Food Charge Scandal - Legal Test Case?

#21
flipflop said:
onAs I think the food charges are/were fair, I don't think the govt is 'getting away with it' on this subject. They are 'getting away with it' in terms of medical services, harmony guidelines etc.

We need to pick our battles. Could you imagine for one moment, in the context of Iraq/Afghan, Crime, Immigration, Anti-social behaviour appearing, say, on Newsnight to talk about the 'scandal' of having to pay £3.70 a day for 3 good meals. How sympathetic do you think joe public would be?

The general public, I believe, is, on the whole, very supportive of the lot of the serviceman in the present climate. Lets keep the real scandals in the public eye and the public on-side. Perhaps you can keep your powder dry on this 'scandal' until we have some military hospitals. Then you can hit the public and press with the food 'scandal' and many of the others that are, no doubt, niggling at you ('DPM makes my bum look big'. 'They make me tab for kms at a time with nothing to protect my feet save socks and stout leather boots' etc ad nauseum).
Are you SO1 Egg and Chips by any chance?
 
#22
MANDM said:
zxninerpilot said:
Maccy Ds are a profitable organisation No real comparitor.

And it was explained that the money goes straight back to the treasury, for feeding on Ops. Surely this is an operational overhead cost. Why should single soldiers subsidise ops, when pads clearly don't?
The chef works for a profitable organisation. the 'extra' money not spent on ingredients is going to his employers overheads - kitchens, training, recruitment, pensions, pay, corporation tax etc. Whover breiefed u was talking out of there backside if they say the extra money is going to fund food on ops
This money DID go on food for ops. Not too sure if it still does with PAYD though. The point being that married pers did not fund the food on ops but got it just the same.
 
#24
Singley's always have and always will get the sh*tty end of the stick. How many times have you been in the block and someones come in and stiffed you for a job on your day off yet the pad's will very rarely be called in.
I can honestly say however that the food on all of the operational tours ive been on has been far better than the food ive received on camp, maybe thats because its prepared by decent army chefs who actually take a bit of pride in what they prepare and it hasnt been knocked up by some mong from sodexo who couldnt give a sh*t either way as long as he gets his piddling 14k a year.
Im sorry to say but I was the king of the cook house complaints book at my last unit and was often dragged in by the QM to justify the things I wrote in the book however why should the fcukwits get away with producing sh*te for us? And why should another wnak civvy company get rich off the MOD when the service they provide is dire.
Rant over.
 
#25
zxninerpilot said:
SeaJay said:
I don't think it's as much of a con as it sounds.
The chef may only receive £1.51 for ingredients but someone is paying the chef, that doesn't come out of his 1.51, someone bought him an oven, and a frying pan and a building to serve food in. That's where your £2.25 is going.
So who pays my wages, and who paid for the building I'm in?

Does it come out of the wages of the people I look after?
That's exactly where it comes from.
You look after the interests of the British public, but it comes out of their wages via the tax man.

Do ground crew pay for their runways?
A better example would be, "do air passengers pay for runways?" and they do of course, through the ticket price.
As someone who's taken a flight I might be pissed off that there is a discrepancy between the amount I've paid for my flight and the cost of the fuel for the flight.
It doesn't mean I've been conned though. The extra money went on pilots and air crew and office chairs to go in the BA HQ.
 
#26
The price differential goes to the "Delta" fund - fact.

It does not pay for O and M costs. This comes from a different vote.

The bottom line is "single" personnel pay for a service and do not receive it in its entirity. Hence the requirement to pay extra messing in an attempt to put something almost edible on the plate, though most civilian contractors fail to do this.

Army (Forces) chefs are without a doubt masters in the art of producing excellent food from next to nothing.
 
#27
zxninerpilot said:
SeaJay said:
I don't think it's as much of a con as it sounds.
The chef may only receive £1.51 for ingredients but someone is paying the chef, that doesn't come out of his 1.51, someone bought him an oven, and a frying pan and a building to serve food in. That's where your £2.25 is going.
So who pays my wages, and who paid for the building I'm in?

Does it come out of the wages of the people I look after?

I don't think so!

Do ground crew pay for their runways?

And I don't get the choice whether or not I want to eat there, I just get billed monthly anyway. I listen to the counter arguments, but it still seems very immoral.
It's called Income Tax, we all pay our own wages :)
 
#28
DesktopCommando said:
zxninerpilot said:
SeaJay said:
I don't think it's as much of a con as it sounds.
The chef may only receive £1.51 for ingredients but someone is paying the chef, that doesn't come out of his 1.51, someone bought him an oven, and a frying pan and a building to serve food in. That's where your £2.25 is going.
So who pays my wages, and who paid for the building I'm in?

