MoD says if we treat you we are then liable, so we won’t.

#1
From the letters page of the Times

CONGRATULATIONS on your articles about war veterans not receiving treatment on the NHS (News, Focus and Editorial, last week). My husband was diagnosed with Gulf war syndrome and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2000 (after serving in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo). When eventually he was seen in 2004, he was asked if he had a claim in against the Ministry of Defence (suing for damages) and was promptly told he could not have treatment as it would enhance his claim.

After pressure from our MP and the solicitor dealing with the claim he was offered care but, by that time, had had another breakdown (in 2005), and we left to live in Germany, where treatment is excellent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1530597.ece


Can anybody tell me if it is stated policy for the MoD to behave like this?
 
#4
Understand the MOD is more and more run by Civvies who have never served. The days when the departments where 'Military' are long gone.
john
 
#5
I have heard of solicitors telling (non-military) clients not to accept PTSD treatment prior to a claim being settled (on the grounds that it will lower the payout), but this is a new one on me. Frankly, there's not enough information here to tell what's going on. It's not even stated that they were dealing with the MOD at that stage.

The difficult bit for me is the assertion that having treatment would strengthen a claim for PTSD. It's the diagnosis that does that. As already stated, successful treatment tends to reduce payouts in non-military cases. I can't see how a claim for PTSD from military service would be strengthened by receiving treatment, quite the opposite in fact.

Add to this, the letter doesn't really make clear the basis for the claim. No service person can sue the MOD on the grounds that battle/ops gave them PTSD. The MOD has 'battlefield immunity' in law, in that service personnel accept psychological trauma as an occupational hazard i.e. outside normal H & S law. Any claim would have to be based on failure to manage the person properly later. Following the big case in 2003, that's probably a tall order now. Possibly the writer is talking about a war pension?

Still, not enough detail to tell what is being implied in the orignial source.
 
#10
"Understand the MOD is more and more run by Civvies who have never served. The days when the departments where 'Military' are long gone."

Not really - plenty of civvies work for MOD - but if you look, its still military personnel in the real positions of power and influence.
 
#11
jim30 said:
"Understand the MOD is more and more run by Civvies who have never served. The days when the departments where 'Military' are long gone."

Not really - plenty of civvies work for MOD - but if you look, its still military personnel in the real positions of power and influence.
... looks like they are being influenced more by the civvies :frustrated:
 
#12
jim30 said:
"Understand the MOD is more and more run by Civvies who have never served. The days when the departments where 'Military' are long gone."

Not really - plenty of civvies work for MOD - but if you look, its still military personnel in the real positions of power and influence.
Why don't they use this F*****G influence where it matters, ie welfare of serving and ex serving troops.
:frustrated:
 
#13
The people who work at the veterans agency in Norcross seem to be blinkered, inept or both, I was seen by a civilian GP with no military service and my case for a war pension was decided on by a "suit" that has never seen a conflict zone ( other than blackpool on a Friday night). Not bad after 22 years of loyal service which unfortunately left me with severe PTSD and suicidal tendencies.

I have been contact by private message by numerous arrse members asking for details of my condition and treatment, ( see my post re PTSD on the professionally qualified RAMC and QARANC forum). Unfortunately they have all been from journalists who I am too cynical to believe that they will print my true story and not re-arrange all the words into something totally different.

I see it as a crying shame that serving soldiers and ex military personnel do not get the help and assistance that they need, after all that they gave to their country WITHOUT QUESTION.

I'm still trying to think of a suitable quote to have on my headstone when I finally bow to the pressure and slot myself, which hopefully won't be for a while yet because I have the suport of all my friends and family.

Medders,

Getting tired of taking on the system ( and losing)
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#14
'Always look on the bright siiiiide of life!'

or

'Here lies Medders
he was thredders'
 
#15
"looks like they are being influenced more by the civvies"

Blame the chain of command then - ultimately they're the ones who sign off on decisions - they could say no couldn't they?
 
#16
jim30 said:
"looks like they are being influenced more by the civvies"

Blame the chain of command then - ultimately they're the ones who sign off on decisions - they could say no couldn't they?
Jim I have read a lot of your posts where people slag off the MOD and you always without fail say the same thing...It's Military personnnel who decide on the decisions which cause such umbridge... It's never the fault of civilian civil servants... I think you are talking "face saving" "blame shifting bollox"

It's civil servants whom control the Militarys budget, It's civil servents whom advise government ministers Its civil servants in Both the treasury and MOD whom are fecking the Armed services over, whom decree "policy" a higher God than doing whats right for the country...

Yes maybe Military personnel have to decide where to spend the meagre fnances that they are given, but its not military personnel whom decide the meagre finances, take the closure of Military Hospitals do you really think Jim that military personnel of whatever rank thought that that was a good idea, that it would do wonders for morale which lets face it plays a huge role in retention. Do you really believe that a military man came up with that idea...or could it have been the civil servants saying 'we are slashing the part of the budget allocated to Military medical care by x amount, its a huge drain on Gordy Browns resources, deal with it and come up with a solution"

and to concede a point to you these civil servants are being ably abetted by self serving promotion conscious Military offficers whom havent the Bollox to stand up and say whats wrong.
 
