Military Pension - Forced Redundancy Days Before Entitlement

[A2QFI]

Please sign this petition, as we get ready to remember the sacrifice of our Service people. An Army Sergeant is being made redundant 72 hours before becoming entitled to a full pension for his 18 years service. The same page of the same newspaper reports that MoD spent £17,000 on wine at meeting held to discuss personnel cuts! http://tinyurl.com/odc6j5l
Change.org

[Pontius Navigator]

What would happen is he became medically unfit before he was made redundant? Would they keep him in to get him fit first?

[Onceapilot]

Quote Pontius Nav: "What would happen is he became medically unfit before he was made redundant? Would they keep him in to get him fit first?

Afraid not, you are discharged "whatever" and, the bits are sorted out in your own time I believe:uhoh:.

[Pontius Navigator]

Shame, knew an aircrew cadet with shin splints. He was on hold awaiting improved fitness before being discharged. Certainly used to be that case that they tried to get you fit before discharge.

[Onceapilot]

On the subject of early discharge from a previously pensionable engagement. Surely, the straightforward solution is that, unless the early discharge is by individual choice such as PVR, if the Service chooses to terminate the engagement before the nominal pension rights are earned the individual should gain the pension and gratuity earned pro-rata, paid from the point of termination for an immediate pension engagement or, from the original date that the pension should start, in the case of a delayed pension.

Come on CDS! Fight for better pension rights for your Servicemen!:ugh:

OAP

[mad_jock]

If he got put on a charge wouldn't he stay in until processed?

[Pontius Navigator]

But need to ensure he was not reduced to the ranks :)

[mad_jock]

Easy then, just crash a MT wagon into the bosses motor then. And claim that the brakes were defective.

That would last for months sorting that out.

[goudie]

I've signed the petition but I'm having difficulty believing this has actually happened to the sergeant. What idiot would actually authorise his redundancy, 3 days before he was due to retire, anyway?

Hopefully the pro-rata rule applies in this case.

[ExGrunt]

What idiot would actually authorise his redundancy, 3 days before he was due to retire, anyway?

Someone taking instructions from HM Treasury. The MoD has form on this as it occurred during Options for Change back in the 1990's. It saves a huge amount of money. I can think of several friends who were 'Opted for a Change' with less than a year to go.

EG

[Hangarshuffle]

Im with you mad jock, some sort of delaying tactic to keep him in as long as possible, now and somehow can drag the service into having to delay his removal. Also he needs to get an employment lawyer on his case who may be able to work out a course of delaying action. Very very poor all around. Terrible sort of statement to set or show by MOD again.

Drifts... I used to hope these things would never happen to "us" the service family, but then deep down I knew they would one day.
Many servicemen are pretty well on the right wing of political opinion-I saw 30 years of name calling and abuse by servicemen heaped in turn on the heads of Miners, nationalised shipyard workers, firefighters, steel workers, teachers, students,NHS, ambulance crews... and on and on...deep down most people just used to laugh at them, ignore their plights and pleas.
And now its "our turn" to be properly shafted - and now no-one cares.

Stop press right now BAE are laying off hundreds of men in shipyards in Pompey and Glasgae- thats their futures buggered up and no one cares about them either.

[Sandy Parts]

A few guys were affected by this issue at Kinloss in the redundancies Round 1. With varying amounts of time needed for them to do to qualify for pension, they were told 'one size fits all' - missing it by 1 minute is the same as by 1 year. I believe the Forces Pension Society have also decided it is not a 'winnable case' as where would the line be drawn - 1 day, 1 month, 1 year etc etc ?
I would have been 8 months short myself if I hadn't jumped ship via OASC some 11 years earlier. Especially galling for all concerned when we see the money the MoD does throw around on 'equality campaigns', 'infomercials', 'social media interactions' etc etc:ugh:

[Al R]

This is grotesque.

The line is, 'we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere'. What complete and utter blx. Why do you, why can't you show some common sense instead of hiding behind the hideous prescriptive thinking that some shameful administrative dogma allows you to? The MoD is the only department within government, that I know of, that has decided not to allow the tapering of redundancy versus retirement benefits. How much have you allowed to be wasted on other projects with impunity?

