Secret Plan to Remove Quarters
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know when this is actually happening? Am having to sell house in Midlands and move into quarters down south due to posting mid next year and am getting a bit worried! Mrs WO (ex RAF) is also rather worried about the whole thing as having investigated it we cannot afford to buy or rent anywhere close to my prospective work location or anywhere where she can work.
This despite the fact that I apparently earn more than the average UK wage (not looking for sympathy BTW!)
This despite the fact that I apparently earn more than the average UK wage (not looking for sympathy BTW!)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds familiar! When I bought the house I am currently in (as a single first time buyer) I paid stamp duty. About 2 weeks later the Gov raised the level on what value house pays the duty above the cost of my house. Current house market and posting is forcing me to sell my house and I was kind of banking on an MQ. Guess that plans a gonner 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it and rent it out
WO, if you can it may be better to keep your house and rent it out. I moved from my house into MQ for a while whilst the interest rates were 14%, the rent plus the reduction in outgoings allowed us to eat at eat once a day
Last edited by L1A2 discharged; 29th Jul 2007 at 19:20. Reason: blurry spellin
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bedford
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting Figures in these links. I wunder how many past and present MP's have shares in this housing group.!!!
I have managed to find the HANSARD which discloses the amount Annington paid for each Service Family House; The sale to Annington of 57,428 properties in England and Wales raised £1.662 billion for the Exchequer. The average price per dwelling was approximately £29,000.
That's not a bad price at all, a win, win hand for Annington Homes.
The full HANSARD can be seen here;- http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/20919w77.htm some interesting points were brought up on this issue back in 2002.
I also found the folllowing on the sale of SFA to Annington Homes back in 1996. I found the following in HANSARD below this sentence. I find it hard to understand how any government can say it has no money to help military personnel onto the property ladder, Between 1996 and 2004 the Exchequer received £100 million from Annington Homes in its' profit share arrangement, It's our rent and occupation as tennants of Annington Homes SFA, that prevents these properties becoming delapidated. At present service families receive only 1% for every 10 years served as a discount from Annington. I can't be the only military person finding this disgusting arrangement wrong, we are being stuffed by the MoD and Parliamentary Ministers from most Parties . Prejudicial Interests comes to mind here.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/41004w26.htm
Mr. Caplin: Under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement the Exchequer benefits from a Profit Share arrangement following subsequent disposal by Annington Homes Ltd. of surplus houses handed back by the Ministry of Defence. This arrangement applies for the first 15 years following the 1996 sale and is based on a sliding percentage of the profit made by the Company after allowable overheads have been deducted. To date the Exchequer has received approximately £100 million under this arrangement
Regards
Hitback
I have managed to find the HANSARD which discloses the amount Annington paid for each Service Family House; The sale to Annington of 57,428 properties in England and Wales raised £1.662 billion for the Exchequer. The average price per dwelling was approximately £29,000.
That's not a bad price at all, a win, win hand for Annington Homes.
The full HANSARD can be seen here;- http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/20919w77.htm some interesting points were brought up on this issue back in 2002.
I also found the folllowing on the sale of SFA to Annington Homes back in 1996. I found the following in HANSARD below this sentence. I find it hard to understand how any government can say it has no money to help military personnel onto the property ladder, Between 1996 and 2004 the Exchequer received £100 million from Annington Homes in its' profit share arrangement, It's our rent and occupation as tennants of Annington Homes SFA, that prevents these properties becoming delapidated. At present service families receive only 1% for every 10 years served as a discount from Annington. I can't be the only military person finding this disgusting arrangement wrong, we are being stuffed by the MoD and Parliamentary Ministers from most Parties . Prejudicial Interests comes to mind here.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/41004w26.htm
Mr. Caplin: Under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement the Exchequer benefits from a Profit Share arrangement following subsequent disposal by Annington Homes Ltd. of surplus houses handed back by the Ministry of Defence. This arrangement applies for the first 15 years following the 1996 sale and is based on a sliding percentage of the profit made by the Company after allowable overheads have been deducted. To date the Exchequer has received approximately £100 million under this arrangement
Regards
Hitback
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Oxfordshire
Age: 57
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Oh, one other thing, if this is the masterplan, why are they about to start to build FMQ over at Brize for CATARA? Wouldnt build houses that are about to be sold back to Annington in 5 years, would they now."
No sign of that happening at the moment from what I can see. Some flats and houses were knocked down ages ago and a load of the remaining flats have been boarded up and unoccupied for a long time. Talk about a blot on the landscape.
