refusal to pay a £1,000 bill for flowers and tea at funeral

[The Swinging Monkey]

Yes, I know what you mean, but I was hoping to 'embarrass' the service or the MOD into setting up a fund to specifically pay for this kind of thing.
I have never heard of this kind or refusal happening before, although thats not to say it hasn't, and I'm sure Gary's folks aren't the first. I would like to try and prevent it from ever happening again, and if that means emarrassment for the MOD and RAF then so-be-it. I am beyond caring for them now, they disgust me and bring shame on this (once) great country.
You can see this sort of thing happening in the States can't you? yeh, right.
CAS, ACAS, AOC any of you high-ranking 'chaps' up at the top - I hope you are justly ashamed of yourselves. Whatever the 'rules' say, this should never have happened and you are a disgrace to the uniform you wear. Royal Air Force? Royal Air Farce more like.
Oh bugger, I need to have a lie down, this so much hacks me off.
TSM

[SaddamsLoveChild]

TSM - calm down chap. may i throw this in for consideration. Their airships are no more tossers than the rest of us and were probably not in the know regarding every piece of JSP/AP legislation and nor should they. The gripe should be with those who have answered the question so insensitively at MOD after seeking guidance and the lack of news on its resolution. That said I am sure something has and will be done about it. I to am ashamed of this stance and the fact that it has not been reported as fixed from someone at Kinloss or MOD. That is the shameful thing.

Calling their airships tossers will not do anyone any good and is wrong IMHO it will only serve the draconian measure of limiting access to Prune a la E bay. Mods can you have a look at this and advise please.

[Confucius]

limiting access to Prune a la E bay

Which would, mayhap, show them to be to$$ers.

[Tappers Dad]

Sad but True

Firstly to TheSmiter I do agree,we had two VOs and one was a good friend of my sons. I have seen them both in tears not only because of the horrific details thay were aware of but also because of the stress they were under. They were expected to continue to work when asked as well as cope with distraught relatives.
As for the Funeral expenses I have said what I think in an earlier posting.They killed them they should pay.
Did they give him a good send off,Yes they did, but They killed them they should pay.
Do the relatives care what happenning with the Nimrod fleet now ? I wish to god we didn't but we do care.
Did they Guys at Kinloss do everything they could ?Yes and more
Did we have to pay? Yes we did
We did it for my son Benjamin who we loved and will never stop loving . R.I.P

[The Swinging Monkey]

SLC,
Yes, sorry - did get a bit carried away there (medication wore off you see)
However, I don't believe that CAS, ACS, AOC did not read the Telegraph on sunday, or were at least given a 'heads up' about the article.

If they had just an ounce of decency and common sense, they could have had it all sorted by 8.30 am on Monday morn!!

TSM

[Cumbrian Fell]

Limit on Expenditure

There was funeral of a SNCO in a N Yorks station in 1992 where the (estranged) widow had independently organised limos, a horse-drawn hearse and a very lavish reception, largely, it seemed, to impress the neighbours. Imagine the look on the VO's face when he arrived in a company Montego at the Widow's terrace, to find the street blocked with OTT vehicles and horse-dung. Of course the bill was sent to the RAF where it was...settled. Interestingly, the SNCO died of a heart attack, on the way to see his solicitor about divorce proceedings and at the (second) wake in the WOs' & SNCOs' Mess, most of his colleagues were too livid to speak to her.

There are clear financial guidelines on what the RAF will and won't pay for, but in this recent case, a little sympathy should have been applied.

[SKYCOOK]

Sad but not unfair

The family were probably correctly briefed but in a time of grief one does not always understand the significance of what is being said. The training for visiting officers and admin staff may need to be improved in this regard, so that this sought of blunder does not occur. It is common for people to say things like " if their is anything we can do" or The RAF will take care of everything but the truth is the public purse cannot be expected to pay for everything but the Squadron funds and associations could help out. I also agree that undertakers do charge excessive amounts for the "extras2 like tea and coffee.
One death is hard for any station to deal with but 13 at once is devastating so I can understand why confusions have arisen and it is very sad but it is not unfair. I am sure that those who attended the funeral and ate the luxury tea and biscuits could be prevailed upon to dip into their pockets and for less than the price of a pint send a donation to help cover the unexpected bill.

