Injured soldiers to be encouraged to leave armed forces
Thread Starter
Injured soldiers to be encouraged to leave armed forces
Are there no depths to which this stinking shower of corrupt incompetents won't stoop to ???? What's the betting that this won't just stop at the lame and lazy malingerers who can't be bothered to pass their fitness tests? They will probably manage to work the system, leaving those that need support most to suffer the consequences.
Thousands of British troops who are injured or medically unfit are to be encouraged to leave the armed forces in an effort to improve efficiency, under plans being drawn up by ministers
The Ministry of Defence is planning to target between 5,000 and 6,000 service personnel who are unable to work but remain on the payroll. An announcement on the scheme is to be made in the autumn.
However, senior military figures are concerned that the proposals are designed to ease out so-called “bed blockers” from the army without adequate compensation.
Ministers have faced repeated criticism over the paucity of treatment and compensation offered to those seriously injured in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Daily Telegraph is campaigning for wounded soldiers to be given a better deal.
New figures released under the Freedom of Information act have disclosed that 2,812 British troops have now being admitted to hospital in Afghanistan. More than 800 troops have been wounded in action, around a third suffering serious injuries.
The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that 14.6 percent of the armed forces – 25,400 of the 174,000 service personnel – are unfit for combat duties. Amid growing pressure on the public finances, insiders have claimed that the growing bill for these people is hindering the recruitment of younger, fitter soldiers.
A senior officer in the department’s personnel department told The Sunday Times: “Up to now it has usually been possible to find odd jobs for these people. Now they are blocking the recruitment of young, fit soldiers and have to be medically discharged because no extra money can be found to pay them.”
Soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when leaving. They can also apply for up to £6,000 to spend on training and rehabilitation.”
Details of what the MoD will offer injured soldiers to leave the armed forces in future are still being worked out but senior military figures are concerned over the new strategy.
Colonel Bob Stewart, chairman of Action for Armed Forces, which represents wounded soldiers after they leave, said: “My concern is that this must be properly funded. I fully endorse this scheme if they really do give proper support for [the] long-term injured when they leave…at the moment it’s abysmal.”
However, the families of injured soldiers said that their sacrifices should be enough to guarantee their future employment in the military. Diane Dernie, the mother of Lance-Bombardier Ben Parkinson who lost his legs and suffered brain damage in a Taliban bomb blast, said: “These men have done enough to guarantee that if they want to stay and see out their career in the army then that should be open to them. These lads go in as very young men, it’s all they want.”
The Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that they did not want to force injured troops from the military but offer them better opportunities elsewhere. Earlier this month, the Royal Marines established a new unit to rehabilitate injured or traumatised soldiers.
A spokeswoman said: “We are committed to working with our personnel to ensure they have a rewarding career; one which is beneficial to them personally and to the Armed Forces as a whole.
“This programme is not about forcing people to leave, it is there to provide the opportunities and support to our personnel so they can enjoy a fulfilling role within the military or beyond, taking into account their medical conditions.”
The Ministry of Defence is planning to target between 5,000 and 6,000 service personnel who are unable to work but remain on the payroll. An announcement on the scheme is to be made in the autumn.
However, senior military figures are concerned that the proposals are designed to ease out so-called “bed blockers” from the army without adequate compensation.
Ministers have faced repeated criticism over the paucity of treatment and compensation offered to those seriously injured in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Daily Telegraph is campaigning for wounded soldiers to be given a better deal.
New figures released under the Freedom of Information act have disclosed that 2,812 British troops have now being admitted to hospital in Afghanistan. More than 800 troops have been wounded in action, around a third suffering serious injuries.
The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that 14.6 percent of the armed forces – 25,400 of the 174,000 service personnel – are unfit for combat duties. Amid growing pressure on the public finances, insiders have claimed that the growing bill for these people is hindering the recruitment of younger, fitter soldiers.
A senior officer in the department’s personnel department told The Sunday Times: “Up to now it has usually been possible to find odd jobs for these people. Now they are blocking the recruitment of young, fit soldiers and have to be medically discharged because no extra money can be found to pay them.”
Soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when leaving. They can also apply for up to £6,000 to spend on training and rehabilitation.”
Details of what the MoD will offer injured soldiers to leave the armed forces in future are still being worked out but senior military figures are concerned over the new strategy.
Colonel Bob Stewart, chairman of Action for Armed Forces, which represents wounded soldiers after they leave, said: “My concern is that this must be properly funded. I fully endorse this scheme if they really do give proper support for [the] long-term injured when they leave…at the moment it’s abysmal.”
However, the families of injured soldiers said that their sacrifices should be enough to guarantee their future employment in the military. Diane Dernie, the mother of Lance-Bombardier Ben Parkinson who lost his legs and suffered brain damage in a Taliban bomb blast, said: “These men have done enough to guarantee that if they want to stay and see out their career in the army then that should be open to them. These lads go in as very young men, it’s all they want.”
The Ministry of Defence insisted yesterday that they did not want to force injured troops from the military but offer them better opportunities elsewhere. Earlier this month, the Royal Marines established a new unit to rehabilitate injured or traumatised soldiers.