#17
To underline geo's point:

I have a friend who's a civil servant in the MOD. He is in the Fast Track System, has been in for just over 6 years now, and is now the equivalent (if you can compare their rank structure with ours) of a Colonel. Now, he's a bright lad and I don't knock him (at least, not behind his back :colors: ), however does that not give some indication as to where the power really lies?

Or have you met loads of 6-year Colonels in your time?
 
#18
rockape34 said:
jim30 said:
"Understand the MOD is more and more run by Civvies who have never served. The days when the departments where 'Military' are long gone."

Not really - plenty of civvies work for MOD - but if you look, its still military personnel in the real positions of power and influence.
... looks like they are being influenced more by the civvies :frustrated:
geo7863 said:
Jim I have read a lot of your posts where people slag off the MOD and you always without fail say the same thing...It's Military personnnel who decide on the decisions which cause such umbridge... It's never the fault of civilian civil servants... I think you are talking "face saving" "blame shifting bollox"

It's civil servants whom control the Militarys budget, It's civil servents whom advise government ministers Its civil servants in Both the treasury and MOD whom are fecking the Armed services over, whom decree "policy" a higher God than doing whats right for the country...

Yes maybe Military personnel have to decide where to spend the meagre fnances that they are given, but its not military personnel whom decide the meagre finances, take the closure of Military Hospitals do you really think Jim that military personnel of whatever rank thought that that was a good idea, that it would do wonders for morale which lets face it plays a huge role in retention.
my point exactly geo
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
Yes, the MoD is run by 'civvies' - they are called Ministers, and they are part of the Gov-ern-ment. This is entirely made up of 'civvies' - if it were made up of Military and people using them to keep power it would be a 'Dic-ta-tor-ship' like in those wonderfully well-run Countries such as N Korea, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.

The work of the MoD is done jointly by Civvies and Military. Oddly enough, they seem to get along very well, with all trying to do their best. It is not a case of a few whinging penny-pinching Civil Servants starving the Army of funds - there is a limited pot of Gold, and the Government (i.e. HM Treasury) divvies it up. Even after that allocation to Ministries, the Treasury keep a very close eye on it - the MoD cannot move money from say Procurement to Medical Support, or from Pay to Ammo.

Even more oddly, the same people are accused on the one hand of waste and profligacy, and on the other of parsimony and being tightfisted. Can't win, can they?

Statement of bias here: I am a Civil Servant, in the MoD. I have/am also been in the Army, Regular then TA, for longer than most people on ARRSE have been alive, and even after all these years I still find the ignorance of most people as to how the Country is run amazing. Still, someone has to buy the Mail I suppose.

Oh, and finally the Mail is very very supportive of Mr Brown to be next PM. Does anyone really expect him to be more generous to the MoD as PM than as Chancellor? My opinion of the Mail is not printable, let's just say it's worse than almost every other National Daily - and that is really saying something.

/Rant off
 
#20
"It's never the fault of civilian civil servants... I think you are talking "face saving" "blame shifting bollox""

Careful Geo - I'm definitely not saying its never the fault of civil servants - I have quite happily attacked some of the muppets employed by HMG on several occassions on this board and elsewhere. What I am trying to do is put a bit of balance in to the debate, as the stock reaction is almost always "MOD are cnuts who do feck all and want to shaft us". I'm trying to put both sides across here! We (MOD) are our own worst enemy at times and some of the YTS rejects we employ are a great example of this. BUT the majority of us are doing our job and trying our best to support the forces, in the same way that you do yours - the problem is we don't all get to see the bigger picture to understand why cuts are ordered or increased finance elsewhere.

I take your point that CS can be seen to blame for budget pressures from the treasury - but ultimately they are doing what they are directed to by their political masters who make clear where they want the money to go. If you have a gripe then blame the politicians! Ultimately no CS is going to say "increase on defence" when the Chancellor has said "no money for defence, lots for environment" because it won't achieve anything. Its rather like the booties invading spain and not gibraltar - great idea in principle, but pisses off the head shed no end.

"Or have you met loads of 6-year Colonels in your time?"

He's a fast streamer - basically he and others are promoted quickly, but will end up in the senior echelons of the system. Of course he's not a colonel! I'd like nothing more than to scrap the rank equivalency system - its out of date - it reflects a time when promotion was slower, so if someone was promoted to HEO (SO2), it was mainly due to time served. The system as designed made sense - if you've been in 15 years, you've got a grade where your general level of experience is about the same as a Major would have - the problem is that promotion is much quicker now, so its no longer sensible. Personally I'd replace it with all CS from D grade onwards go in the mess, and Grade 7 (1*) and above get treated in the same way for lodging / transport etc as military 1*'s. And yes I do go spare at any muppet who calls themselves a civillian brigadier :)
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top