Petition For all Suicides by Veterans to be recorded as Veterans by all UK Cornoners

#21
Can you expand on that please dingerr
It’s quite simple really, instead of Mr, Mrs, Dr etc, use Ve (or something else) to indicate a veteran, once you have an easily identifiable cohort then the various privilidges afforded to veterans can be enshrined in law and applied for all.

First there needs to be a legal definition of veteran. 1 days service doesn’t cut it.
 

greyfergie

MIA
Book Reviewer
#22
It’s quite simple really, instead of Mr, Mrs, Dr etc, use Ve (or something else) to indicate a veteran, once you have an easily identifiable cohort then the various privilidges afforded to veterans can be enshrined in law and applied for all.

First there needs to be a legal definition of veteran. 1 days service doesn’t cut it.
There was another thread on that subject wasn't there - a difficult one to draw the line on I guess
 
#24
Hypothetical question:- I was discharged in 1981, if I top myself tomorrow ( No jokes and piss takes please) would my death be recorded as a veteran , or a confused old man. What would be the criteria?
No
 
#25
It’s quite simple really, instead of Mr, Mrs, Dr etc, use Ve (or something else) to indicate a veteran, once you have an easily identifiable cohort then the various privilidges afforded to veterans can be enshrined in law and applied for all.
You can F right off! I did 25 years, retired in 2000 and there is no way I want that sort of label thank you very much!!! I am a perfectly normal, fully functional, fully capable member of society. I do not want to be 'picked out' or identified as 'special' in any way shape or form. I had a specific job for 25 years, it's done and I've moved on to other jobs.
 
Last edited:
#26
You can F right off! I did 25 years, retired in 1990 and there is no way I want that sort of label thank you very much!!! I am a perfectly normal, fully functional, fully capable member of society. I do not want to be 'picked out' or identified as 'special' in any way shape or form. I had a specific job for 25 years, it's done and I've moved on to other jobs.
Don’t worry you’re RAF, it would only apply to ex military.
 
#27
Don’t worry you’re RAF, it would only apply to ex military.
You could use the ranks you retired with to stand out from the crowd a bit ;-)
 
#29
You can F right off! I did 25 years, retired in 1990 and there is no way I want that sort of label thank you very much!!! I am a perfectly normal, fully functional, fully capable member of society. I do not want to be 'picked out' or identified as 'special' in any way shape or form. I had a specific job for 25 years, it's done and I've moved on to other jobs.
Don’t worry you’re RAF, it would only apply to ex military.
1965
 
#30
2) There appears to be an assumption of causation between having served and committing suicide which is obviously nonsensical. There might be a correlation but it would need considerably more data than just Sgt Jones topped himself therefore it was because he had served.
What this and other studies / petitions / research into suicide / PTSD / mental health issues never address is the reason behind any such 'correlation'.

Crucially, AFAIK, they never question (or even mention or suggest) the possibility that far from serving leading to suicide / PTSD / mental health issues in a small number of those who served, many of that same small number may have chosen to serve because of those mental health issues .....
..... that instead of their service leading to the mental health issues it was the underlying mental health issues that led to them serving.

The current 'belonging' series of ads, as well as the previous 'don't join the Army if ...' series are openly targeting those who are more likely to have mental health issues, as the Army always has - those who have a problem 'belonging' in normal society, and those who have a problem 'making friends, standing on your own two feet' and who need help to 'be a better you'.

If the Army's deliberately taking a small number of its recruits from those who are misfits, who have problems 'belonging' in society, 'making friends' etc, its hardly surprising that those same people are still going to have the same problems when they leave the Army's protective cocoon.
 
#31
What this and other studies / petitions / research into suicide / PTSD / mental health issues never address is the reason behind any such 'correlation'.

Crucially, AFAIK, they never question (or even mention or suggest) the possibility that far from serving leading to suicide / PTSD / mental health issues in a small number of those who served, many of that same small number may have chosen to serve because of those mental health issues .....
..... that instead of their service leading to the mental health issues it was the underlying mental health issues that led to them serving.

The current 'belonging' series of ads, as well as the previous 'don't join the Army if ...' series are openly targeting those who are more likely to have mental health issues, as the Army always has - those who have a problem 'belonging' in normal society, and those who have a problem 'making friends, standing on your own two feet' and who need help to 'be a better you'.