Does it come out of the wages of the people I look after?

I don't think so!

Do ground crew pay for their runways?

And I don't get the choice whether or not I want to eat there, I just get billed monthly anyway. I listen to the counter arguments, but it still seems very immoral.
It's called Income Tax, we all pay our own wages :)
Income tax doesn't appear to be paying for operational food though, does it? It seems to me like it is just "single" soldiers paying for it.
 
#29
The legality of an issue should not be judged on Jo Public's view. I think it sounds like we may have a case. I too would like some money back - since I am buying loads of food so I don't have to eat what is provided.

It must be worth at least seeking legal advice. I don't propose a media campaign just a few of us finding out whetner this is legally worth pursuing. If so perhaps each interested party could start with a claim through the small claims' court.

I think feeding on Ops is irrellevant, as is duty meals etc etc single sodiers should not subsidise married personnel -and under PAYD they don't. Don't you think this indicates that the CoC have realised this may be a problem?
 
#30
Postie said:
The legality of an issue should not be judged on Jo Public's view. I think it sounds like we may have a case. I too would like some money back - since I am buying loads of food so I don't have to eat what is provided.

It must be worth at least seeking legal advice. I don't propose a media campaign just a few of us finding out whetner this is legally worth pursuing. If so perhaps each interested party could start with a claim through the small claims' court.

I think feeding on Ops is irrellevant, as is duty meals etc etc single sodiers should not subsidise married personnel -and under PAYD they don't. Don't you think this indicates that the CoC have realised this may be a problem?
And

I said:
I'm off to the Citizens advice bureau next week, I'll bring this up (now I'm a dirty civy, I'm going to get as much cash out the Army as I can).
I was going anyway (I need financial advice over money I'm owed) But I'll let you know on Monday.
 
#31
Postie said:
The legality of an issue should not be judged on Jo Public's view. I think it sounds like we may have a case. I too would like some money back - since I am buying loads of food so I don't have to eat what is provided.

It must be worth at least seeking legal advice. I don't propose a media campaign just a few of us finding out whetner this is legally worth pursuing. If so perhaps each interested party could start with a claim through the small claims' court.

I think feeding on Ops is irrellevant, as is duty meals etc etc single sodiers should not subsidise married personnel -and under PAYD they don't. Don't you think this indicates that the CoC have realised this may be a problem?
Absolutely! I think they have realised it is illegal and have moved to rectify this wrong, though not particularly swiftly (no change there). This just underpins the fact that for so long we have been fleeced over food charges, therefore I reckon that we may be in with a strong chance of claiming back money which has been taken from us under false pretences.

If my pay statement showed £1.51 food charges and £2.25 "delta" fund involuntary contributions I guess we would have picked up on this long before now. It is a hidden illegitimate charge and should be contested in my opinion. Is a small claims court the right way to proceed, in the first instance?
 
#32
zxninerpilot said:
The price differential goes to the "Delta" fund - fact.
Fiction

Adam Ingram was asked about this in the house of commons
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070305/text/70305w0004.htm

Adam Ingram said:
The changeover of food supply contractor on 1 October 2006 resulted in a change in the method of calculating the DMR. Under the previous contractor, the rate included an element for their management fee, while under the current contract, that fee is paid centrally. The effect is that the DMR now appears lower, but it still purchases the same quantity and quality of food product.
Basically he's saying that the DMR (the £1.51) looks low because it doesn't include the central payment to the catering contractor any more.
 
#33
How far back can we go?

I am a pad now but was a singly for around 10 years beforehand....
 
#34
Might be a good idea to think about it for a while.

Is it really that different to eating out at a restaurant? You pay £15.00 for a meal do you really expect to get £15.00 of food. No. Some of your money goes to pay the chefs and kitchen staff, some to pay for fuel to cook the food, some to pay for rent for the restaurant etc ...

I imagine with the current political and financial climate that if Joe Public find out that you are only paying £3.76 for food for a day, there will be a huge outcry about how the tax payer is subsidising food in the Services and you could well end up paying considerably more.

There has always been a misguided cross-section of Joe Public that believes everything in the Services is either free or heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. What you are talking about could easily have the opposite effect to what you are hoping for.

And before I'm giving a hard time, I'm not giving you one. I'm ex-Services and I've suffered the crap food and rip-offs that you mention and I do support what you are talking about.

My support, though, is irrelevant when Panorama or World in Action get hold of this.
 