No sign of that happening at the moment from what I can see. Some flats and houses were knocked down ages ago and a load of the remaining flats have been boarded up and unoccupied for a long time. Talk about a blot on the landscape.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a related subject isn't military pay abated because we have access to cheap(er) accommodation through MQ's & SLA? If this cheap(er) accommodation is removed the justification for this pay abatement is removed. Now who on here believes that the government is going to do anything that means giving above inflation pay increases to anyone?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bedford
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annington Homes Plc did turn down some proprties. It's only property that's owned by Annington that has to be got rid off asap. The property in NI and Scotland was never bought or should I say not offered to Annington Homes. All DHE in NI and Scotland is being offered to the highest bidder. However under the old DCI's for selling Military Property service personnel should be given first choice, which the MoD states is not in place due to Annington owning property
. That doesn't make sense to me.
The only reason for super garrisons is to allow the MoD to return all of Annington's Homes back to them before 2012. The profit shared agreement and the money made from MoD land is funding the two conflicts at present. The media has covered this in detail over the past couple of months.
£2.2bn Army boot sale funds Iraq and Afghanistan wars 07.07.07 London Evening Standard
Experts predict the cost of the Iraq war to the British taxpayer will exceed £1 billionThe Ministry of Defence has sold off historic barracks and land worth more than £2.2 billion to fund the spiralling cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Figures show ministers have met about half the cost of the conflicts by selling armed forces assets, including accommodation, airstrips, sports fields, military hospitals and firing ranges. The true cost of the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan has never officially been released, but the respected Iraq Analysis Group has estimated that the MoD has spent in the region of £5 billion to fund the wars. Critics claim the money raked in by the Treasury should have been spent on better housing and equipment for troops. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since 1998, Defence Estates - the MoD organisation responsible for managing land and buildings - sold assets totalling £2.2 billion, including 12,446 hectares of land for housing and business developments. Chelsea Barracks has been sold to housing developers for a reported £900 million. Nearly 150 years of military tradition will come to an end when the prime location between Sloane Square and the Thames is vacated next year. The Duke of York Barracks in Chelsea fetched £94 million. Thousands of married quarters up and down the country have been snapped up by developers, as have former aerodromes. The Second World War airfield at RAF Hendon is being transformed into one of the country's biggest residential estates. The figures were uncovered by Lord Trefgarne, a former Conservative defence minister under Margaret Thatcher. He said: "I kept noticing from snippets in the press that famous and historic buildings in which our armed forces have been based for centuries were being sold to property developers. I have to say I am staggered by the findings." Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "At a time when thousands of military personnel are living in sub-standard accommodation, it is shameful for assets to be sold off to pay for the illegal war in Iraq." Alan Simpson, a senior Labour backbencher, said: "If surplus assets are to be sold off it has to be on the basis that it improves the quality of support that is given to troops." The Mail has repeatedly highlighted how thousands of service personnel and their families have been forced to live in squalor, enduring ageing barracks with leaking roofs, broken boilers, cracked windows and damp. Some accommodation is so run-down it has been condemned. Meanwhile, soldiers with horrific battlefield injuries are treated on NHS wards because the Government closed specialist military hospitals to save money. And troops have been forced to buy their own items of kit such as sleeping bags, boots and rucksacks because they felt the Army issue was inadequate. Experts predict the cost of the Iraq war to the British taxpayer will exceed £1 billion this year for the first time since the invasion in 2003.
The Great Sell-Off
Examples of land and Barracks sold by the MoD
1.Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, South-east London.
2.Chelsea Barracks, west London.
3.Duke of York Barracks, west London.
4.Army Medical Office, Droitwich Spa, Worcs
5.RAF West Raynham (airfield and control tower)- West Raynham, near Fakenham, Norfolk.
6.Princess Mary's RAF Hospital and Halton Tennis Centre, RAF Halton, Bucks.
7.Anzio Barracks, Leek, Staffs.
8.Oakington Barracks, Longstanton, Cambs.
9.Whittington Barracks, Lichfield, Staffs.
10.HMS Daedalus (Training establishment for Fleet Air Arms)-Lee-on-Solent, near Portsmouth, Hampshire.
11.Atomic Weapons Establishment Cardiff (Manufactured components for nuclear programme)-Cardiff, South Wales.
12.Deysbrook Barracks (former home of Army bomb disposal unit)-West Derby, Liverpool.
13.Purfleet Rifle Ranges, Purfleet, Kent.