A spokeswoman said: “We are committed to working with our personnel to ensure they have a rewarding career; one which is beneficial to them personally and to the Armed Forces as a whole.
“This programme is not about forcing people to leave, it is there to provide the opportunities and support to our personnel so they can enjoy a fulfilling role within the military or beyond, taking into account their medical conditions.”
Registered User **
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: At the gym infront of a mirror
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good, it's the bi-annual fitness test thread. How long will it be before the "in my day brigade" will be on to give their over inflated opionion of the a test that they don't even do noe never did whilst they were in. You know who you are and you are online now, so come on don't be shy speak up and get it out of your system.
Ooh ooh is that a mirror?
Ooh ooh is that a mirror?
Thread Starter
Oh good, it's the bi-annual fitness test thread
It's got nothing to do with the bone idle, lazy and those who haven't seen their feet when standing up for the past 5 years. It's about this Govt trying to change the system to get of those who they see as an expensive inconvenience, having been injured carrying out this Govt's policies.
Once all the platitudes have died down, once the medals have been handed out and the parades have finished, why take the risk of having to be liable and financially responsible for those who have been injured doing your bidding - potentially for many many expensive years to come. No, far better to just give them a quick pay off and have done with them.
Then when we've got rid of them all, we can recruit more prime cannon fodder for our next venture and not have to bother wasting time patching up the last lot of cannon fodder.
And if you can't see that PTI, then I suggest you get back to the Gym and tidy the weights up.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good, it's the bi-annual fitness test thread. How long will it be before the "in my day brigade" will be on to give their over inflated opionion of the a test that they don't even do noe never did whilst they were in. You know who you are and you are online now, so come on don't be shy speak up and get it out of your system.
s37
Registered User **
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: At the gym infront of a mirror
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's got nothing to do with the bone idle, lazy and those who haven't seen their feet when standing up for the past 5 years.
What's the betting that this won't just stop at the lame and lazy malingerers who can't be bothered to pass their fitness tests? They will probably manage to work the system, leaving those that need support most to suffer the consequences.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the PTI understands the difference between medical fitness, and physical fitness. Not to worry.
This might be unpopular, but there is not, not has there ever been, a guarantee to provide employment if someone is injured on Active Service. The military has an obligation to look after the injured though, so I agree with Bob Stewart. If this is funded and suported properly, in principle, its a good idea.
This might be unpopular, but there is not, not has there ever been, a guarantee to provide employment if someone is injured on Active Service. The military has an obligation to look after the injured though, so I agree with Bob Stewart. If this is funded and suported properly, in principle, its a good idea.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It's got nothing to do with the bone idle, lazy and those who haven't seen their feet when standing up for the past 5 years. It's about this Govt trying to change the system to get of those who they see as an expensive inconvenience, having been injured carrying out this Govt's policies.
The article seems to muddle up two issues. Those made unfit through accident or hostile actions and those that are simply unfit. Selectively editing out would leave:
. . . British troops who are . . . medically physically? unfit are to be encouraged to leave the armed forces . . .
. . . to target between 5,000 and 6,000 service personnel who are unable to work but remain on the payroll.
senior military figures . . . ease out so-called “bed blockers” . . . without adequate compensation.
The Ministry of Defence admitted . . . 14.6 percent . . . unfit for combat duties.
“Up to now it has usually been possible to find odd jobs for these people. . . "
Soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when leaving. They can also apply for up to £6,000 to spend on training and rehabilitation.”
. . . to target between 5,000 and 6,000 service personnel who are unable to work but remain on the payroll.
senior military figures . . . ease out so-called “bed blockers” . . . without adequate compensation.
The Ministry of Defence admitted . . . 14.6 percent . . . unfit for combat duties.
“Up to now it has usually been possible to find odd jobs for these people. . . "
Soldiers injured in combat receive compensation and a pension when leaving. They can also apply for up to £6,000 to spend on training and rehabilitation.”
Thread Starter
PN -
I can see exactly what you are suggesting, and I wish I could guarantee that it would only be used as a a measure to weedle out those who repeatedly fail to meet the mark.
However, I just cannot see how this Govt won't turn it into a way of getting rid of what they see as 'expensive emabarassments'. You know full well the way things have gone - it is all about the bottom line. If you can't quantify something or it is perceived to not be value for money, then it has no place in today's Armed Forces. As much as I would like to think otherwise, those who have suffered serious injuries in the line of duty will no doubt be seen as fair game for dismissal under this scheme. Much cheaper to pay them off and get rid of them rather than put the time, effort and money into rehabilitating them. After all, we saw them trying to get payments reduced for injured personnel only the other week.
Prove me wrong, and I'll gladly eat my hat. But you just know that this thought has crossed their minds - it has all the hallmarks of how the Brown administration works.
I can see exactly what you are suggesting, and I wish I could guarantee that it would only be used as a a measure to weedle out those who repeatedly fail to meet the mark.