It would be simple to stretch the 'line in the sand' back a little and show either some flexibility or common sense. If someone was about to be discharged ordinarily and had a job to go to, the system allows early release without a punitive outcome, because it is.. being flexible, and 'caring'. This, by contrast, is against the spirit of everything that is holy about loyalty, commitment and the Covenant. There is absolutely no point in some state vessel approaching this guy after he got discharged and then asking if/why he and his family is in financial trouble.

Redundancies happen, life's a bitch sometimes. But to kick a man when he's down, to wreck not only his future and financial aspirations but also those of his family makes my blood boil and I hope that anyone who has the ability to do something about this, does so. I include within that, the Forces Pension Society which now takes on a more leading role in the future state of the military pension and has been quiet on the matter. This is shameful, scandalous and completely indefensible.

Al Rush | New wave of redundancies looms for the army (http://www.alrush.biz/sackedjustdaysawayfromapension/)

[Alber Ratman]

It happened to a mate of mine, Cpl with one day left to his 18 year qualifying point.. Didn't matter, it was one day less that the hard date.

Saves money so the wasters of Westminister can blow it on lining their pockets..:mad:

[A2QFI]

Times change. Naming no names, a colleague of mine, suffering from a debilitating disease, in service but not related to it, was given a medical discharge 3 days before his due date, as a result of which he got a disability pension paid tax-free

[The Old Fat One]

I was going to post something, but AL R has said what I was going to say and more eloquently as well.

So, if you'll excuse me for one moment, I'll descend into the vernacular...

Shafting someone in this way is the work of an utter cnut and that applies to everybody that could have intervened, bent, twisted or otherwise effected a better outcome for said people. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

To those that are still serving (and I've said this before)...look after yourself, your families, and your mates first.

Matter of fact I heard this on Sky Sports from a well known and controversial character yesterday...

"I'm all for people making as much as they can while they can, whatever their job. In this world, we are all pieces of meat, and once we are used up our employers won't give a sh1t"

I don't find this quote remotely cynical...just bleakly, starkly realistic.

[BEagle]

The petition is being signed at an impressive rate - as so it should!

74321 when I signed at around 16:00, now 79049! And now 79262 even as I type.

[RandomBlah]

Although not directly affected, I feel particularly strongly about this disgraceful behaviour. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that the redundancy terms were quietly amended about a year before SDSR (when it was obvious that redundancies would be required). Prior to the amendement I think that Officers who had served 12 years but had not completed 16 years service received that proportion of their pension upon being made redundant (e.g a pension of 14/16 if being made redundant after 14 years service). If that rule still existed then none of these unacceptable cases would have occured.

[Party Animal]

Armed Forces pensions
A story in The Times reports that thousands of people have signed a petition calling on the Prime Minister to prevent Sergeant Michael Anderson from being made redundant 3 days before he is eligible to receive an immediate Armed Forces pension (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3914199.ece).
All those made redundant will receive an Armed Forces pension and a generous compensation package. No individuals are being denied a pension and everyone selected for redundancy will still get an Armed Forces pension, which remains one of the very best in the public or private sector.
They will receive their Armed Forces Pension and all their accrued pension rights at the age of 60 or 65. Armed Forces pensions are non-contributory, so, unlike other public sector or private pensions, Armed Forces personnel do not contribute to them throughout their career.
It should also be noted that, in recognition of redundancy, we have reduced how long individuals have to serve for before they qualify for an immediate pension from 22 years down to 18 years for most ranks.
Inevitably we have to draw the line somewhere, but those who are close to their immediate pension point – a small minority of approximately 1.2% – will receive a larger tax-free lump sum in compensation. This is in addition to their resettlement grant and in some cases could total over £100,000. No individuals were selected because they were close to their immediate pension point.



The above is from the MoD Pravda website. Clearly the civil servants writing it came from the Jozef Goebbels school of propaganda script writing. Best I don't comment on the above. It could get me into a sh1t load of trouble :mad:

[Onceapilot]

Sorry, I keep banging this drum! Armed Forces pensions ARE as contributory as any other public service pension. Pay rates ARE abated. Just because no figures appear on the pay statement makes no difference apart from the political fudge factor of trying to fool Servicemen (particularly VSOs!).

Come on you! Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals sort out Service pensions ASAP!

