Boarding School Allowance under Review
 

The Times Parents in Forces may lose school fees perk

Yet another nail in the forces coffin :mad:

I'd like to see how many people decide to leave should they abolish the allowance and if that money (indirectly) just gets frittered away. :(

What may happen is that BSA will be cut back so that it returns to it's original idea - to provide continuity of education for children who's parents are subject to frequent moves around the county or internationally, and where both parents are required to relocate - not just where the Serviceperson gets a draft/posting order, the partner stays in their current location, and the child is packed off to boarding school. What has happened over the years is that many people have abused the system to put their children into boarding school for the minimum time, then removed them to a local day school at public expense, which was never the intention. In addition, the allowance may be restricted to certain schools (again, the original idea) that are approved by the Forces Education people. The fees would be standardised (rather than ramped up to what the schools know they can get away with claiming), and the potential for fraud would be removed - BSA is one of the highest-grossing areas of fraud in the Forces, ranging from false bills, inflated bills, and in at least one case that I know, collusion and production of a bill for a child for two years after that child had left the school and returned to the public sector!

If people weren't abusing the system, then it would not be an open target for changes and reductions. Look at how many of the people who have their children in BSA-attracting schools have them there purely for the snob-factor of sending their children into private education rather than those who are genuinely away on postings. The RN is specatcularly bad for this, with a sea-going draft attracting the ability to apply for BSA, even though once the 2/3 year sea draft is over, and the wife stays at home, the BSA entitlement is continuing.

I'll freely admit that I'm a product of BSA. My RN-serving father (from 1952 to 1987) got BSA despite the fact that my parents only moved house once (all of two miles) from my birth to well after my sister left school. My father never served outside UK except when at sea.

I was at boarding school 15 miles from home for my last five years at school.

Face it chaps, with the demise of frequent onward moves (and yeah I know someone will reply with a long list of nine month postings) the BSA is somewhat out of date.
It's simply the MOD coming in line with many other employers and offering the bare minimum. Housing will be next, then domestic medical care.

tread carefully
 

As a parent with children in Boarding School I read the attached article and am inevitably concerned about what the future will bring. My story is simple:

- 4 years ago my wife and I finally committed ourselves beyond my 38yr point. I would remain in the RAF as long as the MOD wants and subject to family harmony.

- The next challenge was to satisfy family harmony; we saw 3 options available to us (others may see more or less)

1. Move our family around as I get posted.
2. Settle my family in one location and commute for the remainder of my career.
3. Give my children stability of education whilst the family remain mobile during posting.

Our children were consulted and supported option 3 having already moved school 3 times within 3 years before they were 10. My wife and I did not want to spend potentially the best part of 17+ years seperated during the week or continually move our children from school to school (and during term time due to DHA regulations limiting the right to retain SFA until the end of the school year). We therefore chose option 3 and have not looked back since. The children are going back to school, today for the star of what will be their 5th year in the same school, with the same friends and teachers. My wife, children and I have lived together wherever I have been posted.

Our Armed Forces have been undergoing a steady reconfiguring towards expeditionary operations for several years now. Couple this change with downsizing and an increased committment to deployed operations, every Serviceman or Servicewoman can now expect to be deployed overseas - in the short term this may be in excess of the harmony guidelines. The stability we have experienced over the past 4 years has been a fundamental part of my ability to focus on my career and, on the flip side, what the Service gets out of me.

Over this period I have been posted 4 times and on all occasions a house move was required. If we had chosen option 1 our children would have had a further 4 school moves on top of the 3 they had already experienced.

What would we have done without access to CEA? We wouldn't have chosen option 1 - that I can say for certain. We would have been left with the option of commuting. In the short term we would have coped. However, I can say with some considerable certainty that an additional option would come into consideration - leaving the Service to live with my family.

I am quietly confident that the hierarchy within the Forces understand the fundamental retention factor CEA brings. From my point of view a review would be welcome if the remit was to target the allowance on those who are truly mobile (both within the UK and overseas). I would suggest that to reduce the amount or remove it would impact on the retention of high calibre committed Servicemen/women willing to give their career to the Armed Forces. The MOD will be aware of the impact and accept the consequences.

