Armed Forces Covenant 'Law'

[BlindWingy]

BBC News - Talks over military covenant legal status (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13397909)

What tangible, real-world benefits is this going to bring? As far as I can see its vague and wide open to interpretation.

If you were to write it, what would you include in the 'Law'?

Personally, I would clearly state that the Armed Forces are a completely different entity to any other corporation or governmental organisation in the country. There is no higher sacrifice than your own life and the risks are high, therefore the rewards must be too.

Pay must be at a specific percentage higher than the equivelant average civilian salary. Pay is not to be linked to the rest of the public sector.
The Armed Forces and their families are to be given the highest of priority for medical care/enrollment at medical or dental facilities.
Existing Armed Forces Pensions are not to be altered without the express consent of the pension holder.
If the reputation of the Armed Forces is brought into disripute by the press without legitimate reason - punishable by....
If the Armed Forces are deliberately insulted or harrassed in public due to a political decision (operations) - punishable by...

What else would you include?

[Moi/]

Just like the APFS 75 / 05, I have no idea what is going on and what will change.

[anotherthing]

You state:
Personally, I would clearly state that the Armed Forces are a completely different entity to any other corporation or governmental organisation in the country
Then go on to say:Pay must be at a specific percentage higher than the equivelant average civilian salaryHow can there be an equivalent civilian salary if the AF are a completely different entity...

Yes the Armed Forces are a high risk job, for most of the members, but it is what you sign up for.

Why should you or your families be given higher medical priority than civvies? For members of AF who suffer an injury in the line of duty, fair enough, but otherwise?

Pensions - I agree (but not just for members of AF), but its getting more and more difficult to justify final salary schemes... especially if you do not put money into the pot (and yes I know that the non contribution is part of the 'x' factor that you do not get paid - far better being transparent and paying you full wages without 'x' factor, then take pension contributions from your wage each month... make it harder to alter pension rights then as well)

If the reputation of the Armed Forces is brought into disripute by the press without legitimate reason - punishable by....

... The right of anyone, mil or civvy individual, armed forces or civvy business; what chance though when it seems the News of The World is getting away with phone taps etc (small payouts aside), when it is illegal for the Police to tap phones without a Magistrates consent.

There are things that should be done for the Armed Forces as a matter of course, but don't go thinking that you are more 'special' than civvies. Everyone has their role to play, civvies and mil.

The AF Covenant should be about proper respect for the AF and proper duty of care, not about jumping waiting lists at doctors or dentists etc.

PS before you lay into me, I'm ex-forces (FAA) have a lot of friends still in service and am a staunch supporter of our Armed Forces. Loved every minute of my time served but never once thought that I was better than anyone else (RAF aside :E), civvy or mil. You know what you are signing up for, and certainly don't deserve special treatment as a matter of course just for doing so.
What you do (and always have in the past) deserve is to be treated fairly, with respect and dignity and if the sh!t hits the fan, to be looked after to the very best ability of the state. That in my opinion is what any Covenant should be about, however it makes me feel sad that we have to have a covenant to ensure this... it should happen as a matter of course.

[minigundiplomat]

Too little, too vague, and too late.

[Geehovah]

The Armed Forces Covenant is an important issue to all who served.

Anyone non-military or ex military but based in safer climes who comments on this thread should start by saying:

"I went to work this morning and knew for a fact that I was coming home to my family this evening, but............."

If you served in a shooting war or, in my case, flew aeroplanes that crashed regularly, it certainly focussed the mind. I attended too many funerals over the years.

They died serving their Country and Her Majesty, and I for one am grateful.

In that context comment away.

[BlindWingy]

Sorry anotherthing - I disagree.

Equivelant salaries - As I'm sure you know, there are chefs, engineers, technicians in the armed forces all of whom carry the additional risk of getting shot/blown up. You think they should be payed the same as a civilian?

Medical priority - Armed Forces personnel almost without exception have to move every 2-3 years with a huge effect on their families - you think that they should drop to the bottom of the list because they now have to sign up to a new dental/medical facility?

Pensions - Just look at the crushing effect even rumoured changes are causing amongst those who serve.

Special? Of course the Armed Forces are special - to my mind, no other job requires greater self-sacrifice than accepting the possibility of losing your one and only life to a political decision. It just doesn't compare to civvie street as much as that may burn.

[Al R]

Call me cynic-al, but the moment you expose something intangible to structured State control and regulation, things go downhill. Soon (DV), when the ink on this will have dried and the military won't be fighting so many wars and might be off the public radar once again, the grip will have been firmly tightened by a battalion of detail picking, parsimonious and small minded quangos and civil servants and prized away from insightful, dedicated Service charities. Then, we will all wish that we could once more, rely on nothing more than public goodwill, compassion, common sense and sensitivity. Second point - God preserve us from yet more legislation. Exhibit One sir.. the Freedom of Information Act. I rest my case.

