Disgusting treatment of war widow


War Hero

Come on . . there are two sides to this argument and you have presented just one.

Read the bottom of the article to which you have linked:

Mr Blair replied: "In relation to Mrs Seymour, I understand from the Secretary of State for Defence these facts are not correct.

"However I can assure him that if they were they would be wholly contrary to normal practices."

A spokesman for the MoD told BBC News Online: "If she has been told to make a reimbursement that is an error.

"She has not been asked to leave her house. She has not been served any notice to leave."


i know , there is no smoke without fire tho , the bottom line is that it could have been handled more sensitivly
I note with interest the Weasel Duncan-Smith jumped straight on it.

I appreciate it could have been handled with more sensitivty, in this case by the Bluppet Broadcasting Corporation. Another example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story

Care to comment Jake?
the second side of the argument was wrong, just seen the ITN news, the MOD just said sorry. ::)  The PM must of been misinformed...again. The letter from Poole made it very clear, pay us back.

Looks like in the comming weeks and months the press will be full of storys on how the MOD Sh*t on the blokes when not needed.


Its the MOD- we all know how they operate- why the suprise, the computer has told some civvy to write to the family and claim back the overpayment!

It's the MINISTRY OF DEFENCE! We are numbers!- They have no mercy.

Hoon resign and do us all a favour!


War Hero
I note with interest the Weasel Duncan-Smith jumped straight on it.

I appreciate it could have been handled with more sensitivty, in this case by the Bluppet Broadcasting Corporation. Another example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story

Care to comment Jake?
There's a couple of issues I take here PTP.

First, weasel or not, Duncan -Smith is an ex serving squaddie, so is probably better able to answer this than Blair, even with his backroom boys spinning it into a mistake and the PM is not all happy....

The second is this, and what makes me really pissed off, if this woman was an Iraqi or any number of peoples who may be anti-uk asking for asylum, they would fall over themselves to give her whatever they need, and probably some stuff she didn't.

It's no excuse to shift the blame from department to department, this sort of thing just shouldn't happen.
In light of the subsequent revelations Shotgun, I was mistaken in referring to IDS as a weasel in this instance.I retract it, pending re-issue at a later date ,I know he won't let me down :)

Makes a chap worry who he's going to vote for in the next one, as they are all as bad as each other.

Well, at least one Widow looks like she might be receiving fair treatment now, but what about the other widows? Did they all receive similar letters?

And yes, Hoon does need to resign , back in the old days, didn't Defence Secretaries fall on their swords or something?


PTP - Yes, I would care to comment: Not on the substance of the story, because I don't know the facts, however, if even the 'gist' of the story is correct, then it is correct that it is brought into the public domain and that those responsible for this 'error' should be brought to book - or would you prefer the M.O.D. be allowed to get away with it, and make an apology which I'm sure is meaningless. - As for the family concerned, I personally am shocked, appalled and saddened at the treatment received....


Reading between the lines and picking up on comments from Lewis Mooney, it would appear that Mrs Seymour was given information for future reference and has taken it out of context.
The UWO gave her a letter containing information regarding her future, for instance stating that she will need to find somewhere to live in around 6 months. As far as I'm aware, no formal notice to quit has been issued.  
I think the UWO could have waited a bit longer - but then he is an ex-RSM in all liklihood.
Regarding the repayment of money - this would appear to be a big f**k up, as stated probably from some penpusher.

Overall, it is my humble opinion that while it could have been handled better, most of what Mrs Seymour has been told is correct, less the obvious 'give us his dosh back' bit.
When you're a civvy like me that just watches the news every night there's only one side you ever get to hear - the one media portrays.  Most people watching would've sighed in disgust or started chatting to their partner again when it came to the bit where the MoD said they screwed up.


This would be the same MoD that has steadfastly refused to give me the pay increment that I was due in January and consequently is not paying me the wage to which i am legally entitled.  Any civvy company that acted this way would undoubtedly be prosecuted.  Glasgow, Poole and the RAF pay centre (wherever that must be) must be staffed totally by Wnakers, cos I've yet to meet any serviceman who hasn't had major fkups with pay


I prefix with the adage: 'Rules are for the blind obediance of fools and the guidance of the wise.' The rules state that you can only occupy a married quarter if you or your spouse is entitled to accommodation. We had a number of occasions in NI where soldiers were killed and their wives had to leave MQs.  The stated reason for 'giving 6 months notice' was that a council wouldn't consider a wife homeless until the threat of eviction was in place. Once evicted then housing benefit etc could be applied. Catch 22 or what?  However the world has changed and we all have to be more sensitive in dealing with the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.


Two points:

With regard to the "bringing to book" of the guilty party who wrote said letter - as has already been suggested, this is probably some clerk on £12,000 per annum, sending out a standard letter. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was automatically produced by the payroll / HR system. I happen to HATE standard letters being issued for ANY correspondence, but then again, you can't always be too sure that your clerk can string a sentence together. That aside, the "bringing to book" will be part of the MOD investigation as promised by Tony Blair. The particular individual will probably be given a Disciplinary / Capability interview, which is private. Internal systems will also be examined. But if you're looking for a scapegoat - don't. If this person loses their job over this, you get bet your boots he or she will win at an ET / EAT.

Secondly, with regard to civvy companies being prosecuted for failing to pay the correct (contractual) salary or increment, Flash-to-bang - the way they get around this is putting a clause into the Contract of Employment which basically boils down to "if we muck up your pay, we'll try to sort it out EVENTUALLY, whether it's overpayment or underpayment, and you agree to this". Withholding payment due to other reasons for deductions as opposed to just f-uck-ups are a different matter. By signing the contract the employee agrees. By refusing to sign the contract but continuing to work and be paid for it, can also be seen as accepting the contract.

Or so I understand. We'll probably get some legal bod on here who will rip that to shreds. :)


i often wondered why not use all the surplus armed forces accomodations for war widows and their kids until they get back on their feet then rehoused ASAP in civvy street  instead of selling it off and using it for asylum seeker doss house . :mad:

The Armed Forces and Government owe that much to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice


Looks like the Officer was being blamed by buffoon...........what a suprise ::)

That's understanable,  the officer wrote the letter not Hoon.


Latest Threads