Whopee! Medals for all!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
If the issue of a LSGC is not backdated due to cost then one can only look at the precedent of the award of the Arctic Medal and GSM for the Canal Zone together with the Bomber Command bar (a travesty). They were campaigned for over 70 years and in conclusion awarded to all ranks.
The surviving members of the Officer Corps, past and present with 15 years service would probably not require an extra "print run" of LSGCs which exceeds the 10 thousand odd Afghan medals awarded. Maybe TTN has a view.
If the issue of a LSGC is not backdated due to cost then one can only look at the precedent of the award of the Arctic Medal and GSM for the Canal Zone together with the Bomber Command bar (a travesty). They were campaigned for over 70 years and in conclusion awarded to all ranks.
The surviving members of the Officer Corps, past and present with 15 years service would probably not require an extra "print run" of LSGCs which exceeds the 10 thousand odd Afghan medals awarded. Maybe TTN has a view.
Ken S
If you consider your first paragraph, there is no point in medals, why would they introduce any? I disagree with your second para because, anyone who does not wish to have their medal can ignore it.
Also, the process of medal qualification has long been officially upheld as a fair process that attempts to reflect merit. Where ommisions or errors in qualification criteria are recognised, ammendments have been made to the criteria. I suggest that the present 2014 in-service onwards cut-off date is a serious error. Any other reason would imply that the long service of officers who left before that date did not deserve the award!
OAP
If you consider your first paragraph, there is no point in medals, why would they introduce any? I disagree with your second para because, anyone who does not wish to have their medal can ignore it.
Also, the process of medal qualification has long been officially upheld as a fair process that attempts to reflect merit. Where ommisions or errors in qualification criteria are recognised, ammendments have been made to the criteria. I suggest that the present 2014 in-service onwards cut-off date is a serious error. Any other reason would imply that the long service of officers who left before that date did not deserve the award!OAP
Those who decry medals seem to be those who miss out on the qualification, but I do understand the sensitivities of the cut-off date. I've worn each and every medal that I have been awarded with pride. The UK is honourably strict with medal criteria so I think that a medal indicating 15 (or more) years' service is a small recognition from the Sovereign that does mean a lot to the individual. As mentioned before, I've accumulated a few Op medals and a foreign one over the last 20-odd years so perhaps it is a bit lost on me, however the opportunities for me to wear medals except at, say, Remembrance Day, are vanishingly few.
This is a very positive move, long overdue and issued with equanimity.
This is a very positive move, long overdue and issued with equanimity.
Whenurhappy
You are spot-on to say "the sensitivities of the cut-off date". Usually, as you will know, medals for Ops also have strict other criteria for qualification but, in this case, the LS medal award hinges purely on the worthy merit of time served. Unfortunately, whatever the intent, the ridiculous imposition of an in the service cut-off date so recent has made the award a laughing-stock.
Ridiculous
OAP
You are spot-on to say "the sensitivities of the cut-off date". Usually, as you will know, medals for Ops also have strict other criteria for qualification but, in this case, the LS medal award hinges purely on the worthy merit of time served. Unfortunately, whatever the intent, the ridiculous imposition of an in the service cut-off date so recent has made the award a laughing-stock.
RidiculousOAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 17th Oct 2016 at 18:04.
The surviving members of the Officer Corps, past and present with 15 years service would probably not require an extra "print run" of LSGCs which exceeds the 10 thousand odd Afghan medals awarded. Maybe TTN has a view.
TTN,
I actually agree with you. After nearly 28 years service I retired completely bare chested. Two wars during my shift - Falklands and GW 1 - and I was a Whitehall warrior for both, so no opportunity to earn bling. I don't care personally, except, as I finally depart the fix, it would be nice to leave my lad with a meaningful memento of my military service, rather than a veteran's badge, which has never come out of it's box! (I have my Dad's gongs, which I value).
I actually agree with you. After nearly 28 years service I retired completely bare chested. Two wars during my shift - Falklands and GW 1 - and I was a Whitehall warrior for both, so no opportunity to earn bling. I don't care personally, except, as I finally depart the fix, it would be nice to leave my lad with a meaningful memento of my military service, rather than a veteran's badge, which has never come out of it's box! (I have my Dad's gongs, which I value).
Personally I think that any surviving officer who meets the length of service criteria should be able to apply no matter how long ago his or her service.
