Talk:Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: As the subject is about the "role" of the Ministry of Defence. Both Fraud and Criticism don't really fall into this category, while yes they are relevant, if you were to write every single subject on this matter you will still be reading it at page 253.
Slightly off the topic and a tongue in the cheek, how about a subsection on the "The role of UK Government short-term institutionalise Ministry of Defence planning" and a follow up on "How it leads people who thought of these crazy ideas up in the first place somehow get a promotion?"
Lastly on the subject of the Ministry of Attack, had the writer bothered to read History books, he/she will be please to know that The Ministry of Defence once called Ministry of War.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopsidedbunny (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest removing subsection Fraud and Criticism...   

message: * After examining it, I think it may be more appropriate if the property portfolio section concentrate just on the MoD Main Building and its environs, without going into more detail about all the property the MoD owns, apart from a quick one liner to say it owns alot!.
* The Agency list needs to be updated and I will do that along with creation of a section on the organisational hierarchy of the MoD, regarding top level budgets and the major constituent parts of the department.  I think this would also be the section in which to explain how the MoD is accountable to Parliament.
* The section on Defence policy needs to be expanded with an explanation of the broader subject of British Defence Policy and how it set and where it is sourced from.  There should rightly be a mention of NATO and the EU here given the emphasis on combined operations.
* The section on fraud has only one story in it making it really a section on Gordon Foxley!.  THe section on Criticism is also a one hit wonder.  There are two ways to go, one is to create a section on Controversy/Criticism that contains such like fraud and incompetent procurement, and then to expand it with further examples, or to delete the two sections completely.  I favour the first section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by George4405 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Organisation 

message: I'm trying to understand how the responsibilites of the Armed Forces Minister, or as it's put in the article Minister of State for the Armed Forces, is different from that of the Minister of Defence.  Does he aid in setting policy or does he simply oversee the implementation of it? Or is it that he's simply the person responsible for over seeing the individual Armed Services as distinct from the larger Defence Ministry?  User 070 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, a secretary of state has overall responsibility and accountability for all aspects of a Department's work, and they set the strategic direction. Underneath the SoS, a set of junior ministers handle all the day-to-day aspects of running the Department, and they escalate any particularly tricky or sensitive issues up to the SoS. So in the MOD, the day-to-day tasks are split between four junior ministers, one for personnel and veterans, one for international security strategy, one equipment, and one for actual military operations. The junior minister responsible for  operations is known as the 'Armed Forces Minister'. Thom2002 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARMED FORCES MINISTER 

message: In the long history of the MoD we only have one item of specific criticism. The MoD has a history of programme fiascos, would it be better just to give a link to the procurement policy/activities rather than give undue weight to one criticism that just happened to be in the recent news. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: MoD Civilian staff are currently 85,530 personnel according to latest figures. Apr 2010&from=listing&topDate=2010-04-30.
Also MoD's budget is just over £40 billion according to HM Treasury. The current source used for the MoD's budget is actualy projections made by the MoD pre-2007 and arent updated....ever. More reason to use latests government figures. Recon.Army (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Recon.Army uses the spelling "latests".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:BC34:C583:3C82:767 (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect and out of date info

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121008043154/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3A7A2BEA-C92D-431A-B146-AC9E9860EB36/0/central_tlb.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3A7A2BEA-C92D-431A-B146-AC9E9860EB36/0/central_tlb.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090805064236/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BB03F0E7-1F85-4E7B-B7EB-4F0418152932/0/polpaper1_def_dip.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BB03F0E7-1F85-4E7B-B7EB-4F0418152932/0/polpaper1_def_dip.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090806040415/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FE7BE9AA-DD65-4971-8C00-B913E1EA84FA/0/mainbuilding.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FE7BE9AA-DD65-4971-8C00-B913E1EA84FA/0/mainbuilding.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a more precise date than "1964" for the MoD coming into effect?  I have seen uncited 31 December elsewhere. Davidships (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The legislation was the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964 which is dated 12 March 1964, it mentions an appointed day to be declared, I believe this was the 1 Apr 1964 but I am still looking for a reliable reference for the date. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK found it [Defence (Transfer of Functions) (Appointed Day) Order 1964] says it is the 1 April 1964. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - presumably should be in article proper as well as Infobox? Davidships (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of formation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702081038/https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C523A2F0A381F3/ to https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C523A2F0A381F3/
*Added  tag to http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/defence/Head-Royal-Navy-tells-Government-cut-ships/article-1351027-detail/article.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920219/20200922-How_Defence_Works_V6.0_Sep_2020.pdf
Insert when necessary
BlueD954 (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Defence works September 2020 

message: Should we include a section on the issues with Type 45? Imperialpeace (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  T45 Controversey 

message: Hi all, not sure if this information should be included on this article or on another, any suggestions? Please feel free to just add it, I don't know much about this subject. 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/13/army-families-suing-mod-for-poor-housing-told-to-drop-claims-or-have-pay-docked
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian: Army families suing MoD for poor housing told to drop claims or have pay docked