Our Boys ripped off by the MoD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: LONDON
Age: 55
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here was two from the Times on the same subject. The event at RAF Brize Norton was mentioned.
Helping Veterans the MoD Way
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2007/02/helping_veteran.html
How Low Can the MoD Stoop?
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2007/02/helping_veteran.html.
What gets my goat is the fact the MOD party line is a blatant lie. Event liability Insurance has to be taken out by the Charity organiser via a private firm before the MOD will give a Defence Estates licence and demands their cut after, as Charity insurance is not MOD core funded business. The insurance covers accident and any damage to MOD property or equipment.
What's more unsettling is the fact the MOD have admitted that they have not financially contributed towards The new Gym and Pool needed at Headley court. Just happy to sit back and let the very same charity's do all the work.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/servicecharities/#detail
Helping Veterans the MoD Way
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2007/02/helping_veteran.html
How Low Can the MoD Stoop?
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2007/02/helping_veteran.html.
What gets my goat is the fact the MOD party line is a blatant lie. Event liability Insurance has to be taken out by the Charity organiser via a private firm before the MOD will give a Defence Estates licence and demands their cut after, as Charity insurance is not MOD core funded business. The insurance covers accident and any damage to MOD property or equipment.
What's more unsettling is the fact the MOD have admitted that they have not financially contributed towards The new Gym and Pool needed at Headley court. Just happy to sit back and let the very same charity's do all the work.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/servicecharities/#detail
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An MoD spokeswoman said: “We charge to recover insurance, maintenance and admin fees — and cannot differentiate charities from other organisations.”
As others have already said, nothing surprises me any more. What a sad state of affairs.
Neither,
There is no box on JPA to do this.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett,
As long as you put something in the address box, ie a full stop or similar, it will accept it. You can then select Armed Forces.
Having said that, "they" can probably find out who you are from your e-mail address if they really want to!
Y_G
PS interesting to note that when it asks for your address, you have the option of leaving the box blank and selecting Armed Forces from the drop down menu below. Or so it would appear - just tried and no dice, it wants your address.
As long as you put something in the address box, ie a full stop or similar, it will accept it. You can then select Armed Forces.
Having said that, "they" can probably find out who you are from your e-mail address if they really want to!
Y_G
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am again left speechless by something to with this Givernment and the armed forces. Disgusted wouldn't be the word for it.
Anyway on another note, I've been involved in ding a bit of fundraising for H4H and specifically the chaps at Headley. Mainly to buy them stuff like Nintendo Wii's as they are good for rehabillitation and can be used by people who have only one hand or arm.
Link to the Just Giving page http://www.justgiving.com/phersforheadley
Yeller - yes they probaby can .... if you actually put your email address down!
I'm not paranoid (honest), but a chum of mine had an account on a blog type site complete with a nomme de pleume that he thought would give a bit of annonymity. Found himself in the boss' office for a 'chat sans cafe' after a cock-up meant that all the account details were published on the site, and his less than complementary comments were not well received by the hierachy.
So all in all, I am a little suspicious given the control freak nature of this govt and the authorities reaction to criticism - things can come back and bite you on the arse if you don't cover it!
I'm not paranoid (honest), but a chum of mine had an account on a blog type site complete with a nomme de pleume that he thought would give a bit of annonymity. Found himself in the boss' office for a 'chat sans cafe' after a cock-up meant that all the account details were published on the site, and his less than complementary comments were not well received by the hierachy.
So all in all, I am a little suspicious given the control freak nature of this govt and the authorities reaction to criticism - things can come back and bite you on the arse if you don't cover it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: LONDON
Age: 55
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two faced or what?
Quote::GORDON Brown
“Help For Heroes gives the public a practical way to demonstrate their support for wounded servicemen and their families.”
But not you or pack half wits broon
petitions.pm.gov.uk/se...es/#detail
Quote::GORDON Brown
“Help For Heroes gives the public a practical way to demonstrate their support for wounded servicemen and their families.”
But not you or pack half wits broon
petitions.pm.gov.uk/se...es/#detail
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here we go AGAIN!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!this government just don't get it, do they? god, they make me sick.
have signed and shall dutifully spread the word. i know that the civil servants can't see what the right thing to do is as the pound signs in their eyes must get in the way!
surely the world is not full of jobs worths and gutless wonders? tonight i am on a night shift in neuro itu ready and waiting to pick up the bits of tonights merriment and on a daily basis i see the journey that people go on where they come in and have lived with the attitude of well i'm alright jack, then sadly through having to come to us they leave with an awareness of what really matters in life and what goes on around us. this should be the case of the bean counters and desk jockeys in the government that need to see the reality and impact of their decisions, then they might realise that we are not saying /doing this for any other reason than to try and help people.
i applaud those of you trying to raise funds, despite the fact that you shouldn't have to.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If it does then Id rather have some decent NVG goggles and some better flying boots and can we have some decent Nav bags that don't disintegrate after a week?"
NVG Goggles, are they the same as NVG's
HG
NVG Goggles, are they the same as NVG's
HG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: LONDON
Age: 55
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the PQ that sort of exposed this sham. However you will note that for some strange reason he is withholding the detailed costs. 