OAP

[Sandy Parts]

Onceapilot - for the Generals, Admirals and Chief of Air Staffs, the pensions ARE sorted out (well, their pensions are anyway...):(

[SilsoeSid]

I find it amazing that over 103,035 people sign these petitions without knowing the full story.

An MoD spokesman said: 'There have been a number of inaccuracies reported surrounding an individual soldier in an online petition.
'We can be clear that the individual in question has successfully applied for a transfer to another branch within the Army, and subject to successful completion of training will not be made redundant.
'The individual is fully aware of this and has been kept informed throughout the process. We will continue to work with him to secure his transfer within the Army.'
In a statement, Sgt Anderson added: 'There has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding surrounding an online petition with the aim of securing my pension.
'I was selected for redundancy but have applied for transfer to another service within the Army. I have been successful in the application process and am looking forward to beginning training for my new role.'
Thousands urge Cameron to help veteran Sgt Michael Anderson get his pension (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2488242/Thousands-urge-Cameron-help-veteran-Sgt-Michael-Anderson-pension.html)


A simple case of an Army wife getting involved and going off half cocked!!!

It comes after Mrs Anderson started an online petition on change.org asking the Prime Minister to give her husband his job back that by tonight had been signed by nearly 100,000 people.


Besides, if they really wanted to help, (knowing full well petitions don't really do much) they could have sent Sgt Anderson's wife £1 each and their mythical loss of pension monies would have been covered.
:ugh:

[SilsoeSid]

Onceapilot;
Sorry, I keep banging this drum! Armed Forces pensions ARE as contributory as any other public service pension. Pay rates ARE abated. Just because no figures appear on the pay statement makes no difference apart from the political fudge factor of trying to fool Servicemen (particularly VSOs!).

Really !?!?!?
Pensions - British Army Website (http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20101.aspx)

"Pensions for Officers and Soldiers

Nobody joins the Army thinking about retirement. But when the time comes, the Army's pension scheme will be there to support you. Most civilians either have to pay into a private pension fund, or contribute from their salary into a company scheme to ensure they have something to live on when they retire. But in the Army you are entitled to monthly payments based on your final salary, without having to contribute to your pension at all.
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65. And if you serve for 12 years you'll be entitled to a tax-free resettlement grant on retirement too. Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension and tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army, and a second lump sum when they turn 65."

[SilsoeSid]

Anyone notice Sgt Anderson's age?
;)

[Guest_22]

It appears he has accepted an offer to retrain in another area of the Army so will be extended beyond pension point, even if unsuccessful in re-training.

Therefore, nothing to see here, please move on.

(PS. the line has to be drawn somewhere and some people will fall the right side and the wrong side of it by a matter of days, including the eligibility for redundancy let alone pension.)

[BEagle]

I find it amazing that over 103,035 people sign these petitions without knowing the full story.

People signed the petition on the facts as presented. If nothing else, this shows the strength of support the genpub has for people in the Armed Forces facing such mean-minded policies.

I would expect a similar level of support for anyone else in such a position - and am curious that the Sergeant's application has been successful. Perhaps the strength of public opinion might have had some bearing on the matter...??

[Haraka]

"People signed the petition on the facts as presented. If nothing else, this shows the strength of support the genpub has for people in the Amred Forces facing such mean-minded policies."

It would appear that there is currently a lot of sympathy in the U.K. for the Armed Forces, more than for many years .
Hopefully this fact is not lost on the current Military hierarchy in their dealings with the politicians.
Although the highest ranks are subject to political interference in their appointees, all of us are ( were) responsible directly to the Monarch-for very good reasons.
Time that this right was perhaps exercised, methinks.

[Onceapilot]

Sid. Yes, really.

Oh yes, thank you for reinforcing my point by regurgitating more of the frankly misleading official yukspeak on on Service pensions .:yuk:

OAP

[Bollotom]

My previous employer, London Underground have rather a beneficial policy on pensions. If there is a need for medical retirement then the person gets 10 years added on to the pension. Of course if that 10 years breaches the retirement age then a lower enhancement is paid. Seems successive authorities still stiff the serviceman/woman. And wasn't it only a few years ago that all parties were discussing the "Covenant".

