A covenant of fairness and equality?

Having served over 40 years (RN) and arguably a part time veteran about to become a full time veteran, I've personally benefitted from the Armed Forces Covenant.

The basic principle is simply fairness toward serving and former service personnel afforded by civilian society.

At risk (probability?) of being branded a 'snowflake, it comes as no surprise the military community does not appear to reciprocate the 'fairness' element by pledging an undertaking to observe current socially acceptable standards expected by society.

For example many service personnel and veterans often appear believe their military service and experience justifies, their prejudices, behaviour, sense of entitlent and conduct in the public domain with the perception that they are exempt from meeting the standards of behaviour expected of 'civilians'

Equally I often wonder precisely who the annual armed forces day is actually for and ponder for how long an event which is a pain in the arrse for many serving, enormously costly to taxpayers and fast turning into a Summer version of Remembrance, but for living veterans, will continue to be supported by the MOD.

Me? I joined because there few jobs available at the time and the prospect of travel appealed. I didn't join to selflessly serve my country as some claim. Nor do I feel more entitled than Joe public to be treated fairly.

What about you?
 

W21A

LE
Book Reviewer
AFD is a pain in the ARRSE and distinctly embarrassing if all you have is four Army Reserves, an Army Cadet detachment and veterans who can no longer march. I have not knowingly asked for anything from the AFC, and I would not know how to do so.
 
The problem with the “covenant” was it was designed to prevent women and gays serving in the Army in the 90s, and morphed into a short term political expedient in the late 00s/early 10s to get retired VSOs off politicians’ backs.

With that provenance, no wonder it’s a dogs dinner.
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
As a STAB I find some of it cringeworthy. I joined cause I wanted some beer tokens when I was a student and it looked more exciting that pulling pints. I'm not a selfless hero, i've not been anywhere particularly spicy and I certainly don't want to rock up in uniform to some mawkish PR lunch at my workplace on wear-your-uniform-to-work day to make my line management look good.

I work with some right ******* as well who put "HM Forces Veteran" in their email signatures and tell everyone at every opportunity about the Op Tosca tour they did in the 90s, but somehow were 'busy with work' when Herrick and Telic came calling. Knobs
 
Having served over 40 years (RN) and arguably a part time veteran about to become a full time veteran, I've personally benefitted from the Armed Forces Covenant.

The basic principle is simply fairness toward serving and former service personnel afforded by civilian society.

At risk (probability?) of being branded a 'snowflake, it comes as no surprise the military community does not appear to reciprocate the 'fairness' element by pledging an undertaking to observe current socially acceptable standards expected by society.
If you can define those, you're a better and wiser man than I am.
 
I do cringe at the Regimental Blazer and Beret Brigade.
 
The problem with the “covenant” was it was designed to prevent women and gays serving in the Army in the 90s, and morphed into a short term political expedient in the late 00s/early 10s to get retired VSOs off politicians’ backs.

With that provenance, no wonder it’s a dogs dinner.

I think you are confused. The Armed Forces Covenant didn’t come into being until 2000.
 
Having served over 40 years (RN) and arguably a part time veteran about to become a full time veteran, I've personally benefitted from the Armed Forces Covenant.

The basic principle is simply fairness toward serving and former service personnel afforded by civilian society.

At risk (probability?) of being branded a 'snowflake, it comes as no surprise the military community does not appear to reciprocate the 'fairness' element by pledging an undertaking to observe current socially acceptable standards expected by society.

For example many service personnel and veterans often appear believe their military service and experience justifies, their prejudices, behaviour, sense of entitlent and conduct in the public domain with the perception that they are exempt from meeting the standards of behaviour expected of 'civilians'

Equally I often wonder precisely who the annual armed forces day is actually for and ponder for how long an event which is a pain in the arrse for many serving, enormously costly to taxpayers and fast turning into a Summer version of Remembrance, but for living veterans, will continue to be supported by the MOD.

Me? I joined because there few jobs available at the time and the prospect of travel appealed. I didn't join to selflessly serve my country as some claim. Nor do I feel more entitled than Joe public to be treated fairly.

What about you?

**** that shit, I'm a hero, Id demand that my military pension be tax free, but it already is because I dont live in the UK plus I should get any future jubilee medals.
 
If you can define those, you're a better and wiser man than I am.
Fair shout.

Looking at veterans groups on social media a possible starting point would be to perhaps throttle back a touch when broadcasting 50 year old prejudiced opinions on basic topics such as common or garden sexism, racism, bigotry, homophobia etc, which I hasten to add, my 87 year old Dad still struggles with.
 
**** that shit, I'm a hero, Id demand that my military pension be tax free, but it already is because I dont live in the UK plus I should get any future jubilee medals.

Reported as it appears Bravo_Bravo has taken over Stacker1’s account.
 
Fair shout.

Looking at veterans groups on social media a possible starting point would be to perhaps throttle back a touch when broadcasting 50 year old prejudiced opinions on basic topics such as coom9n or garden sexism, racism, bigotry, homophobia etc, which I hasten to add, my 87 year old Dad still struggles with.

Are you talking about ARRSE?
 
Fair shout.

Looking at veterans groups on social media a possible starting point would be to perhaps throttle back a touch when broadcasting 50 year old prejudiced opinions on basic topics such as coom9n or garden sexism, racism, bigotry, homophobia etc, which I hasten to add, my 87 year old Dad still struggles with.

Modern society's 'values' seem to be dictated by whichever loosely knit identity group (and their fellow travelers in the media) is currently most adept at bullying politicians and other influential people.

If they're not actually breaking the law, veterans should speak their minds, as should everybody else. To hell with self-appointed censors and social arbiters.

Fine words on my part, it gets a little tougher if your privacy, career, or even physical safety is at stake.
 

Rab_C

LE
I do believe that there should be some form of covenant. I think the covenant should be limited to ensuring that those who leave the forces with work related baggage (physical or mental) are ensured that they are looked after. The rest of us should just join the queue with joe civvy.
 
The problem with the “covenant” was it was designed to prevent women and gays serving in the Army in the 90s, and morphed into a short term political expedient in the late 00s/early 10s to get retired VSOs off politicians’ backs.

With that provenance, no wonder it’s a dogs dinner.
I don't understand that bit at all, not least because women were serving in the Army in the 90s, also the Covenant was introduced later.
 
I do believe that there should be some form of covenant. I think the covenant should be limited to ensuring that those who leave the forces with work related baggage (physical or mental) are ensured that they are looked after. The rest of us should just join the queue with joe civvy.
The armed forces covenant is for those serving as well as those who have served.
 
I don't understand that bit at all, not least because women were serving in the Army in the 90s, also the Covenant was introduced later.
The first time I heard of it was around the time of the Iraq debacle. I think it was a bit of Blairite wizardry designed to paper over a multitude of sins and deficiencies. VSOs liked it too because it neatly absolved them of some of their wider responsibilities.

Then again, perhaps there was always a military covenant. Hidden away from common view, like those obscure paragraphs of QRs that were written to protect soldiers' welfare...
 
Having served over 40 years (RN) and arguably a part time veteran about to become a full time veteran, I've personally benefitted from the Armed Forces Covenant.

The basic principle is simply fairness toward serving and former service personnel afforded by civilian society.

At risk (probability?) of being branded a 'snowflake, it comes as no surprise the military community does not appear to reciprocate the 'fairness' element by pledging an undertaking to observe current socially acceptable standards expected by society.

For example many service personnel and veterans often appear believe their military service and experience justifies, their prejudices, behaviour, sense of entitlent and conduct in the public domain with the perception that they are exempt from meeting the standards of behaviour expected of 'civilians'

Equally I often wonder precisely who the annual armed forces day is actually for and ponder for how long an event which is a pain in the arrse for many serving, enormously costly to taxpayers and fast turning into a Summer version of Remembrance, but for living veterans, will continue to be supported by the MOD.

Me? I joined because there few jobs available at the time and the prospect of travel appealed. I didn't join to selflessly serve my country as some claim. Nor do I feel more entitled than Joe public to be treated fairly.

What about you?
A very interesting and thoughtful post. I would just say that the Armed Forces Covenant doesn't come close to justifying "the perception that they are exempt from meeting the standards of behaviour expected of 'civilians' ", even if some people act as if it does. After all, a "covenant" is a form of contract entered into by two sides, with rights and obligations on both sides. The Army's Values and Standards have plenty to say about discipline, respect and decent behaviour towards all.
 
The armed forces covenant is for those serving as well as those who have served.

OK if their issue isn’t a direct result of serving Queen and country then join the queue with everyone else.
Precisely my point. Everyone working in the public sector is serving their country (and charging them via taxes).

For me, granted maybe not others, I no more considered I was prepared to die 'for my Queen & Country' than your average cop, fireman, nurse, etc.

This seems to be a concept adopted by retired personnel with the benefit of hindsight rather than initial intent prior to joining.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top