Please sign and pass on.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/servicecharities/#detail
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a break down of the costs charged to the Army Benevolent Fund for the use of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on 22, 23 and 24 September 2006 for the Music on Fire event. [163147]
Derek Twigg: Each application for the use of Ministry of Defence land for fund raising or other purposes is considered on its individual merits and an appropriate system of charges is applied. A charge of £7,041.01 was raised against the Army Benevolent Fund (ABF) for the use of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, for the Music on Fire Event held in 2006. This total contained VAT of £1,049, commercial insurance of £2,500 and a Defence Estates licence fee of £100. I am withholding a more detailed breakdown of costs as its release would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests. However, the charges reflect an abated figure of the full amount permissible in accordance with Treasury Government accounting rules
Derek Twigg: Each application for the use of Ministry of Defence land for fund raising or other purposes is considered on its individual merits and an appropriate system of charges is applied. A charge of £7,041.01 was raised against the Army Benevolent Fund (ABF) for the use of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, for the Music on Fire Event held in 2006. This total contained VAT of £1,049, commercial insurance of £2,500 and a Defence Estates licence fee of £100. I am withholding a more detailed breakdown of costs as its release would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests. However, the charges reflect an abated figure of the full amount permissible in accordance with Treasury Government accounting rules
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/servicecharities/#detail
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: LONDON
Age: 55
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good effort to all, last week it was just above 800
1,741
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/servicecharities/#detail
1,741
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/servicecharities/#detail
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: LONDON
Age: 55
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done and bumped!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 71
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petition Signed
Don't understand the jargon (bumped etc) but I have signed the petition.
Having worked for the RAF Ben Fund I am only too well aware that the government and local authorities try to tap charitable resources rather than cough up in accordance with their statutory and moral responsibilities.
Having worked for the RAF Ben Fund I am only too well aware that the government and local authorities try to tap charitable resources rather than cough up in accordance with their statutory and moral responsibilities.
'Penny-pinching' MoD tells troops to stay at home...
From The Sunday Times
January 6, 2008
‘Penny-pinching’ MoD tells troops to stay at home
David Leppard
TENS of thousands of troops have been quietly told to stay away from their barracks in what military sources say is an attempt by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to save money on lighting and heating.
The MoD admitted this weekend that the army “across the whole of the UK” had been placed on what was in effect extended leave, running into this week.
Having initially denied that troops had been given extra time off, the MoD later confirmed that tens of thousands had indeed had their two-week Christmas break extended to three weeks.
Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former army colonel, said senior officers had told him that the move was a cost-saving measure. He said that up to 40,000 soldiers and officers - nearly half the army - had been given extra time off.
“An order has gone out to commanding officers asking that they encourage people to stay away from barracks to save on the cost of heating and lighting,” Mercer said.
“This is just penny-pinching which will underline the parsimony of this government towards the armed forces. It sends a message to our enemies: don’t invade today because we are on holiday.”
He said that the MoD had officially dressed the move up as a “thank you” to loyal, hard-working troops and officers. But senior commanders had been privately told that its primary purpose was to save money.
Normally troops would have already started their new year training and would be performing regular duties providing back-up at home for troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas operations.
Military sources said that the more radiators, lights, computers, faxes and printers that could be turned off, the better it would be for the budget.
The MoD said that the extra time off was best described as a “stand-down” rather than extra leave. A spokesman said: “This year’s additional stand-down is in recognition of all of the hard work by personnel over the past 12 months.
“This is not primarily a savings measure and, as no base is closed over the Christmas period, any savings would be negligible.”
Last year, in a set-piece speech on his vision for Britain’s armed forces, Tony Blair, then prime minister, said there would be increased spending on equipment and personnel to make the army effective at fighting wars and keeping the peace.
Critics say Gordon Brown has failed to respond. He has promised a 1.5% increase in real annual defence spending over the next three years. But critics say this is inadequate because of the rising cost of equipment and increasing commitments to big military projects; they add that it emphasises a mismatch between Britain’s military ambitions and its actual defence budget.
January 6, 2008
‘Penny-pinching’ MoD tells troops to stay at home
David Leppard
TENS of thousands of troops have been quietly told to stay away from their barracks in what military sources say is an attempt by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to save money on lighting and heating.
The MoD admitted this weekend that the army “across the whole of the UK” had been placed on what was in effect extended leave, running into this week.
Having initially denied that troops had been given extra time off, the MoD later confirmed that tens of thousands had indeed had their two-week Christmas break extended to three weeks.
Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former army colonel, said senior officers had told him that the move was a cost-saving measure. He said that up to 40,000 soldiers and officers - nearly half the army - had been given extra time off.
“An order has gone out to commanding officers asking that they encourage people to stay away from barracks to save on the cost of heating and lighting,” Mercer said.
“This is just penny-pinching which will underline the parsimony of this government towards the armed forces. It sends a message to our enemies: don’t invade today because we are on holiday.”
He said that the MoD had officially dressed the move up as a “thank you” to loyal, hard-working troops and officers. But senior commanders had been privately told that its primary purpose was to save money.
Normally troops would have already started their new year training and would be performing regular duties providing back-up at home for troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas operations.
Military sources said that the more radiators, lights, computers, faxes and printers that could be turned off, the better it would be for the budget.
The MoD said that the extra time off was best described as a “stand-down” rather than extra leave. A spokesman said: “This year’s additional stand-down is in recognition of all of the hard work by personnel over the past 12 months.
“This is not primarily a savings measure and, as no base is closed over the Christmas period, any savings would be negligible.”
Last year, in a set-piece speech on his vision for Britain’s armed forces, Tony Blair, then prime minister, said there would be increased spending on equipment and personnel to make the army effective at fighting wars and keeping the peace.
Critics say Gordon Brown has failed to respond. He has promised a 1.5% increase in real annual defence spending over the next three years. But critics say this is inadequate because of the rising cost of equipment and increasing commitments to big military projects; they add that it emphasises a mismatch between Britain’s military ambitions and its actual defence budget.