Navy List 2006 - Disgraceful Errors

Discussion in 'History' started by geoffrey, Nov 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As has been discussed on the RNR forum page of a similar title, the latest 2006 Navy List is full of mistakes, inculding omission of hundreds of officers, incorrect ship classes, most RNR officers having their ranks wrong, and missing obituaries. As this is the only formal publication that officially and legally describes the RN in any one year, these errors are, in my humble opinion, inexcusable and should be rectified immediately by publication of an erratum supplement.

    Errors noted so far are:

    The PUS who signed the 2006 list off on page ii, Sir Kevin Tebbit, is not the PUS who was in post for any of the period in question, as that (as named on page 4) is Bill Jeffery.

    First paragraph of the Introduction has same cutoff dates as 2005 (ie a cut and paste error), when the dates should read 2006.

    Page 4 has the incorrect spelling of the name of the Defence Secretary as Des Brown (correct surname is Browne).

    Almost 100 junior Lt Cdrs have been omitted entirely from the whole publication - in both the alphabetical lists and seniority rankings. These are the Lts that were promoted to Lt Cdr on 1 Oct 05. This is potentially the most serious error.

    The '2002' and '2005' Divisions have been missed out from the Seniority of Commanders (although the names are the same as the 2005 edition). Effectively, there should be a gap between Cordery, JR and Schwarz, PMG in the 2001 list, and between Macleod, JN and Chatwin, NJ in the 2004 list.

    The list of RNR officers is that of 3 years ago, with ranks out of date, anyone who joined since 2003 missing and anyone who left since 2003 still listed. URNU midshipmen are up to date, but still have unit as "U/A" rather than which URNU they are part of.

    The ship classes in Section 5 are all wrong (ALBION and BULWARK are definitely not "FEARLESS class", SABRE and SCIMITAR are not ARCHER P2000 class, the 16 P2000s are ARCHER class however, but are described as ATTACKER class, ECHO and ENTERPRISE are listed as being in the "MISC" class, the SSBNs should be VANGUARD class, but they are described as "Trident Class" - and the crews are listed individually (no need if COs are not being named anymore) - and DUMBARTON CASTLE has no Class listed at all (she is "Castle Class").

    Although most shore establisments, Career Offices and RNR Divisions are listed by address in Section 6, MoD Abbey Wood (largest base in the UK) is not included (although some truly random addresses are - the Maidstone office of the RFEA, or the UNITED KINGDOM COMMANDERS IN CHIEF COMMITTEE (HOME)(UKCICC)(H), anyone?). Also missing are SCC unit addresses and URNU addresses, both of which would be very useful to have in one place. The Naval Bases and Supply Agency is also listed - didn't that get abolished in 2001?

    Last year's Obituary section inexcusably missed out all the deaths in service of the previous 12 months (ie 2004/5) and reprinted the 2002 Navy List version instead - ie those deaths of 2001/2, some 3 years previously. This was a hugely insensitive omission that should have been corrected this year, that I know caused some upset amongst certain quarters.

    For what it's worth, I also think that no longer printing the CO's names with the ships is a huge gap for future historians. Although, in keeping with the lack of logic in this publication, the COs of FAA Squadrons and Commanders of MCM1, MCM2, MCM3 and FPS (although not PBS1, Gib Sqn or Cyprus Sqn, or Naval Parties - all of whom are also on the Bridge Card) are listed.

    The address for the editor for this publication (Mr Andrew Hiscutt, not Mrs Carville as stated on the other forum) is listed on page iii. I have written to ask for some sort of erratum to be published, but I have received no reply. I guess he's sticking to the wording on the page itself:

    The Royal Navy, or HMSO, or Parliament should (IMHO) insist on either a complete reprint, or an extra supplement to make good the omissions. It simply is not good enough. Does anyone else have any errors to point out, or want to join me in my campaign?

Share This Page