UK National Defence Association
GasFitter
Agree wholeheartedly with you there - the high paid help should be supporting us, telling the accountants where to get off and reminding the politicians that their actions now will have consequences for the future - probably for a generation at least.
Likewise, the Govt should be fsupporting and funding the forces adequately for the task at hand and to allow us something in reserve to cope with any nasty surprises that may be round the corner.
There are a lot of things that people in positions of authority should be doing, but they don't seem to be doing them. But we at the coal face, regardless of rank, service or specialization are constantly being reminded of our loyalty to and requirement to support a govt which is systematically breaking the back of the armed forces. Quite frankly, things have gone far enough that I do wonder whether it isn't time for HM to have a word with her PM about how he is treating her armed forces.
Likewise, the Govt should be fsupporting and funding the forces adequately for the task at hand and to allow us something in reserve to cope with any nasty surprises that may be round the corner.
There are a lot of things that people in positions of authority should be doing, but they don't seem to be doing them. But we at the coal face, regardless of rank, service or specialization are constantly being reminded of our loyalty to and requirement to support a govt which is systematically breaking the back of the armed forces. Quite frankly, things have gone far enough that I do wonder whether it isn't time for HM to have a word with her PM about how he is treating her armed forces.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chilbolton, Hants
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UKNDA - Subscriptions ????
UKNDA - Subscriptions.
I am the CE and Chairman of the UKNDA - and am pleased to tell readers that there are THREE ways to join the UKNDA as explained on our web-site www.uknda.org
One: Sign up as a REGISTERED SUPPORTER - No subscription - i.e. FREE
OR:
Two: Join as a Member £12 p.a.
OR:
Three: Join as a Life member - a one off subscription of £100
Subcriptions are necessary to build up a fighting fund to achieve the aims of getting at least (!) 3% of GDP for the Armed Forces. Our Launch event, for instance, wasn't cheap to put on - and otherwise where's the money coming from for the web-site, brochures, publicity etc?
Anyway - our launch was a huge success..... 4,770 hits on our site on the day of the Launch (and good TV and Press coverage).
Join us now - we need you, your support - to help from the mass movement that will shake up all of the polticians and make them realise that the ARE "Votes in Defence" and that the lives of our people (and their own jobs) depend on our Armed Forces!
I am the CE and Chairman of the UKNDA - and am pleased to tell readers that there are THREE ways to join the UKNDA as explained on our web-site www.uknda.org
One: Sign up as a REGISTERED SUPPORTER - No subscription - i.e. FREE
OR:
Two: Join as a Member £12 p.a.
OR:
Three: Join as a Life member - a one off subscription of £100
Subcriptions are necessary to build up a fighting fund to achieve the aims of getting at least (!) 3% of GDP for the Armed Forces. Our Launch event, for instance, wasn't cheap to put on - and otherwise where's the money coming from for the web-site, brochures, publicity etc?
Anyway - our launch was a huge success..... 4,770 hits on our site on the day of the Launch (and good TV and Press coverage).
Join us now - we need you, your support - to help from the mass movement that will shake up all of the polticians and make them realise that the ARE "Votes in Defence" and that the lives of our people (and their own jobs) depend on our Armed Forces!
Joined!
Well, in view of my deep concern at the continuing gross underfunding of our Armed Forces and the unpalatable political deceits concerning such matters, I have joined the UKNDA. I only hope that, amongst other things, the media skills of the UKNDA can match (or better) those of the Whitehall spin-machines, otherwise it will be a lost cause.
My best wishes to this new organisation and I look forward to reading/hearing news of effective campaigns on behalf of all three Services.
LL
My best wishes to this new organisation and I look forward to reading/hearing news of effective campaigns on behalf of all three Services.
LL
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett01
the high paid help should be supporting us
telling the accountants where to get off
HM to have a word with her PM about how he is treating her armed forces.