I don't think that Servicemen and women need to be treated any better, as such. Just treated with respect and fairly. The job that an infanteer does might be more dangerous than a Care Nurse, but it is no less vital (God knows the NHS needs protecting at the moment too). Pension legislation is creating problems throughout the land, but it is creating problems for everyone (I understand the unique nature of the military scheme) and its a statement of our times and not so much, the measure of disrespect society holds us in, that should be remembered. We have to reflect society and those we step forward to look after and the moment we say (in effect) that we no longer wish to stand side by side with our fellow workers, the perception of us.. our value and prestige will start to erode over time, as memories fade. I think the principle of doing that is at least as important as nicking back a few quid, and although we can do lots to offset the disadvantage that SP might find themselves in Civvy Street, it has to be done so much more cleverly than by just chucking money at it.

[BlindWingy]

So should the law be re-phrased to say that the armed forces should be treated the same as an ordinary civilian - no more,no less? Why bother then? In my opinion a care nurse has a demanding job to do, but comparable to walking down a street with a sniper threat, or defusing an IED, it simply isn't. Should the forces be treated better? Of course they should.

[hval]

@MGD

Too little, too vague, and too late.

Agreed. Watered down version of what was originally proposed.

Hval.

[Pontius Navigator]

Why should you or your families be given higher medical priority than civvies?

Superficially this would seem a valid question. The difference might be attributed to espirt de corps.

While it is trus that many in civilian jobs will place job ahead of family, in the armed forces this is far truer. They will be torn between their team/crew or whatever and their family. This conflict will be eased if they know that their loved ones will be looked after without them having to worry.

For instance Miss PN2 was due at the same time as my crew was slated to fly an operational sortie. While other navs would have been available and even keen to take my place I didn't want to leave me crew. I knew that there would be good support for her while I was away.

Even earlier, a squadron was deployed to Malta for two months and the same day one of the nav's wives gave birth; they still went with the wife being looked after at a military hospital at Nocton Hall.

We were treated quite differently in those days. What the OP is asking for is really no more than we already had.

[LFFC]

To me, the biggest issue is to ensure that veterans who are suffering health problems get the treatment that they need! I'm particularly thinking about those that suffer mental health problems years after they have left the Armed Forces, but as a direct result of their service.

One of the main obstacles that often stands in the way to veterans quickly getting help is that they have nothing tangible to prove that they were ever in the forces. Doctors have little time to spare these days and certainly do not have the resources to act as detective. So in my view, issuing a veterans' ID card has got to be one of the first tangible results of a legal Military Covenant. If that doesn’t materialise, then I’m afraid that I’ll continue to be very sceptical about the government’s real commitment.

MoD Announcement on the issue of Veteran's ID Cards (http://www.hmforces.co.uk/benefits/articles/604-mod-announcement-on-the-issue-of-veterans-id-cards) - April 2009

It is thought that under the proposed plans more than four million former members of the Armed Forces could benefit from preferential treatment on the NHS and, where necessary, access to council housing. These were some of the recommendations made by a Conservative Commission in 2008 where it was considered that greater efforts should be made to rebuild the Military Covenant, an unwritten pact whereby serving and retired members of the Armed Forces receive special treatment in recognition of the sacrifices they have made.

Veterans win fight for 'smart ID cards' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/veterans-win-fight-for-smart-id-cards-1657028.html) - 30 Mar 2009


Four million former servicemen and women are to be given veterans' cards to ensure they get priority treatment for NHS healthcare and housing, and discounts for services such as transport.

The Ministry of Defence plans to introduce the cards at the beginning of 2010, The Independent has learnt, in an attempt to begin repairing the damage done to the military covenant between nation and armed forces under New Labour.

Anyone seen one yet?


The Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, former commanding officer with the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, said: "It is about bloody time. At last, a reasonable, sensible minister [Mr Jones] who listens to ideas from across the political spectrum." 30 Mar 2009


Come on Patrick (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/patrick_mercer/newark)!

[Al R]

So should the law be re-phrased to say that the armed forces should be treated the same as an ordinary civilian - no more,no less? Why bother then? In my opinion a care nurse has a demanding job to do, but comparable to walking down a street with a sniper threat, or defusing an IED, it simply isn't. Should the forces be treated better? Of course they should.

I may have misunderstood you, but if that means we should be treated better than we already are, then yes. If that means we should be treated better than the next man, then no.