However, I just cannot see how this Govt won't turn it into a way of getting rid of what they see as 'expensive emabarassments'. You know full well the way things have gone - it is all about the bottom line. If you can't quantify something or it is perceived to not be value for money, then it has no place in today's Armed Forces. As much as I would like to think otherwise, those who have suffered serious injuries in the line of duty will no doubt be seen as fair game for dismissal under this scheme. Much cheaper to pay them off and get rid of them rather than put the time, effort and money into rehabilitating them. After all, we saw them trying to get payments reduced for injured personnel only the other week.
Prove me wrong, and I'll gladly eat my hat. But you just know that this thought has crossed their minds - it has all the hallmarks of how the Brown administration works.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett,
My reading of it is that rehab will get done, and this is the point made by Stewart.. ie; it has to be done properly. I don't think it'll be seen as an excuse to get rid of people whilst they are still in recovery. I certainly hope to god it won't.
My reading of it is that rehab will get done, and this is the point made by Stewart.. ie; it has to be done properly. I don't think it'll be seen as an excuse to get rid of people whilst they are still in recovery. I certainly hope to god it won't.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Melchett, I quite agree. What I was really suggesting was the article was an example of muddled reportage (again).
Now there used to be a time, when we had hospitals, rehab centres, minor conflicts, and a relatively few injured servicemen, that we would strive to get them as fit as possible with discharge only when it was inevitable.
One reason was economic. It was more efficient to get injured aircrew back into productive service, albeit with false limbs and glass eyes, than discharged and paying them buckets of compensation (well small buckets anyway).
Now, with many much more serious injuries and a lower productive service value there are probably insufficient billets in a vastly reduced service to absorb them, it would seem that someone sees it as more efficient to discharge them.
Now there used to be a time, when we had hospitals, rehab centres, minor conflicts, and a relatively few injured servicemen, that we would strive to get them as fit as possible with discharge only when it was inevitable.
One reason was economic. It was more efficient to get injured aircrew back into productive service, albeit with false limbs and glass eyes, than discharged and paying them buckets of compensation (well small buckets anyway).
Now, with many much more serious injuries and a lower productive service value there are probably insufficient billets in a vastly reduced service to absorb them, it would seem that someone sees it as more efficient to discharge them.
By way of contrast, the RM recently announced the formation of a unit for those wounded and injured who can still make a contribution and wish to continue to serve. That is the way to look after your men.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point do you stop continuing to employ those unable to deploy? Where is your break point? It is morally good to continue to employ those injured and unable to return to full fitness, but that depletes the %-age who are fit and deployable. When do you accept we can't keep everyone in uniform - when the only ones fit enough are on a perma-det?
We need the next level for the injured - keeping them in the Armed Forces isn't an option - the premise of cuts has been 'if you wear a uniform, you are deployable' and a 2 tier military isn't realistic. We need to do our very best for our injured, but the current option isn't sustainable.
We need the next level for the injured - keeping them in the Armed Forces isn't an option - the premise of cuts has been 'if you wear a uniform, you are deployable' and a 2 tier military isn't realistic. We need to do our very best for our injured, but the current option isn't sustainable.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If they are discharged then there should be no quibbling over compensation.
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peeteeeye, you've found another, but in my day we did not need fitnest tests, NO MACDONALDS, I my self played Rugby, Dived, Freefall, and in a mountain rescue team, not many fat B'Strads then.
As for the thread, Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?
Peeteeeye I still only weigh 72Kg
As for the thread, Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?
Peeteeeye I still only weigh 72Kg
My son, a REME corporal, tore his crucial tendon on an NCO course some nine years ago.
Since then he has been the victim of truly dreadful medical care, including a botched op which only partially repaired the problem. Finally this year he had a proper full knee repair operation - the civilian surgeon was appalled at the state of his knee and that it had been left so long before being treated properly.
In the interim, army Pee Tee Eyes have been riding him, telling him to get some PE in, running etc, all stuff calculated to totally bugger up an already damaged knee. It is now highly unlikely he will ever recover full use of his knee. Needless to say he has been bypassed for promotion because of his medical unfitness. He also has a general impression that his superiors assume he has been malingering - no doubt the Pee Tee Eyes all think that.
Result - a hard working, resourceful and loyal NCO has become disillusioned with the army and is now just hoping he can survive the last 3 years till his pension. What a waste of manpower.
Since then he has been the victim of truly dreadful medical care, including a botched op which only partially repaired the problem. Finally this year he had a proper full knee repair operation - the civilian surgeon was appalled at the state of his knee and that it had been left so long before being treated properly.
In the interim, army Pee Tee Eyes have been riding him, telling him to get some PE in, running etc, all stuff calculated to totally bugger up an already damaged knee. It is now highly unlikely he will ever recover full use of his knee. Needless to say he has been bypassed for promotion because of his medical unfitness. He also has a general impression that his superiors assume he has been malingering - no doubt the Pee Tee Eyes all think that.
Result - a hard working, resourceful and loyal NCO has become disillusioned with the army and is now just hoping he can survive the last 3 years till his pension. What a waste of manpower.