OAP
There are always cut off points for medals, and people will always find a reason to be grumpy about this. The issue is that the MOD is perenially stretched for cash, and the cost of minting and more importantly hiring enough staff to handle the backlog of claims and ascertain eligibility is a not insignificant amount of cash.
If the lack of the medal annoys people that much then buy one privately - no one will stop you. The best way to look at it is some you win, some you loose, but its probably not worth getting too grumpy about. Enjoy the cash saved by not having to get it remounted!
If the lack of the medal annoys people that much then buy one privately - no one will stop you. The best way to look at it is some you win, some you loose, but its probably not worth getting too grumpy about. Enjoy the cash saved by not having to get it remounted!
Aha Jimlad. Great to read your blind support of the status quo, as usual.
If the UKGov/MOD is that strapped for cash, I suggest that they review a damn sight more before curtailing the criteria for awards and medals due to cost! Now, they could review the eligibility for free issue but, to go and define the merit of the award as limited by such a recent in-service date is an administrative contrivance that devalues the award itself to worthlessness and ridicule. Is that the intention of this move?
OAP
If the UKGov/MOD is that strapped for cash, I suggest that they review a damn sight more before curtailing the criteria for awards and medals due to cost! Now, they could review the eligibility for free issue but, to go and define the merit of the award as limited by such a recent in-service date is an administrative contrivance that devalues the award itself to worthlessness and ridicule.
Is that the intention of this move? OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 18th Oct 2016 at 13:19.
I'm not blindly supporting the status quo. I have a good understanding of the enormous pressure Innsworth found itself under with TELIC and HERRICK to ascertain eligibility and process requests- and this for two fairly small operations with good records still in place to process them.
To open the floodgates of every single person who has served 15 years or more and the inevitable legal challenges that will come from Rankers denied the award previously, will place an incredible strain on a very small organisation and cause a huge bottleneck that could last for many many years while this is sorted out.
Its not getting ridicule except from people who seem peeved that they've not gotten it. Everywhere else seems to be a resounding 'meh' at worst, or 'oh thats nice'. Ultimately all medals have a start date criteria, someone will always dip in, and others will not get one - if you want one that badly then buy one, otherwise just accept that on this occasion you've been unlucky and move on - there are more important things in life to worry about.
To open the floodgates of every single person who has served 15 years or more and the inevitable legal challenges that will come from Rankers denied the award previously, will place an incredible strain on a very small organisation and cause a huge bottleneck that could last for many many years while this is sorted out.
Its not getting ridicule except from people who seem peeved that they've not gotten it. Everywhere else seems to be a resounding 'meh' at worst, or 'oh thats nice'. Ultimately all medals have a start date criteria, someone will always dip in, and others will not get one - if you want one that badly then buy one, otherwise just accept that on this occasion you've been unlucky and move on - there are more important things in life to worry about.
Ha! That is just so much sour grapes from you Jimlad. I doubt that you have anything directly to do with this subject but, your views here just regurgitate some of the same weak arguments used to delay other serious medal mistakes, such as the Bomber Command bar, ohh... too expensive...too difficult...it will take far too long, and seem to imply that the award is insignificant!
Well, it cannot be insignificant because The Queen has seen fit to recognise long service with the award. However, I doubt that implications of the cut-off date were made known to her. So, here we are, an important correction of UK military award criteria tuned into a cake and arse party!
OAP
Well, it cannot be insignificant because The Queen has seen fit to recognise long service with the award. However, I doubt that implications of the cut-off date were made known to her. So, here we are, an important correction of UK military award criteria tuned into a cake and arse party!OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 18th Oct 2016 at 14:49.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I'll probably buy a replica one, to pass on to my son. He won't care about the award criteria, I'm sure.
I'll probably buy a replica one, to pass on to my son. He won't care about the award criteria, I'm sure.
Or do we? The official criteria have been laid down to EXCLUDE those who retired before 2014 so, the award is invalid, even if you purchase it.
We have been given the finger by someone!OAP
I understand how there are some very good reasons why opening the doors to prior service would be extremely difficult to do, and that unfortunately whenever you set a date for a medal, some people will miss out. No one is ever completely happy when medal criteria are set, but its important to understand that it is not a conspiracy, or a desire to insult a group of veterans.
The only solution to this is to offer an NDM (which I sense there is zero support for among the military hierachy for many good reasons), which would be awarded on completion of basic training, so that then everyone has one. Otherwise people will constantly argue over the criteria and some will always fall short.