I have ongoing needs as a result of my service but I joined up for the craic and a bit of experience and I didn't/don't see myself as better or worse than anyone else. The Forces should be treated commensurate with their circumstances, sure, but the point about this is that we should not be placed on a pedestal just because we volunteered, but that we should not be unfairly disadvantaged at the time and point of need when (and if) we need to address the results and consequences of matters arising as a result of our service. I do think that the system should be weighted better so that the playing field is at least level in terms of outcomes but I don't think that a firefighter who gets badly injured fighting a fire should be queue jumped by a serviceman, for instance, simply because of a previous employment code. I do believe that if the MoD retains an ongoing duty of care too, and if that means retaining a stake in Veterans Hospitals (as if, I know) so the quality of care for the badly injured can be assured, then so be it.

[anotherthing]

To me, the biggest issue is to ensure that veterans who are suffering health problems get the treatment that they need! I'm particularly thinking about those that suffer mental health problems years after they have left the Armed Forces, but as a direct result of their service.

Nail hit firmly on head.

PN, you have a point, but what about firemen, police, surgeons etc who have to have their finger on the pulse at work? Will they not have the same worries in the back of their minds if their loved ones are ill but are waiting in a queue? There is no easy answer to it and there are so many ways of looking at it!

Blindwingy, I will concede a point as you clarified something in your reply to me. When a service family moves they should be put to the top of the list when it comes to being able to register with a doctor/dentist. That should actually be easy enough to ensure as they usually move to take over someone elses job, ergo the space should be available at the doctors' etc.

It would be a very easy thing for the government to dictate that there were places kept by for this very purpose. However once registered I don't think they should have any priority over someone else who needs the same treatment. For the actual serving personnel, then the in-house medical facilities should be used (and brought back up to a level that they are capable of doing so).


So should the law be re-phrased to say that the armed forces should be treated the same as an ordinary civilian - no more,no less? Why bother then?
Today, fortunately, our Armed Forces are volunteers, not conscripts. That's what makes them so good at what they do. You sign up with the full knowledge of what you may end up doing. I'd go as far to say that the adventure is part of what makes you sign up... certainly was part of the reason I chose to fly with the FAA. Unforunately (or not), the Armed Forces generally do not have a problem recruiting, therefore it can be reasonably fair to assume that the pay is about right (of course you'd lke more, who wouldn't).
If you look around at other armed forces, it is pretty near the 'going rate'. Rightly or wrongly, market forces come into play even when setting the pay of the military. If recruits dry up, then you might see an uplift in pay etc to entice people in...

Gehoovah


Anyone non-military or ex military but based in safer climes who comments on this thread should start by saying:

"I went to work this morning and knew for a fact that I was coming home to my family this evening, but............."

If you served in a shooting war or, in my case, flew aeroplanes that crashed regularly, it certainly focussed the mind. I attended too many funerals over the years.

There are plenty in the mil today who won't go near a shooting war in their career. I too lost a few friends who died through flying accidents or in action. I personally never fired a shot in anger in my career, never got near it. Maybe a better additional payment to those people who are serving in theatre - paid during the time that they are on the proper front line? That way you could really boost their pay instead of giving everyone in the mil, even those who will never see action, an uplift in pay 'just because' they wear the uniform?

[Thelma Viaduct]

I hope they address the main issue. Soldiers should not be sent to fight wars based on lies. When you sign on the dotted line for Queen and country, it is on the assumption that if you have to give your life, it is for a just and noble cause, and not some bell-end's ego trip.

[forget]

LFFC asked if anyone had seen a Veterans' ID Card.

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
Thursday 17 February 2011. [Mr James Arbuthnot in the Chair]
Armed Forces Bill
New Clause 1
Veterans ID card

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall institute a Veterans’ Identification Card to assist former members of the armed forces in obtaining the access to public services to which they are entitled, including priority treatment on the National Health Service and other services which may become available to them from other organisations.(2) In this section “veteran” is taken to mean former members of any of Her Majesty’s Forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.’.—(Alex Cunningham.)

House of Commons Northern Ireland Grand Committee : Armed Forces Bill (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/armedforces/110217/am/110217s01.htm)

[The Old Fat One]

In my opinion a care nurse has a demanding job to do, but comparable to walking down a street with a sniper threat, or defusing an IED, it simply isn't.


You make the mistake of confusing moral courage with physical courage (and also of devaluing one at the expense of the other). My sister has worked in care and I've flown a dodgy jet in a hazardous environment. Different sorts of courage, as well as different sorts of skills are required. Very few people on here could do her job, nor would they want to. Just imagine cleaning up an old man with dementia who is trying to grope you. Chuck in the fact that you are doing it for minimum pay and if you so much as raise your voice, you likely to end up on the front cover of the Daily Mail as some sort of nursing bully.