If the Army's deliberately taking a small number of its recruits from those who are misfits, who have problems 'belonging' in society, 'making friends' etc, its hardly surprising that those same people are still going to have the same problems when they leave the Army's protective cocoon.
I hate to agree with you but look at every single contemporary military biography from B2B onwards.
Default first chapter is alway. My family life was broken, poverty stricken and shit, I was shit at school and heading nowhere but jail etc

Joining up saved/changed/made me etc

The military is a very loaded self selecting study group. Certainly not a random selection of participants

In my peer group I’d say 75 % were tapped before they stepped off the train at lympschwitz, myself included
 
#32
I hate to agree with you .....
I'm sure you'll get over it .....

The Army's always targeted that particular group as much as any, certainly far more than any other employer, so it has to be inevitable that there are going to be more who have problems 'fitting in' to society, are suicidal, homeless, in prison, have PTS, underlying 'mental health issues', etc.

The only thing that surprises me is that the numbers with 'issues' are as low as they are given the numbers joining from 'problem' backgrounds - that seems to indicate that those with 'issues' have them despite serving rather than because of it.

..... not sure why the Army should be expected to pay for the problems it hasn't created or why those with problems that aren't caused by serving should expect having served to be an excuse.
 
#33
Personally i believe the MoD do keep data on service related suicides. This way they know the full extent of the problem and the absolute fortune it would cost even to partially address and so ignore it as they do. If anyone else can put forward a reason for the governments total indifference to PTSD related suicides i am all ears.
 
#35
It’s quite simple really, instead of Mr, Mrs, Dr etc, use Ve (or something else) to indicate a veteran, once you have an easily identifiable cohort then the various privilidges afforded to veterans can be enshrined in law and applied for all.

First there needs to be a legal definition of veteran. 1 days service doesn’t cut it.
and that is the problem

at exactly what point do you give this status ?
'trained soldier' status ?
' done an operational tour' ( that'll piss off some of the cold war warriors ) ... ?
 
#36
I'm sure you'll get over it .....

The Army's always targeted that particular group as much as any, certainly far more than any other employer, so it has to be inevitable that there are going to be more who have problems 'fitting in' to society, are suicidal, homeless, in prison, have PTS, underlying 'mental health issues', etc.

The only thing that surprises me is that the numbers with 'issues' are as low as they are given the numbers joining from 'problem' backgrounds - that seems to indicate that those with 'issues' have them despite serving rather than because of it.

..... not sure why the Army should be expected to pay for the problems it hasn't created or why those with problems that aren't caused by serving should expect having served to be an excuse.
So why didn't you say that in your previous post instead of making out the Army target those with MH issues?

Also, even if people join having MH issues that aren't detected at entry, are you suggesting they are the only ones committing suicide? How do you effectively measure the numbers committing suicide that had MH undetected issues at joining?

I came from a deprived, poor background and, being totally honest as realisation has hit me many years later, not only suffered with depression when joining but at various stages throughout my career (37 yrs) and after. As far as I know I've not committed suicide yet*.

*Probably much to the disgut of many.
 
#37
#38
and that is the problem

at exactly what point do you give this status ?
'trained soldier' status ?
' done an operational tour' ( that'll piss off some of the cold war warriors ) ... ?
And it'll piss off some of those who weren't CW warriors too, SSAFA (The Armed Forces Charity) amongst them as they state "1 days service a lifetime of care".

Being a CW warrior who served from 1975 through until 2012 before being medically discharged it pisses me off greatly, and I deployed.
 
Last edited:
#39
1.Personally i believe the MoD do keep data on service related suicides. This way they know the full extent of the problem and the absolute fortune it would cost even to partially address and so ignore it as they do. 2.If anyone else can put forward a reason for the governments total indifference to PTSD related suicides i am all ears.
1. No they don't and how could they? Firstly you'd have to prove the suicide was service related which can be very difficult to identify and prove and secondly, if true, why has the MoD launched an investigation into this if they have the info already?

2. Money.
 
#40
So why didn't you say that in your previous post instead of making out the Army target those with MH issues?
Because I was replying to two different albeit probably connected points, made by two different posters, in two different posts.
Also, even if people join having MH issues that aren't detected at entry, are you suggesting they are the only ones committing suicide?
No.
How do you effectively measure the numbers committing suicide that had MH undetected issues at joining?
No idea. No idea why you'd want to try either.

I came from a deprived, poor background and, being totally honest as realisation has hit me many years later, not only suffered with depression when joining but at various stages throughout my career (37 yrs) and after. As far as I know I've not committed suicide yet*.
I'm sure your perseverance will pay off eventually.
 

Top