Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

RNR to go by 2010

Given the current recruitment and retention situation, they only need to wait to 2010 till nearly all of the RNR will have left anyway! :lol:
 
Whilst I can understand CHR and all that, I am not really understanding that in this day and age of the internet and open source information, if a matter is not to be discussed outside the room in which is was first mentioned, why someone would be so indiscrete as to mention it in the first place. Human nature being what it is and all that. Presumeably there were people in the audience like Steve who have no obligation to keep schtum about anything that they have heard?

CMR has been talking for at least a year about trying to make the RNR and RN more integrated. Could you all be getting your knickers in a twist and actually what was said that something along those lines?
 
I have never been to Chatham or know of the rule, possibly it follows the lower deck of what goes on tour stays on tour. And as I have spent all of my life in or around the Navy I am quite suprised.

I was also not on the Bulwark or at any time privvy to any conversation that took place.

I am simply using this forum as a sounding board to see if the rumour I heard and then could or would not be confirmed utilising RNR proper channels, was in fact true.

Had my command structure when asked this delicate question (in confidence) not baulked at the question and given me a resounding no then I would not be on here.

As it was a look of suprise that someone should know this that doesn't partake in wardroom high jinxes, and a embarresed "I'll get back to you" only leaves me with one thought, that there is some truth in it.

Please do not get me wrong, I believe that a cull of personnel is required, who for no other reason than they don't fancy a deployment, have yet to give anything back to the service that pays them.

But we need to give the Navy what it wants to survive, and with the limited manpower we have maybe we need to look at the branches that do not offer the same amount of deployability and retrain them to the branches that do i.e AWFP. Either that or everyone does their time from new entry to LH in AWFP and then changes to branch at that point, works for MW.
 
itsamuppet said:
I have never been to Chatham or know of the rule, possibly it follows the lower deck of what goes on tour stays on tour. And as I have spent all of my life in or around the Navy I am quite suprised.
.

Chatham House is the home of the Royal Institute for International Affairs. As you can imagine, there are some very intense and controversial discussions go on in this institute. To help them have "full & frank discussions", they evolved the "Chatham House Rule" which means that what is said at a gathering cannot get attributed to named individuals. You are not quite correct in your "what goes on tour stays on tour".

I am very surprised that anyone would attribute any information under Chatham House Rule to a named individual. It defeats the whole purpose of the original frank exchange.

Edited to add linky
Chatham House Rule
 
thingy said:
This matter was raised (under Chatham House Rules) with the FSL on HMS Bulwark on Monday evening. My understanding of his reply (GR should be able to clarify as she was with me) is that he talked of fully integrating the RNR into the RN (in much the same way the other reserves are being integrated) so that phasing out the RNR would be a logical step forward following integration.

Steve
FSL is the company that runs Pompey Dockyard. Did you really think that 1SL was going to divulge anything controversial to a bunch of civies on a schmooze cruise? Still desperate to feel like an insider?
Its clear that the line between reservist and regular is going to get increasingly blurred over the next few years, but as Rosie says, thats part of an ongoing process.
 
itsamuppet said:
I have never been to Chatham or know of the rule, possibly it follows the lower deck of what goes on tour stays on tour. And as I have spent all of my life in or around the Navy I am quite suprised.

I was also not on the Bulwark or at any time privvy to any conversation that took place.

I am simply using this forum as a sounding board to see if the rumour I heard and then could or would not be confirmed utilising RNR proper channels, was in fact true.

Had my command structure when asked this delicate question (in confidence) not baulked at the question and given me a resounding no then I would not be on here.

As it was a look of suprise that someone should know this that doesn't partake in wardroom high jinxes, and a embarresed "I'll get back to you" only leaves me with one thought, that there is some truth in it.

Please do not get me wrong, I believe that a cull of personnel is required, who for no other reason than they don't fancy a deployment, have yet to give anything back to the service that pays them.

But we need to give the Navy what it wants to survive, and with the limited manpower we have maybe we need to look at the branches that do not offer the same amount of deployability and retrain them to the branches that do i.e AWFP. Either that or everyone does their time from new entry to LH in AWFP and then changes to branch at that point, works for MW.

Good Idea. In fact, why don't we just stick all RN ABs into the Warfare Branch? It's going to cause more people to leave etc. It also means tht other branches WHICH ARE VERY MUCH USED AND VALUED BY THE REGULR SERVICE will possibly disappear. After all after x years as an AWFP rating, would you want to go and learn a new job?
 
itsamuppet said:
I am simply using this forum as a sounding board to see if the rumour I heard and then could or would not be confirmed utilising RNR proper channels, was in fact true.