The armed forces are already paid far more than the rest of the public sector...as a twenty year old Sergeant I was on more than a police constable with 10 years service or an assistant head teacher at a small school (friends of mine).

The armed forces need to be well paid and well looked after. In the main they already are. They also need to take some of the current cutbacks on the chin, just like everybody else.

The armed forces ARE a special case. So are nurses, the police, the fire service and just about everbody who has put public service over personal profit. The armed forces are part and parcel of the public sector and therefore - in part - what you get is what the country can afford to pay you.

PS

Pious Pilot...well said

[Airborne Aircrew]

Simple really...

Every benefit and privilege that is heaped upon the sick, lame, lazy, (illegal or not) immigrant, politician, pikey and criminal leeches must be offered freely to all servicemen and their immediate families. Each service is to form a unit of SNCO's and WO's* who's task it is to know the entire benefits system and is to monitor servicemen and their families to ensure that they are all enjoying everything they are entitled to. That way, you wouldn't need to worry about paying them.

* One wouldn't want Officers who may be "career focused" to be able to be pressured into "cost savings"... We all know what happened to airworthiness...:ugh:


I hope they address the main issue. Soldiers should not be sent to fight wars based on lies. When you sign on the dotted line for Queen and country, it is on the assumption that if you have to give your life, it is for a just and noble cause, and not some bell-end's ego trip.

I'm uncertain if sending troops into combat operations requires and act of Parliament which would then require the Assent of Her Majesty but maybe, since we all signed up for "Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors" and not said "bell end", the act of sending her men and women into harms way should also require Royal Assent... Just a thought...

[Phil_R]

My first thought when I heard about this was "yes lovely but I'm sure they'd rather have had better tanks/planes/ships."

Surely this is just a whitewash, so the can claim to have done something positive without actually having to bother doing anything concrete?

P

[BlindWingy]

Old Fat One. Many in the public sector have difficult jobs and are worthy of praise and reward. Your example of a care nurse being groped in a dementia ward is horrible, but you think its comparable to taking a round of hot lead in the chest? How about waking up in a tent looking at the large gap where your legs used to be? I think that it would be very educational for some of the people on this forum to go to Headley Court and remind the 'Public Sector Workers' that they shouldn't expect to be treated better than the rest of us.

[anotherthing]

I think that it would be very educational for some of the people on this forum to go to Headley Court and remind the 'Public Sector Workers' that they shouldn't expect to be treated better than the rest of us.
You really are stretching the point now. I think I would be pretty accurate in stating that the vast majority of those at Headley Court would not want to be treated any better than a civvy. What they want, and should get for as long as they need it, is the full care and attention they need to survive, overcome, come to terms with and live the rest of their lives with the disability they have suffered in Service.

That's a totally different concept compared to what you are talking about.

[ghostnav]

This is nothing more than political opportunism. The TV was today saying this was going to be worth 50 million to servicemen and their families. This is after 250 million A YEAR saving on allowances, a 2 year pay freeze and now changes to pensions without evening counting the redundancies.

Sorry - this is worth zip!

[Jumping_Jack]

Ghostnav, I fear it is not going to be worth anything at all. Cameron has already gone on record to say that there is no new money. All hot air I'm afraid to make the headlines. We will continue to be shafted by our political (and some military) masters. :(

[Fortyodd2]

From the BBC
Labour's shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said the prime minister "appears to have finally done the right thing".
"I hope this marks the beginnings of a real reassessment of how the government is treating our armed forces," he added.

CHEEKY B@ST@RD!!!

[MReyn24050]

Being cynical, I wonder if the change in heart is a prelude to going into Libya.

[Manandboy]

Ghostnav, IHMO the only group likely to benefit from a half-a*s*d, rushed and arguably cynical attempt to capture anything as nebulous as this in law will be the lawyers. As soon as it's in black and white councils/unions/Uncle Tom Cobley et al will be able to argue that it infringes their rights etc.

Look how unsuccessful and time-consuming trying to quantify the "output" of the Armed Forces has been. Some of the issues (indeed most) that seem to dominate the failure of the "covenant" could be included in existing legislation (eg education, healthcare) Trying to work up a separate "law" to run in parallel is a very tall, and arguably wasteful, order.

[NutLoose]

Cynically sounds like Smoke and Mirrors.....

Make it sound like one is doing positive things for the UK armed forces in the publics eyes to offset the further cuts they are about to announce.....

Bet the other carrier goes.....