14.Chetwynd Barracks, Chilwell, Notts.
15.Parts of RAF Greenham Common, Newbury, Berks.
. That doesn't make sense to me. The only reason for super garrisons is to allow the MoD to return all of Annington's Homes back to them before 2012. The profit shared agreement and the money made from MoD land is funding the two conflicts at present. The media has covered this in detail over the past couple of months.
£2.2bn Army boot sale funds Iraq and Afghanistan wars 07.07.07 London Evening Standard
Experts predict the cost of the Iraq war to the British taxpayer will exceed £1 billionThe Ministry of Defence has sold off historic barracks and land worth more than £2.2 billion to fund the spiralling cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Figures show ministers have met about half the cost of the conflicts by selling armed forces assets, including accommodation, airstrips, sports fields, military hospitals and firing ranges. The true cost of the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan has never officially been released, but the respected Iraq Analysis Group has estimated that the MoD has spent in the region of £5 billion to fund the wars. Critics claim the money raked in by the Treasury should have been spent on better housing and equipment for troops. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since 1998, Defence Estates - the MoD organisation responsible for managing land and buildings - sold assets totalling £2.2 billion, including 12,446 hectares of land for housing and business developments. Chelsea Barracks has been sold to housing developers for a reported £900 million. Nearly 150 years of military tradition will come to an end when the prime location between Sloane Square and the Thames is vacated next year. The Duke of York Barracks in Chelsea fetched £94 million. Thousands of married quarters up and down the country have been snapped up by developers, as have former aerodromes. The Second World War airfield at RAF Hendon is being transformed into one of the country's biggest residential estates. The figures were uncovered by Lord Trefgarne, a former Conservative defence minister under Margaret Thatcher. He said: "I kept noticing from snippets in the press that famous and historic buildings in which our armed forces have been based for centuries were being sold to property developers. I have to say I am staggered by the findings." Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "At a time when thousands of military personnel are living in sub-standard accommodation, it is shameful for assets to be sold off to pay for the illegal war in Iraq." Alan Simpson, a senior Labour backbencher, said: "If surplus assets are to be sold off it has to be on the basis that it improves the quality of support that is given to troops." The Mail has repeatedly highlighted how thousands of service personnel and their families have been forced to live in squalor, enduring ageing barracks with leaking roofs, broken boilers, cracked windows and damp. Some accommodation is so run-down it has been condemned. Meanwhile, soldiers with horrific battlefield injuries are treated on NHS wards because the Government closed specialist military hospitals to save money. And troops have been forced to buy their own items of kit such as sleeping bags, boots and rucksacks because they felt the Army issue was inadequate. Experts predict the cost of the Iraq war to the British taxpayer will exceed £1 billion this year for the first time since the invasion in 2003.
The Great Sell-Off
Examples of land and Barracks sold by the MoD
1.Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, South-east London.
2.Chelsea Barracks, west London.
3.Duke of York Barracks, west London.
4.Army Medical Office, Droitwich Spa, Worcs
5.RAF West Raynham (airfield and control tower)- West Raynham, near Fakenham, Norfolk.
6.Princess Mary's RAF Hospital and Halton Tennis Centre, RAF Halton, Bucks.
7.Anzio Barracks, Leek, Staffs.
8.Oakington Barracks, Longstanton, Cambs.
9.Whittington Barracks, Lichfield, Staffs.
10.HMS Daedalus (Training establishment for Fleet Air Arms)-Lee-on-Solent, near Portsmouth, Hampshire.
11.Atomic Weapons Establishment Cardiff (Manufactured components for nuclear programme)-Cardiff, South Wales.
12.Deysbrook Barracks (former home of Army bomb disposal unit)-West Derby, Liverpool.
13.Purfleet Rifle Ranges, Purfleet, Kent.
14.Chetwynd Barracks, Chilwell, Notts.
15.Parts of RAF Greenham Common, Newbury, Berks.
Last edited by Hitback; 31st Jul 2007 at 16:44.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting reading in the Forres Gazette. Whats going to happen when Kinloss becomes 'busy' again when the MRA4 finally arrives,no housing available?
http://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/news...circulate.html
http://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/news...circulate.html
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would expect the MOD to stump up the cash for privately rented accom. If I got posted there and was told I was expected to rent out my own pocket as a result of shortsightedness on the behalf of MOD/DE/DHE then my next step would be to take the MOD to court as my salary is factored to allow for FMQ.
