Injured soldiers to be encouraged to leave armed forces

[Melchett01]

Are there no depths to which this stinking shower of corrupt incompetents won't stoop to ???? What's the betting that this won't just stop at the lame and lazy malingerers who can't be bothered to pass their fitness tests? They will probably manage to work the system, leaving those that need support most to suffer the consequences.



Thousands of British troops who are injured or medically unfit are to be encouraged to leave the armed forces in an effort to improve efficiency, under plans being drawn up by ministers

The Ministry of Defence is planning to target between 5,000 and 6,000 service personnel who are unable to work but remain on the payroll. An announcement on the scheme is to be made in the autumn.

However, senior military figures are concerned that the proposals are designed to ease out so-called “bed blockers” from the army without adequate compensation.

Ministers have faced repeated criticism over the paucity of treatment and compensation offered to those seriously injured in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Daily Telegraph is campaigning for wounded soldiers to be given a better deal.

New figures released under the Freedom of Information act have disclosed that 2,812 British troops have now being admitted to hospital in Afghanistan. More than 800 troops have been wounded in action, around a third suffering serious injuries.

The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that 14.6 percent of the armed forces – 25,400 of the 174,000 service personnel – are unfit for combat duties. Amid growing pressure on the public finances, insiders have claimed that the growing bill for these people is hindering the recruitment of younger, fitter soldiers.

A senior officer in the department’s personnel department told The Sunday Times: “Up to now it has usually been possible to find odd jobs for these people. Now they are blocking the recruitment of young, fit soldiers and have to be medically discharged because no extra money can be found to pay them.”

Soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when leaving. They can also apply for up to £6,000 to spend on training and rehabilitation.”

Details of what the MoD will offer injured soldiers to leave the armed forces in future are still being worked out but senior military figures are concerned over the new strategy.

Colonel Bob Stewart, chairman of Action for Armed Forces, which represents wounded soldiers after they leave, said: “My concern is that this must be properly funded. I fully endorse this scheme if they really do give proper support for [the] long-term injured when they leave…at the moment it’s abysmal.”

However, the families of injured soldiers said that their sacrifices should be enough to guarantee their future employment in the military. Diane Dernie, the mother of Lance-Bombardier Ben Parkinson who lost his legs and suffered brain damage in a Taliban bomb blast, said: “These men have done enough to guarantee that if they want to stay and see out their career in the army then that should be open to them. These lads go in as very young men, it’s all they want.”

The Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that they did not want to force injured troops from the military but offer them better opportunities elsewhere. Earlier this month, the Royal Marines established a new unit to rehabilitate injured or traumatised soldiers.

A spokeswoman said: “We are committed to working with our personnel to ensure they have a rewarding career; one which is beneficial to them personally and to the Armed Forces as a whole.

“This programme is not about forcing people to leave, it is there to provide the opportunities and support to our personnel so they can enjoy a fulfilling role within the military or beyond, taking into account their medical conditions.”

[Pee Tee Eye]

Oh good, it's the bi-annual fitness test thread. How long will it be before the "in my day brigade" will be on to give their over inflated opionion of the a test that they don't even do noe never did whilst they were in. You know who you are and you are online now, so come on don't be shy speak up and get it out of your system.

Ooh ooh is that a mirror?

[Linedog]

Peeteeeye, that's very good for your first post. Did you write it all by yourself? :D

[Melchett01]

Oh good, it's the bi-annual fitness test thread

No it isn't :ugh:

It's got nothing to do with the bone idle, lazy and those who haven't seen their feet when standing up for the past 5 years. It's about this Govt trying to change the system to get of those who they see as an expensive inconvenience, having been injured carrying out this Govt's policies.

Once all the platitudes have died down, once the medals have been handed out and the parades have finished, why take the risk of having to be liable and financially responsible for those who have been injured doing your bidding - potentially for many many expensive years to come. No, far better to just give them a quick pay off and have done with them.

Then when we've got rid of them all, we can recruit more prime cannon fodder for our next venture and not have to bother wasting time patching up the last lot of cannon fodder.

And if you can't see that PTI, then I suggest you get back to the Gym and tidy the weights up.

