CI CS95/MTP regs

Adult Staff Staff Development
21

Tbh, it doesn’t worry me - of course, I’m just a CI, so have no pride, ambition or personal drive - I used to wear a dagger, wings and a little triangle, but that’s not what I do for a living anymore.

I’d think the bloke who delivers our heating oil - who used to work on the north sea rigs - was a bit odd if he turned up wearing an immersion suit and life jacket - why therefore should anyone feel differently if I were to be obsessed by the need to be dressed for my former job?

In another world it wouldn’t be a problem, but we live in an organisation beset by walts and tedious little men riven by petty jealousies - given that it’s just a lot easier to not bother… speaking, of course, as just a CI who has no drive, pride of ambition.

1 Like
22

Because RAF and Army) dress Regs allow it. Parachuting, Commando daggers, etc are qualifications that award a badge that can be worn in perpetuity

Army dress Regs don’t allow mudguards to be worn of say IRISH GUARDS to be worn by a CFAV in a Rifles badged det/coy, so why do the RAF allow non Regt personnel to wear mudguards, or to give them their correct nomenclature, branch identifiers?

The 5 miler of death? Harder than P Coy? Really?

2 Likes
23

Look, that barrier doesn’t raise itself you know…

More ice cream?

1 Like
24

[quote=“Major_Kong, post:22, topic:2499”]
mudguards, or to give them their correct nomenclature, branch identifiers?[/quote]
They have been designated as a badge of qualification, hence the former CG and ultimately no doubt, the DPC, authorising their wear.

Hmmm…5 miles? Doubt it. In my day it was the “Gandale Gallop”. A lot further than 5 miles.

And I’ve done P Coy. Twice.

25

CRO’s dated 1 Nov 11:

ENTITLEMENT TO WEAR THE RAF REGIMENT INSIGNIA

  1. The Commandant General (CG) RAF Regt has recently issued clarification on the wearing of RAF Regt insignia which confirms that the RAF Regt shoulder and epaulette insignia are a hard-earned badge of qualification. Successful completion of the RAF Regt Trainee Gunner Course for airman (previously called the Basic Gunner Course) and the Junior Regt Officers Course (for officers), entitles the holder to wear the ‘mudguard’ in perpetuity, including upon remuster or transfer to the reserve (including the ACO).

  2. However, those who qualified as gunners are not entitled to wear the insignia if commissioned subsequently, until such time as they re-qualify as RAF Regt officers. In exceptional cases, at the sole personal authority of the CG RAF Regt, insignia may be awarded on an honorary basis.

  3. Queen’s Regulations and Dress Regulations will be amended in due course. In the meantime, this CRO is the authority for eligible ACO staff to wear RAF Regt insignia.

My bold. Of course, this was prior to the current CG changing the rules.

26

Oh well if the CG says it’s a qualification badge to be worn even after leaving the job, fair one. But I think it might be stretching it. Infantrymen get a bayonet badge, but it usually only worn on 1,2 dress IIRC, and only whilst in that trade. Don’t think it’s worn at all by Sgts and above in some regiments.

27

Gunner, why did you P coy twice?

Did you upset someone or are you just a masochist?:stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

29

No doubt the latter.

30

I take it you aren’t a fan of the fearless protectors of the EFI then?

1 Like
31

Cpl’s and Sergeant’s don’t wear them. After SCBC and PSBC at Brecon they wear the crossed rifles.

32

I’m sorry, but this is all rather silly. Let’s be honest the wearing of RAF Regiment Mudguards are merely an identifier. It’s not arduous. Certainly not as arduous as any Infantry training. Throwing badge glory around is laughable. For reasons beyond my understanding the ACO holds the RAF Regt as if they are some form of demi-gods. If they are QCS then they have already reached a degree deity that us mere mortals can only imagine… I don’t wear my dagger because it was in the past when I was a young spritely character supple of bone and quick of movement. Now I no longer match the expected credentials. But, this is all so trivial. Walt’s wanting to wear a nothing badge for turning up and doing their training. Whoop whoop!

2 Likes
33

Inter-unit banter is fine by me and very much welcomed, however, I draw the line at outright slurs which are freely bestowed by some including those who’ve never served a day in their sad little lives.

As for the wearing of mudguards, I - personally - feel that ACO personnel who have earned them and who wish to, should wear them. Not every ex-Gunner will want to put them up and I would respect them for that decision as much as I would respect those that did. I’m not overly familiar with today’s training regime but back in the day, they weren’t easy to get.

Back in the 70’s when I was a cadet, one of our Sqn officers was ex-Regiment. He inspired me and made me see what could be achieved with a little hard work and determination. Today, I see no difference. Part of our role is to inspire cadets to achieve in whatever way we can and if that means them knowing that staff are ex-Regiment or ex-Paras or ex-Bootnecks, then I say wear what you’re entitled to and show the kids what they too could do.

I agree that there are staff out there who would wear things they might not be entitled to but if proof of qualification was required to be shown, then by and large that weeds them out.

Does the wearing of mudguards affect me personally? No, it doesn’t because I didn’t do JROC and I’ve been commissioned for some 13 years now so I’m not entitled to wear them. I was an NCO with only BG and an FT1 under my belt. Have I worn mudguards as an officer? Yes, once, when it was the last CS95 shirt I had on a week long camp.

Did it cause [AN ISSUE]? Very much so. Notably from those that I’ve mentioned that have never signed on the line in their lives.

I pity them.

Gentlemen, could I suggest that rather than denigrate the RAF Regiment, we treat those that have served in the Corps with the same level of respect that we would treat any other member of staff, whether they have qualification badges or not. Whilst those that wear parachute wings and daggers have undoubtedly ‘gone through the mill’, hardship is hardship and people work hard to obtain a certain level in whatever branch or arm of the services they choose to serve in.

There is no reason to ridicule them in the way that appears to so fashionable on these boards.

1 Like
34

Stay with me here, but it may be, perhaps, because they are so quick themselves to rip apart those who haven’t worn said accredited accountrements.

My perspective is this. Only Regiment people brought this matter to the table of the ACO. 70 years and only now is it an issue. An issue which has TAKEN UP SO MUCH TIME AT COMMAND LEVEL crying and whinging on BOTH sides when they should be discussing other matters. The decision has led to further crying and whinging on BOTH sides, effort which should have been put to ensuring this organisation remains great.

1 Like
35

As I’ve mentioned, inter-unit banter is expected and quite often, welcomed. Yes, we have [IDIOTS] in the Corps and they are pretty quickly sorted out by their peers as and when necessary. That said, I’ve come across quite a few paras who think they are all things to all men and have seen their NCO’s adjust their attitudes in the blink of an eye.

Idiots exist in all units at all levels. The RAF Regiment is no different but that’s still no reason to try to portray them as the lowest of the low.

As Teacher is an officer, I’m appalled by his vitriol. A ‘nothing badge’. How sad that he can’t have the least bit respect for those who have served in the Armed Forces just like he has.

As for the ‘whinging and crying’ by Regiment people who’ve - allegedly - ‘brought this matter to the table of the ACO’, what proof do you have? This is not just confined to the ACO but if you read the extract from CRO’s above, you’ll see that the order was extended to ALL reservists and those that had remustered into different trades. I suspect the initial movement was by those members and the ACO was thrown in as an afterthought.

1 Like
36

Yeah Gunner thanks for the patronising comment. If it makes you feel better that’s the main thing. Nevertheless, I will say that the 25 years I served were in some of the most horrendous and disagreeable places on Earth where I patrolled and occassionally fought side by side with some of the bravest and dedicated people who have ever walked on the surface of this periodically evil planet. I have more respect for all of them than I have for half my family. So by all means slag at me, knock down my career as much as yo see fit but don’t say I don’t respect those who have served. Your ignorance on such a matter is astounding. And, @Plt_Off_Prune is quite right, it is only Regiment people who seem to be making a fuss when far more important things regarding DofE, Gliding; etc goes by the way side. As I said, laughable!

38

Teacher,

You’ll notice that I haven’t slagged-off your service but merely your comments regarding the Regiment which go way beyond banter and demonstrated a deep-seated hatred for those who have chosen the RAF Regiment as their unit of choice.

I haven’t denigrated your unit\Regiment nor where you have served. If you think I’m patronising you, best you go back to College and learn what it actually means.

I take it, like Prune, that you have irrefutable evidence that it was only ‘Regiment people’ who caused all the fuss? If so, I’d very much like to see it.

39

Here’s a question:
If RAF Regt mudguards are unit identifiers, then are RM Commando Flashes too?

The dagger is given to AACC but the full 32 weeks are the green flashes with the Dagger flash being used to signify 3 Cdo Brigade.

So does a dude wear a Cdo flash or a red and black AACC dagger?

It’s not hard though. All this for “if you earnt it, you can wear it, if you don’t then you don’t” crack on with other stuff.

47

Your argument is, and I quote - “Only Regiment people brought this matter to the table of the ACO, an issue which has TAKEN UP SO MUCH TIME AT COMMAND LEVEL crying and whinging on BOTH sides when they should be discussing other matters. The decision has led to further crying and whinging on BOTH sides”. Unquote.

You’ll notice - if you take the time to read it - that the original order concerned RAF Regiment regulars and reservists who had transferred to the reserves or remustered into different trades. The ACO bit is in brackets.

I very much doubt that those ex-Gunners currently serving in the ACO would have been a sufficient voice to persuade the CG to recognise them first and regulars\reservists second.

Highly likely it was done with the regs\reserves in mind and I would think that someone would have said words to the effect ‘what about the guys in the ACO?’ and the CG agreed.

Hardly the sole conspiracy of those fiendishly waltish, ex-Gunners who are\were ACO SNCO’s and officers. The CG issued the order to all formations including the ACO and the ACO actioned it. Simple. Or it would have been if certain elements within the ACO had had the good grace to accept it. The ‘whinging and crying’ has been all one way.

‘Verbal conversations’ are a very convenient way of trying to extricate yourself from the argument but until you provide evidence that ACO personnel are responsible for ‘all this fuss’ at Cmd level, you actually have no argument at all.

Exactly the same as Teacher, who, once he realised he’d lost the argument, sadly resorted to insults. That says a lot about him and his background.

1 Like
48

And just to note further, that the CRO is dated Nov 11 - nearly 5 years ago. DoE, flying, gliding and other activities were still going relatively strong at that time. So once again, I fail to see the connection between ex-Gunners ‘whinging and crying’ about mudguards and the impact of such alleged actions affecting or causing the decline of these activities as a result.

1 Like
49

Very unlikely. In fact very very unlikely. Not like the ACO is on the forefront of their minds is it. And it would have taken joint approval from HQAC as well. Then the ACMB.