[SilsoeSid]

So, if the MoD website was talking yukspeak, you must also admit to other official sites to be doing the same;

Did you know, for instance, that although Armed Forces Pension Schemes are usually considered to be non-contributory, the salaries of all Service people are abated by an amount agreed by the Armed Forces Review Body to take into account the value of the pension? This is currently 4%, a not insignificant amount and is a contribution about which you, the contributor, have no say.
Forces Pensions explained. Military pension advice from Forces Pension Society (http://www.forcespensionsociety.org/pensions-explained/)

Which way do you want this yukspeak to work for your side of the discussion OAP? ;)

Besides, 4% ….. luxury!

[SilsoeSid]

Beagle;
People signed the petition on the facts as presented. If nothing else, this shows the strength of support the genpub has for people in the Amred Forces facing such mean-minded policies.

I would expect a similar level of support for anyone else in such a position - and am curious that the Sergeant's application has been successful. Perhaps the strength of public opinion might have had some bearing on the matter…??"

"Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension …"


Of course, with Sgt Anderson being 35, he wouldn't be getting his immediate pension if he was given an extra 3 years service., let alone 3 days !!!!

Surely there's a difference between asking people to sign the petition on the facts presented, and actually presenting the facts!

[downsizer]

"Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension …"


Of course, with Sgt Anderson being 35, he wouldn't be getting his immediate pension if he was given an extra 3 years service., let alone 3 days !!!!



That statement about 40/18 is a red herring as it refers to AFPS05 and even then only to people who see out their engagements, not people terminated on redundancy. It's highly likely that the Sgt was on AFPS75, and under the redundancy terms for '75 if you did 18 years service you qualified for an IP. I know numerous people who were made redundant within 6 months of that 18 year point.

[SilsoeSid]

That statement about 40/18 is a red herring as it refers to AFPS05 and even then only to people who see out their engagements, not people terminated on redundancy. It's highly likely that the Sgt was on AFPS75, and under the redundancy terms for '75 if you did 18 years service you qualified for an IP.

Mmm, are you sure about that downsizer?

[Just This Once...]

I bet he is pretty sure.

Prior to 2010 on AFPS75 you were awarded an immediate pension after 12 years service if made redundant. In the lead up to the SDSR redundancies the rules were quietly changed via a Statutory Instrument to 18 years service from age 18.

[downsizer]

Mmm, are you sure about that downsizer?

Completely sure.

Had the Sgt not remustered he would have missed an IP under the redundancy terms for AFPS.

[vascodegama]

I seem to remember that when I first joined the pension abatement was 10% now it is a lot less. To my mind that is because the relative value of the pension has dropped. One might argue that the AFP 75 or 05 is non-contributory but that is a technicality too far for me.

[Tankertrashnav]

Prior to 2010 on AFPS75 you were awarded an immediate pension after 12 years service if made redundant. In the lead up to the SDSR redundancies the rules were quietly changed via a Statutory Instrument to 18 years service from age 18.


I can confirm that - I've been getting a pension since my redundancy date of 3 January 1977, when I was 30 years and 3 days old. As I joined when I was 17 that got me the 12 years service required for the pension from my 18th birthday. As an officer, of course, only the 9 years from my 21st birthday counted towards the rate of pension I received. That was a voluntary scheme and within a certain period you could pick your own date, so there was no coincidence in the date I chose.

It seems that things are a lot less generous now, and my son, a REME NCO counted himself lucky that he made it to his 22 year pension point last year before leaving, as some he knew were made redundant with the finishing line in sight.

[FE Hoppy]

I'm a little confused by this.
He would have qualified for an IP after 22 years from his 18th.
Under the terms of the redundancy this was reduced by 4 years.
He missed the reduced period. Not the actual 22 point in his terms.

[Chainkicker]

SilsoeSid, if you have read the very small print on the Annual Pay Review report you will see it says the salary has been abated by x% to account for the fact that we receive a pension. Whilst is could be considered true that, strictly speaking, a military pension could be defined as having no contributions from an individual, the fact the our pay is abated because we receive a pension, indicates that in fact we do "contribute" a proportion of our salary.

Twas always thus and has moved up and down in %age over the years, certainly spending time in double figures.