Oh, and i think CLASS ACTION would be a phrase the MOD would come to understand pretty bloody quickly
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/ite...d=11&h=24&f=23
Oh, and i think CLASS ACTION would be a phrase the MOD would come to understand pretty bloody quickly
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/ite...d=11&h=24&f=23
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west london
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a little rumour that MoD was refused bank loans to fund project MoDEL at Northolt. Word is that the developers are being handed Bentley Priory and Uxbridge in lieu of payment. This is just a rumour though!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People living in SFA are not tenants - MOD are the tenants and we live in the properties under license, meaning we probably don't get the usual tenants' rights.
See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234227.stm
The National Audit Office has a few interesting things to say on the sale of the properties in the first place:
http://www.nao.org.uk/Recommendation....asp?repId=393 and
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../518/51803.htm
Actually, the more I sit here and Google, the more the whole 'Selling our homes' debacle starts to stink -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...14/nmod14.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...04/njap04.html
It would not surprise me at all if Annington pull the plug and start realising their investment by selling the properties - and there would be nothing we could do about it. Also, since the tenants (MOD) are responsible for the upkeep, repairs and improvements to the properies they lease (bizarre in itself), then it makes financial sense for them to stop paying the rent.
If the rumour at the start of this thread is in any way true then, at the very least, there needs to be a more thorough investigation into the selling of the properties in the first place, and the General Officers involved before and after retirement.
See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234227.stm
The National Audit Office has a few interesting things to say on the sale of the properties in the first place:
http://www.nao.org.uk/Recommendation....asp?repId=393 and
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../518/51803.htm
Actually, the more I sit here and Google, the more the whole 'Selling our homes' debacle starts to stink -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...14/nmod14.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...04/njap04.html
It would not surprise me at all if Annington pull the plug and start realising their investment by selling the properties - and there would be nothing we could do about it. Also, since the tenants (MOD) are responsible for the upkeep, repairs and improvements to the properies they lease (bizarre in itself), then it makes financial sense for them to stop paying the rent.
If the rumour at the start of this thread is in any way true then, at the very least, there needs to be a more thorough investigation into the selling of the properties in the first place, and the General Officers involved before and after retirement.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bedford
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said before, this property is owned by the DHE, I would ask why you aren't permitted first refusal on the properties as ex-tenants as per the old DCI's disposal of ex-SFA. I would ask, if I lived their, for the SNP to look into this area and question the DHE legal obligation to ex-tenants of service accommodation. This could set a legal precedence for service personnel wishing to live in ex-service property at greatly discounted rates in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The DHE cann't use the Annington Homes Plc Line on this one.
I would also like to point out service personnel are tenants if they pay rent for a property. I have lived in 14 SF Homes and have always signed a tenants agreement.
D-IFF_ident Is there a list of Share holders to Annington Homes or any of their other Companies. Interesting to see who the Chairman and Vice Chairman is. I just wounder how many others got their fingers in the pie.
Hitback
I would also like to point out service personnel are tenants if they pay rent for a property. I have lived in 14 SF Homes and have always signed a tenants agreement.
D-IFF_ident Is there a list of Share holders to Annington Homes or any of their other Companies. Interesting to see who the Chairman and Vice Chairman is. I just wounder how many others got their fingers in the pie.
Hitback
Last edited by Hitback; 4th Aug 2007 at 18:05.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chairman is Sir Thomas Macpherson of Biallid, CBE MC** TD DL -
http://www.emac-global.com/content/a...acpherson.html
http://www.entuity.com/company/board.html
Also Chairman of Boustead PLC-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n15767356
http://takingstock.accountancyage.co..._honours_.html
Deputy Chairman is Air Vice-Marshal Sandy Hunter CBE AFC -
Who owned 24% of shares in Annington Homes -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive.../t-104853.html
Allegedly
http://www.emac-global.com/content/a...acpherson.html
http://www.entuity.com/company/board.html
Also Chairman of Boustead PLC-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n15767356
http://takingstock.accountancyage.co..._honours_.html
Deputy Chairman is Air Vice-Marshal Sandy Hunter CBE AFC -
Who owned 24% of shares in Annington Homes -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive.../t-104853.html
Allegedly
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great MQ giveaway was one of Brown's first acts as CotE to rake in some 'free' cash. Remember those early heady days when there was suddenly money for allsorts of things, and none of them had anything to do with defence? Well, the MoD was well and truly stuffed, the whole deal is murky and as rancid as hell, and Gordon the Gopher has now moved on leaving the mayhem in his wake.
The Defence Estate is responsible for almost 50,000 MQs in the UK. Most of those in England and Wales were sold to Annington in 1996 and leased back by MOD. MOD retained the responsibility for maintenance and upgrade. Annual rent to Annington is around £140 million per year. Given that the MoD only received 1.6 Billion from Annington back in 1996, it doesn't take too much in the way of grey matter to work out that the windfall has now 'gone' and the MoD not only has to pay for the upkeep of the MQ estate, but also has to find 140 Million each year to give to Annington. Its like spending the redundancy money on a shiny new car but not bothering with the mortgage.
For those who don't know, the majority of MQs in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland were not included) was sold to Annington Homes Limited on a 999 year lease in November 1996, and then leased back by MOD on 200 year leases. Of those properties leased from Annington Homes, once any are identified as potentially surplus, MOD seeks confirmation from the Services that there is no longer term requirement for the properties. Surplus leased housing stock in England and Wales is, under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement, returned to Annington Homes. It is then for the company to arrange sales as they see fit. Which MoD pratts negotiate deals like this on the public behalf?
http://www.publications.parliament.u...w0004.htm_wqn8
The Public Affairs Committee wasn't very happy at the time either.
http://www.nao.org.uk/Recommendation....asp?repId=393
Gordon Brown? trust/far/throw.
The Defence Estate is responsible for almost 50,000 MQs in the UK. Most of those in England and Wales were sold to Annington in 1996 and leased back by MOD. MOD retained the responsibility for maintenance and upgrade. Annual rent to Annington is around £140 million per year. Given that the MoD only received 1.6 Billion from Annington back in 1996, it doesn't take too much in the way of grey matter to work out that the windfall has now 'gone' and the MoD not only has to pay for the upkeep of the MQ estate, but also has to find 140 Million each year to give to Annington. Its like spending the redundancy money on a shiny new car but not bothering with the mortgage.
For those who don't know, the majority of MQs in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland were not included) was sold to Annington Homes Limited on a 999 year lease in November 1996, and then leased back by MOD on 200 year leases. Of those properties leased from Annington Homes, once any are identified as potentially surplus, MOD seeks confirmation from the Services that there is no longer term requirement for the properties. Surplus leased housing stock in England and Wales is, under the terms of the 1996 Sale Agreement, returned to Annington Homes. It is then for the company to arrange sales as they see fit. Which MoD pratts negotiate deals like this on the public behalf?
http://www.publications.parliament.u...w0004.htm_wqn8
The Public Affairs Committee wasn't very happy at the time either.
http://www.nao.org.uk/Recommendation....asp?repId=393
Gordon Brown? trust/far/throw.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC about 20 years ago, the RN won an arguement for an 'Assisted House Purchase' scheme which granted an up-front sum for the deposit and a pay back arrangement based on time remaining in Service. There was lots of noise from the 'Navy News' prior to it's introduction, and when it was agreed it all went quiet - hardly surprising - as, unfairly, it was not extended to the Army or RAF. That's why 70% of fishheads own their own homes - nothing to do with salary or location
About 8 years ago 180 airmens qtrs were demolished on North Side at ISK
The DHE or whatever they call themselves this week claimed they had to reduce the stock holding and they were left with few choices
They would not release them to the local authority for fear of DHSS and Druggies moving in alongside Service people
They were worried squatters might move in
They had all been recently upgraded with double glazing and natural gas etc
Yet, they still decided the cheapest option was demolition to meet the reduction quota
The Stn Cdr had no say on this and what was happening to his estate
To date, there are another 80 Off Qtrs boarded up awaiting a local estate agent crook to arrange disposal
The office DHE occupy is the old Kinloss Farmhouse once used by the Families Officer, his assistant and 2 secretaries
Today, there are no less than 15 cars parked outside, including weekends and they now only manage half the estate - says it all
About 8 years ago 180 airmens qtrs were demolished on North Side at ISK
The DHE or whatever they call themselves this week claimed they had to reduce the stock holding and they were left with few choices
They would not release them to the local authority for fear of DHSS and Druggies moving in alongside Service people
They were worried squatters might move in
They had all been recently upgraded with double glazing and natural gas etc
Yet, they still decided the cheapest option was demolition to meet the reduction quota
The Stn Cdr had no say on this and what was happening to his estate
To date, there are another 80 Off Qtrs boarded up awaiting a local estate agent crook to arrange disposal
The office DHE occupy is the old Kinloss Farmhouse once used by the Families Officer, his assistant and 2 secretaries
Today, there are no less than 15 cars parked outside, including weekends and they now only manage half the estate - says it all
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It Could Get Much Worse
Given the appalling track record of the present government towards the armed forces and the emasculation they have already made happen why would they stop half way and only take the forces accommodation away?