Indeed, and given that CINFLEET has been undergoing a review, and CMR is part of the Fleet organisation then it should be very clear that the Fleet review encompasses CMRs delivery of capability.

Had my command structure when asked this delicate question (in confidence) not baulked at the question and given me a resounding no then I would not be on here.

I can't comment on your chain of command, but many RNR do appear blissfully unaware that CMR is part of the fleet organisation and as such is subject to any initiatives in that area.

Please do not get me wrong, I believe that a cull of personnel is required

You may be right, however a manpower reduction is an outcome, what CMR needs to do is deliver to OC that CINC wants, then fit the available manpower to that requirement.

But we need to give the Navy what it wants to survive, and with the limited manpower we have maybe we need to look at the branches that do not offer the same amount of deployability and retrain them to the branches that do i.e AWFP. Either that or everyone does their time from new entry to LH in AWFP and then changes to branch at that point, works for MW.

I appreciate that you are an AWFP rating and this impacts on your perception of the problem. I remain curious as to which branches you believe that CINC does not have a requirement for. Frankly the suggestion that we turn everyone into AWFP is not an answer which meets the requirement or is likey to be sustainable. I've met a number of people now who are not inspired or motivated by the prospect of loitering on the upper deck with a rifle for hours at a time and appear keen to get out of that branch.

We need to think about Outcomes and Operational Capability, then work from there.
 
rosinacarley said:
Whilst I can understand CHR and all that, I am not really understanding that in this day and age of the internet and open source information, if a matter is not to be discussed outside the room in which is was first mentioned, why someone would be so indiscrete as to mention it in the first place. Human nature being what it is and all that. Presumeably there were people in the audience like Steve who have no obligation to keep schtum about anything that they have heard?

Whilst I can see why you say that, the use of the rule is all about integrity and trust. In practice very few CH events are not on the record any more, which is one of the reasons that I'm surprised that the statement was phrased in the way it was. It may just have been an offhand comment and Steve was merely wanting to protect the identity of the questioner, rather than 1SL.

CMR has been talking for at least a year about trying to make the RNR and RN more integrated.

And there are some on both sides of that divide doing their best to undermine the effort. Many, again on both sides, are unaware of what the other can bring or the initiatives ongoing within the Fleet TLB, the joint environment or the wider MOD which offer opportunities for exploitation.

The boundary should be a lot more porous than it actually is, but I do rather tagree with itsamuppet that CMR needs to ensure that he is providing what the RN requires. We just happen to disagree over AWFP being the answer.
 
I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill here... who didn't already know that the master plan for the RNR is to incorporate it into the regular service, to create a "regular" and "part time" service? The idea being you can flit between the two if you wish & if it suits the needs of the Service. I would be surprised if any current RNRs hadn't heard about this idea.

If and when it will actually happen is anyone's guess however.
 
dunkers said:
I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill here... who didn't already know that the master plan for the RNR is to incorporate it into the regular service, to create a "regular" and "part time" service? The idea being you can flit between the two if you wish & if it suits the needs of the Service. I would be surprised if any current RNRs hadn't heard about this idea.

If and when it will actually happen is anyone's guess however.

Yeah but is "incorporating it into the regular service" the same as getting rid of the RNR? No. It's a change in roles, contracts and hopefully attitudes. If they were to actually disband the RNR and make everyone 'part time RN' that would be one of the least popular decisions ever within the RNR.

I agree, and especially with Masterchief's comments I disbelieve this buzz. If this is the meaning of the original dit, perhaps people should phrase their posts better.
 
So what's so different that's being implied here than the army are promoting in their current advertising campaign "ONE ARMY - Regular and Territorial".

Why not "ONE NAVY - Regular and Reserve"

Not so long ago everyone was discussing what a great thing it was to have the Rs removed from the uniform - possibly because that made them feel more integrated, more valued or less highligted or part on "ONE NAVY"

All I see here is much rumour, no evidence.

I'm happy to wait and see what happens OFFICIALLY
 
That was indeed the intended way forward. Then at the last moment it was binned. The current "Life Without Limits" comercials were intended to be for full and part time opportunities. As are the Army ones.

As to the reality of being of one company, I say "Bring it on". At least we should not have to pay more for our scran than the full timers do. (See thread on pay as you dine.)

By the way what Was 1SL doing sitting on a bulwark? Was he ,perhaps IN HMS Bulwark? :pukel:
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top