Military covenant 'does not work'

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by AIR FILTER, Feb 25, 2013.

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:

  1. Question. If a certain percentage affected by the so called Bedroom Tax are disabled, then how many are ex servicemen and women ? And why has this not been questioned in regards to the Covenant ?
  2. At the OP. You may need to turn down your Cynicism Filter, but it's my humble opinion that it very much depends on what you expected from a Military Covenant in the first place. Also you have to apply what the Government meant at the various times that politicians have talked about a Military Covenant.

    The phrase Military Covenant, like the word "fairness" is entirely subjective and completely flexible.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    its the forces and it involves politician - so naturally as the two are incompatible its unlikely to work.
  4. Well never mind about me, more importantly, i am more concerned that the public are being misled and the veterans are being shafted.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Also in todays obvious news...

    Ursids deficate in woods, bloke in the Vatican wears a pointy hat.
  6. Who or what is Veterans Aid? Never heard of it, also why does it need a CEO? And how much is he or she paid?

    Edited to add:

    Just read the 2010/11 accounts GBP 550,000 on salaries, one person gets more than GBP 75,000, ex-Wing Commander (Dr.).

    Income and expenditure do not add up but they do appear to be doing all manner of good stuff, just wonder why the salary bill has to be that much. Income for period (if one excludes government grants) was less than the salary bill. Why is it that charities seem to live off government grants, seems a very odd way of doing business for both sides!

    Perhaps they thought (and or hoped) the Covenant would somehow add more money to the system?
  7. The heart of the matter is one of simple "comprehension" and "expectation". Understanding what the political classes mean by Military Covenant (virtually nothing or at best, a nice idea, but cost neutral) and what each individual expects said fine words to deliver.
  8. The problem with the Military Covenant is that is is a one sided notion, dreamt up by as senior officer writing the original values & standards paper back in 2000 or so. It was a buzzword onto which senior officers and then politicians jumped, with Dannatt as a major champion. The result is a statement of high ideals, rather like a mission statement, but little (or no?) underpinning legislation or statutory obligations arising from it. To me, it places a heap of high ideals and obligations on soldiers, which the service side generally meets whilst the state picks and chooses. It will achieve nothing until it is enshrined in law so that councils, the NHS etc etc have statutory obligations arising from it.

    As for the "Third Sector", Veterans Aid is very typical of charities which barely raise enough income to cover their overhead yet pay generous salaries and to quite substantial staffs in comparison with their turnover. They dispense government grants, funded by taxpayers who have no choice. The Third Sector has become a lucrative career of choice for many, including, as bokkatankie points out, many ex-senior officers. Many charities are, in effect quangos, spending only taxpayers money. Doesn't mean they don't do a great deal of good, but is it good value?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I read this and good on him getting his life sorted out through Veterans' Aid. But (and it is a big but) reading his story, I struggle to find out what the Army - and by extension the Government - has done wrong here. The guy was/is young, naive, with a basic education but willingly left the Army - and lying in the process to do so. He was not, it seems, inured mentally or physically by his time in the Army yet he seems to think that we all owe him a massive favour.
  10. You can't say that though. How dare you speak ill of some bloke who once wore a uniform at some stage in his life. Personally speaking, I think I preferred it when nobody gave a **** about us. At least you knew where you stood and it was less embarrassing. There are far too many Veteran's Charities if you ask me. My FB page gets ******* plagued by them. Everybody thinks that everybody else owns them. Oops, I'll be pilloried for that.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. I think that you agree with me...I think!

    I get plagued with University fundraising bids eg 'for GBP 100,000 we will name a seminar room after you' but, luckily not yet by Service charities. Standy, standby...
  12. Effin' scroat. Why should society owe him a living? He reneged on his contract, lied to the chain of command, fails to make any real provision for life when he gets out, gets binned by his girlfriend and then falls in with a bad crowd, presumably thieving and/or cottaging to get by. Sounds like if he had stuck with it, used his learning credits etc, he could have planned far better for his transition. You can't help some people. Surprised he hasn't claimed PTSD as well! I think he gives squaddies and ex squaddies a bad name.


  13. I thought the military covenant went something like:

    You work for us and we pay you.
    If you get broke we will fix it and/or pay you a set sum of money.
    You leave, we forget you ever existed.
    • Like Like x 2