In message , Peter Kemp
writes
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:30:49 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:
The MoD doesn't seem to be into value for
money. Why do they employ more civil servants than soldiers?

Because it's cehaper to have a civvy doing things like procurement and
support than a military bod who is wasted behind a desk (as long as
you have enough military types around making sure we deliver what they
need). Trust me, my equivalent military bod earns a hell of a lot more
than I do.

Ditto. My "military equivalent" ranks make twice what I do, but I'm
current to searide and tabbed to deploy and most of them aren't. So
they're safe at home while I can be grabbed and dropped into a warzone
to *directly* support operations if needed. Oh, wait one... who's the
better deal?

I could complain, but then if I *do* end up in Basra I get various extra
allowances which my Navy oppos don't. (On the other hand even with the
allowances I'm *still* earning less in Basra than them Navy equivalents
in cushty billets back home...)

But I like the work, which is why I'm there rather than in the private
sector.


Also, at least where I sit, many of those 'civil servants' are
themselves ex-Navy who are contributing irreplaceable expertise for much
lower cost than keeping them in uniform. I'm not familiar with the
hinterlands of UK MoD, which is where I presume the huge 'waste, fraud
and abuse' must be - because the only reason the Forces are doing so
much with so little now is that they've contracted out so many 'non-core
tasks' to civilian staff who cost less and get less leave than Service
folk.

(Not knocking the Forces, either: they're the ones *fighting* when push
becomes shove, while we're just asked to get up with them to help,
advise and guide - and try not to get hurt while they do so.)



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk