PDA

View Full Version : Porn star wages...Not!


Scotch Bonnet
12th Sep 2006, 16:54
Not strictly aviation chaps but certainly could have some pullthrough to all who serve in operational theatres. Read it in the Times (online).
A man's job on a boy's salary
Libby Purves
Who cares about feuding politicians when a soldier in Afghanistan is paid £2.45 (honestly) an hour?
STYLE IS NOT everything. It feels heretical to point it out in this age of designer-worship, when leading thinkers bang on about the significance of Prada or the semiotic significance of the parsnip crisp. Sometimes it is necessary to strike one’s head briskly on the nearest wall (without noticing that rag-rolled paint is so yesterday) and repeat the mantra: style is not everything, seeming is not being. Facts, Mr Gradgrind, facts!
The headbanging exercise is particularly useful right now. Blair v Brown, fascinating as it is, is not a substantial conflict, any more than the rows we used to have in my convent school about which Beatle to fancy. Lennon fans saw themselves as intellectual and surreal; Paul girls just wanted to settle down with a sweet-faced man who would never forget to send a padded Valentine card; George Harrison’s followers were spiritual and Ringo-fanciers worryingly maternal. But the group sang on in harmony, out of the same songbook. And so have Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
In public, at least, you cannot get a fag paper between their policy aims. Mr Brown has never spoken out against the Dome, the timewasting over foxhunting, the dodgy dossier, the invasion of Iraq; nor against the hideous adventure in Afghanistan that is breaking hearts and bodies daily. The differences between them are footling. Basically, Gordon liked playing rugby at school, and Tony liked playing air guitar. End of story. They’re both responsible.
Leaving aside domestic policy — which is a curate’s egg of success and failure, goodish ideas and woeful administration — they have grave and deathly responsibilities overseas. In Iraq they made us willing instruments in a war that toppled a murderous dictator only to spill more than 42,000 innocent lives and perpetuate instability. The independent organisation that counts violent civilian deaths tells us that in the first year there averaged 20 a day in Iraq; since the announcement that “major combat operations have ended” it has gone up to 36 a day. Iraq’s new Government, so fêted by ours, favours killing too: 27 prisoners, including a woman, were hanged at Abu Ghraib last week within days of the prison being handed over to it. Meanwhile our own young soldiers struggle, suffer and sometimes die.
In the harsh terrain of Afghanistan a separate misery is enacted. After the short-lived Defence Secretary John Reid wrote a sanctimonious letter to journalists explaining, as if to toddlers, that British troops were merely peacekeepers, we have rapidly reached a chaotic situation where Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, cautions that it can “only just” cope. One of the few former soldiers in parliament, Sir Peter Tapsell, adds: “We couldn’t do this job if we had a hundred thousand men there.”
The Prime Minister’s response is to put on a sober tie and speak of “standing firm”, as if he was quelling a Cabinet-room squabble. He also coos about our “capable, committed and dedicated Armed Forces”. So does Mr Brown. Yet note this: neither pays much attention to the treatment of those forces. It has taken Sir Richard to remind us that the military were never brought under minimum wage legislation, and that private soldiers risking death daily in our theatres of war often earn half of that minimum. He spells it out: a man with a year’s training, engaged in Helmand, is taking (or more likely sending) home £1,150 a month —“Is that fair?”
Our soldiers abroad pay tax — unlike US servicemen, and unlike those Revenue-dodging offshore businessmen so dear to party fundraisers. A newly qualified squaddie facing suicide bombers, snipers and rockets round the clock earns two thirds of a British policeman’s wage; in a combat zone the 16-hour watches give an hourly rate of £2.45 and in Helmand, getting off duty after 16 hours is often a pipe dream anyway — fighting goes on for days. After Reid gaily said that they could leave “without a shot fired”, and beetled off to insult the Home Office, they are fighting a confused war in the hardest conditions possible. On peanuts. Even the separation allowance of £6 a day only kicks in after 12 months. Oh, and they pay council tax on their barracks rooms back in Britain.
The Ministry of Defence will no doubt write a stiff letter to The Times saying that it is “looking at a series of options” for improving military pay; but face facts, Gradgrind, facts: the present situation has continued unchanged through nine years of pronouncements about social justice and four years of distant wars.
I relay this not only because it needs underlining, but to make a philosophical point. Governments cannot really change very much in most civilian lives. They cannot really make us eat better or smoke less, have happier marriages or quieter children. All they can do is keep the infrastructure efficient, control predatory malefactors and refrain from gratuitously making our lives difficult. Hard though it is for current ministers to accept, we each retain a lot of leeway to go to hell in a handcart in our own way. We have many daily choices.
But soldiers are different. Service people place themselves under obedience; they agree to be a tool of the State, not to ask questions or flounce off on a whim. Soldiers have to go to war even when they think it’s a nonsense; they are bound by loyalty to their fellows, Queen and country. Politicians are given the awesome responsibility of deploying this human loyalty, and they therefore have a massive duty of care towards the military, who are at their mercy. It is far greater than any imaginary duty to nag the rest of us about our weight, tell us how to think about Islam or pay us compensation for tripping over paving stones.
And they don’t fulfil the duty to the forces. That matters. It matters far more than what Charles said Gordon says about Tony, and whether it might be Alan’s chance. A plague on all their houses.

