NDA priority.

3. Could you give some examples of what National Defence issues you see as fair game?

4. Where will the NDA stand from a purple point of view when there is a distinct conflict in single service needs? There is ultimately a finite state budget and military procurement (with long lead times) is as much a matter of time and space. What will happen within the membership of the NDA when one service sees NDA priority lobbying going to another service because the HQ DNA considers that overall we are best served by more RAF fighters/tanks/ships?

5. I think that you do not understand 'Charitable' status. All charities are 'not-for-profit organisations however not all 'not-for-profits' are charities. I believe the NDA should register as a NFP but I do not see it meeting the criteria of a charity. Have you researched this?

By the way Frustrated you state towards the end of your paper that Rum Ration is accessed via the ARRSE site. For an ex IT consultant I'm surprised you haven't noticed that Rum Ration is its own site www.rumration.co.uk