Discussion in 'REME' started by Army_Rizzle, Oct 9, 2011.

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. And people said labour were bad, the conservatives/libdems are ******* this country in every way!
  2. These guys aren't gonna see out their 22. I know it's a sore point but at some point, they're gonna be forced out/let go. In no way am I denigrating their sacrifice.

    My old man "soldiered" on after becoming an amputee mid 1980s. He was lucky enough to find a job in the RAF where he could carry on for a couple of years, but he knew what was on the cards and spent the whole time lining up a career in civvie street.
  3. I completely understand that, but surely the government owes people with serious injury at least the chance to square away a new life. I was at 6bn when Gav was injured and at the time the Colonel made a point of saying the regiment, and the corps would look after him. Surely two years of service isn't giving him the opportunity to start a new life. Training wing, Guard Room, ES Ops, RHQ. Theres places where people with serious injury's can be employed, not indefinitely but for a period of more than 2 years.
  4. In 2007 our CO told the blokes that had suffered life changing injuries that if they wanted to stay in then he would find them a job. Now, most are either out or are in the process of being discharged. At a time when we are making people redundant and with huge waiting lists for people to start training there is no reason to keep people on who have been so severely injured.

    Having said that, not many of our blokes are particularly upset about being discharged. They've been given, or are getting the best treatment they can, they've received good compensation and insurance payments as well as being in receipt of pensions. Apparently my lot have a bit of an old boiys network going where former officers and the like have been offering blokes office jobs etc.
  5. Sorry to piss on your chips but it was fucked before the conservatives/libdems took the reins.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. No, they can't always be employed in those places, sometimes they would need to be physically able to do something or in the cases of ptes (Who because of their numbers get injured more) don't have the skills to work in those places. It can also increase the workload of those who are not injured. It might have been possible if there a one or two or they have valued skills few others have, but that is no longer the case. It would be impossible for most of them to get promotion. (almost all courses have a physical aspect now).
    Far better that they are out and given help, than staying in making up numbers..
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Lets get something straight. Sgt Harvey might well be getting released by the Army but that and not looking after him are very very different things. I was also at 6 Bn, on parade when the Colonel said those things and even then I knew that it was a promise that he wasn't ever going to be able to keep.
    Fast forward 3 years and we now have redundancies in effect and more and more penny pinching from the MoD (probably rightly as we as an organisation were living above our means).
    If Sgt Harvey, was able to return, who's Pid is he going to take? What happens to that person? As a Corps, can we afford to keep on people we know are ever going to be able to perform a "soldiers" job of something? (& please dont drag this into a dowgraded arguement, this is different.)
    Sgt Harvey has received lots and lots of support from the Army, and will be set for a life in civvy street, albeit within his abilities. Ultimately, we will ALL be civvy's one day and lots of us will go through the gates wishing that we didnt have to.
    It is a great shame that Sgt H is doing so in a chair but I bet he wouldn't swap his future for Cfn Brandon's.
  8. It's an emotive subject this and many COs made promises in the past that the Army is no longer able to fulfil - i.e. injured soldiers don't have a job for life. An enormous amount of soldiers are downgraded and the decision to manage each individual's case irrespective of how they sustained their injury was taken and, in reality, was the fairest thing to do. Soldiers injured on exercise (eg RTAs) are treated no different to those with similar injuries sustained in IED blasts and rightly so - neither bloke wanted to get injured. The press obviously latch onto cases where soldiers have been injured in Afghanistan and hammer the Army, however all Armed Forces Compensation Scheme awards have been substantially increased. Really, if Sgt Harvey and his fellow amputees are given the best possible recovery, afforded time to resettle and offered financial security through the AFCS there is no more the Army can do & it would not be looking after blokes by allowing them to continue in their career in the Army with no prospect of promotion or delpoyment.

    Ultimately what is a travesty is that much of the recovery funding comes from H4H - it should be the government who pay (and by extension the public through taxation) - and that is what these articles should be aimed at. Until the government addresses this I for one will continue to look upon their 'relaunching the covenant' events and similar PR stunts with the sceptisism they deserve.
  9. Here, here. Probably the most truthful thing anybody has said on here ever and put better than I ever could.
  10. Well said Alf - you've got it spot on.