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
Can you be a bit clearer on the evidence, the MOD doesnt turn people thick,
if the MOD is not at fault they should they have to pay? Yes or no?
Evidence: say 30% of the general public are financial mongs but 50% of ex service personnel are mongs, you have a correlation. This can be spun against the services, and must be mitigated against. If the percentages match, and it turns out that MOD turns people into songs who cares, there's no news in it.
 
Last edited:
The transfer of skills bit is interesting. Yes they can, but the reality is that civilian business doesn't necessarily recognise or value many of those skills. It's mainly about hard experience or the potential to grow within the business. Please don't believe all the hype you hear about transferable skills, it isn't the job offer generator that you think it is.

I've spent the last week interviewing for a supervisory role in my operation. I interviewed an ex-army guy with a post Mil degree. He tried to fall back a lot on his Mil experience to make himself fit the job spec. What he thought were skills that I was looking for were a million miles way from I needed. He did have a great future, but it wasn't with my company, yet he was convinced (from the post rejection feedback chat with my HR colleague) that is was.

I've also today declined without interview another ex-Mil with a degree because nothing in their CV led me to believe that they would have skills I would need. Interestingly, both were Ex RLC in the same trade as myself, so I knew pretty much what their limitations were.

You're right, nothing stops a squaddie making plans and if they don't their foolish, however I'll stand by my original comment that a Sales Manager, Builder, IT specialist or Telecommunications Engineer can always fall back on experience in their field to find another role doing the same. An Ex Squaddie will be untested and have no or limited experience that a business is willing to risk and so will have a disadvantage in the job market.

I agree with you on some comments, but my experience of integrating back into the real world was fraught with uncertainty, However, once I had regained my pre army qualifications, I was considered an asset, by dint of my army time, IE clean, punctual. able to accept orders, without question, and a willingness to learn, and I found out many years later, a good work ethic. If nothing else most if not all discharged soldiers, have these attributes.

Over the next 40 years many site foremen, of which I finally became, preferred military trained men, for one simple fact, ingrained discipline, and a willingness to go the extra mile. I acknowledge that in all organisations there are chancers, and wastes of space, and in the army they are mostly weeded out.

Not so in civvy street, where in big company's they merge into the background, and cause havoc and mayhem. ( Carillion) Service personal in the construction industry are well thought of, I have worked alongside many over the years, and prefer their mind-set to your average skiving civvy, of which I have had the misfortune to meet many. This is just my own personal opinion.
 
I'm going through resettlement at the moment, if they have nothing on their CV that is relevant then they have either not bothered going to the resettlement interviews or paid no attention to them. Because the help is there to prep your CV before you leave.

As many soldier leave and find a job, I'd suggest most ex squaddies are doing just fine.
I have gone through resettlement myself you know, so I'm familiar to the process.
Finding a job is easy, it's the right job or the one that you really want that isn't so.

If you get stuck, throw me your CV, I'm always looking for good types.
 
I agree with you on some comments, but my experience of integrating back into the real world was fraught with uncertainty, However, once I had regained my pre army qualifications, I was considered an asset, by dint of my army time, IE clean, punctual. able to accept orders, without question, and a willingness to learn, and I found out many years later, a good work ethic. If nothing else most if not all discharged soldiers, have these attributes.

Over the next 40 years many site foremen, of which I finally became, preferred military trained men, for one simple fact, ingrained discipline, and a willingness to go the extra mile. I acknowledge that in all organisations there are chancers, and wastes of space, and in the army they are mostly weeded out.

Not so in civvy street, where in big company's they merge into the background, and cause havoc and mayhem. ( Carillion) Service personal in the construction industry are well thought of, I have worked alongside many over the years, and prefer their mind-set to your average skiving civvy, of which I have had the misfortune to meet many. This is just my own personal opinion.
As a point of note, I found in the first few years after I left ('99) that being ex-Mil was almost a hindrance. There was this perception that I couldn't be flexible to achieve suitable outcomes when some 'alternative thinking ' was required because I would be too rigid and rule driven. It was a bit cliched but it felt that they thought I was some process driven automaton.
 
