NAVY LIST SCREW UPS - ALL OFFICERS PLEASE NOTE

Jim30

Lantern Swinger
#1
All

I have just been notified that there are some glaring errors in this years Navy List - I've been demoted a couple of ranks to Acting Sub Lt and rebranched to New Entry. I am not the only person to have been hit by this error.

I strongly advise you all to check your entry on the system to ensure that you've got the right entry.

All errors should be sent in the first instance to:

Mr Andrew Hiscutt
The Editor of the Navy List
DNCM
Room 208
Jago Road
HM Naval Base
PORTSMOUTH
Hants, PO1 3LU
 

GCYZ

Lantern Swinger
#3
Jim30 said:
All

I have just been notified that there are some glaring errors in this years Navy List - I've been demoted a couple of ranks to Acting Sub Lt and rebranched to New Entry. I am not the only person to have been hit by this error.

I strongly advise you all to check your entry on the system to ensure that you've got the right entry.

All errors should be sent in the first instance to:

Mr Andrew Hiscutt
The Editor of the Navy List
DNCM
Room 208
Jago Road
HM Naval Base
PORTSMOUTH
Hants, PO1 3LU
Mine is wrong too. Maybe they are trying to tell us something Jim?
 

hammockhead

Lantern Swinger
#5
No point everyone complaining - it's a general cock up: every single confirmed sub-lt has been downgraded to acting, for example.

I think it's a database error; they must have tried to import the list wholesale from an out of date database.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
Hmm, but I doubt something will get done about it - I make a mistake and I lose my job; someone at MOD makes a 'clerical error' and they just have to get the biccies in for a week! lol
 

Jim30

Lantern Swinger
#7
Heres the betting it won't be resolved till next years edition.
On a wider note, why is the RNR so crap at updating details. Both myself and colleagues get recall notices addressed to "acting SLT X", when we've all been LT's for years now.
OMOBS told me its a unit job to update, unit told me its an OMOBs job.

Any ideas?
 
#8
A new Treasury cost cutting measure?

Thanks for pointing this out - I will notify colleagues at work that the current edition is inaccurate. Was last year's edition OK? Can we rely on that? On a brighter note, one thing RR is great for is bringing things like this to the attention of a wider audience. They will certainly need to update their online PDF edition well before the new edition comes out - there is no point in having an unreliable data source online - and as a data source it must, of course, contain accurate data.

Can someone PM me the email address of the Editor so that I can email him from work about this.

Incidentally what does OMOBS stand for?

Steve.
 
#9
hammockhead said:
No point everyone complaining - it's a general cock up: every single confirmed sub-lt has been downgraded to acting, for example.

I think it's a database error; they must have tried to import the list wholesale from an out of date database.
Basically the names can be relied upon but the ranks cannot. Erm... :roll:
 
#10
OMOBS = Officers Mobilisation Section

At least you only got demoted Jim30, this year I appear to have been deleted from the Navy List! The problem is aparently not just limited to S/Lt or Lt - I'm not one and never have been (in the RNR that is).
 

GCYZ

Lantern Swinger
#11
15 errors in my unit out of a wardoom of 25. 1/2 ranks wrong, Some people have 'returned', who where not on last years list, having left over 2 years ago. More a work of fiction than a reference guide.
 

hammockhead

Lantern Swinger
#12
2005 Navy List I think was reasonably reliable, except the list was out of date as far as the URNU were concerned - they were still listing midshipmen who had left five years ago.

They can definitely sort the pdf version out; I would have thought they had a duty to.
 
#13
Errors are not just in the individuals' details but in establishments too! CMR are I believe on the case, well at least they were informed a couple of weeks back. I wonder how much of the RN entry is also incorrect.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
Why the need for a published Navy List anyway? Like matelots you know where your mates are serving anyway, and those you don't like you don't care about. If you want to find out where someone is, get the UPO/Reg Staff to trace them on JPA/microfiche! :wink:
 

hammockhead

Lantern Swinger
#16
sgtpepperband said:
Why the need for a published Navy List anyway? Like matelots you know where your mates are serving anyway, and those you don't like you don't care about. If you want to find out where someone is, get the UPO/Reg Staff to trace them on JPA/microfiche! :wink:
It's an officer thing. Most senior officers tend to shit on subordinates who send them official letters getting their name, rank and decorations wrong and sent to the wrong unit. And trust me, these people are not your 'mates'.
 
#17
hammockhead said:
sgtpepperband said:
Why the need for a published Navy List anyway? Like matelots you know where your mates are serving anyway, and those you don't like you don't care about. If you want to find out where someone is, get the UPO/Reg Staff to trace them on JPA/microfiche! :wink:
It's an officer thing. Most senior officers tend to shit on subordinates who send them official letters getting their name, rank and decorations wrong and sent to the wrong unit. And trust me, these people are not your 'mates'.
Where I work we get quite a few enquiries wanting to know anything from whether a person who is claiming to be an officer IS an officer through to correct forms of address, etc. It can be referred to for a published paper if a Naval Officer appears to give evidence before a Committee to give details of his rank, etc. So it is very useful and that is why it is so important it is up-to-date. My customers will not be at all happy if they learn that the Navy List is so unreliable. And they matter. It looks bad for the RN!
 
#19
Always_a_Civvy said:
A new Treasury cost cutting measure?

Thanks for pointing this out - I will notify colleagues at work that the current edition is inaccurate. Was last year's edition OK? Can we rely on that? On a brighter note, one thing RR is great for is bringing things like this to the attention of a wider audience. They will certainly need to update their online PDF edition well before the new edition comes out - there is no point in having an unreliable data source online - and as a data source it must, of course, contain accurate data.

Can someone PM me the email address of the Editor so that I can email him from work about this.

Incidentally what does OMOBS stand for?


Steve.
Officers Mobilisation Secretary. I don't have an e-mail address but the snail mail is:

Mrs Mary-Jane Carvil
The Editior of the Navy List
Room 115
Victory Building
HM Naval Base
Portsmouth
Hants PO1 3LS
 
#20
fido said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
A new Treasury cost cutting measure?

Thanks for pointing this out - I will notify colleagues at work that the current edition is inaccurate. Was last year's edition OK? Can we rely on that? On a brighter note, one thing RR is great for is bringing things like this to the attention of a wider audience. They will certainly need to update their online PDF edition well before the new edition comes out - there is no point in having an unreliable data source online - and as a data source it must, of course, contain accurate data.

Can someone PM me the email address of the Editor so that I can email him from work about this.

Incidentally what does OMOBS stand for?


Steve.
Officers Mobilisation Secretary. I don't have an e-mail address but the snail mail is:

Mrs Mary-Jane Carvil
The Editior of the Navy List
Room 115
Victory Building
HM Naval Base
Portsmouth
Hants PO1 3LS
Thanks Jim & Fido. I will write instead.