ARmy Rumour SErvice

If I lived in France words would fail me. The English papers did this this morning. Whats your take on collottes and knee boots? I feel it is a ****ing shite look. But then, I am not French.

I think this is an utter non story blown out of all proportion by people who dont bother to understand how things happen.

If you dig a little deeper into the situation, several things become clear. Firstly, everyone in defence who is killed on duty, no matter where it occurs ceases to be paid from 2359 on the day that they are killed. However, if you read the AFF notes on bereavement, you'll see that this immediately triggers a number of other payments (http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/af...ereavement.pdf).

The next thing to remember is that MOD does not usually recover pay from troops pay accounts on the months pay run if someone is killed to late to stop the pay run from being modified - e.g. in this case, the soldier was killed late in the month, and the MOD paid his NOK full wages until the end of that month. MOD knows full well that to recover pay during the time after a casualty occurs is very upsetting, and as such it doesnt do this.

What the MOD has done though is change entitlements so that personnels NOK now receive an ex gratia payment for outstanding leave - in this case, what has happened is that the military pay section has worked out how much money his NOK were due as a result of the outstanding leave, worked out how much they received as a result of not amending the payrun when he was killed and paid the net difference. They have also had the courtesy to explain why they've done this to the NOK, rather than just sending an amount and not explaining why it was less than they were expecting.

In reality the family haven't been docked any pay at all - they have been given the correct pay due to them as a result of the leave balance (and in fact this is more than they would previously have received). The Army hasn't phrased the letter brilliantly, but they are entirely correct in their actions.

What people need to remember is that when you leave employment, either through retiring, resigning, being let go, or sadly being killed, then you lose the automatic entitlement to payment. I can only begin to imagine the outrage that would be on display here if a chavvy benefit type died, and his family received an overpayment of benefits after his death which they then did not seek to recover if it was appropriate to do so. That is what the Army has done - it has merely ensured that someones NOK has received the correct amount of public money, and not more than they are entitled to.

Originally Posted by jim30

I think this is an utter non story blown out of all proportion by people who dont bother to understand how things happen.

If you dig a little deeper into the situation, several things become clear. Firstly, everyone in defence who is killed on duty, no matter where it occurs ceases to be paid from 2359 on the day that they are killed. However, if you read the AFF notes on bereavement, you'll see that this immediately triggers a number of other payments (http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/af...ereavement.pdf).

The next thing to remember is that MOD does not usually recover pay from troops pay accounts on the months pay run if someone is killed to late to stop the pay run from being modified - e.g. in this case, the soldier was killed late in the month, and the MOD paid his NOK full wages until the end of that month. MOD knows full well that to recover pay during the time after a casualty occurs is very upsetting, and as such it doesnt do this.

What the MOD has done though is change entitlements so that personnels NOK now receive an ex gratia payment for outstanding leave - in this case, what has happened is that the military pay section has worked out how much money his NOK were due as a result of the outstanding leave, worked out how much they received as a result of not amending the payrun when he was killed and paid the net difference. They have also had the courtesy to explain why they've done this to the NOK, rather than just sending an amount and not explaining why it was less than they were expecting.

In reality the family haven't been docked any pay at all - they have been given the correct pay due to them as a result of the leave balance (and in fact this is more than they would previously have received). The Army hasn't phrased the letter brilliantly, but they are entirely correct in their actions.

What people need to remember is that when you leave employment, either through retiring, resigning, being let go, or sadly being killed, then you lose the automatic entitlement to payment. I can only begin to imagine the outrage that would be on display here if a chavvy benefit type died, and his family received an overpayment of benefits after his death which they then did not seek to recover if it was appropriate to do so. That is what the Army has done - it has merely ensured that someones NOK has received the correct amount of public money, and not more than they are entitled to.

As always, some good words Jim. However, the flaw in your example is that a "chavvy benefit type" is almost certainly not going to meet his maker through taking a bullet or IED in Afghanistan. Also, whichever way it is dressed up, it is crass in the extreme. Why not just send the cheque with a letter saying it was a payment for money owed, rather than going into great detail and causing more grief for the bereaved family? Sometimes it is better to say nothing.

Originally Posted by slipperman

As always, some good words Jim. However, the flaw in your example is that a "chavvy benefit type" is almost certainly not going to meet his maker through taking a bullet or IED in Afghanistan. Also, whichever way it is dressed up, it is crass in the extreme. Why not just send the cheque with a letter saying it was a payment for money owed, rather than going into great detail and causing more grief for the bereaved family? Sometimes it is better to say nothing.

My take is that it's public money and the law (and the media and the public) demands transparency. The problem, in this case, is that the transparency is, err, transparent.

I know it needs to be done,but surely it could have (and should have) been handled a bit more sensitively done,,but that's life nowadays,,RIP to the guy...Oh by the way jim30 are you always so pedantic about sensitive issues or are you just a heartless barrack room lawyer,in my day half of the hut would have swamped you bunk by now....

The questions we should be asking is why the BBC decided to slant this story in exactly the way it has done.

You can almost imagine the leading questions it placed to get the quotes it wanted from family members!!

"Also, whichever way it is dressed up, it is crass in the extreme. Why not just send the cheque with a letter saying it was a payment for money owed, rather than going into great detail and causing more grief for the bereaved family?"

Agreed - but what happens when the family does the sums, works out they're missing £400 - at some stage you have to have a difficult conversation with them.

"Oh by the way jim30 are you always so pedantic about sensitive issues or are you just a heartless lawyer...."

Nope - I've been involved in the casualty informing chain and have also had to authorise Comp A as well. The difference is that I passionately care that Defence isn't beaten with a tabloid rag who don't understand what is going on, and seek to make a bandwagon on which the Armed Forces emerge looking bad, and the family are even more traumatised than before as their personal hell is dragged up as newsworthy entertainment for the media.

I'd rather that there was a bit less sensationalism, and a bit more informed comment on the MOD, and people understood that things happen for very, very good reasons. Often though its much easier to write a 'Evil MOD took my money, my daughter and my gerbils Anal Virginity' than it is to report the truth...

OK jim30,,,we shall just ignore what goes on,,,here you go boyo broom-carpet,,now get sweeping...