Hoobie Schnaps
12th Sep 2006, 17:32
At least someone is talking sense!

Monty77
12th Sep 2006, 17:56
True.

But would you send a Para private to sort out a 'domestic dispute' on an estate on his own?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
12th Sep 2006, 18:01
It would certainly be interesting.

airborne_artist
12th Sep 2006, 18:30
But would you send a 19 year old Plod to sort out the Taleban? :E

flyboy007
12th Sep 2006, 18:34
Kudos to the author of that article. Unfortunately of course, I'm pessimist enough to not expect anything will change, but well done him/her for a fantastic, succinct, and blatently honest article.

Ronald Jeremy
12th Sep 2006, 18:43
Ssssssssh you guys, the IRS think I get paid the same as a Marine Sergeant :=

Ronnie

Keep buying those DVD's, downloading is wrecking my pension plans.

airborne_artist
12th Sep 2006, 18:56
Flyboy007 Libby Purves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/radio4/libbypurves.shtml) is the writer. A very capable lady who deserved her OBE.

The Helpful Stacker
12th Sep 2006, 19:08
She is definitely one of the few journos who fights the forces corner.

I doff my hat to the lady.

FJJP
12th Sep 2006, 22:37
I betcha our dearly beloved PM [whom some think is doing a fantastic job ?????] wouldn't dare do a one-to-one televised debate with Libby - she'd marmilise him!

RotatingPart
13th Sep 2006, 00:02
Do you think she'd consider running for PM? :D

heights good
13th Sep 2006, 13:54
I had this exact conversation with the Defence Secretary a few weeks ago and the excuse was "You get paid more than other armed forces worldwide".

Wasted breath it seems :ugh:

dolphinops
13th Sep 2006, 23:26
You got a "conversation" out of that plank of wood????
I'm impressed.:ok:

pigs
14th Sep 2006, 01:15
I have to agree with the comments above.

Another example of the idiocy of military pay was the firemans strike. The firemen were striking because of lack of pay. They wanted 30k+ and no alteration in their shift patterns (many of them were/are able to hold down second jobs because of the amount of time off). Many of the military stand-ins were placed in the same dangerous situations and were expected to do the same job. The only difference being, they were earning less than half of their counterparts.

Now, I'm not saying the firemen don't deserve the money, what I'm trying to highlight is the way military personnel get shafted, day in, day out by a government who expect everything from nothing from an overstretched, undermanned military force.

Our Government need to wake up; start giving the military the funding they need to complete the tasks around the world they have been set.

The trouble is, military spending has never been a vote winner so it'll never happen.

The Helpful Stacker
14th Sep 2006, 06:10
Time for a strike I think.

"Right you lot, you're not getting anything out of my store until we are payed at least minimum wage" (service as usual then).;)

airborne_artist
14th Sep 2006, 13:21
A related issue is that the Army (in particular) is not only understrength, but also lacking enough infantry battalions for the current committments. Article in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/14/do1402.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/14/ixopinion.html) on the subject.

PompeySailor
14th Sep 2006, 13:49
Just got a Fujitsu-gram telling us that we can now use USB sticks on DII. Which is great, but we have to use the ones from the catalogue. We have USB sticks already, 4 x 1GB for £70 - which will be declared illegal. The catalogue wants £170 for 5....and they wonder where the money is being squandered? Surely it is not too difficult for someone to look at the catalogue, look at Novatech, and ask why the f**k they are charging twice the going rate for a memory stick, which is almost an essential piece of kit today. I'm sure it's nothing to do with the companies pushing the price up to what they think (or have been told) the MOD will bear, but it's taking the mickey. They quibble about a £5 o/5, but they will waste hundreds on memory sticks.

:ugh:

WorkingHard
14th Sep 2006, 17:50
How many other "jobs" get to retire at 38/16 year point with the kind of package you get? Some will not get the option because of the death in service but you can see where the politicians can argue the point. BTW the pay in the British Armed Services is higher than the USA lot I am told

airborne_artist
14th Sep 2006, 17:59
US National Guard (and ANG etc) officers and enlisted personnel draw a pension based on their average days service per year/365, with eight years' service (ISTR) as a qualifier. They also receive free medical and dental care on reaching military retirement age.

UK RNR/TA/RAuxF officers and ORs get no pension, no health care, nothing, zilch, nada, regardless of service etc.

Compare and contrast. Which country seems to value its volunteers more?

WorkingHard
14th Sep 2006, 18:11
But everyone in the UK gets free health care from the cradle to the grave. The forces just get a health service more dedicated to them. Dont know if this is better or worse.

airborne_artist
14th Sep 2006, 18:44
Added to which you make make the stats tell you anything. US pay may be less , but that's the case across the US, as the cost of living is so much lower, so coupled with low personal taxation GI Joe and Jane have far more spending power than their equivs. in the UK forces.

Hilife
14th Sep 2006, 18:53
I don’t suppose that ‘the USA lot’ have to pay $380,000.00 for an average house, $8 for a gallon of gas, $80 for a pair of Levi’s and still pay tax and rates whilst serving overseas.

