Veteran's 'rights' - Your view

Veterans should be entitled to:

  • Priority NHS treatment for life.

    Votes: 18 14.9%
  • Priority NHS treatment for service related injuries.

    Votes: 104 86.0%
  • Free private medical treatment for service related injuries.

    Votes: 42 34.7%
  • Priority access for children's school places.

    Votes: 27 22.3%
  • Discounted mortgage rates for life.

    Votes: 15 12.4%
  • Tax free pensions.

    Votes: 40 33.1%
  • Priority access to Local Authority housing.

    Votes: 59 48.8%
  • Discounted rent on Local Authority housing.

    Votes: 21 17.4%
  • Free annual private medical exams for physical and mental health.

    Votes: 33 27.3%
  • Guaranteed job interviews when applying for roles within the public sector.

    Votes: 41 33.9%

  • Total voters
    121
#81
Are they? Most people are back in the UK now - what disadvantage do they suffer compared to their civilian neighbours? The pay and overall package, meanwhile, is generally far superior to that of their civilian peers - and the subsidised housing should allow the accumulation of a deposit for a future house.

Service folk still have to move about on a regular basis not of their choosing, and only have careers to 55 or less. Don't kid yourself that the subsidised housing compensates for not owning a house or having tenure in a council house. The biggest issue is however the lack of career opportunities for spouses, most families rely on two incomes these days, and the bouncing around creates chaos for the "other half" in terms of career progression. The current resiting of military bases from relatively affluent areas such as Surrey, Hampshire and Oxfordshire to locations such as Catterick and Leuchars has made this situation even worse.

Are they a national asset? Do they have such skills? The numerous stories of helpless veterans indicates a much different reality.

Of course they are.. The country has spent good money on training folk with unique skills and abilities for which there is an enduring need if things go Pete Tong. Are you talking about "drunks in doorways" storys? Doesn't mean they could not soldier if dried out does it? This, IMHO, puts them in a more valuable position than your average sink estate smackhead...

Agreed.

Thank you..
You seem very quick to condemn service folk... why? Do you not see the need for well supported defences?
 
#85
I meant for poor people.
Actually it's not free, not even for poor people, but it is subsidised. There are instances where it is free. I think pregnant women can get free dental treatment but of course even then, that's a limited period of time. A visit to the dentist can cost as little as around £30 for something like a filling or about £260 for a full set of dentures.

The real downside of opting for NHS dental treatment is the limited amount of treatments available. For example if you need dentures, it's the plastic dentures which need the full bridge across the top to stop them breaking. Something that many people find difficult to get on with.

The better alternatives are not available through the NHS and can cost several thousand pounds to obtain.

NHS dental treatment will get you out of trouble for not a lot of money but it's not the same standard of care that you would expect if you were for example going into hospital for an operation or getting a broken bone fixed etc.

Edit. A quick Google shows this information. Who is entitled to free NHS dental treatment in England? - Health questions - NHS Choices
 
Last edited:
#86
It's worse than that...

There are three NHS charge bands.

Band 1: £20.60 covers an examination, diagnosis and advice. If necessary, it also includes X-rays, a scale and polish, and planning for further treatment.

Band 2: £56.30 covers all treatment included in Band 1, plus additional treatment, such as fillings, root canal treatment and removing teeth (extractions).

Band 3: £244.30 covers all treatment included in Bands 1 and 2, plus more complex procedures, such as crowns, dentures and bridges.

Even worse yet, my dentist used to save a filling for the next six-monthly examination, ensuring a bit of additional income.
 
#87
The resettlement package is already better than any other job I’ve heard of. Tesco sure as hell don’t give you as much support when you tell them to poke their job.
Not quite an apples for apples comparison but I get your point.

You could give some people £1million when they leave and a year later they’d be living under a bridge.
No argument there

If people are destitute after 22 years then they’re probably idiots and likely deserve it. It’d be throwing good money after bad.
That's why there would have to be a different approach. Also the reliance on the money after 22yrs gives some a false sense of financial security. I've heard a few horror stories over the years where WO Admin realizes his pension and above min wage means he can't live the lifestyle he was expecting too.
 
#88
That's why there would have to be a different approach. Also the reliance on the money after 22yrs gives some a false sense of financial security. I've heard a few horror stories over the years where WO Admin realizes his pension and above min wage means he can't live the lifestyle he was expecting too.
I am all for financial education (which, IMHO, should start in school), but there are loads of posts on here dripping that the Chain of Command treats soldiers like children - now we’re assuming that they can’t manage their money and should be treated specially when they leave?

I’d throw in a financial brief on each CLM (if they’re not already in there), and from memory there’s already one on resettlement.

I don’t buy the ‘but I got used to the money’ argument at all. We often tout ourselves as being ninja planners/project managers when we leave:

Well then - go project manage your life, and exit from the Forces.

What appoach do you think we should take?
 
#89
That's why there would have to be a different approach. Also the reliance on the money after 22yrs gives some a false sense of financial security. I've heard a few horror stories over the years where WO Admin realizes his pension and above min wage means he can't live the lifestyle he was expecting too.
As was mentioned above, WO2 Admin is one of those idiots.
If civvies can work out that they may be earning less when their contract finishes, I dont see why squaddies cant do the same.
 
#90
Two certificates on my bog wall from Mensa say otherwise, and my now paid for 4 bed detached pad
One saying “Please stop sending crayoned pictures of kittens to us” the other is a Mensa application form, cut from the Daily Mail, right?