[Shack37]

Oh good, it's the bi-annual fitness test thread. How long will it be before the "in my day brigade" will be on to give their over inflated opionion of the a test that they don't even do noe never did whilst they were in. You know who you are and you are online now, so come on don't be shy speak up and get it out of your system.


I presume Pee Tee Eye is a cleverly disguised pseudonym for your occupation. It therefore does not surprise me that you were unable to understand the opening post. It's about genuinely injured personnel and their treatment by this government. You are correct, there was no fitness test when I was in but I, as did many, played sports regularly all through my time in the mob. What has not apparently changed is the inability of PTI's to understand the written word......DUH.
s37

[Pee Tee Eye]

It's got nothing to do with the bone idle, lazy and those who haven't seen their feet when standing up for the past 5 years.ok got that. So why bother writing this?

What's the betting that this won't just stop at the lame and lazy malingerers who can't be bothered to pass their fitness tests? They will probably manage to work the system, leaving those that need support most to suffer the consequences.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Is there a fizz ed off on line who can explain this thread to PTI?

Injured soldiers to be encouraged to leave armed forces

:ugh:

[Al R]

I wonder if the PTI understands the difference between medical fitness, and physical fitness. Not to worry.

This might be unpopular, but there is not, not has there ever been, a guarantee to provide employment if someone is injured on Active Service. The military has an obligation to look after the injured though, so I agree with Bob Stewart. If this is funded and suported properly, in principle, its a good idea.

[The Gorilla]

What's that noise???

oh yes its Douglas Bader turning in his grave....

:mad:

[Pee Tee Eye]

Oh good it has started. So far the "in my day brigade" count is one.

Come on don't be shy. Speak up.

[Rigger1]

If they want to save money why not turn the PTi trade civvie. They may acutally help those that need it rather than swan off on expeds 24/7.

[Pontius Navigator]

It's got nothing to do with the bone idle, lazy and those who haven't seen their feet when standing up for the past 5 years. It's about this Govt trying to change the system to get of those who they see as an expensive inconvenience, having been injured carrying out this Govt's policies.

Are you sure?

The article seems to muddle up two issues. Those made unfit through accident or hostile actions and those that are simply unfit. Selectively editing out would leave:

. . . British troops who are . . . medically physically? unfit are to be encouraged to leave the armed forces . . .

. . . to target between 5,000 and 6,000 service personnel who are unable to work but remain on the payroll.

senior military figures . . . ease out so-called “bed blockers” . . . without adequate compensation.

The Ministry of Defence admitted . . . 14.6 percent . . . unfit for combat duties.

“Up to now it has usually been possible to find odd jobs for these people. . . "

Soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when leaving. They can also apply for up to £6,000 to spend on training and rehabilitation.”

I know of several servicemen who are fit only for limited duties, and while they may perform in a UK-only role, and thus mean that those fully fit rotate through operational theatres rather more frequently than they otherwise might.

[Melchett01]

PN -

I can see exactly what you are suggesting, and I wish I could guarantee that it would only be used as a a measure to weedle out those who repeatedly fail to meet the mark.

However, I just cannot see how this Govt won't turn it into a way of getting rid of what they see as 'expensive emabarassments'. You know full well the way things have gone - it is all about the bottom line. If you can't quantify something or it is perceived to not be value for money, then it has no place in today's Armed Forces. As much as I would like to think otherwise, those who have suffered serious injuries in the line of duty will no doubt be seen as fair game for dismissal under this scheme. Much cheaper to pay them off and get rid of them rather than put the time, effort and money into rehabilitating them. After all, we saw them trying to get payments reduced for injured personnel only the other week.

Prove me wrong, and I'll gladly eat my hat. But you just know that this thought has crossed their minds - it has all the hallmarks of how the Brown administration works.

[Al R]

Melchett,

My reading of it is that rehab will get done, and this is the point made by Stewart.. ie; it has to be done properly. I don't think it'll be seen as an excuse to get rid of people whilst they are still in recovery. I certainly hope to god it won't.

[Pontius Navigator]

Melchett, I quite agree. What I was really suggesting was the article was an example of muddled reportage (again).

Now there used to be a time, when we had hospitals, rehab centres, minor conflicts, and a relatively few injured servicemen, that we would strive to get them as fit as possible with discharge only when it was inevitable.