As a point of note, I found in the first few years after I left ('99) that being ex-Mil was almost a hindrance. There was this perception that I couldn't be flexible to achieve suitable outcomes when some 'alternative thinking ' was required because I would be too rigid and rule driven. It was a bit cliched but it felt that they thought I was some process driven automaton.
Its a known truth, civvys will never fully understand the army, all they know is what they see in contrived TV programmes, and news at ten. Those personal officers that are more aware of the military will take a calculated risk and hire an Ex squaddie, knowing that the ingrained attributes are still there. On discharge my feeling of total freedom from ridged rules and claustrophobic control by the system was immense, and allowed me more freedom to think on my feet, talking to other discharged soldiers they had the same feelings to a more or lesser degree, this I think is what endures us to the more enlightened "Human Resource Officers"
 
I have gone through resettlement myself you know, so I'm familiar to the process.
Finding a job is easy, it's the right job or the one that you really want that isn't so.

If you get stuck, throw me your CV, I'm always looking for good types.
I can clean up your warehouse in no time.
 
Lot of good posts here.

At a minimum I strongly believe the Government has the responsibility to ensure those with service related injuries receive the best medical treatment available on the NHS - and be given priority, particularly those with permanent disabilities.
I also believe married soldiers should automatically have priority on Local Housing Authority waiting lists and their children given priority regarding education.

Given the Armed Forces target 18 year olds in their recruiting campaigns I also feel a subsidized university education plan be offered to service personnel on leaving. Perhaps only 10% of personnel would take advantage of such a plan though it would be a good recruiting incentive.
I also like the idea of guaranteeing ex-service personnel priority in job interviews within the public sector.

Recruiting for the Armed Forces is in a parlous state, seems to me whatever incentives are offered to our young men and women they are not attractive enough to induce youngsters of the right caliber to enlist in sufficient numbers.
It behooves the government to re-think those incentives to include the eventual, relatively painless, transition to civilian life.

Sure the majority of those leaving will be reasonably successful with the minimum of 'aftercare', as many who have commented on this site have proved, though it's not enough, nowadays, to simply offer a life of action, travel, and adventure - as youngsters of my era (the early 1960s) were - and be cut adrift at the end of one's service, people expect more - and should be offered more if we are to maintain our Armed Forces at the optimum level of manning and efficiency with good morale.
 
Evidence: say 30% of the general public are financial mongs but 50% of ex service personnel are mongs, you have a correlation. This can be spun against the services, and must be mitigated against. If the percentages match, and it turns out that MOD turns people into songs who cares, there's no news in it.
You are trying to move the goal posts (and failing) It like saying more white people go to a certain university than black people (percentage) because that university is racist. When in fact it could be because there are more rich white families that can afford private education for their kids and to sub them through university.

In a similar manner if you have large amount of poor thick people joining any organisation, you are likely to have a large amount of thick people years down the line, the organisation isnt to blame.
 
Lot of good posts here.

At a minimum I strongly believe the Government has the responsibility to ensure those with service related injuries receive the best medical treatment available on the NHS - and be given priority, particularly those with permanent disabilities.
Combat related perhaps, not service related, getting a boot in the spuds playing regimental football is not something that should get you to the front of the hospital queue.

I also believe married soldiers should automatically have priority on Local Housing Authority waiting lists and their children given priority regarding education.
They shouldn't be given priority over any of the people living in that area. They should however be able to put their names on the waiting lists (like civvies) while serving outside of the area.
Given the Armed Forces target 18 year olds in their recruiting campaigns I also feel a subsidized university education plan be offered to service personnel on leaving. Perhaps only 10% of personnel would take advantage of such a plan though it would be a good recruiting incentive.
I also like the idea of guaranteeing ex-service personnel priority in job interviews within the public sector.
Soldiers get paid, if they want a uni education they can pay for it.

I want the best people in the public sector, why should ex soldiers get a special interview?
 
You are trying to move the goal posts (and failing) It like saying more white people go to a certain university than black people (percentage) because that university is racist. When in fact it could be because there are more rich white families that can afford private education for their kids and to sub them through university.

In a similar manner if you have large amount of poor thick people joining any organisation, you are likely to have a large amount of thick people years down the line, the organisation isnt to blame.
I'm not moving any goal posts. If there's evidence of a Service related problem that causes negative publicity, it needs fixing. This isn't about input, it's about output and negative publicity.
 
Combat related perhaps, not service related, getting a boot in the spuds playing regimental football is not something that should get you to the front of the hospital queue.



They shouldn't be given priority over any of the people living in that area. They should however be able to put their names on the waiting lists (like civvies) while serving outside of the area.


Soldiers get paid, if they want a uni education they can pay for it.

I want the best people in the public sector, why should ex soldiers get a special interview?

I'll just agree to differ with you Stacker - though any injury, other than self inflicted, which results in being medically discharged from the Army... made jobless... should, IMHO, qualify.

Do you agree then that immigrants be prioritized over ex-service personnel in the housing stakes?
Or the children of whom be given preferential treatment over those of ex servicemen?