Unless somebody does something new, funding for Defence is going to get even worse. According to James Kirkup, Political Correspondent of the Torygraph, the treasury is trying to claw back billions of pounds from MoD to pay for UOR's (Urgent Operational Requirements). UOR's have included buying armoured vehicles, enhanced body armour and fire supression for C130's.
An informed lobby group such as UKNDA could surely do something to keep this in the public domain. If not, it looks like the past failures to properly equip the services for the realities of battlefield conditions will be paid for with the lives of servicemen in any future battles. I.e. it will progressively get even worse.
An informed lobby group such as UKNDA could surely do something to keep this in the public domain. If not, it looks like the past failures to properly equip the services for the realities of battlefield conditions will be paid for with the lives of servicemen in any future battles. I.e. it will progressively get even worse.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Looks like they're getting people behind them already, inclusing the Independent. 
Renew the Military Covenant - in full
'I certainly viewed Brown as unsympathetic to defence," says Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff. In an interview with this newspaper he reveals that he came within a "couple of hours" of resigning over the 1998 review of defence spending. Was he saying that the spending he thought vital was approved by the Prime Minister but blocked by the Chancellor? "That is exactly right," he says.
This is an important warning to Gordon Brown. Lord Guthrie is one of the patrons of the UK National Defence Association launched last week. Formed to campaign for higher defence spending, the association is part of a growing movement demanding that the armed forces be given the resources they need to do the job we ask of them. It is a movement in which this newspaper is proud to claim a leading role.
That is why we devote so much space, on this Sunday above all others, to the question of renewing the Military Covenant. This is the document that sets out the terms of the deal: they risk their lives for our security; we undertake to give them the resources they need and to look after them and their families.
One of the consequences of British deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq is that Remembrance Sunday, which had increasingly become an occasion for re-learning history, has been infused with the new meaning of contemporary experience. What is striking is that the mood for this renewal of the Covenant is so broad-based. The situation is different from that of the Falklands war 25 years ago when large parts of supposedly progressive opinion regarded any show of pride in our armed forces as "jingoism". Today, a newspaper such as this one, which was most strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, is completely unembarrassed to demand that our military should be accorded more respect.
The Independent on Sunday supports the mission of our forces in Afghanistan and has always accepted that seeing through our obligations in that country is an expensive, long-term commitment. Indeed, one of our arguments against the Iraq war was that it would divert resources and attention from the Afghan theatre. So it proved, but that argument is in the past now. It must be accepted that even if the notional British presence that remains in Iraq were now withdrawn, it would not solve the overstretch problem of which Lord Guthrie speaks. Deployment in two major combat theatres simultaneously over the past five years has exposed the underlying shortfalls that have developed since the end of the cold war.
As we report today, the resource constraints – and, it must be said, the bureaucratic inflexibility – of the Ministry of Defence have resulted in too many avoidable deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week, a coroner confirmed that Fusilier Gordon Gentle died after the equipment that could have saved him was stuck in a warehouse. But the continuing human cost of those operations has exposed inadequacies in the aftercare to which soldiers and their families are entitled.
We have sought in recent years to draw attention to the poor state of much of the Forces' accommodation; to the failure to anticipate the need for separate military wards in NHS hospitals; and to the patchy provision of care for soldiers with combat-related mental illness.
So when Lord Guthrie says that defence spending was cut too far after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this should no longer be interpreted, as once it might have been, as a general trying to defend the purchase of hi-tech weaponry. Any more than it should be when General Sir Mike Jackson told this newspaper recently that "all roads lead to the Treasury", as he made the case for better armed forces' pay. If we are to fulfil our side of the bargain, we will have to spend more, not just on equipment, but on housing, health care and pay for our troops.
Well, the roads that once led to the Treasury now lead to No 10: the Prime Minister no longer has Mr Brown next door to stop him doing what is needed. Since 1984, defence spending as a share of national income has fallen from 5.3 to 2.2 per cent. Last month's spending plans give the MoD just enough to cover inflation over the next three years. At a time of two active operations, this is not enough. And last week's Command Paper rushed out to accompany the Queen's Speech is one of the more feeble "long grass" exercises we have seen. It fails to offer an honest appraisal of where the Military Covenant is broken and how it might be fixed.
