Should there be a minimum requirement to be classed as 'Veteran'

Should 'Veteran' status have a qualifying criteria

  • Yes, criteria not captured below

    Votes: 37 15.8%
  • Yes - Must have minimum 5 years or operational tour

    Votes: 83 35.5%
  • Yes - Must have operational tour regardless of time served

    Votes: 41 17.5%
  • No

    Votes: 41 17.5%
  • Yes - Must have minimum of 10 years or operational tour

    Votes: 18 7.7%
  • Yes - Full contract service of 22 years

    Votes: 14 6.0%

  • Total voters
    234

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#1
I've opted to sling a new thread up based on a few points raised here.

We all know the emotive connections to the word 'veteran' but regardless whether we like it or not, it's how people refer to ex-service personnel.

However, most of us will know people who may have served, but are certainly not veterans, having spent their potentially short spell in the army getting into trouble, being a grot, causing bother, before getting booted out or leaving at the earliest possible date.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't care about these people, but what has been highlighted on numerous occasions is that there is a general struggle to support ex-service personnel. In part due to money, in part due to accessibility of resources, and then a number of deaths by a thousand cuts elsewhere.

The system groans under the weight, I suspect, of those with 5-15 year service where the biggest bracket of operational tours will sit, as well as those with less than 3 or 3-5 years service, with maybe an operational tour, and who may just have hung on because it was all they had, before vanishing back into the real world after maybe a discharge, SNLR, termination or AWOL.

One thing which would solve the problem of, for example, proper treatment and support for those with PTSD - apart from accurate diagnosis which as we know isn't the way the world is going right now...would be to look at establishing a qualifying bar whereupon you would officially be classed as a 'Veteran'.

So for example, a minimum of five years service or an operational tour at any service age, qualifies you as veteran and then allows you access to post-service support.

The benefit to this are numerous:

  • The limited resource pool will have less people to try and manage
  • The limited funds won't be spread as thinly
  • It will encourage people to try and perhaps make something of their time rather than just joining up, doing the bare minimum and leaving again with that claim to glory and all the support that comes afterwards (which to be fair isn't that much in this country compared to some)
  • Cut back on the massive misconception that just because a grot did two years before getting kicked out for drugs, that he's somehow the MOD's problem afterwards when he ends up homeless in a bin
  • People that gave to the Forces, get back the support and help they deserve and are treated appropriately, rather than a 22 year soldier with several tours at varying ranks behind him, getting treated exactly the same as Grotty McGrotGrot who did nothing with his few short years
Thoughts / comments / queries. The intent behind this discussion is not to create an elite status for soldiers (though that'd no doubt be a side effect of this) but to try and streamline the support and 'aftercare' processes by making the phrase 'veteran' quantifiable and identifiable so that the right people get the right help.

Edit:

The debate has skewed somewhat onto the phrase 'veteran' - if we can ignore that for the time being, it's just a tag used for ease of reference.

It's really more a case of:

At what level of service should you be classed as 'Term Served' which would the entitle you to various levels of benefits and support - the intent being that we weed out people who joined the army but left perhaps under a cloud or didn't do 'long enough' and are clogging up the scare resources we have for people who genuinely gave time and energy, perhaps their mental or physical wellbeing, to the army and are due support back.
 
Last edited:
#2
I did nine years, including time in NI. However, I don't consider myself a Veteran.

I tend to follow George MacDonald Fraser's definition given in 'Quartered Safe Out Here' (and I can't find the page!) where he says that a Veteran is someone who served twenty years or more (i.e. a lifetime's service).

I enjoyed my time and I like to think that I gave value for the money I was paid. But a Veteran? Nah. I did my time, left voluntarily and was lucky enough to make a decent career for myself.

If you've got to have some kind of cut-off point to qualify for some kind of Veteran's Benefits, I'd suggest that it should be more than five years.
 
#4
I tend to follow George MacDonald Fraser's definition given in 'Quartered Safe Out Here' (and I can't find the page!) where he says that a Veteran is someone who served twenty years or more (i.e. a lifetime's service).
So all those who fought in both world wars are not veterans the bluffing cünts
 
#5
I know a waster who didn't even complete basic Naval training that got a Veterans badge and claimed he got Veterans support. Took me 22 years to get mine, I don't think he even managed 22 weeks.
 
#6
Those who complete training, are posted to a unit, and serve their minimum engagement (3 or 4 years, whatever it is today), and give proper notice to leave. Basically, if you qualify for a preserved pension.
 
#7
So all those who fought in both world wars are not veterans the bluffing cünts
Quote from GMF, 'Quartered Safe Out Here', Page 341 of the Harper paperback published in 2000. He's writing about the 50th anniversary of VJ Day and a parade and church service at Carlisle Cathedral:
"Afterwards , the 'veterans', as they call us (in my youth a veteran was a 30-year serviceman) fell in to march to the town hall."
GMF saw more action in 5 minutes than I saw in 9 years. Like many of his generation, he was called up to fight for his country. I thank them for it. I'll stick with his definition.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#8
The problem with PTSD is that someone could have that serving but unrelated to war.
I recall an excercise where in fog a Bedford driver hit some squaddies, can’t recall that anyone died but any one of them could’ve suffered quite bad trauma.
Were they veterans or just mangled?
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#9
Year or so ago I was in the UJC, crippled with back pain after an attack working for the NHS.
Three kids came in the bar, they’d apparently not been let in ‘some other place as it was for officers’.
All kicked out from basic, one whining about his sciatica, seemed very nimble but discharged because of sciatica.
They wanted out of the Army then tried two places where they could associate with forces and ex-forces.
 