Q -SuperMOBs/Garrisons will eliminate the need for CEA as families will settle in that area? I believe this is a flawed argument as mobility will be required as careers progress and children reach teh age where educational stability is a strong family requirement. JSF will be based in Lossie, Typhoon in Leuchars and CGY. The ISTAR fleet at WAD and the AT/AAR fleet at BZN. All (bar BZN) are not within commutable distance to MOD. The choice of HWY as the future Centre of gravity for the RAF puts HQ postings outside commuting distance etc etc PJHQ, JFACC, CAOC9, Joint posts in Land, Div HQ, Fleet

I hope this review is undertaken without a preconceived outcome and supports continued family stability for those of us committed to the Services and who want to live with their spouses more than at the weekend.

CEA for those who are truly mobile.
CEA for boarders.

MQ rates are already being revised up in line with civilian rates, as are linvnig-in rates to reflect the investment made under Single Living Accommodation builds. The MOD is essentially a consumer-driven company now, accountable through finance and scrutiny for best-value. We are having to look outside at civilian companies and consider how we can bring ourselves into line with their best practice (which occasionally also comes with the "best price" tag as well). JPA is a step towards blunt-end rationalisation - over time, the blunt end will become more like a civilian support company with outsourced and cheap labour, with the sharp end/teeth being the end which gets the majority of the support and finances.

Many changes are taking place, from Estate Reviews to remuneration packages, all with the view of making the Armed Forces a leaner organisation (ie cheaper). The RN freely admits that it has adopted a "more work, less people" strategy with the TLB merger, and the superfluous manpower is being shaved off - desk officers are expected to do their own admin, for example, which actually makes sense. The only problem will be deciding where the stop the razorblade of cost-saving before it cuts too deep into the essential military muscle.

TR - you are right, in the main, the number of moves people will be subjected to should reduce. If we could look at 5-year tours then with a bit of career management (Did I really write that) most schooling could be sorted without the need to pack the kids off for stability of education. However, there are those trades (mine included) that will always move on every 2-3 years, which is fairly crap for education purposes. There are 3 solutions to that:

1. Move your kids anyway, and hope they can continue with the same subjects at the school they are allowed to go to.
2. Set up a family home somewhere and live away from them so that they have stability. (Would not work for my family...).
3. Send them away to school so they get a fairly decent and continuous education.

With this decision some years away for me yet, when I look at it, I will not do 1 or 2 and if 3 is unaffordable because they take away the help, then I guess I will leave at an option and provide stability that way. I don't think I will be the only one.

I objected to the way the news was spun - as if BSA was a perk exclusive for officer's children- divisive bullsh*t and an attempt to use the 'class war' card to wave through another cut in terms and conditions
Edited for ‘unusual’ spelling – on a tread like this too :O

It is this element which places you firmly in the "exceptional" pot. Look at how many applicants do not move, instead choosing to leave the wife at home (where they generally have an additional career/family links), but retain the Education Allowances. The proposed policy changes will, I suspect, be directed at those who treat Boarding/Day Schools as MOD-funded creches. I know people who send their children to schools which are less than 10 miles from their home address, despite being in the catchment area for top-rated public sector schools. Why should they retain expensive allowances when they have no intention of being mobile? It is these people that are leeching the money away from those who genuinely make best use of it.

As for the super-garrisons....horrible thought. The MOD are looking at LSAP for all (the anticipated rise in amount was knocked back by the Treasury, but expect to see it up for proposal again), which encourages people to get away from military "towns" and into their own accommodation.

Lazy reporting. It's too easy to roll out "Crispin, former officer" to comment. However, it must be said that the majority, historically, of people claiming Educational Allowances were Officers, but this is not necessarily the case now with a much great parity of wages (ie it is more affordable for everyone above a certain pay grade these days).

As for the "middle ranking", this is purely because demographically the "middle ranking" are the ones that are married with children of school age!

The panicking schools are obviously aware of the proposal to restrict the permitted schools to a selected handful, and they can see some very easy money being taken away from them - don't forget that the fees only form about 80% of the overall income - when you start adding extras, uniforms, "compulsory" purchases, etc, then it really can mount up!

Thing is, there are plenty of civvies out there who are willing to do exactly the same thing (just stand on a bridge over the A1/M1/M3/M4 on Friday or Sunday evening around 18:00) and they don't get BSA.
Nail hit squarely on head.

Bit risky with the impending release of JPA to the Dark Blue. Could be tempting to jump from said bridge......