Possibly a good job it was abated to provide a pension, as those in their late teens/early 20's probably wouldnt consider putting aside 10% of their pay for their retirement. I dare say mine would have gone on cars, women and wine and if there was any left after after that, I would probably have wasted it...:yuk:

Oh and I agree about the petition. Plenty of people always ready to jump on the outrage bus

[Once A Brat]

There is always the Devil's Adocates view........


....assuming that the Army ran its redundancy boards in the same manner that the RAF did, then the Sgt's proximity to any pension point would not have been revealed so he would have been selected since the board would have deemed him not upto the required standard or not fit to continue in his current branch.........I had long discussions about this, just as I left on redundancy (with my pension I hasten to add) with the trades sponsor about a Cpl who was destined to miss their 22yr IP by 1 day - thankfully the 18 year rule mentioned above kicked in and they got something.

Aren't there normally loads of posts on here about getting rid of ineffective dead wood or does that only apply VSOs? All a bit of a moot point now, since he has remustered and therefore must have been worth keeping in some capacity!!

My point of view is that some compassion and discretion should be applied for those selected so close to a true IP, on a case by case basis ie Is X a good troop, but unlucky through circumstance (ie medical etc) or is X a scroat worth getting rid of? Unfortunately, as discussed with the trades sponsor et al 18 months ago, that approach was deemed discrimatory so we have the "safe" black line in the sand approach.

[Once A Brat]

...to add my tuppenth to Chainkicker and SilsoeSid's pension debate.

I am sure that when the AFPRB started to declare that military pay was abated to fund the pension scheme, around 1991ish, then it was ruled that the pension scheme was de-facto contributory. Therefore, making it illegal to deprive anybody being dis-honourably discharged of their pension since they had effectively contributed to it albeit not directly.

Perhaps somebody more in the know (Al R?) could confirm this.

[Tankertrashnav]

This whole business of salary abatement is all well and good for those of us who receive a pension, but it is grossly unfair on those on short engagements who are never going to receive a pension. In effect they are being paid less than the job is deemed to be worth, the difference going into some notional pension pot for those who will receive one.

[Once A Brat]

TankerTrashNav........agreed, although those on shorter engagements will eventually get something even if it is 12/37ths at age 55...65? Its those who don't make 12 years or are under pension age that suffer.

I joined at 16 as one of Trenhard's finest, commissioned in my late 20s so my pension start point is 21, thus losing 5 years of 'contributions'. I seem to recall that my pay increased at 17.5yrs old and again at 18yrs old which could have been down to pension pay abatement. Admittedly, I could have got 3 years 'contributions' back by transferring to AFPS05 but didn't. Don't misunderstand me, I am very happy with my AFPS75 pension, especially on top of my salary!

[The Old Fat One]

Very pleased at the outcome and very disappointed that some on here have missed the point.

It's not about where you the draw the line and winners/losers (the tough sh1t approach). It's about natural justice, common sense and the team looking after the team.

And it's not just an economic debate. If you individually shaft people the well of goodwill that the military depends of for getting more bang for the buck WILL run dry.

As for the argument about pension contributions...jeez give it up.

Grammatically it's non-contributory. So you semantics with an agenda can consider yourself correct. In actuality it is contributory thru' salary abatement, so we in the know are correct as well. /argument.

PS

Incidentally, quite a staggering response...I think that is a really big win for all of us, serving and retired. Quite an "in-your-face" message for the old politicos re service pensions don't you think? One that might linger for a while.

[Tankertrashnav]

TOFO - Sorry, but this is PPRuNe - thread drift rules - ok?

(BTW what's this word " thru' " ? ) ;)

Once a brat - yes it's the very short term people I'm thinking about - not sure about now but there used to be a lot of very short engagements - people signing on for five years with no pension entitlement whatsoever but receiving the abated salary nevertheless. I'm one of those you quote - ended up with 9/16 of the flight lieutenant's pension which I would have got if I had stayed until my 38/16 point. Quite happy with that.

[Once A Brat]

TTN. Unfortunately, I think that is where the modern military is heading, get 'em in young, burn 'em out fast and then discharge after 5-6 years servive. Only retain a few 'lifers' and thus massively reduce the pension 'burden'.

Military Covenant anybody? anybody? anybody................

Which nicely brings this thread creep back on track, eh TOFO!