The route to buying one is open to all, and there is nothing to stop you doing that. I do feel that the petty bitterness, and desperate desire to be seen as a victim of exclusion by some here is sad to observe.
The only solution to this is to offer an NDM (which I sense there is zero support for among the military hierachy for many good reasons), which would be awarded on completion of basic training, so that then everyone has one. Otherwise people will constantly argue over the criteria and some will always fall short.
The route to buying one is open to all, and there is nothing to stop you doing that. I do feel that the petty bitterness, and desperate desire to be seen as a victim of exclusion by some here is sad to observe.
On the contrary Jimlad, the pettiness is entirely within the mean spirited effective date criteria of this long service award. You seem unable to grasp the problem, that having finally decided to officially recognise long service in the Officer ranks, the imposition of an absurd "still in service" start date, with virtually no applicability to retired personnel, is a slap in the face for almost all those retired personnel. Few argue with the time served criteria, that is the basis of the long service. But, the effective prohibition of award to all who have retired but would otherwise qualify is mean and devisive. AFAIK, this is the only situation where being retired is effectively a limitation on the qualification for claiming a medal where one meets all other criteria.
I for one find your condescending tone and aloof attitude to this subject as sad to observe.
OAP
I for one find your condescending tone and aloof attitude to this subject as sad to observe.
OAP
I never agreed with or understood why Officers were not eligible for the LS & GC Medal, so am pleased to hear that they now are. After all, 15 years of service is 15 years of service irrespective of rank.
I am not pleased with the fact an arbitrary qualification date of 2014 has been set, and that years of loyalty will continue to go unrewarded for many, including my dear old Dad who gave 37 years of his life to Commissioned service. I would have liked to have seen him awarded the medal and Bar retrospectively. We always seem to do things half-assed.
I am not pleased with the fact an arbitrary qualification date of 2014 has been set, and that years of loyalty will continue to go unrewarded for many, including my dear old Dad who gave 37 years of his life to Commissioned service. I would have liked to have seen him awarded the medal and Bar retrospectively. We always seem to do things half-assed.
Some people see pettiness, I see realism. If we open qualifying up to anyone, we open the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of potential claimants, with an enormous amount of work required to identify their eligibility. We further face prospects of lawsuits from those who feel they are now entitled to one retrospectively, but didnt get one.
To award it retrospectively would be an incredibly difficult thing to do (and thats based on lots of discussions with those who have a very good understanding of what that would have entailed had that been done) and been a nightmare to administer.
Far easier to make it a simple cut off date, with enough notice that those still serving know whether to stay on or not (there was a roughly 18 month notice period I recall), than go down a complex road that would satisfy few, cost an inordinate amount and still lead to OUTRAGE stories in the Daily Mail when the overwhelmed medals office took years to process Uncle Ernies paperwork due to the weight of applications.
To award it retrospectively would be an incredibly difficult thing to do (and thats based on lots of discussions with those who have a very good understanding of what that would have entailed had that been done) and been a nightmare to administer.
Far easier to make it a simple cut off date, with enough notice that those still serving know whether to stay on or not (there was a roughly 18 month notice period I recall), than go down a complex road that would satisfy few, cost an inordinate amount and still lead to OUTRAGE stories in the Daily Mail when the overwhelmed medals office took years to process Uncle Ernies paperwork due to the weight of applications.
Jimlad, you have said your (possibly the party line) piece and are not taking this subject forward.
As this forum is unofficial and, you maintain a private identity (as I do), please stop trying to present the "official view". Thanks
OAP
As this forum is unofficial and, you maintain a private identity (as I do), please stop trying to present the "official view".
ThanksOAP
A good sign that you know an argument is being lost, is when the other side start shouting "SHUT UP I DONT WANT TO HEAR YOU".
OAP - I'm putting my views across, because I think the criteria is fair, the reasons for not backdating eminently sensible, and because I appreciate that its incredibly difficult to do back dated awards without overwhelming the system.
I'm sorry if you want me to stop posting now because my perspective of this doesnt align with your own, but thats the beauty of free speech - there are always two sides to every argument, and I will continue to make my views on this clear.
OAP - I'm putting my views across, because I think the criteria is fair, the reasons for not backdating eminently sensible, and because I appreciate that its incredibly difficult to do back dated awards without overwhelming the system.
I'm sorry if you want me to stop posting now because my perspective of this doesnt align with your own, but thats the beauty of free speech - there are always two sides to every argument, and I will continue to make my views on this clear.