One reason was economic. It was more efficient to get injured aircrew back into productive service, albeit with false limbs and glass eyes, than discharged and paying them buckets of compensation (well small buckets anyway).

Now, with many much more serious injuries and a lower productive service value there are probably insufficient billets in a vastly reduced service to absorb them, it would seem that someone sees it as more efficient to discharge them.

[[email protected]]

By way of contrast, the RM recently announced the formation of a unit for those wounded and injured who can still make a contribution and wish to continue to serve. That is the way to look after your men.

[Mr C Hinecap]

At what point do you stop continuing to employ those unable to deploy? Where is your break point? It is morally good to continue to employ those injured and unable to return to full fitness, but that depletes the %-age who are fit and deployable. When do you accept we can't keep everyone in uniform - when the only ones fit enough are on a perma-det?

We need the next level for the injured - keeping them in the Armed Forces isn't an option - the premise of cuts has been 'if you wear a uniform, you are deployable' and a 2 tier military isn't realistic. We need to do our very best for our injured, but the current option isn't sustainable.

[Pontius Navigator]

At what point do you stop continuing to employ those unable to deploy?

. . .
a 2 tier military isn't realistic. We need to do our very best for our injured, but the current option isn't sustainable.

As I said above, it used to be an option when numbers were lower. Without that approach we would have been denied people such as Cyclops Brown or Gus Walker or my first stn cdr (can't remember his name) or at least one ex-pilot retrained as a nav and a nav both of who lost eyes in bird-strikes.

If they are discharged then there should be no quibbling over compensation.

[ArthurR]

Peeteeeye, you've found another, but in my day we did not need fitnest tests, NO MACDONALDS, I my self played Rugby, Dived, Freefall, and in a mountain rescue team, not many fat B'Strads then.
As for the thread, Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?



Peeteeeye I still only weigh 72Kg

[Tankertrashnav]

My son, a REME corporal, tore his crucial tendon on an NCO course some nine years ago.

Since then he has been the victim of truly dreadful medical care, including a botched op which only partially repaired the problem. Finally this year he had a proper full knee repair operation - the civilian surgeon was appalled at the state of his knee and that it had been left so long before being treated properly.

In the interim, army Pee Tee Eyes have been riding him, telling him to get some PE in, running etc, all stuff calculated to totally bugger up an already damaged knee. It is now highly unlikely he will ever recover full use of his knee. Needless to say he has been bypassed for promotion because of his medical unfitness. He also has a general impression that his superiors assume he has been malingering - no doubt the Pee Tee Eyes all think that.

Result - a hard working, resourceful and loyal NCO has become disillusioned with the army and is now just hoping he can survive the last 3 years till his pension. What a waste of manpower.

[Pontius Navigator]

My son, a REME corporal, tore his crucial tendon on an NCO course some nine years ago.

My boss tore a tendon when walking the dog, (one way of keeping fit), and had had a botched operation as well. It was as if his leg was reset at an angle. Eventually he had a number of operations but none actually sorted out his leg.

Medical service care use dto be a gold standard but that was being sold off even before the mid-Lothian MP got his fingers on it.

[Whenurhappy]

Harsh as it may seem, the Forces can't retain every one who has been injured or physically or mentally unfit. Whereas a small number can be retained and employed in sedentary positions because of skills and knowledge, retaining 5000+ non-deployable, predominantly young men in the Army, does no one any good. I'm travelling on the train with a team of professional Rugby League players and I put it to one of them - imagine if you lost a leg, say, would you be happy just to stay in the stands or soem job in the club rooms? No was the considered answer. Mrs WP also works for a national disability charity and shares similar views.

With the equivalent of an enhanced BG manpower non-effective, time to let people go with the correct support and assistance, and where appropriate, compensation. The scheme is under review - again, yet those who complain about it conveniently forget the annual inflation adjustment living payments, which over the course of the penison will typically equal - if not a lot more - the lump sum. Public support and good will is as high as during the Falklands War and local authorities and the NHS are better directed at assisting injured service personnel (see the latest update of the Service Personnel Command Paper). If you or so one you know is not getting the support that they deserve, kick up a fuss.