Also find me a squaddie who after 22 years of service retired at 40 on a good wage, no I didn’t think so.

WorkingHard
14th Sep 2006, 18:54
AA not saying I agree with it but just hypothesising about the political arguments. Why compare with other armed forces personnel from around the world anyway?

Staticdroop
14th Sep 2006, 19:30
Loved the opening article i would like to see that in one of the national papers, if it's not already been printed.
The forces have always been underpaid but it's not really come to light untill the past few years when we've had to "do the job". In previous years we spent all our time lounging around Germany waiting for the soviet bear to launch and drinking ourselves stupid on cheap beer.
Now, after years of resources being eroded and units reduced in size we have been asked to take on a huge task with minimal equipment and personell. Unfortunately due to our own "can do attitude" when for too many years our commanders have been happy to state that "no don't worry we can do that" and the boys on the ground have used their own ingenuity to resolve the shortages, we now pay the price.
As for the medical side i wouldn't say they are that good, after leaving the forces the first civil dentist i saw was appalled at my teeth, which had been annualy inspected during my time, as was the case with a number of old pals who all told the same story.
The Docs aren't interested unless you've got extra holes or something exotic, the amount of people i know with joint injuries, knee, ankle, were not given the time of day, up to the point of having source an operation for myself with the NHS to fix my knee.
I'm glad i left when i did and my heart goes out to the guys left holding the fort, quite literally in Afghanestan, who are now faced with this huge responsibility while the politicians jockey for position at the polls thinking of nothing but their own self image.
Good luck to you all:ok:

SRENNAPS
14th Sep 2006, 19:33
AA not saying I agree with it but just hypothesising about the political arguments. Why compare with other armed forces personnel from around the world anyway?
What a daft statement. What planet are you on??

SRENNAPS
14th Sep 2006, 19:40
How many other "jobs" get to retire at 38/16 year point with the kind of package you get? Some will not get the option because of the death in service but you can see where the politicians can argue the point. BTW the pay in the British Armed Services is higher than the USA lot I am told
Also a daft statement!!! We are not house flys that can be just swotted - "Some will not get the option because of the death" - Just who the hell are you??

airborne_artist
14th Sep 2006, 20:13
Working Hard

I was responding to this:

I had this exact conversation with the Defence Secretary a few weeks ago and the excuse was "You get paid more than other armed forces worldwide".


Was the UK DefSec comparing apples with apples, or as is more likely, apples with pears?

November4
14th Sep 2006, 21:54
How many other "jobs" get to retire at 38/16 year point with the kind of package you get?
Pay point Annual salary with effect from 1 April 2005
On commencing service £19,803
On completion of the initial training period £22,107
2 years £23,388 (a)
3 years £24,819
4 years £25,599
5 years £26,421
6 years £27,174
7 years £27,849
8 years £28,740
9 years £30,477
10 years £31,092 (b)
(a) All officers move to this salary point on completion of two years' service as a constable.
(b) Officers who have been on this point for a year will have access to the competence-related threshold payment of £1,032 a year.

Free uniform and overtime pay as well!! :eek:

Those pay figures are for west country police force.

So a High band Level 4 Sgt (£31,098) or a Low Band Level 6 Sgt (£30,174) / Level 3 CT / FS / SSgt (£30,974) will earn as much as the 10 year Policeman.

True you can't retire at the 18 / 38 year point / 22 years on a full pension but you can retire after 30 years service on a very nice full pension and a big lump sum.

No I am not a copper just using the figures as a comparision.

Blacksheep
15th Sep 2006, 01:21
My pension after 14 years under the colours is...?

Nada, zilch, zero. I got a cheque for 1200 quid and a bill for 57 quid for "barrack damages" to our married quarter.

I left because even back in 1977 we were being worked 55 hours a week with no overtime and every other weekend on duty. I know that compared to life in the sand pit we had a life of luxury, but on 32 Sqn we worked alongside civilian contractors who looked after 207's Devons and Pembrokes in the same working conditions. They earned nearly three times what we were paid.
I took that to be an option for change.

The government and the nation has always shown nothing but contempt for its military. Someone (Kipling?) wrote a poem about it - "Its Tommy this and Tommy that and..." that still holds good.

Biggus
15th Sep 2006, 13:50
Quote: How many other "jobs" get to retire at 38/16 year point with the kind of package you get?

Try looking at an MPs pension package - the best in the country, there's a surprise. Working from memory only, I seem to recall they qualify for a pension after 6 years, i.e have to get elected twice, and earn 1/40th of their salary for every year served before retirement. So, in comparison to a serviceman, who used to get 28.5% after 16 years on the old pension scheme, and 22.8% (16/70ths) on the new, an MP will get 16/40ths, i.e 40%!! Not bad eh!!

MPs pension scheme doesn't get talked about much - I wonder why??

WorkingHard
15th Sep 2006, 14:20
I unreservedly apologise if any offence was caused, it was not intended. I do think everyone needs to consider that "the grass is NOT always greener".
I also wish the nation as a whole held our troops in much greater affection but alas it is not so.