This Remembrance Sunday, we hope that the Prime Minister, recent author of a book about military courage, will pause to consider Lord Guthrie's words about our obligation to our armed forces: "You've got to do a bit more than talk about it."
The cruellest sacrifice: Revealed: 88 casualties of MoD's failures
Renew the Military Covenant - in full
'I certainly viewed Brown as unsympathetic to defence," says Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff. In an interview with this newspaper he reveals that he came within a "couple of hours" of resigning over the 1998 review of defence spending. Was he saying that the spending he thought vital was approved by the Prime Minister but blocked by the Chancellor? "That is exactly right," he says.
This is an important warning to Gordon Brown. Lord Guthrie is one of the patrons of the UK National Defence Association launched last week. Formed to campaign for higher defence spending, the association is part of a growing movement demanding that the armed forces be given the resources they need to do the job we ask of them. It is a movement in which this newspaper is proud to claim a leading role.
That is why we devote so much space, on this Sunday above all others, to the question of renewing the Military Covenant. This is the document that sets out the terms of the deal: they risk their lives for our security; we undertake to give them the resources they need and to look after them and their families.
One of the consequences of British deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq is that Remembrance Sunday, which had increasingly become an occasion for re-learning history, has been infused with the new meaning of contemporary experience. What is striking is that the mood for this renewal of the Covenant is so broad-based. The situation is different from that of the Falklands war 25 years ago when large parts of supposedly progressive opinion regarded any show of pride in our armed forces as "jingoism". Today, a newspaper such as this one, which was most strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, is completely unembarrassed to demand that our military should be accorded more respect.
The Independent on Sunday supports the mission of our forces in Afghanistan and has always accepted that seeing through our obligations in that country is an expensive, long-term commitment. Indeed, one of our arguments against the Iraq war was that it would divert resources and attention from the Afghan theatre. So it proved, but that argument is in the past now. It must be accepted that even if the notional British presence that remains in Iraq were now withdrawn, it would not solve the overstretch problem of which Lord Guthrie speaks. Deployment in two major combat theatres simultaneously over the past five years has exposed the underlying shortfalls that have developed since the end of the cold war.
As we report today, the resource constraints – and, it must be said, the bureaucratic inflexibility – of the Ministry of Defence have resulted in too many avoidable deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week, a coroner confirmed that Fusilier Gordon Gentle died after the equipment that could have saved him was stuck in a warehouse. But the continuing human cost of those operations has exposed inadequacies in the aftercare to which soldiers and their families are entitled.
We have sought in recent years to draw attention to the poor state of much of the Forces' accommodation; to the failure to anticipate the need for separate military wards in NHS hospitals; and to the patchy provision of care for soldiers with combat-related mental illness.
So when Lord Guthrie says that defence spending was cut too far after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this should no longer be interpreted, as once it might have been, as a general trying to defend the purchase of hi-tech weaponry. Any more than it should be when General Sir Mike Jackson told this newspaper recently that "all roads lead to the Treasury", as he made the case for better armed forces' pay. If we are to fulfil our side of the bargain, we will have to spend more, not just on equipment, but on housing, health care and pay for our troops.
Well, the roads that once led to the Treasury now lead to No 10: the Prime Minister no longer has Mr Brown next door to stop him doing what is needed. Since 1984, defence spending as a share of national income has fallen from 5.3 to 2.2 per cent. Last month's spending plans give the MoD just enough to cover inflation over the next three years. At a time of two active operations, this is not enough. And last week's Command Paper rushed out to accompany the Queen's Speech is one of the more feeble "long grass" exercises we have seen. It fails to offer an honest appraisal of where the Military Covenant is broken and how it might be fixed.