And whilst we are at it, I fully support discharging lard-arses that consistently fail the fitness test. Not only do we all need to be fit to fight, what about personal pride and self esteem?

[8-15fromOdium]

With respect (in both senses of the word) to those injured on active service, would not a solution to this be to militarize some of the civil service posts in places such as Main Building and DE&S, and apply an abated X Factor to recognise the fact that these personnel are no longer deployable?

On the subject of the long term fat, and unfit, who make no effort to meet the standards, I feel the introduction of a rehabilitation facility at MPA may concentrate their minds somewhat.

[cornish-stormrider]

8-15, I would have jumped at the chance of an extended stay at MPA for rehab, all I would need would be an extra thick wetsuit and a mine detector for the beach. One stuffed spine, two operations with no success and rehab for the rest of my life does not equate the war pension. TBH I would have rather had better care when injured and I would have stayed in. Ho Hum.

I agree lard arses should go - but fitness needs to be a bit more tailored to the person. I am now two stone heavier than when I was in, but today just cracked a 2K swim for the first time and felt damn good doing it, never felt that good when I was in and classed as fit either.

Fitness, both medically and physically needs to be addressed and like other posters have said there must be plenty of jobs at main building that could be done by an injured serviceman. Lets face it the jobs cant be that hard - civ serpents do it.

After finishing my reserve this year I still miss the life but I would be a liability as a drug addled feeb so I'm glad I left.

Oh, and a message to all the gym queens and suchlike, skinny runners ain't the be all and end all of it. just because a bloke is carrying a few pounds don't write him off. Did you see warship last week where the royal was struggling to pick up that body dead weight?

Gotta go, it's time for drugs!
CS

[L J R]

Will failure of the fitness test allow me to get out quicker then the impending PVR?

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Sounds very interesting to me. It would have to be a bit like voluntary redundancy, in which case the terms are quite generous compared to civvy street.

[Pontius Navigator]

L J R, I think we can assume quite rightly that they would keep you in until they could discharge you for being unfit :}

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Oh, and a message to all the gym queens and suchlike, skinny runners ain't the be all and end all of it. just because a bloke is carrying a few pounds don't write him off.

Quite correct. Bush fit is not the same as gym fit.

[CirrusF]

This seems a very reasonable policy to me.

The injured are not being obliged to leave the armed forces - they are being encouraged to do so. In other words, they are being provided with rehabilitation, retraining and resettlement assistance so that moving on becomes a more attractive proposition than staying.

For those who still want to stay on, they can do so if their injuries are such that they are still capable of fulfilling other roles in the military.

I think it ironic that, given some of the outrage expressed on this thread, that there is a concurrent thread here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/371333-new-fri-raf-pilots.html) where contributors are moaning that a 100k bonus is not enough incentive to make them stay on as aircrew, and how they can't wait until they can get into the airlines and earn more, even though HMG has invested several million pounds in their training already.

[Wader2]

The injured are not being obliged to leave the armed forces - they are being encouraged to do so. In other words, they are being provided with rehabilitation, retraining and resettlement assistance so that moving on becomes a more attractive proposition than staying.

If this optimistic assumption is correct then it is indeed attractive.

We know however that there are other ways of encouragement too. The alternative in-service conditions may be made unattractive either in the job offer or the location.

[Jabba_TG12]

"there must be plenty of jobs at main building that could be done by an injured serviceman. Lets face it the jobs cant be that hard - civ serpents do it."

THAT would be the better solution. Remilitarize the posts lost in the 1990's.

[Whenurhappy]

Moving injured personnel into civil service-type jobs sounds attractive, but unless these personnel become FTRS types, they are still occupying manpower/uniformed slots. Moreover, many will not necessarily be suited to sedentary jobs - skill sets, education and motivation are but some of the issues. The additional cost of supporting individual needs will continue to rest specifically on the MOD, rather than being carried by Government institutions (DWP, NHS etc) as a whole.

Furthermore, paid employment will jepordise payment of benefits (that's one reason why disability allowance is a disincentive to return to work) and the Treasury would question they payment of compensation of personnel who continue to remain in the Services. I agree that we need to do what we can to assist and support injured service personnel, but it is a burden that should be shared across the Nation and not just within this Department.