Leading Hands and Corporals Mess @ Culdrose

Would you be happy having this forced upon you?


  • Total voters
    187

the_matelot

War Hero
Moderator
Drippy said:
The matelot,

Fair enough, you beat me in the 'who's had longest in the tri-service environment'. Not by a lot but never the less Well done.
I'm interested in hearing your point of view but you've still to make any real argument that invalidates my point on HR or indeed any other points. You clearly don't like me playing the HR card but the wording of the article to which I refer is clear. It's easy to make comments about my maturity or your opinion as to my future promotion prospects but you have to qualify them with reasons, something you've yet to do. You say that if I approach this from a different angle you'd be more sympathetic but no matter how it's worded the arguments are the same.
Well you're the one who started the whole stupid 'I've got more Joint Service experience than you' argument.

As a matter of fact, part of my degree is in Politics or to be more specific, European Politics so I am fully conversant in the Human Rights legislation and I am more than aware of what the legislation entails.

Unlike yourself, who is trying to blag it but failing miserably.

Your 'professional legal advice'....

Tell me, how much did he/she pay for their degree from some 'Online University'? :roll:

They're talking out of their backside.
 

Karma

War Hero
Drippy said:
Clearly 82% agree with me.
82% answered yes to the question you asked, that's a different thing than agreeing with you.

I, and Chieftiff, could prove pretty much anything we wanted by framing the survey question appropriately.
 

copenhagencup

Lantern Swinger
The matelot,
Having served on a tri service unit longer than you yawn, and recently overheard a member of the Chicksands unit visiting Sultan whinging incessantly about mess fees for staying a couple of nights (always Bop night, subsidised everything) I find your arguments limited and well within the box thinking, you institutionalised ******* really piss me off, lacking constructive discontent to change the world for the better, That's why I`m off to a more open deeper thinking world. I suggest you stay in because with your attitude you will struggle outside the Services.

Advice if you are unhappy about your mess fees complain, campaign to change the status quo, seek other peoples opinion; Yes like Drippy, do something positive you half empty saddo.
P.S Don`t whinge at paying at Sultan I would hate to think that I subsidise you.
 

the_matelot

War Hero
Moderator
copenhagencup said:
The matelot,
Having served on a tri service unit longer than you yawn, and recently overheard a member of the Chicksands unit visiting Sultan whinging incessantly about mess fees for staying a couple of nights (always Bop night, subsidised everything) I find your arguments limited and well within the box thinking, you institutionalised ******* really piss me off, lacking constructive discontent to change the world for the better, That's why I`m off to a more open deeper thinking world. I suggest you stay in because with your attitude you will struggle outside the Services.

Advice if you are unhappy about your mess fees complain, campaign to change the status quo, seek other peoples opinion; Yes like Drippy, do something positive you half empty saddo.
P.S Don`t whinge at paying at Sultan I would hate to think that I subsidise you.
I can't speak for people at Chicksands as I'm not based there. Why they're whinging about paying mess fees at Sultan where it's around 1/3 of what they are at Chicksands is beyond me. You can't please everyone, can you?

I don't agree with the way my mess is run-I've submitted several suggestions as to how the mess could be improved to the RSM so I don't sit on my arse twiddling my thumbs like a lot of people do. I just don't go banging on about human rights. I've submitted a few representations over the years and have won them. I know mess fee's are a necessity and to get rid of them would also mean the end of mess life which would be detrimental to service life. Institutionalised? Nope, I've been planning my resettlement for the last few years and if I choose to leave at my 12 year point, I'll have a job waiting for me-I know there's life outside the RN.

My argument is that Drippy has chosen to go down the 'Human Rights' route which would get ripped to shreds at the first hurdle.

If he had approached it without the use of the HRA, then maybe I wouldn't have been so voracious in my comments.

Sounds like you should get out now by the way. No-one likes someone who is bitter and twisted.
 

Chat_Noir

Badgeman
the_matelot said:
Drippy said:
The Matelot,

Yet again, your personal insult lacks any real founded arguments. You assume that everyone is like you and wants to drink and use a mess. How do you know that I'm not an ex alcoholic and can't go into a bar without turning into Barney from the Simpsons. If this was the case, no matter what is done with the mess it will be impracticle for me to use it. Please come back when you have a real grounded argument to make.
You obviously didn't take in what I said in my previous comments.

