Soldiers need LOANS to eat !

#2
I'm personally not for "Pay As You Starve" but that report is blown out of proportion. Its not a loan really, its a damn swipe card that you use to cover you in the last week, it gets taken off your next pay packet (millionaires weekend)
 
#3
t’s not a true reflection. It’s been going on for years. The red arse goes out in the first few week and p*sses up his pay and then has nothing for the rest of the month.
If the contract is monitored correctly there is no problem with food, and in all contracts the core option has to contain at least one healthy choice. However the hotplate has contained a healthy option for at least 15 years but no one takes it and it has never been a problem before but now PAYD is here everyone is apparently health.......
 
#4
And if they can’t eat then they sign in and it comes out of next months pay packet…… not rocket science is it
 
#8
"The scheme symbolises a change from the tradition of soldiers getting three square meals a day for free. Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay."

From the article.

The 3 square meals aday were never free. They were paid for whether you ate them or not, and the cost subtracted at source. Obviously all the soldiers on here know that.

The problem here is the transition to PAYD, rater than the "paid for" mels.

It was said years ago, however, how the pay for a soldier is so much different than a Fireman (for example) at the start out.

Several papers printed that soldiers earning far less (with no option for a second job) than the firemen who were striking for MORE pay.

Incidentaly the term "3 square meals" comes from the Navy. Apparently when you were recruited or press ganged or what have you, you were given the matierials to construct your hammock and what not. Those who had been to sea before or for a while, would know how to make a proper shaped plate, whittled from wood.

Newbies wouldn´t, so there plate would be square with sides. Hence "3 square meals aday".

Another news report from Sky on a similar theme.

Fed on One pound Eighty a day
 
#9
fangy1 said:
it looks true to me, it has the full CGS Briefing report attached to the article.
Which even mentions ARRSE!

Military Debate. Most wanted the ability to engage internally in military debate on issues that had been officially disseminated. Most felt uncomfortable with external websites such as ARRSE but felt there were limited platforms to air their opinions.
Page 21
 
#10
Great stuff - I got a link to the CGS briefing report earlier this week and its already been leaked. We had a bet on in the office to see how long it was before it hit the papers :)
How many years running is this that an internal briefing report has been leaked now?
 
#11
The CGS today mentions,in The Torygraph,that he's keeping his eye on all JPA matters.This after one of his staff was discharged from the Army,just after resigning on!!!
 
#12
PAYD is a rip off. It is blatant profiteering. Core meals that don't have the whole core - as much veg as you want to eat?


Unless of course its chips. Last I looked potatoes were a vegetable. If they are mashed, noisette or whatever, dig away soldier. If they are chipped - hell no pay more.

When I asked why? Because they're popular. So they know they can get more money out of the soldier.

Rip Off. That and that reason alone was reason enough for me to cater for myself in my room. I'm not allowed but then I don't care.

I wont line the contractors pockets.

Before i get the usual sarky answers, I know I could do with swerving a few chips, but its the principle of the matter that annoys me.
 
#15
Unfortunately it's a fact of military life.

A squaddy will, always find his beer money at the expense of other bills.

I left in '84 after 18 years and it was true then, and i don't think much has changed.
 
#16
PAYD is just one more nail in the Armed Forces coffin, put their by a government of accountants and solicitors, not a soldier amongst them, and absolutly no understanding of how the British Armed Forces used to operate.
A Private Soldier is, or was, Private Property of the state. To be Trained, Maintained, educated and fed at the expense of the State. Whos very existance is only to protect the State.
No comparison with other uniformed employees of the state such as Firmen or policemen can be made in either the dangers of the job or personal commitment.
A Soldier is not an individual but part of the state and is prepared to offer up many years of his or her life to protect the public from harm.
The Government of today is unable to recognise this and treats its Armed Forces in the same way it treats its council Bin Men. If this continues we will totally demoralise everyone serving today and the enemies of this country will be able to take control from the Government just by taking away their pencils.
 

Fugly

ADC
DirtyBAT
#18
psychobabble said:
Nightrained said:
They wouldn't even let me pay for my food in Scottish notes. Surely that's illegal for them not to accept legal tender.
Except for the slight problem that outside Scotland it isn't legal tender...
Does that mean my local Royal Bank of Scotland is trading illegally, then? (I'm in England, just so the mongs can clarify the point)
 
#20
heidtheba said:
psychobabble said:
Nightrained said:
They wouldn't even let me pay for my food in Scottish notes. Surely that's illegal for them not to accept legal tender.
Except for the slight problem that outside Scotland it isn't legal tender...
Since when?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

Bank of England notes are the only banknotes that are legal tender in England and Wales. United Kingdom coinage is legal tender, but in limited amounts for coins below £1.[5]

Scottish notes are not legal tender anywhere in the UK, including Scotland where only the coins are officially legal tender. Although this is the case, Scottish notes are widely accepted in return for goods throughout the UK; they have a similar legal standing to cheques or debit cards, in that their acceptability as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved.[citation needed]
 

Latest Threads

Top