#10
I've opted to sling a new thread up based on a few points raised here.

We all know the emotive connections to the word 'veteran' but regardless whether we like it or not, it's how people refer to ex-service personnel.

However, most of us will know people who may have served, but are certainly not veterans, having spent their potentially short spell in the army getting into trouble, being a grot, causing bother, before getting booted out or leaving at the earliest possible date.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't care about these people, but what has been highlighted on numerous occasions is that there is a general struggle to support ex-service personnel. In part due to money, in part due to accessibility of resources, and then a number of deaths by a thousand cuts elsewhere.

The system groans under the weight, I suspect, of those with 5-15 year service where the biggest bracket of operational tours will sit, as well as those with less than 3 or 3-5 years service, with maybe an operational tour, and who may just have hung on because it was all they had, before vanishing back into the real world after maybe a discharge, SNLR, termination or AWOL.

One thing which would solve the problem of, for example, proper treatment and support for those with PTSD - apart from accurate diagnosis which as we know isn't the way the world is going right now...would be to look at establishing a qualifying bar whereupon you would officially be classed as a 'Veteran'.

So for example, a minimum of five years service or an operational tour at any service age, qualifies you as veteran and then allows you access to post-service support.

The benefit to this are numerous:

  • The limited resource pool will have less people to try and manage
  • The limited funds won't be spread as thinly
  • It will encourage people to try and perhaps make something of their time rather than just joining up, doing the bare minimum and leaving again with that claim to glory and all the support that comes afterwards (which to be fair isn't that much in this country compared to some)
  • Cut back on the massive misconception that just because a grot did two years before getting kicked out for drugs, that he's somehow the MOD's problem afterwards when he ends up homeless in a bin
  • People that gave to the Forces, get back the support and help they deserve and are treated appropriately, rather than a 22 year soldier with several tours at varying ranks behind him, getting treated exactly the same as Grotty McGrotGrot who did nothing with his few short years
Thoughts / comments / queries. The intent behind this discussion is not to create an elite status for soldiers (though that'd no doubt be a side effect of this) but to try and streamline the support and 'aftercare' processes by making the phrase 'veteran' quantifiable and identifiable so that the right people get the right help.
Its too complicated to have a proper answer. Why should someone who served four years and 11 months as a good soldier not get something when some penis does 5 years and gets booted out for CDT failure? There are plenty of useless, fat, jack cnuts doing over 5 years and there are plenty of decent lads doing less.

Most of those on the streets and/or doing drugs are fuckwits whose status has **** all to do with their service.
 
Last edited:
#11
Year or so ago I was in the UJC, crippled with back pain after an attack working for the NHS.
Three kids came in the bar, they’d apparently not been let in ‘some other place as it was for officers’.
All kicked out from basic, one whining about his sciatica, seemed very nimble but discharged because of sciatica.
They wanted out of the Army then tried two places where they could associate with forces and ex-forces.
And in 20 years time, they'll have Bling medals and will be parading at Remembrance Day services.....
 
#13
We've got guys who've done 1 (ONE, FFS) day recognised as vets.--Now serving much longer---- behind a door.
 
#15
I did nine years, including time in NI. However, I don't consider myself a Veteran.

I tend to follow George MacDonald Fraser's definition given in 'Quartered Safe Out Here' (and I can't find the page!) where he says that a Veteran is someone who served twenty years or more (i.e. a lifetime's service).

I enjoyed my time and I like to think that I gave value for the money I was paid. But a Veteran? Nah. I did my time, left voluntarily and was lucky enough to make a decent career for myself.

If you've got to have some kind of cut-off point to qualify for some kind of Veteran's Benefits, I'd suggest that it should be more than five years.
Until I emigrated to Canada I did not consider myself a veteran at most I was and ex squadie, yet in Canada I am thanked for my service, honoured by strangers and on the whole treated as worthy by my peers. I would venture to say that being a veteran has more to do with how you are treated after you volunteered to serve your country.
 
#16
I’ve always wondered if someone who served in the NHS or police for an expected to be treated differently once they’ve left? The modern “look at me I was in the army, you will respect me” attitude seems a bit odd to me.

I’ve ticked 5 and a tour but I also lean towards the full 22 as a minimum.
 
#17
Bye... what a sad thread thread.
 
#18
#19
I did nine years, including time in NI. However, I don't consider myself a Veteran.

I tend to follow George MacDonald Fraser's definition given in 'Quartered Safe Out Here' (and I can't find the page!) where he says that a Veteran is someone who served twenty years or more (i.e. a lifetime's service).

I enjoyed my time and I like to think that I gave value for the money I was paid. But a Veteran? Nah. I did my time, left voluntarily and was lucky enough to make a decent career for myself.

If you've got to have some kind of cut-off point to qualify for some kind of Veteran's Benefits, I'd suggest that it should be more than five years.
6 months on the Western front , Normandy or Kohima equals 20 years blanket stacking
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#20
I voted "No" as I think it is dangerous to start defining who is or is not a veteran.

The dictionary definition gives a mixture that is causing some of this confusion, someone with lots of experience to anyone who is ex-Forces.

veteran - Google-Suche

Taking the categories as given in the poll, where then would the RAF fit in? :twisted:
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top