bluemonday Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Clicky Thousands of unfit and disabled Service personnel, including Afghanistan casualties, will be encouraged to leave the Armed Forces for civilian life under a planned efficiency drive. Soldiers injured in war zones, many of whom rely on their regiments to find them an office-based job, will be given assistance in finding posts “more suited” to them. The proposal is expected to cover 5,000 to 6,000 Service personnel categorised as medically unfit. At the same time it has emerged that more than 4,000 “out-of-work” civil servants at the Ministry of Defence have been paid full-time salaries while assigned to a “redeployment pool” — waiting for up to two years to be given new jobs in the department or elsewhere in Whitehall. Although the MoD insisted that they continued to do “meaningful work”, a senior military official told The Times: “All they have to do is turn up and sit at a desk and fill in job applications.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Draft the skiving fuckers (the civil servants) into the army and post them to Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Draft the skiving fuckers (the civil servants) into the army and post them to Afghanistan. You can't, there's a strike on at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Draft the skiving fuckers (the civil servants) into the army and post them to Afghanistan. You can't, there's a strike on at the moment. lol, nicely timed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Right, so the government is trying to find alternative work for those in the Armed Forces who are often not doing much but are getting paid. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 Does any part of Planet LDV ever intersect with reality, even if just for a few seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I've tried reading the article again. If your issue the fact that other civil servants are doing nothing at the moment? Or just that these people are being pushed out of the Armed Forces? Planet LDV does sound interesting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 Right you're employed by an Anarchist company to stack Anarchist books in big Anarchist Piles. In an act of pure Anarchy, a pile of Anarchist books collapse and bury you, causing you serious permanent injury. Your Anarchist company says sorry about that, we have to get rid of you, goodbye. We will however keep lots of pen pushers who don't actually have anything to do. But we will pay them anyway. Would you not think that was a little wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 No, I don't think the comparison is helpful. I think it is more useful to understand why this redeployment pool is justified, that seems to be me to be the problem. The only issue in the comparative sense is how the government can claim to make things more efficient by shedding the disabled yet set-up such a pool. I don't really understand what this redeployment pool is though. For the men of the armed forces, if they can't do anything 'useful' in the armed forces and are receiving help to find another job then that seems fair enough - if it is the case that this is genuine help in finding a good job. Again, they should be retained if there are no jobs for them to go in the private sector, the more should be found to support them financially whether they are servicemen or not. But look at it this way, these injured soldiers have served their purpose. They have chosen to put their lives at risk for whatever reason, they got injured, and no longer have a purpose for the government. Would we expect more from the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 Source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/covenant.shtml - Note it's in the BBC religion and ethics - ethical issues section Military covenant Paper poppy used in Britain on Remembrance Sunday The annual Remembrance Sunday, organised by the Royal British Legion, honours British troops Britain has a 'duty of care' to its armed forces. This began as an unspoken pact between society and the military, possibly originating as far back as Henry VIII's reign. The pact was formally codified as a 'covenant' in 2000. It is not a law but is reinforced by custom and convention. The covenant only officially applies to the army, but its core principles are taken to extend to the air force and navy too. Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action. Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5 The 'duty of care' to troops includes paying towards healthcare, which can be physical care for injuries or mental support for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other problems. The Ministry of Defence also provides support for bereaved families. The law gives the government 'combat immunity', which prevents soldiers from claiming compensation for injuries they received in combat except under official compensation schemes. Because soldiers cannot take the Crown to a civil court, the covenant is viewed as important in protecting soldiers' rights to compensation. Is the covenant being honoured? The Royal British Legion is a charity that provides support to members of the armed forces and their families and organises the annual Remembrance Day. In 2007 the Legion complained that the British government was not honouring the military covenant, and that troops were not being supported after returning from conflict. Their first criticism concerned the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme introduced in 2005, which, the Legion said, made it harder for soldiers to receive compensation. The Legion also made recommendations to improve the financial support and health monitoring given to personnel on active service and accommodation for their families while visiting them, the level of access veterans had to healthcare, a backlog of inquests into soldiers' deaths and the level of advice, support and representation given to bereaved families. The Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth responded to the campaign: "There are areas where we have already made significant progress, but we acknowledge that we must do more. These areas include mental healthcare for veterans, compensation, inquests and accommodation." He said that "fulfilling our part of the deal is not always easy and takes both time and money." At best, this current action is not in the spirit of the covenant. At worst it's a betrayal. I understand the MOD employs about 1 civil servant for every 3 operational members of the armed forces. It should be a standard practice that all these '5,000 to 6,000 Service personnel categorised as medically unfit' be allocated jobs in the MOD where in any way possible and if they do not posses the required skill sets, they should be trained to the required level where practical AS A PRIORITY over others. That to me would reinforce the 'covenant' by honouring its principles. But that's a question of honour. Which Chambers defines as (amongst other definitions) as A scrupulous sense of what is right; a high standard of moral behaviour; to keep or meet (a promise or agreement); on one's honour - under a moral obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It should be a standard practice that all these '5,000 to 6,000 Service personnel categorised as medically unfit' be allocated jobs in the MOD where in any way possible and if they do not posses the required skill sets, they should be trained to the required level where practical AS A PRIORITY over others.Ok, I understand your argument. I don't agree that they should be given priority over anyone else, in the sense that I do not believe that simply because they have fought for their country (government) it means they are of more important when it comes to giving them a job. But they have to receive financial support or have the means to gain training to find a job. But again, for me the real problem is the existence of this redeployment pool. Why is it there? How can it be justified to fork out so much on the possibility of there being an upcoming position? As it stands the civil service employees are 'idle' but are being paid and are being kept in limbo about a potential job. The medically unfit servicemen are in jobs but are being given help to find employment in the private sector. Not sure why the situation for the servicemen is unacceptable? Is it simply that you think they should be retained within the MOD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 Letter in todays Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/l...icle6837449.ece Soldiering onThe Army supported its wounded well 65 years ago, what has it done wrong since? Sir, Your report, “Wounded servicemen are shown the door” (Sept 14), is pertinent. After a serious head injury while serving in the Royal Artillery in 1942, my late father was offered an honourable discharge or a transfer to The Pioneer Corps, armed merchantmen, or intelligence. Not being keen on digging or swimming, he served in Field Intelligence and SIS in Italy and Greece, and on discharge was awarded an Army Scholarship to read modern languages at Cambridge. His commanding officer, Sir John Hunt, helped him get his first job, and he went on to become one of the first elected members of the European Parliament — the only known side effect of his bang on the head. If the Army could support its wounded so well 65 years ago, what has gone wrong since? Chris Battersby Redhill, Surrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 What would you like to see? If the government is going to secure them a job, I just don't the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth Seeker Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 "Afghan Heroes charity to close after it raked in £555,000 in donations but spent just £15,000 helping people." "A soldiers charity is to close down after it raked in £555,000 in donations - but spent just £15,000 on actually helping people. Afghan Heroes was founded by Denise Harris in memory of her son Lee who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Nad-e-Al while serving in Afghanistan in July 2009. The Charity Commission froze the organisations bank accounts and launched an inquiry in December into the charity which helps hard-up and injured former soldiers. But an interim manager has now declared the charity 'no longer a viable concern' and would be wound up while the investigation continues." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599441/Afghan-Heroes-charity-close-raked-555-000-donations-spent-just-15-000-helping-people.html I wonder how much of the £100,000 sent to Zimbabwe and the Central African Republic (CAR) from the IOM reached the people in need? Isle of Man funding for African states hits £100K http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-26953917 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.