it is disappointing to read that
1 - Armouries are/were not at the required standard
surely this should have been known, understood and mitigated against ie deemed “not for use”
2 - given this was found out last year (now I admit last year could be 30th Dec 2018, but equally could be 2nd Jan 2018) why there wasn’t an urgent review and audit of Armouries in use and to immediately block/ban the use of those armouries that don’t comply
3 - given the theft of the L103s and identification these were not suitable to be classed as “DP Rifles” why something wasn’t done sooner, at the very least a recall of all “DP” weapons.
Seems reading this thread and the Telegraph article that there has only been a reaction (to recall weapons) once it happened a second time to a armoury which shouldn’t have been holding weapons in the first place.
Combine this story (live weapons, stored in “unsecure” armouries, and DP weapons which are not “DP weapons”) with the saga surrounding the Gliding (lack of known servicing on the VGS airframes/lack of papertrail of what work has/n’t been completed) it makes me wonder what other shortcuts the MOD/RAF are taking with regards the hardware that is made available to the RAFAC.
At which point do we find out Spooner huts are “just one strong storm” away from falling over? Or that the electric heaters fitted in Cadet huts and building up and down the country have been slowly poisoning us due to the heating of the coating which contains something it shouldn’t?
Perhaps the RACAC’s insurance is actually only valid when conducting activities on MOD property and as soon as stepping out the compound the legal position of such insurance falls over…?