May as well go the whole hog and send all the regular armed forces home and make them all reservists. Need a change in the law that requires a minimum of three months attending camp per annum, employers and employees to cooperate, by law. Individuals may serve an additional three months if they wish but no unemployment pay during these periods of camp. When operations are required then mobilisation will take place.
In the meantime those attending camp will service and maintain the buildings and equipment and pilots will require to attend refresher training of one week every three months. Courses of training requiring more than three months will be done in modules etc. etc. etc. There is no limit to what the bean counters could dream up and even though such a plan would be wholly unacceptable from a services point of view, when was that ever considered? The bean counters win every time.
May as well go the whole hog and send all the regular armed forces home and make them all reservists. Need a change in the law that requires a minimum of three months attending camp per annum, employers and employees to cooperate, by law. Individuals may serve an additional three months if they wish but no unemployment pay during these periods of camp. When operations are required then mobilisation will take place.
In the meantime those attending camp will service and maintain the buildings and equipment and pilots will require to attend refresher training of one week every three months. Courses of training requiring more than three months will be done in modules etc. etc. etc. There is no limit to what the bean counters could dream up and even though such a plan would be wholly unacceptable from a services point of view, when was that ever considered? The bean counters win every time.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke to a colleague this weekend who's heard about some possible plans for quarters. I wasn't too impressed!
Apparently, the government wants us all to own our own homes. So we'll get some sort of lump sum scheme whereby your salary's abated by X for Y years, then you get a lump sum of X x Y to help buy a house. Then, when you get posted, you'll get the current package to help cover the costs incurred. Bingo, everyone's happy, we all own houses, but we're not out of pocket. Quarters will go, or be reduced, because we don't want them, we all want to own our own homes.
Except this doesn't cover what I'm meant to do when the constant moves cost twice as much as I can reclaim, nor does it help when I'm posted from Lossiemouth to High Wycombe or Whitehall and can barely afford a parking space.
Apparently, the response to this was that if the move is prohibitively expensive, the money saved from doing away with quarters will fund upgrades in SLA; so I can just live in the mess.
Strikes me as madness. Yes, I like owning my own home, but I don't want to move every 3 years. I like the house I have and I look forward to living in it permanently after my next option point, so I don't want to sell it! I also dislike the alternative; if you keep your home in one place, who wants to spend their 30s and 40s living in messes? The current system works and is necessary; I can still save up and buy a home, but at least when the military forces me to move, they can provide me with a house to put my family in so I can have some semblance of a normal life.
I don't want a mess to come home to, regardless of how much is spent improving it. I'd rather come home to my family!
Apparently, the government wants us all to own our own homes. So we'll get some sort of lump sum scheme whereby your salary's abated by X for Y years, then you get a lump sum of X x Y to help buy a house. Then, when you get posted, you'll get the current package to help cover the costs incurred. Bingo, everyone's happy, we all own houses, but we're not out of pocket. Quarters will go, or be reduced, because we don't want them, we all want to own our own homes.
Except this doesn't cover what I'm meant to do when the constant moves cost twice as much as I can reclaim, nor does it help when I'm posted from Lossiemouth to High Wycombe or Whitehall and can barely afford a parking space.
Apparently, the response to this was that if the move is prohibitively expensive, the money saved from doing away with quarters will fund upgrades in SLA; so I can just live in the mess.
Strikes me as madness. Yes, I like owning my own home, but I don't want to move every 3 years. I like the house I have and I look forward to living in it permanently after my next option point, so I don't want to sell it! I also dislike the alternative; if you keep your home in one place, who wants to spend their 30s and 40s living in messes? The current system works and is necessary; I can still save up and buy a home, but at least when the military forces me to move, they can provide me with a house to put my family in so I can have some semblance of a normal life.
I don't want a mess to come home to, regardless of how much is spent improving it. I'd rather come home to my family!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently, the government wants us all to own our own homes. So we'll get some sort of lump sum scheme whereby your salary's abated by X for Y years, then you get a lump sum of X x Y to help buy a house. Then, when you get posted, you'll get the current package to help cover the costs incurred. Bingo, everyone's happy, we all own houses, but we're not out of pocket. Quarters will go, or be reduced, because we don't want them, we all want to own our own homes.