Cheers for giving me a laugh - not the sentiment, the description of Milliband.

For anyone interested in the facts

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4E9E2...s_Covenant.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0117C...d_Tomorrow.pdf

Western thanks for that, only quickly skimming through but I note the weasel words:

They should retain their relative position on any NHS waiting list, if
moved around the UK due to the Service person being posted.
Veterans receive their healthcare from the NHS, and should receive priority treatment
where it relates to a condition which results from their service in the Armed Forces, subject
to clinical need. Those injured in Service, whether physically or mentally, should be cared
for in a way which reflects the Nation’s moral obligation to them whilst respecting the
individual’s wishes. For those with concerns about their mental health, where symptoms
may not present for some time after leaving Service, they should be able to access services
with health professionals who have an understanding of Armed Forces culture.

The word I refer to is should. That word should be shall because should promises nothing whereas shall does.

No way will local slimy barsteward councils or many other agencies heed this, unless in the very rare cases they have sympathies or get on board with it. Too much room for manouevre for them, on this. The whole process of care and legislation for UK Tri-services sucks.

Not good enough.

I bet my Spanish GP (good man by the way) is reading this right now.

I am very worried about this, despite the welcome by RBL etc.

Big reason: vagueness of the "military covenant" to date has meant that you can argue for anything relevant to be covered - it's the ultimate in future proofing (and a fair amount has happened). Now, with it enshrined in law, you'll get what's in the law, and nothing else, end of. And as delivery of some of the key bits is by Depts like NHS (whose sclerotic processes make MD look lean and super-efficient), getting provisions of this law enforced is likely to be just as awful as getting the relevant policies followed now.

Now, because none of this is new. Priority NHS treatment for veterans for attributable conditions has been NHS policy for some time now. GPS and hospitals have been told about it, but it'll always get "lost" in the clinical prioritisation policy. The guarantee of 3 rounds IVF for those with attributable genital injuries is new, and though a pretty niche promise - because if a donor is needed, then there are likely to be better options than IVF anyhow.

The money for schools has already been promised (announced earlier this year - a Forces Premium in addition to the Pupil Premium. Currently not worth very much, and dependent on numbers provided in the School Census every January, an exercise which some schools - including a primary whose head is a regular TES columnist - do not comply with. Oh joy!)

All disabled people (military, civilian) get Freedom passes entitling them to free public transport already.

So, following the example of the dear Labour Party, this is multiple announcement f existing measures, combined with legislation to shut down future discussions (because "we've already done that")

Cynical?

cracking post vamps but you should just stop moaning because don't forget there is the forces discount card, a bit like a Tesco's club card but not as useful

Or is that something already in existence?

Originally Posted by CrazyLegs!

Absolute bollocks

Part of the so-called covenant includes a promise to treat soldiers fairly; I don't believe any serving soldier in the entire Army can claim they've always been treated fairly

When I joined the army it was made very clear to me that I wasn't going to be treated fairly. As I recall it was the Depot RSM who informed me of the this, and at considerable volume just to make sure I didn't miss the point. The logic I believe is that it isn't fair when lots of people you've never met are trying to kill you, but since this is an occupational hazard in the army you need to get used to the concept that fairness is not your lot.

I was also made aware that if I tired of being treated unfairly, I was free to seek alternative employment elsewhere.

[QUOTE=lsquared;3743072] (I omit airmen, because the RAF does not do danger).

You do I supose.

Your post makes me feel sooo inadequate, whats it like to be tough and hard ?

Just bet you have stubble and even tattoos, maybe even pick your teeth with a great big knife.

Skintboy you've got it right.

The 'Covenant' is very specific in spelling out what you're losing and have supposedly 'agreed' to give up - and in terms of what you get in return, is vague and fudgy. Define fairness? No, instead the brief stresses that fairness 'doesn't mean treating you the same' (fine - understand that - then what DOES it mean)

I couldn't be prouder of my time in -or the experiences and mates - but don't think a covenant exists. It never has. You know it's a rough job with downsides when you join up - no problem. But Napier nails it with his post.

In the last war we paid our men poorly and gave then ancient kit to fight the Panzerwaffe with, shipped them halfway across the world and pretty much forgot about them. Next minute, we were inviting Americans, Canadians and Europeans over en masse and practically bending over backwards to make them cosy and comfy, though they had welfare enough of their own. War brings tough decisions and we needed their help - but they got involved because it suited them, not because they were moved by desire to help us. Next minute, Generals seem almost confused that fighting morale is going down, as everyone's wife, sister and mother is being poked by foreign soldiers. It still gets me that books and films still treat this as if it's a sort of mischievious joke.

Then of course there's the Gurkhas. And the 1st WW. And the Falkland vets. We've got progress, but it has been slow and grudging, and scraped thru normally for political expediency.

Sorry to whinge lads but this gets me going. And there's a lot of sugar in this coffee...