2.5 million quid on flags for the forces

Jock paper

2.5 million quid for Red Ensigns, they will be about as useful as the steward branch.

At least the Dress ship flags will be clean for "meet your Navy"

 

Unbelievable!

That money should be put towards a better cause like The housing and benefits of large Unworthy immigrant families from Kurdistan and Afghan. Tsk!

 

Believe me mate there are also plenty of white British scumbags whose houses i unfortunately have to step into that dont deserve all the benefits they get. However back to the point i think 2.5m quid could buy plenty of new body armour and kit to keep the lads safe in hot sandy places.

 

too true. Them as well.

 

Couldn't they make a few white ensigns too? I know we have a much diminished fleet but when all is said and done doesn't Jack also deserve a little bit of morale?

 

Despite the bit about "the Navy's Red Ensign", the contract includes White Ensigns and other flags worn at sea and on that basis BAFF declined the opportunity to criticise. We are a tri-service organisation and we asked that specific question.

 

In relaity though 2.5 million is a drop in the ocean for the MODs budget. And i agree that the forces arnt all about bombs and bullets. Standards shoudnt slip and i can honestly say i have seen a few tatty union flags flying over pongo camps.

 

Danny, you are right. We must all stand to attention, saluting the nice, clean flag, while our uniform looks like crap 'cos people are having to buy their own from commercial outlets...

 

Im not saying that flags are the only problem. But when the public drive past camps its probably the thing that they spot.

 

How could you talk about our clients like that?

Shame on you,my office,now. (Dont forget your Aquagel)

 

The military has always used flags, its one way we differentiate between friend and foe and individual units on the ground. Some may say it is old fashioned and perhaps it is, but it works in its own way and we all rally around "our" flag. Now, 2.5 mill sounds like a lot of money for flags but, I wonder, how much is the tri service flag contract it is replacing? There might just be a saving here.

 

Uniform in a poor state? Nothing much changes then, people were having to shell out for their own gear over 30 years ago.

 

Hate to p!ss on everyones righteous indignation related bonfire, this is a contract renewal. MoD have a framework contract which allows flags and related material to be ordered when it's required. Frameworks are limited to a four year duration, based on current competition and contract law. The estimated value of this, which has to be published when the contract renewal is publicised, is based on previous spend, and the broad expenditure categories.

Contract renewals for consumables happen all the time.

 

Do you mean like poor old David who has never worked in his life due to the fact he cannot walk outdoors on his own. Except when he pops down to the off license. The social should stake that place out that would be one of the disabled register.

It took the contractors extra time to double glaze his housing trust house due to the fact they could not gain entry with the prat being pissed out of his skull...All true I may add!!!

Spending a tidy sum on flags when the forces needs other things!!!

I thought of the movie A BRIDGE TO FAR the paras outnumbered low on ammunition and food . A air drop got through the brave para dashed for the container bringing it back to his lines. It was opened and inside was.

RED BERETS. JUST WHAT THEY NEEDED!!

 

You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, it seems fashionable to find fault with how defence money is spent and the media leaps on this sort of thing in it's usual ill informed way, when all it's about is business as usual! But then the old mantra about never letting the facts get in the way of a good story comes to mind.

This isn't about replacing all the services flags in one go any more than it includes 'The Royal Navy's Red Ensign'!

 

If we didnt replace it, doubltess the old and bold here would be whining about declining standards and how shite the MOD was at looking after the navy and how it was so scruffy now etc...

 

They have always been this, even in the 60/70s - probably some of the older and bolder will have the same memories of 50s.

Upset a dockie in the Store houses, and the ship gets blacklisted, and no deliveries done.

I once served in a Frigate, and the stabs were so crappy, that we had them changed three times. The PSTO(N) as it was then, were most incensed that they tried to refuse replacements, until they were 'advised' that it sometimes gets really rough at sea, and things get damaged.
It was not the workers, but the poltroons who were supposed to be i/c (SEO levels and above !!).

Same problems when I served in a cruiser, half a decade later..!!

Same thing with oleo legs for the Wasp - heavy deck landings in roughers caused damage - same thing from them 'you have had too many.... the allowance etc etc' in a whiney tone.

The problem is then, and still seems to be now, that some in the MoD think that they run the show - having to deal with some in my current employment, it is still the same mindset - arrogance born out of lack of knowledge, understanding and experience.

Just consider, that some hi flying civil serpent will be given an honour because he/she decided a flag was far more important than armour.

Navybluememorabilia sells them for a few pounds, so it seems that £2.5mil is an awful lot of bunting !! ( a vast amount of profit for the manufacturers in reality - who are probably based in China !! )

 

I think you'll find that the forces get through "an awful lot of bunting" on an on-going basis.

Anyone who's served at sea knows how quickly for example, an ensign can get shredded by the wind in bad weather - yet when did you ever have to make do with the old one, there's usually more in the locker. They don't get there by chance they have to be supplied by someone on a continuing basis!

 

Funny how all these newspapers seem to have carried the same article - word for word identical.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2219846/Ministry-of-Defence-to-spend-and1632.5-million-on-new-flags-for-the-Armed-Forces.html

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/50372/Forces-under-fire-over-2-5m-flag-bill

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030431/MoD-spend-2-5m-new-flags-improve-morale.html

I can understand them all carrying the story if it's really out there, but normally they write their own story. Each of the papers above has the 'journalists' name above the piece, which are three different names, isn't it incredible that they have all used precisely the same words to tell the story?

This smacks to me of something published to feed someone's campaign and clearly quoting from a press release.

 

I know about wind damage, and the need for replacements, I was a Dusty and I did serve my time on the waves.

What you seem to have missed is that I was merely commenting on the cost involved (as were others), when it seems from many posts on this and the sister site, that equipment for personnel appears to be lacking somewhat, but some, in positions of authority, seem to think a nice shiny flag is of more importance ?

As for having more in the locker, it may be the thing these days, but previously there was limit to how many of a certain item was allowed to be carried by ships, something called the Sea Stores Allowance List, which was strictly adhered to by the Dockyard Stores.
Good on you if you had spares, but is still a lot of money for pieces of bunting ?