#35
zxninerpilot said:
The bottom line is "single" personnel pay for a service and do not receive it in its entirity. You pay nearly £4 for three meals a day what are you not getting?
Army (Forces) chefs are without a doubt masters in the art of producing excellent food from next to nothing. Agreed
My additions in bold. Would you rather have £4 worth of raw ingredients a day?

When your unit goes onto PAYD your wishes will be granted then when the prices go up to be in line with civilian market forces we will all laugh about the good old days.

No I'm not a singly however I have experienced PAYD and the future is not Orange.
 
#36
SeaJay said:
zxninerpilot said:
The price differential goes to the "Delta" fund - fact.
Fiction

Adam Ingram was asked about this in the house of commons
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070305/text/70305w0004.htm

Adam Ingram said:
The changeover of food supply contractor on 1 October 2006 resulted in a change in the method of calculating the DMR. Under the previous contractor, the rate included an element for their management fee, while under the current contract, that fee is paid centrally. The effect is that the DMR now appears lower, but it still purchases the same quantity and quality of food product.
Basically he's saying that the DMR (the £1.51) looks low because it doesn't include the central payment to the catering contractor any more.
So how much of my daily food charge go in to the "Delta" fund then. Because a certain amount does go in there, as was stated by the Pay as you Diet briefing team.

I accept there will be overheads, but surely not £2.25 out of a £3.76 charge? The standard of food and staff does not reflect an overhead of 60%.

And don't forget the £1 extra messing added on - all up food charge of £4.76! That's £142.80 for an average months feeding. I eat 3 lunches and 3 dinners a week, so that equates to £5.55 per meal.
 
#37
FFS, come on gents, lets look at this objectively, it’s not about the breakdown of pennies, it’s about whether or not the price paid is worth the service provided and any rational person would say that £3.76 for 3 meals a day is value.

Or to look at it another way (tangent perhaps), how many times do soldiers (pointing no fingers here):

Log on to the tinternet through a MOD provided system and Gateway (and during the working day) to look at personal interest (not porn you perverts) sites.

Use the outside line facility on a phone to make a quick personal admin call?

Nip the bank/shop during the working day?

Take stationary home (or to the block for personal use)?

Use army batteries in their personal equipment?

And on & on & on

As for the eternal Pad / Singlie argument (and yes I have been both). A singilie pays a standard accommodation charge, if he chooses to leave a TV, radio, computer, stereo system, fish tank, lights, heating (OK on the 3 days a year its switched on) all the time, who picks up the extra Fuel & light bill?

In my opinion it’s about is the charge fair for what a reasonable person should expect (I know in reality it can be dross), not where each penny goes.

Further down the line when PAYD has bedded in, I suspect we will be reading posts of how £3.76 a day to feed yourself was a steal and how could the army manage to do it on such a small charge (who knows).

In my opinion it’s about the whole, not individual areas. If the whole is not satisfactory, we all know where the door is.
 
#38
ZX9,

I honestly believe your on a hiding to nothing with this one.

A little bit of creative accounting and I'm sure the beancounters at MOD will be able to prove how your £2.25 just covers the "service charge" element (Staff, Fuel and Light, etc, ect....), of providing those three square meals a day.
 
#39
apfsdsdu said:
ZX9,

I honestly believe your on a hiding to nothing with this one.

A little bit of creative accounting and I'm sure the beancounters at MOD will be able to prove how your £2.25 just covers the "service charge" element (Staff, Fuel and Light, etc, ect....), of providing those three square meals a day.
Possibly. The banks never managed it with their charges though. And I would love to see a breakdown in the food/prep costs, though the cynic in me leans towards the fact that there would be no one competent enough to be able to produce such figures. It would take several hundred civil servants and they would all come up with wildly different figures.

But the fact still remains that not all of the charge goes towards my raw material costs and the preparation thereof. Some of it goes into the "Delta" fund, and I firmly believe this is illegal.
 
#40
MANDM said:
zxninerpilot said:
Maccy Ds are a profitable organisation No real comparitor.

And it was explained that the money goes straight back to the treasury, for feeding on Ops. Surely this is an operational overhead cost. Why should single soldiers subsidise ops, when pads clearly don't?
The chef works for a profitable organisation. the 'extra' money not spent on ingredients is going to his employers overheads - kitchens, training, recruitment, pensions, pay, corporation tax etc. Whover breiefed u was talking out of there backside if they say the extra money is going to fund food on ops
You are completely missing the point. The contractors are only paid 1++ per head to pay for food overheads etc, as opposed to the 3.7 that soldiers currently pay.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads