Change the regs. Changing a Word document and sending an email is a great deal easier than 4000 people buggering about with their uniforms…
Or just do it anyway. No one cares, and anyone who does needs their harddrive checked by the local nonce squad.
Except everyone already has MTP slides because we have had since the new slides came in, what you are advocating for is MTP slides on an OG item of uniform.
That is why I stick to the MTP-backed and don’t double-up with OG-backed just for that single use case.
I just bought a pair of OG slides for my OG jumper.
Just got one of these. Great bit of Kit. Surprisingly toasty. Can’t wait for the first "well it not in "ACP1358, you are not allowed to wear it.
If you’re in the field, doing FT, i dont care, as long as its green/dark and keeps you warm.
It’s warm kit, not a parade… any idiot can be cold.
When back on camp, as per 1358…
For the last time, this is RAFAC! Stop trying to apply common sense; it’s not welcome here!
Rather like the rank slide thing, I think that the regs should be rewritten to take into account the needs and realities of the ACO.
Because we don’t get stuff issued, what we have is what we can find, and what we can afford - so we shouldn’t be prescriptive: you must wear this, you must not wear that.
It should be supporting and enabling - saying that you must wear a rank slide, but that it can be green, or tan, or MTP, or even blue.
That if it’s raining, it’s great if everyone has MTP/DPM waterproofs, but if someone hasn’t, a grey/green /tan/black/whatever waterproof is better than no waterproof.
I have, sadly, seen 13/14/15 year old children being told to remove waterproofs and cold weather clothing that doesn’t match the regs in weather that causes me - a hill farmer in Northumbria - to be wrapped up like the Michelin man.
I watched an Adult FS tell a child to take off a softie jacket in the snow at 500m in mid-wales in March.
Given that we’ve had no luck getting rid of the absolute throbbers who revel in this crap and who use the regs as weapons against children and the people who look after them, the regs need to change to become the protection against these cretins, and not their tools.
That’s not a 1358 issue, that’s an ID-10-T issue.
I have never seen anyone be allowed to disregard welfare for the sake of a coat.
That’s mad. They have no place telling you what to wear if they’re not paying for it.
How has this stuff become such a big part of the organisation when the basic kit isn’t provided?
It is part of our scaling being woefully out of date (this is more of an issue than dress regs per se).
And people who go around saying ‘but we are a blue organisation’ when the current blue uniform is not fit for purpose for many activities given current expectations, not least around climatic injuries.
I will grant that cadets undertook leadership tasks and range days etc in blue battle dress but that was then, and it was battle dress not office wear.
“We fought wars in No2 dress” feels like a terrible argument, doesn’t it. Haha
FFS.
Safeguarding and safety comes above ALL else, and that includes uniform regs.
Bluntly, anyone who has an issue with that can get in the sea. It makes my blood boil.
About 7 years ago, I can remember a FS DI tell a cadet that they could now wear those boots with No3 uniform because they could not be polished. Cadet had turned up in military style high leg brown boot that were swede and cordura but very little flat leather much like the Aku Pilgrim issue boots.
He didn’t fully believe me and proceeded to check AP1358C as it was then. He then apologised to the cadet and told him he could wear said boots.
At least he apologised. Too many old school staff would have doubled down
I forgot to add some features that the Police get but us soldiers don’t, which I think are small but novel improvements.
For one, I’d add back the ability to use shoulder rank slides. I know we generally don’t use them outside parade. However, outside of combat zones, there’s no reason they need to be on the front, and the amount of times I’ve accidentally misidentified an officer as an NCO because I didn’t see their rank from behind. They worked well until the late '95 issue came along, anyway. I’d at least like the option on the barracks shirt.
Just look at these US soldiers from Ft. Polk with theirs sewn on to their shoulders:
https://youtu.be/fbCxyJ2VztA?si=FFe3tZem5O3Mtu6m&t=206
I think that’s probably the most hideous thing I’ve seen for a while.
If we just did it as the Police do:
The attacher would be basically impossible to see using MTP when using a front rank, and yet would mean no more sewing on chest buttons in order to use a brassard when needed.
I’d also add radio holsters, like the picture shows. When not wearing MOLLE body armour, you’ve basically got the option of a belt or chest pocket, and neither are particularly convenient.
Get rid of trousers and only issue skirts to all.
It’s nice flying close to the wind!
I trust they were told at the time they were utter fools and a report made to safeguarding for potentially putting ‘child’ at risk of illness and injury.
Again were they told to do one and reported to safeguarding??
Sadly the one with the waterproofs, which particularly sticks in my mind, was a wing/region event. I don’t actually know who said ‘no waterproofs on this parade’ (it was absolutely throwing it down, proper biblical stuff, the cadets had several hours left at the location, and then journeys of up to 3 hours or so to home), but they wore no waterproofs and did foot drill in puddles that reached over their shoes. Whether it was one of the wing commanders present who made the decision, or one of the WO’s and no one countermanded him, I don’t know, and while some - including me - protested, it didn’t change.
The incident with the softie was resolved by my BSM and the efficient manner one might expect.The VR(T) officers present were all wearing softies, buffalo’s, and down jackets, and seemed reluctant to get involved.
The FS is still in the ACO, and there were, to my knowledge, no repercussions around the parade incident apart from lots of very unhappy parents.