I find myself a bit concerned about the way the figures being reported. The £100.2 Million seems to be the amount allocated, it is about £13000 per child per year, which is, I think, the annual cap. I have 2 children attending a large boarding school in Norfolk and claim a bit less than that for the two of them. Those of you who know the school will be well aware that a lot of the pupils there are under CEA rules.
The posts regarding mobility are of course correct, I am currently in the middle of moving my family home, and what a game that has turned out to be. It should also be borne in mind that as servicemen we tend to go where we are told, outside in the civilian world one tends to be instrumental in making a decision as to where one settles or moves to for a job, and very few people would willingly commute from one of the country to the other. Very few of us could afford to settle in a decent part of the High Wycombe area, fewer still in Whitehall land. Throw in disruption and differences in curriculum for Scotland or Wales and the the desk officer or drafter who needs a post filled now with a high calibre person with your qualifications and tough about the school situation, and it will be the family that suffers.
Equivalence with the civ population is a good aspiration but it is going to be a blooming difficult to achieve until we start to advertise jobs internally.
The CEA has undoubtedly been instrumental in my career choice. I suppose those of you who are aware of fraudulent claims have reported their suspicions up the chain?

Better stop, getting wound up.

Was involved in some of the investigations as a subject matter expert....:suspect:

The trade off is deciding whether to move families to follow us, or to leave them in one location. The RN tends to have a high proportion of private house buyers, the Army tends to keep the families on camp. The trouble with Ed Allowances is that it can be abused by those who don't actually move but take advantage of what could be perceived as a loophole in the rules to establish an entitlement to an allowance that they simply don't need. In one particular case, perfectly legal, the husband and wife live three miles from the boarding school - in which case you have to ask what is the point of having children? I chose family stability above my need to have them move with me every couple of years. As such, my wife has a job, my children have stayed with their friends and attended public sector schools with them. It seems to have worked quite well....considering that in the last 20 years I have had 20 different postings ranging from Plymouth to Scotland!

I think we all accept that in some cases the Ed Allowances are essential to provide educational stability for continuity of education, but scrutiny of the cases should be more stringent. One posting, seven years ago, should not be the basis of a continuing claim!

Worry not folks-the ONLY reason the Armed Forces have retained BSA for this long is because Foreign and Commonwealth personnel get it. The time to worry is when, and if, it is announced that F&C are to lose it and I very much doubt that will ever happen.

I too am also a product of the BSA, and have just finished 7 years of secondary school and further education.

Many of the students who attended the boarding school had parents in the forces, including the Chapmans. The main reason I chose to attend the school was incase my father was posted overseas (well the real reason was the name- HINT- its near Yeovilton [Bruton];) ).

I would be surprised if there are that many people in receipt of BSA/CEA in the RAF who are serving unaccompanied. Everytime I apply I have to certify that I am accompanied at current location (under JPA I have to present myself to the Chief Clerk with proof!). However, I know there are some who get away with it because of the inability of the Service to co-locate them.

I would admit that BSA is a significant factor in my retention. I reckon it's worth about £42K per year to me, but costs me an additional £8-10K as my contribution plus additional costs.

My youngest son is 9 and has so far attended 4 different schools. He will enter his fifth next week, but this time it will be for a full 4 years as he is going to Brandeston Hall in Suffolk. He is looking forward to sharing his classroom with considerably fewer than 40 children (as per his last school!). He may even learn a thing or two.

I accept that in my position I am going to get moved about every 3 years, but one of the reasons I accept this is because of the BSA/CEA. My immediate concern is that the bolleaux that is JPA seems unlikely to pay me on time - I guess I will be begging the Chief Clerk for a cheque this Friday. I hope she's got funds in the bank!

STH

In the RAF there are movers and there are stayers. Aircrew now tend to stay put until their aircraft expires - Canberra - Jaguar - or station closes - Coltishall - Lyneham. The non-engineering support branches move frequently. Admittedly the hyperactivity for the first and second tourist should have no bearing on BSA which should not really kick in until the person is 30 or so.

Some airmen are static for practically their whole careers but like aircrew on type there is still the possibility of a posting. It is that possibility which is the key to the need for continuity of education bit.

How you handle the abuse is the issue. Maybe the number of school age brats should be considered by the poster too. :)

What a lot of claptrap some are posting here. "Demise of frequent moves" - rubbish. The key point is, how do you know on receipt of one posting notice when your next move might be? I may not move for quite a long time, but my poster has not, and will not, issue me a letter stating that I will not be moved until my children have completed their current stage of education; how could he? fortunately, he takes the reasonable view that, so long as I declare myself mobile and available for posting, it is just my good fortune if he happens to have no need to post me (by the way, how do you declare yourself immobile and continue serving - I can't see that working). I do my best to honour the eligibility criteria, and even occupy SFA at my duty station rather than sell my house (200 miles away) and buy in the locaql area. My children have to accept, and do, that if I am posted they will have to return to boarding rather than move with us.