[Al R]

The military pension is different because it is also a form of compensation for an unavoidably early termination of a professional career. In many ways, footballers, ballet dancers and North Sea divers have had similar breaks. The 'Inevitably we have to draw the line somewhere' line is bilge. It is bilge in principle and it is bilge in practice. By way of evidence that flexibility and tapering may be embraced as and when appropriate, when it suits, the new MPs pension scheme refers;

Accrued pensions in respect of service up to 6 May 2010 may be paid from age 60 where service up to 6 May 2010 exceeds 20 years, and from an age between 60 and 65 where service up to 6 May 2010 is between 20 and 15 years.


In respect of maintaining accrued benefits in keeping with the much vaunted 'line in the sand', this is what those same MPs were able to negotiate for themselves;

Should there be transitional protection for MPs relatively close to retirement?

In the reformed public service pension schemes, members who were within 10 years of normal pension age on 1 April 2012 will stay in the existing scheme until they retire. They will also retain their current normal pension age, although they will also pay the increased contributions for their salary level. Members between 10 and 13.5 years of retirement are able to choose to stay within the existing scheme for a period. Younger members will move to the new scheme as soon as it is introduced. This protection strives to be fair to members who are close to their expected retirement age and are less able to change their plans than younger members. MPs aged between 51.5 and 55 years will be able to choose to benefit from protection for a short period.

What about those servicemen who are 'less able to change their plans'? This is not an outrage bus, and although the principle of unfairness might not be as relevant in Sgt Anderson's case, it still applies to scores of others.

[Yorkie666]

Update on the petition for Sgt Anderson. The government suddenly got interested and managed to sort out his request to transfer to another corps in the Army. He will not now be made redundant in Tranche 3 (no guarantee for tranche 4 though... but at least he will be over the immediate pension line).

The petition was also meant to highlight the plight of all those made redundant just short of their immediate pension. As Sgt Anderson's situation has been resolved the others affected have had to set up a new petition here (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pm-david-cameron-keep-your-promise-to-our-troops-compensate-service-personnel-made-compulsorily-redundant-close-to-pension-point). All those affected would appreciate it if you would take a moment to sign the new petition and spread the word far and wide.

It has been frustratingly difficult to get any information out of either the MOD or government on the situation. The Army Redundancy Cell refused to answer questions and direct us to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Request route. When FOIs were submitted the responses were slow and often refused due to cost and time implications.

The Minister for Armed Forces finally admitted in the House of Commons that for the sake of 1 day of service the difference in pension and redundancy remuneration is £100,000 (for those financiers this was at discounted present capital values and after 40% tax rate). The hansard link is here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130326/text/130326w0001.htm#130326w0001.htm_wqn35).

For those interested in the new pension and abatement/adjustment of salary. There is a document available 20131001A_FAQs_V9_U.pdf which briefs the military community that "Nothing is actually deducted from military pay (no 'abatement' or 'adjustment' is made) but the relative value is included as part of the pay comparability considerations." If the pensions value is taken into consideration in pay comparability then it does affect the amount of money those in the military receive into their bank accounts. It is merely semantics arguing otherwise.

The same document also informs people why those with less than 10 years to their normal retirement age will not have to move onto the 2015 pension scheme. This is because they will have less time to adjust their financial plans to reflect the changes to their pension schemes.... So where was the same consideration when making people redundant days before qualifying for their immediate pension.

The standard argument wheeled out by the government to defend the situation is, there had to be a line. This isn't quite correct, if the redundancy package had been set up fairly there wouldn't be a point in a persons length of service that created such a difference in the financial package. There would be a line for whether you were redundant or not but there wouldn't have been the financial cliff edge around the immediate pension point.

Rant ends...

[The Old Fat One]

Signed it good work, bumping both threads for max vis and put it on FB

[Madbob]

Just signed - 809 more signatures required...


MB

[Melchett01]

Tranche 4 announced later this week. I wonder if they have learned any lessons or just identified them as usual/

[Yorkie666]

I fear it is a lesson buried. This issue was raised after people were affected in Trance 1. A Sgt was 3 days short of his IPP. More were affected in Trances 2 and 3. If no one is affected in Trance 4 I suggest this will be a fluke rather than design. To date no one in Government, the MOD or the Chain of Command has acknowledged this as an issue that needs attention. For me the worst part has been the defence of this situation by senior officers. People who know the significance of the IP.