[Sentry Agitator]

Folks....

Thanks to all who have responded to the thread. I started this because of my utter dismay at the whole PR 'blunder' and the shambolick attitude by the civvies who hold the purse strings. I fully appreciate that the rules are written to avoid the 'taxpayer' from having to pay for excessive funeral charges? I wasn't aware that we now had a 'head value' that we weren't to exceed! It appears that the civvies now dictate how the armed forces should be saying fairwell to our fallen brethren regardless of uniform colour.

Many have said the JSP/AP issues are there for our guidance and are totally correct.....but these men and women, who loyally took an oath to serve their country, have paid the ultimate price in the service of that country on operations. Perhaps an AL1 covering Op service is warranted? I believe that there is a very big difference between a tragic accident within the routine serving environment and the loss of life in the line of duty....for want of a better phrase. I apologise to all those that don't agree with me but that's my standpoint.

The upper echelons nevertherless, saw fit to orchestrate a memorial service to pay hommage to the memory of those that paid the price. This was a very noble and justified act but it also included generating AT at a cost which, even when tied to a routine trg mission is still a COST! Even by my simplistic reckoning, I think getting all those personnel (and regalia) to the service would have cost the taxpayer over 1K? Indeed, I would guess that the total may have been more than the cost for flowers, tea and biscuits for all of the crew in this instance. I don't know if refreshments were provided after the event as I wasn't able to attend due to other tasking but if it was who picked up the tab?

As it now appears that we are being censored in publishing opinions on a public forum perhaps freedom of speach also comes at a cost too great for us to bear.....what is happening to this glorious country of mine?

As my closing wish....should anyone have the details of a memorial fund that was set up after this tragic accident, could you please PM me so that I can sleep easier with my conscience, clear in the hope that somebody, somewhere will think likemindedly and put this whole sorry issue to rest.

We now stand at over 130 servicemen and women lost in the line of doing their duty for something that they took pride in doing to the best of their ability. So that would be a little 130K for the families to see off each and every one lost in a manner befitting their sacrifice and in the company of those that cherish their memory. A small amount compared to the daily cost of keeping personnel in harms way.

It makes my heart bleed knowing that if Mrs Agitator has to put me away......she may have to turn away some of my colleagues for fear of not having sufficient funds to buy a few extra Hob Knobs!

Yours despondently

SA

[mojocvh]

As it now appears that we are being censored in publishing opinions on a public forum perhaps freedom of speach also comes at a cost too great for us to bear.....what is happening to this glorious country of mine?


? can someone (re) explain this please?

sorry

DUMBO MoJo

[An Teallach]

Mojocvh

See post by line 35 @ 08:11:

Further to my previous posting ref trying to gain a contact to make a contribution towards the cost - I was officially talked at, at some length and left in no doubt as to the official stance. My point of view was not welcomed and earned me the disapproval of those on high.

As a serving member I can make no further input into this thread..... other than to say if anyone else has any better luck in finding out how Mrs Line 35 can make a donation let me know!

[The Swinging Monkey]

SA,
I agree with you about the costs involved. However, as you rightly say, the flights can be put down to training missions so there is is no 'real' cost to the service budget.

I do however, get annoyed when sorties are generated for the sole purpose of allowing very senior officers to get a 'type' in their log books. I remember very well a sortie generated to fly a certain 'McFadge' on a trip. The wx was ool, the only div open was a civilian airport, and the jet went there to do a few rollers and overshoots, just to satisfy the Air Marshall.

Now that has a real cost to the budget, as well as taking an unneccesary risk just to satisfy an airship.

TSM

[mojocvh]

Thank you.

[santiago15]

should anyone have the details of a memorial fund that was set up after this tragic accident

Donations to the MEMORIAL FUND can be made out to 'Service Funds' and sent to Sgt Morrison, 120 Squadron, RAF Kinloss, Moray, IV36 0UH.

[Pontius Navigator]

Two points.

As for VOs training, I do not believe VOs are trained nor would it be possible to do so. In this instance 12 VOs were required and no notice. How many pre-trained VOs would you need on a station? OTOH VOs will be briefed and that is nominated and briefed in very short order.

Finally, everyone I know who has previous knowledge has said that the appropriate mess or COs funds have picked up the incidental costs.