I'm a watchkeeper. I use the mess for meals and that's about it. I don't get the opportunity to go into the mess as often as I'd like due to watch cycles however I still pay exactly the same mess fees as the guys who are day workers and are in there every evening. Is it fair that I pay exactly the same amount but don't get the opportunity to use it? Probably not but I don't whinge about it, unlike you.

I think the last time I had an alcoholic drink in the mess was the Xmas do. My mess fees include an entertainment subs. I've only been able to go to one mess do in the last 12 months and even then I had to pay extra!

Why don't you go away and formulate an argument without bleating on about your human rights?

Don't you just love JR messdeck lawyers? :roll:

Was it fair that for years, the RN discriminated against singlies who like myself were in long term relationships but chose not to get married by having different levels of charges imposed on them? No, it wasn't. Why should a married person pay less of a food charge than someone who commutes and has bought a house with his or her girlfriend/boyfriend? Are you going to try and tell me that this would stand up in civvy street?

It's just one of those things that happens when you're serving in the forces.

It's called life in a blue suit. If you don't like it, stick your notice in.

If everyone started whining on about how 'this isn't fair, that isn't fair' etc etc, there wouldn't be an RN left!

Old navy? I don't think so-I joined up in 1997.

What you need is a spell in a Tri-service environment to really open your eyes and see just how good we have it in the RN.
A little off track but for every 1 JR messdeck lawyer there’s at least one in either the PO's or CPO's mess. Completely irrelevant to this discussion in my opinion.

For the record, when I was a killick my biggest gripe was the lack of recognition for the rate, so if given the opportunity to have my own mess as a killick I would have jumped at the chance. Would I have used it? Not sure but it’s the bigger picture actually that would have meant more to me, recognition at last.
 

Drippy

Midshipman
copenhagencup,

I'm with you. I might have put it a bit more diplomatically but essentially you summed it up. The matelot has so far done nothing but brag about his tri-service time and his degree in European politics and countered every thing put to him with a statement of how he has a finger in that particular pie and therefore knows all about it (sounds a bit like one of those, I've been there, seen it and done it types whatever the subject). He's made remarks about maturity then made statements like "well you started it....". He's already decided that I'm not suitable for promotion based on nothing more than reading my opinions about mess fees with no knowledge at all about me or my work and belittled my HR argument simply stating that it would be ripped apart at the first hurdle but hasn't stated how or with what counter argument. He clearly knows everything about everything. Perhaps we should just bow to his superior knowledge on all subjects right now. What an arse!

The matelot,

In my last message to you I invited you to offer constructive critisism against my arguments. You seem to have taken exception to the HR argument. Whilst this was but only one of my points it seems to be the most contencious with you so why not lets start there. Since you are so well educated then please qualify your remark about the HR being ripped apart at the first hurdle. Why? If you can counter it without simply slagging it off with unreferenced, unqualified and unevidenced remarks then please do. A genuine devils advocate is exactly what I'm after. For all your talking and bragging you've yet to make any supported arguments to justify your claim. Chieftiff, this one is to you as well. If your qualified lawyer friend is still available then please feel free to let him explain why the HR argument doesn't stand up. It seems pretty unambiguous to me. I remember hearing the likes of you two spouting off back in 2000 or so about why homosexuality will never be allowed in the RN. How the HR argument doesn't apply to those in the forces. Now they're being invited to take part in gay rights marches.
 

Drippy

Midshipman
Chat Noir,

I absolutely respect your point of view. If the killicks mess was for you all good and well. But it should be a choice. I personally feel that I get all the recognition I need by being better and knowing more professionally in the work place than my subordinates and I'm placing my trust in that to get me advanced. I rank ability to perform my job way above belonging to a mess to give me my recognition. Those who are relying on being in the club to get them ahead must, in my view, be lacking in the workplace. No disrespect to yourself of course.
 

Drippy

Midshipman
Karma,

The question is 'are you happy having this forced upon you', yes or no. Whilst I accept that masses of complicated data can be twisted to show almost anything I think this one is pretty unambiguous. The majority are not happy. What you have done is simply quote something you have been told in the past. Try thinking for your self, it works wonders.
 

Karma

War Hero
Drippy said:
The question is 'are you happy having this forced upon you', yes or no. Whilst I accept that masses of complicated data can be twisted to show almost anything I think this one is pretty unambiguous. The majority are not happy. What you have done is simply quote something you have been told in the past. Try thinking for your self, it works wonders.
How about those who haven't answered the question because it implies an expected response?

And what might one interpret as a result of the answer?

fwiw I think there are legitimate questions around the situation, but the approach you're taking isn't surfacing them, merely illustrating an attitude which has so far been called into question by at least three of us, and it can be inferred from the comments of others.