In what way am I being fraudulent?

If there are those who genuinely abuse the system root them out, don't waste your energy slinging mud at those of us who are eligible and want to protect our kids education against the vagaries of Service life!

Regards

Ginseng

Like I said, someone would be along to argue against the obvious.
If you enjoy the "good fortune" of your poster's lack of a need to move you, why shouldn't the Treasury enjoy the resultant lack of a need for your bin lids to be housed and educated away from home?
You say it's nice to have the option even though you might not genuinely need it.
THEY say it's nice (cheap) not to have the option even though you might need it.
It's a perk really, not a right, and like all perks it is going to vanish, sooner or later. I'd lay money on it, cheap housing, free uniforms, home to duty, will all slowly disappear as someone in HM Counting House says with blissful ignorance "Civvies don't get this, why should our services?". Civvy police are buying certain items of their own uniform in some forces now.
Remember the good old days when the wife and kids were cared for by military folk in the on-base med centre?
Delete "Medical care", insert "Education".

Not to worry chaps. The rumour from the Centre is that the Principal Personnel Officers of all 3 Services have just agreed to a freeze on ALL allowances bar LOA ('cos there's lots of Green that receive that) and BSA or CEA or whatever its called this week ('cos lots of VSOs receive that). All other allowances will be frozen at current levels.................






and that includes all specialist pay:ugh: :ugh:

Open the flood gates....

I wonder if that's because JPA is costing much more than expected?

4 school moves before I was 10 years old (none after as YWIW senior left the RAF) - family life was always a priority so we stayed together (I think he wanted the posting allowance!). So I and my sister went to local schools and learnt to fit in, tricky in Morayshire in the 70's as English kids were openly bullied, but not impossible.

My cousins went to Finborough (? SP) boarding school, their father was an NCO - having said that they could have gone to a local school as there were no moves during the school period of their lives - I always thought it was a bit of a cheek, as it reduced the pot of available money for those who did need it. But they seemed to survive on the stability.

In the end, it's a renumeration benefit that was offered and is now being altered / withdrawn. So worthy of discussion, but for my money going to local schools and moving every few years is pretty much what working life is all about. Mrs YWIW went through the US DODS scheme and also moved every two years to no great character flaws (apart from her liking for me) or educational defects.

With regard to the civvie Scuffers, I learned today that they have access to some VERY good mortgage rates (approx 2%) through some Police Federation-type scheme, and also their pay is approaching parity with ours. One of my wife's relatives is a 23-yr old PC on a salary approaching mine as a 30ish Flt Lt.

As he does a very worthwhile job involving machine guns I don't mind that much.

But for all the other fed to$$ers pointing speed cameras at congested A-roads and long, straight B-roads..... why should they get any special privileges?

Talking Radalt
 

"You say it's nice to have the option even though you might not genuinely need it."

Just where did I say that!

State your view by all means, but do not invent "quotes" in an attempt to discredit the opposition. That is the territory of the spin doctor.

You also missed the main point of my last post. It is all very well to look back now and argue that someone who is re-toured in place obviously had no need of support in the first place. When I came here, the move coincided exactly with the time that I had to plan how to give my children stability for the vital 5 years from 11 to 16. Since they are 2 years apart at school, I had to look for the best solution for at least the next 7 years. I had a posting notice (sorry - "assignment") good for 3 years maximum at the time. The state schools here are good (at least some of them), but I had to consider that, if and when I were posted, I would have no guarantee that they would have similar access to a half-decent school at another location. My other options included to serve unaccompanied or commute daily, possibly over unacceptably long distances. That would not do me much good, nor do I believe it does the Service any good in the long term. So I chose the Boarding School route, and, while I remain here, I now claim CEA(Day) partly because it saves the taxpayer money while it remains a practical solution. I also did all I could to limit the cost, for example by chosing a perfectly good, but not excessively expensive, school. Furthemore, I entered my kids for Scholarships at my expense, and which they won by their own efforts and on their own merits, with the side benefit that the fees are reduced and the taxpayer pays less CEA. I think I have been reasonably pro-active and avoided excessive "sponging", so I resent the implication.