I have never known anyone who doesn’t have vast inadequacies who has admitted to joining Mensa; much less admitting to proudly displaying whatever pikey certificates they’ve conned you into buying in the loo.
 
Last edited:
#91
As was mentioned above, WO2 Admin is one of those idiots.
If civvies can work out that they may be earning less when their contract finishes, I dont see why squaddies cant do the same.
Wether or not civvies can manage their money, IF theres's evidence that a disproportionate amount of ex-service personnel are failing to manage their finances, the MoD should do something about it.
 
#92
I am all for financial education (which, IMHO, should start in school), but there are loads of posts on here dripping that the Chain of Command treats soldiers like children - now we’re assuming that they can’t manage their money and should be treated specially when they leave?

I’d throw in a financial brief on each CLM (if they’re not already in there), and from memory there’s already one on resettlement.

I don’t buy the ‘but I got used to the money’ argument at all. We often tout ourselves as being ninja planners/project managers when we leave:

Well then - go project manage your life, and exit from the Forces.

What appoach do you think we should take?
As an approach, why not do some of phased-out pay scheme? 100% for the first three months, 75% for the next etc. This will make individuals focus a little more on their long term financial health.
Make the financial brief more than that. Get them to create and present a finance plan so that they can see what their finances will be. Do this with a well measured and robust cost of living chart in their chosen area of abode. "Want to live in Surrey, well tell me how you will mange it on your pension and a Class 1 license!"

I get the 'treated like kids' bit, but then you have to realise that you're targeting the lowest common denominator. Not everyone leaves after 22 as a WO1. Some of the SNCO/WO on my resettlement courses were either in LaLa land or had no concept of real life outside the forces in terms of mortgages, Council Tax, etc. I left as a Cpl after 13.5, owned my own house and my wife was in an OK job. This wasn't by accident, it was part of a well prepared plan, long before I stuck my notice in.

There's a fine line between expecting everyone to walk out into a well paid job and treat them as so, or assume that they're all admin vortex and will piss away/over-purchase their way into poverty and a park-bench somewhere. You could make the resettlement process pitched at rank? Apart from being incredibly patronising, my experience tells me that rank has no correlation with reality or pro-activity. ^_~ You could keep the status quo but this will continue the cycle of eventual homeless ex-mil, DM headlines about poor ol' SAS Bob or worse

I don't have the absolute answer, but the current process is either not working, or it is but we're just recruiting the sort of people who would never have made it in civilian life anyway, let alone after 22yrs and a tidy pension
 
#93
As was mentioned above, WO2 Admin is one of those idiots.
If civvies can work out that they may be earning less when their contract finishes, I dont see why squaddies cant do the same.
The only difference would be, a contractor in civvie street usually looks for another job in the same field, a squaddie can't do that.
 
#94
Wether or not civvies can manage their money, IF theres's evidence that a disproportionate amount of ex-service personnel are failing to manage their finances, the MoD should do something about it.
Why ??

As allegedly adults who are quick to ask to be treated as such then they shouldn't really need that kind of advice should they ??

If its a disproportionate amount then doesn't that say something regarding the quality of the people being recruited
Its not rocket magic is it ; piss away your earnings rather than use that strange concept of leaving it in the bank for more than 5 minutes
 
#95
Why ??

As allegedly adults who are quick to ask to be treated as such then they shouldn't really need that kind of advice should they ??

If its a disproportionate amount then doesn't that say something regarding the quality of the people being recruited
Its not rocket magic is it ; piss away your earnings rather than use that strange concept of leaving it in the bank for more than 5 minutes
I don't think that being able to look after your own finances is a quality that compliments the ability to bayonet someone in the face to be fair.
 
#96
The only difference would be, a contractor in civvie street usually looks for another job in the same field, a squaddie can't do that.
Plenty can. I know admin staff who became admin staff.

I know comms blokes who became comms blokes.

And I know one RMP bloke who became...guess what?

Deeply unliked by his coworkers.
 
#97
I don't think that being able to look after your own finances is a quality that compliments the ability to bayonet someone in the face to be fair.
Maybe so but doesn't that worry you in any way

Give a squaddie the responsibility of taking life but cant think for themse..... AH I get you
 
#98
Maybe so but doesn't that worry you in any way

Give a squaddie the responsibility of taking life but cant think for themse..... AH I get you
We can't recruit anybody as it is, let alone financially astute sociopaths. The key question is "is there a higher percentage of ex-service personnel in financial strife than in the general population?" If so, MoD should do something to balance that percentage. There's lots of reasons for it that I can think of.
 
#99
Wether or not civvies can manage their money, IF theres's evidence that a disproportionate amount of ex-service personnel are failing to manage their finances, the MoD should do something about it.
There are thousands of civvies who are spastics with their money, on here they are call chav scum, for some reason serving in the army exempts you from being called the same.

The vast majority of soldiers get on fine so I doubt there is any evidence, if there was, all the MOD should do is tell people to act like a ******* prick when it comes to money.
 
Last edited:
We can't recruit anybody as it is, let alone financially astute sociopaths. The key question is "is there a higher percentage of ex-service personnel in financial strife than in the general population?" If so, MoD should do something to balance that percentage. There's lots of reasons for it that I can think of.
The MOD should do **** all unless it can be proven that serving in the army turns you into a financial mong.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Condor Charities and Welfare 4
D The NAAFI Bar 3
Zero_Over The NAAFI Bar 13

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top