[rudekid]

Pontius

Unless the rules have been changed recently, their is a lot of confusion on here over the roles played by nominated RAF personnel.

The RAF nominates (I standby to be corrected) three 'officers' to three key positions:

1. The VO, who is normally a senior rank who informs the family of the bereavement. This (albeit traumatic) role is fairly short lived and I don't believe would require any additional training apart from the skills already possessed by most RAF personnel.

2. The Effects Officer, whose role is limited to looking after the personal belongings of the deceased as they pertain to the RAF. This involves things like lockers, desks, stuff returned from theatre and single accomodation if applicable. Again, a traumatic role, but one that IMHO doesn't require any additional trg.

3. I believe the confusion on here arises about the role of the Assisting Officer. The AO is appointed around the same times as the effects officer, normally after the VO has informed the NOK, but still early in the 'process'. They then visit the NOK and they'll possibly already know the NOK or be a Sqn mate of the deceased. This role is to act as the liasion between the RAF process and the family and is an enduring and difficult job. Inevitably, as an awful lot of time is spent with the bereaved, this job requires an awful lot of tact, sympathy and skill and not a little knowledge of the 'process'. It is this role which I believe the RAF gets badly wrong. The RAF should mandate that Stns hold a pool of ready trained personnel, with the ability for a larger crash, to pluck people from around the RAF (like we would with a BoI) if the requirement was too large for a single station. Now there is a lot of detail, which I won't bore with here, that would need to be resolved. I think we could give a lot better service to the families of the deceased if we had a little forethought as a Service.

This is not to denegrate the work any of the AOs, who do one of the worst jobs the military can give, with no training, little support and an open ended appointment. How they manage to do so well, given so little is a testament to their military training. But we could make it so much better...

I apologise if this info is out of date and I'm not a scribbly, so can't quote the JSP verbatim.

RK

[sarsteph]

RK,

the terminology has changed a bit since the introduction of the new JSP. You describe the 3 jobs well, but the names of the jobs are as follows:

The Visiting Officer has the task that you describe as the Assisting Officer - who has the long term task of representing the RAF to the bereaved family. It is a long, difficult and emotional task and I have the utmost respect for anyone who does it.

The person you describe as the Visiting Officer is in fact the Informing or Kinforming Officer, whose task it is to take the initial contact with the next of kin to confirm the injury, capture or death of their loved on. As you rightly state, that person has a short initial contact and may often never have any dealings with the next of kin beyond that initial kinforming.

Training is available from the Padres for Kinforming officers - covering issues like do's and don'ts when dealing with bereaved people, what to expect etc. Bereavement courses at the Armed Forces Chaplaincy Centre are also available and are very worth applying to do.

Increasingly, Visiting Officer training is also becoming available on stns too, usually run by the scribblies and the padres in tandem - covering the admin issues the VO will need to help the next of kin and the "soft-skills" of dealing over a prolonged period with bereaved people.

Hope this helps to clear up any confusion over terminology.

Editted to correct errors in spelling - oops!

[rudekid]

Sarsteph

Thanks for the info. I was a Visiting Officer (new money!) a couple of years ago and would have been very grateful for some training. The admin guys and Padres various were excellent and couldn't have been more helpful.

However, if we had (even) a few people trained on stn, I believe it would have helped a lot.

Glad to hear some training is now available, maybe the lessons are being learned, not just identified.

RK

[teeteringhead]

Terminology can't be that new. I was a VO (as described by sarsteph above) more than once more than 20 years ago and was called the Visiting Officer then .... in fact I shouldn't say "was"....

....... as the (very good) OC A said to me at the time "Being VO is a job for life......"

[Strato Q]

Terminology can't be that new. I was a VO (as described by sarsteph above) more than once more than 20 years ago and was called the Visiting Officer then .... in fact I shouldn't say "was"....
....... as the (very good) OC A said to me at the time "Being VO is a job for life......"

We must have gone full circle, because until recently it was the Assisting Officer, now the VO. The VO receives no formal training, just a brief and a video.
The Notifying Officer is the one who first notifies the NOK.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

Anyway where do I send my cheque as a contribution, sorry limitted time to read all the way through the posts but having lost a few mates, I believe this to be a terrible state of affairs.