Of course if you're as good as you think you are then presumably you'll have no difficulty identifying the issues involved, and none of them rely on the HRA but will be covered by employment and equal opportunity legislation.
 

Chat_Noir

Badgeman
Drippy said:
Chat Noir,

I absolutely respect your point of view. If the killicks mess was for you all good and well. But it should be a choice. I personally feel that I get all the recognition I need by being better and knowing more professionally in the work place than my subordinates and I'm placing my trust in that to get me advanced. I rank ability to perform my job way above belonging to a mess to give me my recognition. Those who are relying on being in the club to get them ahead must, in my view, be lacking in the workplace. No disrespect to yourself of course.
Ditto
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
Drippy, Karma's point has gone way over your head but nevermind, for the record he's absolutely right and I'm sure in his job and with his ability he has no need to repeat what others have said before.

Let me sum up what is going on here, quite a few people could potentially support you if they had more info. Why is the L/H mess such a bad idea? is it bad value for money? could it potentially be run for free? do the L/H's at Seahawk actually want a mess, are there any bnefits to having a mess etc etc all valid arguments to oppose or support it. More importantly those questions can develop the argument. "I don't want the mess so I ill threaten (wrongly) to use Human Rights legislation to oppose it" is not an argument, it's a standpoint, and similar to the "I'm taking my ball home" one you may remember from the playground.

Now speak to your "professional legal" friend and ask him/her how certain employers can get away with insisting that potential/ current employees are members of certain "professional institutions" some of which cost a fortune before they will employ them. You may just discover your "legal argument" has absolutely no founding. The need is recognised in legislation and catered for in the tax system.

By the way, only a percentage of the people who chose to vote in your ambiguous poll support it.... Ambiguous:-equivocal: open to two or more interpretations!
 

Drippy

Midshipman
Karma,

I'd be very interested in exploring your suggestion as to how employment and equal opportunity legislation could support the argument against mandated payment of mess fees. However, as has been the case from all three of you who disagree with my approach you fail to reference the relevant parts of the said legislation in exactly the same way you have consistently failed to reference any tangible counter argument to the HR standpoint.

Chieftiff,

There is no ambiguity to the question 'are you HAPPY with this being FORCED upon you'. I can see no other interpretation to this question therefore it is unambiguous.

If you look back to my original input into this forum you will see that I have raised issue with the value for money etc. However, this said, it is my 'standpoint' that these issues are secondery and irrelevant to the point that it is arguably (therefore an argument) my qualified right under current UK & European law to choose which charities 'if any' are worthy of my support. As stated before, the social lives of the few or the many are not, in my opinion, worthy causes. It may interest you to know that the question of legality has already been put to Fleet Legal. Although they are not my 'legal friends' they appear to recognise that legality is not concerned with the opinions of the majority or minority nor is it with value for money, etc but only with what is and isn't allowed in law. They have confirmed that Culdrose cannot mandate a fee for the LH/CPLs mess. I imagine we'll be seeing an amendment to the CTM shortly. Incidentally, for all of you Killicks out there paying fees against you choice to other service messes at Sultan or Chicksands, etc, this decision might serve to provide an argument against continuing to make such payments. It might even provide an argument for claiming back past payments. Who knows. Give it some thought.

Your point about 'professional institutions' is a little baffling. I will be sure to explore it, however, I believe what you have done in your 'yet again' unspecific reference to random and wide ranging implications is make the mistake of comparing a service mess 'concerned with social activities' to a professional institution, membership of which is made a condition of employment. I can only presume that you are refereing to such institutions as the bodies to which lawyers, chartered surveyors and accountants belong. This being the case, I think you'll find that such institutions exist for such purposes as providing compensation to the clients in cases of mis-advice or mis-conduct, etc. Off hand I can think of few arguments against their existance although I haven't really given it much thought. Service messes on the other hand exist to provide free coffee and cheap beer. Hardly a like for like comparison is it.

The need for a SR mess is only recognised in QRRN and possibly the Army and RAF equivelants. If it is found to be incompatible with HR legislation there is argument for having it changed.
 
I've been lurking on this thread with much interest for the past few days and it raises several clearly arguable and contentious issues.

Mention is made above by Karma stating "... none of them rely on the HRA but will be covered by employment and equal opportunity legislation."