Guaranteeing a suitably qualified ex serviceman/woman a public sector job interview is small recompense for their service.

I've no axe to grind, retired from the Army, moved directly to the USA, no safety net needed or wanted, never took advantage of the NHS (except as a minor),obtained a Masters at my own expense, made my way in the world, retired now with pensions worth more than a Brigadier's salary.
Though I'll reiterate my view that if one wishes to recruit and retain quality personnel much better incentives (including subsidized university education) than those currently offered should be given.

I really don't know your background/qualifications/rank - or even if you're still serving - though if you are I sincerely hope you are not held in the contempt you seem to hold those leaving the Service by any prospective employer when you leave!
 
I'll just agree to differ with you Stacker - though any injury, other than self inflicted, which results in being medically discharged from the Army... made jobless... should, IMHO, qualify.
Why? If you fall down over cleaning the bogs in McDonalds to they push you to the front of the queue?
Do you agree then that immigrants be prioritized over ex-service personnel in the housing stakes?
Or the children of whom be given preferential treatment over those of ex servicemen?
This isnt about immigrants, its about ex soldiers trying to jump in front of civilians.
Guaranteeing a suitably qualified ex serviceman/woman a public sector job interview is small recompense for their service.
Their recompense is their wages.
I've no axe to grind, retired from the Army, moved directly to the USA, no safety net needed or wanted, never took advantage of the NHS (except as a minor),obtained a Masters at my own expense, made my way in the world, retired now with pensions worth more than a Brigadier's salary.
Though I'll reiterate my view that if one wishes to recruit and retain quality personnel much better incentives (including subsidized university education) than those currently offered should be given.
If they stopped treating people like cnuts, they might find they dont need much in the way of schemes to pull in the masses
I really don't know your background/qualifications/rank - or even if you're still serving - though if you are I sincerely hope you are not held in the contempt you seem to hold those leaving the Service by any prospective employer when you leave!
I dont hold them in contempt, I hold those who think their service means they should get special treatment in contempt.
 
I'm not moving any goal posts. If there's evidence of a Service related problem that causes negative publicity, it needs fixing. This isn't about input, it's about output and negative publicity.
Right, so to clarify if the MOD can prove they havent turned anyone into a financial mong they dont have to pay for anything.

Its normally only negative because people like you think spastics should be given extra help instead of being told to sort their lives out.
 
Anything negative attributed to serving in the armed forces needs to have a mitigation. If there's evidence that the services push out a disproportionate amount of financial songs compared to the general public, less people will want to join, less peoples parents will say "go for it son". If there's no evidence then there's no problem. The Forces isn't Macdonalds. Don't forget, all officers will be exposed to some sort of financial management tasks at some time, and all officers drive computers and can run a spreadsheet. It's the lads that 'might' need looking after.
The 'lads' all get offered at least NQF Level 2 in both English and Mathematics - most can't be bothered to attend unless forced, and even then a large majority put minimal effort in. Even when on the point of discharge they can't quite bring themselves to cobble together even the most basic CV - there is simply no helping some people.
 
Its a known truth, civvys will never fully understand the army, all they know is what they see in contrived TV programmes, and news at ten. Those personal officers that are more aware of the military will take a calculated risk and hire an Ex squaddie, knowing that the ingrained attributes are still there. On discharge my feeling of total freedom from ridged rules and claustrophobic control by the system was immense, and allowed me more freedom to think on my feet, talking to other discharged soldiers they had the same feelings to a more or lesser degree, this I think is what endures us to the more enlightened "Human Resource Officers"
Are you a 'proof reader' or similar?
 
The 'lads' all get offered at least NQF Level 2 in both English and Mathematics - most can't be bothered to attend unless forced, and even then a large majority put minimal effort in. Even when on the point of discharge they can't quite bring themselves to cobble together even the most basic CV - there is simply no helping some people.
I agree but none of that is financial, working out what you have to spend, it's just maths and english. Officers aren't "offered" financial advice, they have to deal with financial matters. ORs not so much. Again I'll state if the numbers demonstrate that there is a service related problem, MOD should do some work on it...duty of care. Not that that means much these days.
 
Right, so to clarify if the MOD can prove they havent turned anyone into a financial mong they dont have to pay for anything.

Its normally only negative because people like you think spastics should be given extra help instead of being told to sort their lives out.
**** me, it's like stirring treacle. If the numbers and analysis (probably by the daily mail) show there's a service related issue, MOD should do something about it. Make the numbers change not go "people shouldn't be mongs".
 
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