The arguments surrounding this issue are much more complex than glib one-liner headlines about "perks". But I wonder how many people with my views will be invited to contribute to the MoDs debate!

Regards

Ginseng

Talking Radalt

Ginseng makes some very good points, are you are talking b***ocks!

Take the example of somebody posted to Lossie, who has kids coming up to 11-13. You have a posting notice for 3 years, but who knows what will happen after then, or where you will be? Do you put your kids into the Scottish state system, studying for Standards/Highers, only to find 3 years later, when they in the middle of important exam years, you have to move them to England, into a totally different system, with GCSEs/A-levels. Do you take the risk that you can be retoured at Lossie/Kinloss, or at least in Scotland. Alternatively do you consider boarding school as an option for continuity for your kids.

If you do elect to put them in boarding school and your next tour is at Kinloss is that your fault? Are you advocating you should then remove them from boarding school, once again disturbing their education, just because you weren't actually moved geographically. Maybe you should just get desk officers to move everyone with kids in boarding school every 3 years, to justify the paying of the allowance!!

You mentioned about having the "good fortune" of not being posted, yet you also still want BSA?:confused:
All I'm asking is why is it so unacceptable for the Treasury to also look at the benefits of this "good fortune" from their point of view?
Maybe they (and I) have got totally the wrong end of the stick, but I can see why the MOD is questioning it. There are MILLIONS of people who now have as turbulent a domestic lifestyle as the military. They all cope, so the question now being asked is why can't we. As I said before, this applies to nearly every aspect of our work. Notice the rail card (once free) is now going up to over a tenner. Defence-funded dentistry is on the decline too. All small losses but they add up to one huge saving and THAT is what HMG want.
I think it sucks too but it's going on everywhere. Sadly, the cheapest and therefore most attractive option in the eyes of our current lords and masters is just you, in post, doing your job. If any outside financial burdens can be done away with or reduced they will be.
So morale will plummet. Yeah, and? That has no short term or easily identifiable financial value, it carries no pound-sign and appears on no spread sheet, so it can be allowed to decline. Cut an allowance though and kerching! You've suddenly saved a very real and visible figure.
"Last year BSA cost the taxpayer £Xmillion, this year, nothing!". It's yet another example of the accountants knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
And it wasn't a glib one liner. The BSA really is a perk at the end of the day, it's the MOD subsidising something to make Service life less disagreeable. The fact that a number of people have become so accustomed to certain allowances as to rely on them (and admit it, that does happen) doesn't help the defence.
OK so there are genuine cases out there, but these are the wheat that need separating from the chaff - that's too difficult and costly to administer so everyone loses out.
This loss of BSA is just MOD coming in line with a great many other employers, or at least trying to.
It falls apart when you look at what we've also been missing out on all these years :uhoh:

At the end of the day, no matter how much posturing and shouting goes on, how many people actually DO vote with their feet? Every year the pay rise/drop comes out, the allowances change, and people say "that's it, I'm going" - but 6 months later they are still there because in reality, you have very little choice but to keep slogging away for the pension at the end of it all. It does people good to let off steam, but at the end of the day, the upper echelons know that only a very small percentage will actually walk - and this is a recognised fact. When Pay2K came in to the RN, and everyone was divided into Upper and Lower Classes, the WO(MAA)s put their notices in. Nice as an expression of dislike for the system, but over the next 6 months, all the notices came out again as they realised that they liked the job, could cope with the money, and they wanted that nice big pension at the end of it.

If you leave know, no matter how much stability you inject into your life, your next employer is not going to cough up to educate your children....

TR, I think the millions having a turbulent life is a bit of an exaggeration, the real point of the CEA is that outside your employer does not move you around the country every three years, often to remote rural locations. Yes some people are fortunate that they are able to put down roots in their locality, but there are plenty who don't. Personally I am grateful for the fact that I have been able to place my children in a stable environment whilst my wife and I have followed the flag. No1 son is due at OASC shortly, I have no doubt that he was able to work very hard at school because it was settled (useful 'cos he wants to be a pilot). Maybe a quick survey on the backgrounds of our senior leadership would reveal, I suspect, that many, if not all did not have their schooling interrupted.