This Remembrance Sunday, we hope that the Prime Minister, recent author of a book about military courage, will pause to consider Lord Guthrie's words about our obligation to our armed forces: "You've got to do a bit more than talk about it."
The cruellest sacrifice: Revealed: 88 casualties of MoD's failures
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some sensible posts needed here with all the lefties about:
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2007/11/the-cruellest-s.html
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2007/11/the-cruellest-s.html
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: purple academy
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unsympathetic to defence
I spent many years serving in Scotland and always enjoyed the robust dry humour of Scots. I rarely met any that I disliked.
Except one kind. The local occupants of the manse who walked around like jackbooted moral Nazis, despising everyone for their sins. And most of all they despise the military who are all godless, immoral, mindless servants of the devil, negligent of their moral duty and worst of all, Tory voters to the last.
I think that what the General meant was that Brown ****ing hates the military and doesn't give a **it how many of them die.
The man is a disgrace. His life is devoted to telling other people how they should live their lives. Rather than defending and enabling them to live their lives as they see fit. ****ing fascist!
Except one kind. The local occupants of the manse who walked around like jackbooted moral Nazis, despising everyone for their sins. And most of all they despise the military who are all godless, immoral, mindless servants of the devil, negligent of their moral duty and worst of all, Tory voters to the last.
I think that what the General meant was that Brown ****ing hates the military and doesn't give a **it how many of them die.
The man is a disgrace. His life is devoted to telling other people how they should live their lives. Rather than defending and enabling them to live their lives as they see fit. ****ing fascist!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think that what the General meant was that Brown ****ing hates the military and doesn't give a **it how many of them die.
The man is a disgrace. His life is devoted to telling other people how they should live their lives. Rather than defending and enabling them to live their lives as they see fit. ****ing fascist!
The man is a disgrace. His life is devoted to telling other people how they should live their lives. Rather than defending and enabling them to live their lives as they see fit. ****ing fascist!
UKNDA Needs You...
Each month the UKNDA publishes a brief(ish) newsletter and generally includes membership numbers. The latest one, received today shows the current state of play:-
I find this very disappointing and wonder why the numbers remain so low, particularly given the vigorous support of our Armed Forces on this and other forums. It would be interesting to read what Ppruners think of the UKNDA, it's aims and achievements so far.
...and before anyone asks, yes I am, since early Nov.
- Active (i.e. paid up) members: 1132
- Inactive (not yet paid) members: 218
- Registered supporters: 940
- TOTAL: 2290
I find this very disappointing and wonder why the numbers remain so low, particularly given the vigorous support of our Armed Forces on this and other forums. It would be interesting to read what Ppruners think of the UKNDA, it's aims and achievements so far.
...and before anyone asks, yes I am, since early Nov.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I joined only a few months ago, When I was starting to plans for a march in London, Cmdr Muxworthy and And Smith were deadly against it, for various reasons, I still very happy to be part of the organisation and like yourself am suprised that the membership numbers are still so small especially with the number of serving and ex forces personnel around, however my contact has been brief with them and my offers of help have gone un answered recently so I do feel a bit disapointed
Regards
Duncan
Regards
Duncan
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never heard of the UKNDA (and, no, I don't live in a cave somewhere).
BUT, looking at the line-up of the 'personalities' leading the cause, I do get the uneasy feeling of yet another 'Retired Gentleman's/Politician's/Senior Officers Luncheon Club' filling in the hour's between the odd Board Meeting, game of golf, cricket at Lords and Glyndebourne.
No disrespect to any of them (and more power to their elbow's if they mean business) but action is noticed. Inaction isn't.
I haven't noticed anything.
BUT, looking at the line-up of the 'personalities' leading the cause, I do get the uneasy feeling of yet another 'Retired Gentleman's/Politician's/Senior Officers Luncheon Club' filling in the hour's between the odd Board Meeting, game of golf, cricket at Lords and Glyndebourne.
No disrespect to any of them (and more power to their elbow's if they mean business) but action is noticed. Inaction isn't.
I haven't noticed anything.
