Latest Downing Street Petition

#2
2SL

Lets face it, the chain of command works both ways. Second has taken responsibility for the decision.

One of the perks of holding the rank is taking responsibility for the actions of ones subordinates.

And how far down the HQ food chain would we want to go? Lt Cdr, WO, CPO?

As I recall Mike Critchley is ex service himself and should know better about responsibility.
 
#5
No

I may not agree with the decision made but I don't see a reason to undermine the chain of command in a witch-hunt over it.

Seen enough of them inside the service to want to have one in the public gaze.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#6
Karma said:
No

I may not agree with the decision made but I don't see a reason to undermine the chain of command in a witch-hunt over it.

Seen enough of them inside the service to want to have one in the public gaze.
Hmmm, good point!
 
#7
Hawkeye said:
Ok Guys and Gals
lets try and get them named and shamed


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Navy-media/
I for one will not be signing, such demants allow the politicos to junk an admiral or two without actually having to admit their own involvement. Have you looked at what Des has said so far, it is all about communications up from his staff, absolutely nothing about instructions down from either No 10 or himself. It is those instructions we need to see, they are the smoking gun.
 
#8
Maxi_77 said:
It is those instructions we need to see, they are the smoking gun.
It was interesting to note that he was very precise about having been ''asked to note'' the decision and then weaseling around whether he could have barred it there and then. Spineless git, IMHO.

Now I'm very familiar with the subtleties of language used in communication to very senior people and political filth but his implication was that he was unable to change the decision there and then.

I have a feeling that any No10 communication (direction?) won't have touched the politicians, it'll have been done verbally to avoid any evidence trail. Any substantive direction, or implication, would become a record in the context of the Freedom of Information Act and given the apparently burned fingers over other recent records in an unreleted No10 investigation I'd imagine they're being even more careful than usual about evidence.
 
#9
Karma said:
It was interesting to note that he was very precise about having been ''asked to note'' the decision and then weaseling around whether he could have barred it there and then. Spineless git, IMHO.

Now I'm very familiar with the subtleties of language used in communication to very senior people and political filth but his implication was that he was unable to change the decision there and then.
Although in one of his statements he did admit that he could have stopped it then, but decided to accept the advice.

Karma said:
I have a feeling that any No10 communication (direction?) won't have touched the politicians, it'll have been done verbally to avoid any evidence trail. Any substantive direction, or implication, would become a record in the context of the Freedom of Information Act and given the apparently burned fingers over other recent records in an unreleted No10 investigation I'd imagine they're being even more careful than usual about evidence.
One just hopes that the MOD has learnt that recording all 'intructions, wishes etc in what ever way possible is essential when dealing with politicos.
 

Hawkeye

Lantern Swinger
#10
Then it comes back to a point made in another post.

" QRRNS Ch 68 says that any account for the press must be approved by a higher authority, and no commitment may be made to publish until approval has been given, and the text of any article or broadcast has been given the OK. Was QRRNs bypassed in this case?"

Q1 Who gave the approval?
Q2 Would the 2SL make this approval in isolation?


if the answer to Q2 is no then refer to Q1 and you have the culprit
 
#11
Hawkeye said:
" QRRNS Ch 68 says that any account for the press must be approved by a higher authority, and no commitment may be made to publish until approval has been given, and the text of any article or broadcast has been given the OK. Was QRRNs bypassed in this case?"
I don't think there is any doubt about the application of QRs, but the discussion on Radio 4 yesterday came up with one comment which I think is important. If approval was given to speak to the media then there was no way to avoid the subsequent payment.

Anyway, that's a distraction from the point of the thread. We don't, in the main, hang our people in public. It's been a while but I recall from Dartmouth being advised to praise in public and admonish in private.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#12
I see that the petition is currently growing quickly! More to do with the BBC, Sky, Telegraph et al than level headed thinking I am sure. The problem with your petition is that the "person responsible" is unlikely to be the actual person responsible, as likely to be a decent guy doing his best as some idiot who is doing only the best for himself!
 

Hawkeye

Lantern Swinger
#13
chieftiff said:
I see that the petition is currently growing quickly! More to do with the BBC, Sky, Telegraph et al than level headed thinking I am sure. The problem with your petition is that the "person responsible" is unlikely to be the actual person responsible, as likely to be a decent guy doing his best as some idiot who is doing only the best for himself!
chieftiff you keep refering to "your petition" as in somebody on this forum
it was started by a guy called Mike Critchley"
 
#16
Hawkeye said:
chieftiff said:
I see that the petition is currently growing quickly! More to do with the BBC, Sky, Telegraph et al than level headed thinking I am sure. The problem with your petition is that the "person responsible" is unlikely to be the actual person responsible, as likely to be a decent guy doing his best as some idiot who is doing only the best for himself!
chieftiff you keep refering to "your petition" as in somebody on this forum
it was started by a guy called Mike Critchley"
But you did promote it to this esteamed body of men and wome, so in here it is yours.
 
#17
Oil_Slick said:
Goes without saying but don't sign up from anything MOD or MOD connected…
The issue is more about not using an official email address as validation which would explicitly associate the individual with the Department.
 

geoffg

Lantern Swinger
#18
You have my backing Hawkeye. Why stop there. Those who accept money should be sacked too, especially in the light of the Lads and Lass who's bodys were flown back into UK today
geoff(ers) :?
 
#19
Okay guys. If you want to see the RN complete the job started by this government and tear itself apart, sign the petition. It's still a free country (just) but I won't be signing it.
 
#20
Well a petition was a poorly thought out idea.
If the person who made the decison was a serving naval officer then the people appending there names to a petition start approaching that navy grey area of "conduct liable" and mutiny if someone has a bad day
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts