Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bajulus, Mar 6, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Sir, While any increase in the basic pay of servicemen and women is to be welcomed (report, March 2), the present pay rises do not redress the inequities between the pay of newly qualified soldiers and the pay of police and firemen.
    At the moment the pay gap between the two groups is in the range of £8000. The new increases reduce the gap to about £7000. Why should one service receive substantially more than another? Could it be because the police and the fire service have independent representation in genuine pay negotiations?

    British Armed Forces Federation
  2. Brief and to the point. Unsurprisingly I regard this as an excellent letter!

  3. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    The shorter the note the more weight it carries.

    Can't argue against minutia!

    Nice one.
  4. Poor letter, compares oranges and apples.
  5. "Oranges", in your case, being the policemen? ;)
  6. I see what you did there hackle!

    I'm neither but have been both.
  7. still; a letter to the point.
  8. When it was easier and less riskier?
  9. Poor quote d1ckhead! You're saying that the subject cannot be compared by using a quote that does not compare with the subject.

    I believe the basis of the Lt Col's letter was the fact that in assessing the pay of the forces the AFPRB uses the civilian sector and other services for comparison. The entry level of the other, non military services does not match that of the military.

    There are certain criteria that can be compared not only between the Police/Fire/Army but also in oranges and apples.

    apples are spherical, so are oranges

    apples are fruit, so are oranges

    apples have pips, so do oranges

    Point made, thought so. Pi$$es me off when someone puts in the effort to address the needs of the forces and some cnut comes along and belittles that effort without having the common decency to clarify their point.
  10. oh dear.

    I seem to remember the exactly same flawed arguments being utilised by the fire service and being widely vilified here. If you want more money justify it by what you do, not by what someone else does. To compare a new recruit to the Army and a new recruit to the Police or Fire service because you think they are all 'services' is a simplistic and stupid argument.

    It is also self defeating as the Army have advantages over both in some financial aspects and the more you whinge about your equality the more some tosser at 11 Downing Street will target those.

    Finally Skynet, ever actually been injured in the course of duty, given that it is so much more dangerous these days?
  11. " "Oranges", in your case, being the policemen?"

    That's why they're called Peelers!
  12. the difference is that rozzers and work-shy fire attendants don't have subsidised accn, a big hit in the cost of living.

    eg., if you're a plod in central london you're paying thru your nose for a roof over your head...if you're a tom, your living in rat-infested squallor, but at least its cheap.
  13. Yes I have actually but I don't wish to go into war stories. I think many former soldiers on this site will admit that it is a much more dangerous and demanding profession than hitherto. Just compare how many service personnel have died on duty than policemen in the last year and you have no argument. If we are to reward people, by professional qualifications, hours worked and risk then service personnel must come very high on that list. If we are to believe our political masters the type of expeditionary operations we are engaged in now will continue for some many years. High risk and long hours means in today's society more money, except of course for the forces. They have until recently had no one to negotiate for them and that is why unlike policemen they are poorly paid for the job. A quick read of The Times today makes that very clear.
  14. What are these advantages - please specify. The police and fire service get overtime and their wages per hour worked are well above the basic minimum wage. Not so the armed forces.
  15. Is the Army finding it hard to recruit people?

    Are the Police or the Fire Services finding it hard to recruit people?

    My limited understanding is the Army is undersubscribed, whilst the other two services, being used as comparisons are not.

    Therefore, surely to get more people in, the pay deal should be larger.