People are getting very emotive over this subject and arguably rightly so, however, lets remember that the existing system allows serving personnel to buy their own home, put this kids into a local boarding school (or vice versa) and then, after one year, bring their kids out and draw CEA (Day) or day school allowance for the remainder of their kids school life. No need to move the kids due to posting (serving partner lives away and probably bean steals to boot) and no need to put kids back into boarding as they will living with the non-serving partner in their privately owned home.

If the review of the boarding school allowance removes this option, then I have no particular problem with the review. What the review mustn't do is remove the allowance altogether otherwise some children’s education will be severely compromised (egg the Scotland to England example given above).

TR, I understand where you are coming from when you talk about turbulence outside of the military, but we must remember that a lot of that is down to personal choice. Yes people are staying in jobs for less time; however, civilians are able to choose when they move and also pick another job within a reasonable commuting distance, thereby managing their children's education that way.

In this current climate of manpower reductions, it probably suits to keep eroding at the 'perks' of the job to see if they can convince a few more people to leave of their own accord without having to make them redundant. I just wonder what they are going to do to maintain the status quo of age and experience once they have achieved their aims...

Also whilst emotive, the numbers involved vs cost are small. Times was quoting there as being abour 6000 personnel claiming BSA at a cost of nearly £100 million pa. Thats a lot of money for roughly 3% of the armed forces.

In ARRSE, I mentioned that perhaps we could/should return to Service Children's Education - ie Service schools (and got annihilated by those who believed that I was trying to support the case to remove BSA/CEA!).

We already have these in certain foreign locations, but with the drive to co-locate and increase manpower in fewer locations in the UK, perhaps it would be more beneficial to fund Service schools. This would prevent the local infrastructure from being over-run with Service children, and would ensure continuity of education - the schools-on-camp could be boarding school based to ensure continuity, and the costs would be more reasonable and kept "in-house". As "faith" schools are being established and supported (or in some cases sponsored by business), why should we not have "service" schools that run on the same basis? We even have serviing personnel who are qualified to teach.....

Obviously too simplistic as a total solution, but possibly a way towards preventing the Treasury from eroding a benefit completely?

Figures for the last few years, climbing steadily. Due to increasing turbulence, poor local school performance, or something else?

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/41116w05.htm

Read the columns carefully in Hansard, the climb is not steady, there is a single and distorting jump at Autumn 2001. Take that out and the variation across the 3 services in less than 1.5%, in fact according to the published figures the Army and RN have slightly fewer claimants at the end of the reporting period.

Reasons? Maybe our expeditionary ethos, it is again easier to reduce disruption to the childrens lives if they are with their friends at school rather thanseeing dad (or mum) disappearing again. Thats what mine have said to me anyway, of course they may just want to get rid of me

Be careful as the formatting of the table is wrong! The figures need to be nudged to the right.....

Total claims rise from 4,511 to 5,239 over the 3 year period, but yes, the Army (2,823 to 2,812) figures decrease by a couple, but the RN (753 to 925) and RAF (935 to 1,502) figures rise. It's still not a huge percentage of the total strength, in which case the Treasury are possibly looking at this as a huge saving that only affects a small amount of people. Of course, the "small amount of people" that the Treasury sees doesn't take into consideration that these people are likely to be teeth-personnel of a certain rank/rate. I assume they believe that it would be worth pissing these people off to save money (anyway, the planned changes and savings are not until 2020, and there will be transitional arrangements in place for those in receipt).

But still another chapter of our T&Cs being consigned to the archives.

We also have to be careful with the stat - BSA is not claimed for the duration of a career - more like a window of 5 years to provide stability at a certain stage of a child's development. Hence while it says 2-3%, that is at any one time; the numbers that claim it (and rely on it) during their careers are significantly higher.

Talkng Radalt
 

What I actually said, if you read back, was that my desk officer considered that it was my good fortune if he had no need to post me. Please stop misquoting me on this forum, or I may have to stop taking you seriously.:rolleyes:

Regards

Ginseng

I gained the impression that there were quite a few middle-ranking officers and SNOs who stayed in past their IP point because their kids were in receipt of BSA. This is a small but significant cadre of all 3 Services and, if the incentive to stay in beyond 22/38 (or whatever it is now) whilst raising a family is removed, then many will walk out.

Someone mentioned a mass PVR on this thread or another. Although the powers-that-be could deal with this under QRs by extending notice periods, the political fall-out could not be contained. If a significant percentage applied to PVR (say above 10%) then this would generate much press coverage and Parliamentary debate - perhaps leading to a vote of confidence in Browne (or whichever other nonentity it is by then).