A genuine question to that is, are members of the armed forces classed as employees, crown servants or some other description. If not classed as employees then the full sanctions under certain acts may not apply (for example daily rate of pay as opposed to minimum hourly rate just as one example)
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
Drippy said:
Chieftiff,

There is no ambiguity to the question 'are you HAPPY with this being FORCED upon you'. I can see no other interpretation to this question therefore it is unambiguous.
I have absolutely no doubt you believe that! The question then: What should I be happy with, the formation of a mess for L/H, the charging of fees for that mess, or membership being compulsory. I would suggest a little ambiguity there!

I suspect Karma is referring to The Employment Rights Act 1996(amended 2002) Part 2 article 13 1a. The Armed Forces are not exempt from this section of the Act, but the debate about "employment contract" will be the key to your argument, that's another story! I have absolutely no intention of supporting your Human Rights standpoint as it not relevant, employment law is another matter. You are also confusing two issues in Law one of being made to be a member, another of enforcing charges and the setting of those charges.

Despite the "fact" that you are obviously the smartest bloke on the planet I would urge you to consider something. Despite your opposition to the mess, is it of benefit to L/H's at Culdrose in general, I would suggest that this is the key argument, if it is not then fair enough. I know the new way of our society is to consider self before all else but wouldn't it be nice if the Armed Forces could maintain some "traditional" values by considering the good of its organisation above some petty argument over a fiver!
 

Karma

War Hero
Drippy said:
Karma,

I'd be very interested in exploring your suggestion as to how employment and equal opportunity legislation could support the argument against mandated payment of mess fees. However, as has been the case from all three of you who disagree with my approach you fail to reference the relevant parts of the said legislation in exactly the same way you have consistently failed to reference any tangible counter argument to the HR standpoint.
I trust, as the outstanding leading hand you claim to be, that you can get off you preverbial and find the information yourself.

Of course if you expect waited on hand and foot it rather reinforces the perception driven by your earlier approach.
 

Karma

War Hero
KLNA-Cessna-Jockey said:
Mention is made above by Karma stating "... none of them rely on the HRA but will be covered by employment and equal opportunity legislation."
The section I'm on about is the existence of a contract, and change of contract. The contract exists, but not in a single document, changes to the various documents do imply changes to the contract.

I did some work which exposed some of this to me last year and to the extent required members of the AF are covered.
 

Drippy

Midshipman
chieftiff/Karma,

Its nice to finally enter into a reasoned debate as opposed to the character assinations of earlier which had little to no relevance to the issue.

Karma,

Sorry, your latest input really has gone over my head. Were you by any chance in your mess, having wrote that after a few pints.

Chieftiff,

The question 'are you 'HAPPY' with this being 'FORCED' upon you' is clear. The sentance as a whole can be broken down and twisted in many ways. However, iaw the rules of interpretation (look it up, it's a legal thing) the intention of the question is clear. 'Are you happy with the formation of a mess for which you will be forced to pay a given amount for it's existance'. And before you start I'm fully aware the results of this poll couldn't be used in any legal context.

Thank you, finally, for a reference. I'll be sure to research it. I would point out however that the HR argument was but one small part of several arguments against mess fees. In fact the HR argument was never presented to Fleet Legal. Compulsory mess fees for LH were quashed long before it ever got to that so don't worry, your tradition of the SR mess is, as yet, still un-challanged. QRRN do not currently provide for all JNCOs to be members of a mess. It is, as I understand it, this that made mandated payment of mess fees illegal. I fully accept that nothing I can say will ever convince you of my point of view. I hope that you can accept the vice a versa to be equally true. The fact is that the final decision will be neither of ours to make. So with the HR argument, in my opinion, fully exhausted, how do you challenge my other points, the first of which is:

Although not enshrined in the Charities Act, enough case law exists to make 'as point of fact' that mess funds are charity funds (recognised in QRRN and confirmed by the Charity Commission in writing). This being accepted and by defenition, charity being 'giving VOLUNTARILY to those IN NEED' how do you qualify any argument against this. i.e. I simply don't vounteer my money to a LH mess - discuss.

In response to the last paragraph of your latest input I would dispute the relevance. I, personnaly, don't feel that a mess is of any benefit what-so-ever to any LH at Culdrose. It possibly gives a degree of hope to someone who has nothing left to offer in their chosen professional environment. A sad endightment to them I think. This, however is but my opinion. Others might have different opinions and therefore defines this line of reasoning as merely opinionated. It has no relevance to what is and isn't legal. Contrary to popular opinion, the majority don't necessarily rule, hence the relevance of law - even if the majority don't like it.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top