Again taking politics out of it, large swathes of DTE have been absorbed for housing not only ‘boat people’, but also Afghans. Therefore this reduces the overall capacity for the AFs to use, UKR personnel to train, leaving the various CFs to fight over what is left.
1 Like
Probably the right move in the grand scheme of things though.
Im hoping the recent survey thats out long term will indicate that the RAF need to provide an accom solution like the ACF have with cadet training centres.
But i know im being gullable there
They need to consider the overall basing and training capacity.
Selling off airfields or barracks for housing might make short term sense but reduces the training and expansion potential of the AF and reduces the contingency options (pandemics, refugees, potentially the need to rehouse civpop following a natural disaster etc)
For us in the near term making it easier to train on public land will help, including a simpler TOPL system.
Locally we have a fair few parks that are suitable, and could even have areas sectioned off for reserve or CF training, but the government agency that manages them charges groups for their use.
Given what’s happening in the East of the continent right now, it makes sense for the military to retain ownership and control of the estate they currently have.
That doesn’t mean it can’t be reused for other purposes, but it’s much simpler to scale-up if necessary when you don’t have to either buy back former land and facilities, or purchase new ones.
When it comes to housing asylum seekers, military facilities actually make a lot of sense logically (although many people argue against it emotionally). There’s the potential for the sites to be completely self-contained away from other areas of the population until suitability of the person’s claim is assessed. Once their claim has been seen to have merit, and once the person has been seen to posses no threat (99.99% don’t), then they can be housed in a community setting to aid integration.
2 Likes
If only there was a definitive document that could give guidance, they could call it something like Defence Writing Guide, make it a JSP with an easily remembered number like 101!
If it existed it might say something along the lines of:
Signature block
- Always use a signature block to identify the person signing a document:
a. Show the initials and name of the person signing, using upper-case and lower-case letters (for example ‘T Allardyce’). Do not include post-nominal letters.
b. For military staff, show the rank of the person signing. Where appropriate, such as on correspondence at a multinational HQ, give the Service or nationality. Write military ranks with initial capitals only. Civil servants do not normally include their grade.
c. Always include the job title of the person signing, ‘SO1 J3’ unless the appointment is already included in the detail of headed notepaper. You may add the job title or department the person represents, (for example ‘For Policy Director’). Check on the local practice.
But I’m just a crusty old retired shiney so what would I know.
2 Likes
I remember JSP 101 being a thing of beauty and treated like a DW bible. Over recent years it’s been slimmed down to shadow of its former self, to bring it in line with other departmental style guides, and is openly treated as mere guidance, contradicted by internal writing guides, or ignored accordingly.
The ban on post-nominal letters is one particular area where it is mostly ignored. I include the post-nominal letters that indicate my status as a reservist. Not doing so would feel rather Waltish. My unit being a reserve one isn’t enough, as we have regulars in our CoC and I spend a lot of time serving in regular units with their details in my signature block.
Others quite rightly include state honours and higher medals; what would be the point in awarding post-nominal letters if recipients couldn’t use them in the environment where they are most relevant?
Went out last night with wife, drove in her car, which has the car seats. Taxi home because wine was consumed.
Get home, decide to book swim for kids for a nice Sunday activity.
Wake up this morning and remember car with car seats, which we need for said swim is half way across town…
I have missed vital context 
It’s just the financial situation of the UK today; some families can’t afford for both cars in the household to have seats so they just have one set which they switch between cars.
Oh I’ve just realised.
We also have a child seat in just one of the cars.
Unless you do actually mean what I first read, which is that only one of your cars has seats. 
Like having 2 x 2CV, but only one set of seats 
More would be an extravagance!
We have two branches of Sainsbury’s, just 6 miles apart consistently at least 4p per litre different - and currently 6p different!
The greatest difference was 10p