My boss tore a tendon when walking the dog, (one way of keeping fit), and had had a botched operation as well. It was as if his leg was reset at an angle. Eventually he had a number of operations but none actually sorted out his leg.

Medical service care use dto be a gold standard but that was being sold off even before the mid-Lothian MP got his fingers on it.

Harsh as it may seem, the Forces can't retain every one who has been injured or physically or mentally unfit. Whereas a small number can be retained and employed in sedentary positions because of skills and knowledge, retaining 5000+ non-deployable, predominantly young men in the Army, does no one any good. I'm travelling on the train with a team of professional Rugby League players and I put it to one of them - imagine if you lost a leg, say, would you be happy just to stay in the stands or soem job in the club rooms? No was the considered answer. Mrs WP also works for a national disability charity and shares similar views.

With the equivalent of an enhanced BG manpower non-effective, time to let people go with the correct support and assistance, and where appropriate, compensation. The scheme is under review - again, yet those who complain about it conveniently forget the annual inflation adjustment living payments, which over the course of the penison will typically equal - if not a lot more - the lump sum. Public support and good will is as high as during the Falklands War and local authorities and the NHS are better directed at assisting injured service personnel (see the latest update of the Service Personnel Command Paper). If you or so one you know is not getting the support that they deserve, kick up a fuss.

And whilst we are at it, I fully support discharging lard-arses that consistently fail the fitness test. Not only do we all need to be fit to fight, what about personal pride and self esteem?

With respect (in both senses of the word) to those injured on active service, would not a solution to this be to militarize some of the civil service posts in places such as Main Building and DE&S, and apply an abated X Factor to recognise the fact that these personnel are no longer deployable?

On the subject of the long term fat, and unfit, who make no effort to meet the standards, I feel the introduction of a rehabilitation facility at MPA may concentrate their minds somewhat.

8-15, I would have jumped at the chance of an extended stay at MPA for rehab, all I would need would be an extra thick wetsuit and a mine detector for the beach. One stuffed spine, two operations with no success and rehab for the rest of my life does not equate the war pension. TBH I would have rather had better care when injured and I would have stayed in. Ho Hum.

I agree lard arses should go - but fitness needs to be a bit more tailored to the person. I am now two stone heavier than when I was in, but today just cracked a 2K swim for the first time and felt damn good doing it, never felt that good when I was in and classed as fit either.

Fitness, both medically and physically needs to be addressed and like other posters have said there must be plenty of jobs at main building that could be done by an injured serviceman. Lets face it the jobs cant be that hard - civ serpents do it.

After finishing my reserve this year I still miss the life but I would be a liability as a drug addled feeb so I'm glad I left.

Oh, and a message to all the gym queens and suchlike, skinny runners ain't the be all and end all of it. just because a bloke is carrying a few pounds don't write him off. Did you see warship last week where the royal was struggling to pick up that body dead weight?

Gotta go, it's time for drugs!
CS

Will failure of the fitness test allow me to get out quicker then the impending PVR?

Sounds very interesting to me. It would have to be a bit like voluntary redundancy, in which case the terms are quite generous compared to civvy street.

L J R, I think we can assume quite rightly that they would keep you in until they could discharge you for being unfit :}

Quite correct. Bush fit is not the same as gym fit.

Injured soldiers to be encouraged to leave armed forces
 

This seems a very reasonable policy to me.

The injured are not being obliged to leave the armed forces - they are being encouraged to do so. In other words, they are being provided with rehabilitation, retraining and resettlement assistance so that moving on becomes a more attractive proposition than staying.

For those who still want to stay on, they can do so if their injuries are such that they are still capable of fulfilling other roles in the military.

I think it ironic that, given some of the outrage expressed on this thread, that there is a concurrent thread here where contributors are moaning that a 100k bonus is not enough incentive to make them stay on as aircrew, and how they can't wait until they can get into the airlines and earn more, even though HMG has invested several million pounds in their training already.

If this optimistic assumption is correct then it is indeed attractive.

We know however that there are other ways of encouragement too. The alternative in-service conditions may be made unattractive either in the job offer or the location.

"there must be plenty of jobs at main building that could be done by an injured serviceman. Lets face it the jobs cant be that hard - civ serpents do it."

THAT would be the better solution. Remilitarize the posts lost in the 1990's.

Moving injured personnel into civil service-type jobs sounds attractive, but unless these personnel become FTRS types, they are still occupying manpower/uniformed slots. Moreover, many will not necessarily be suited to sedentary jobs - skill sets, education and motivation are but some of the issues. The additional cost of supporting individual needs will continue to rest specifically on the MOD, rather than being carried by Government institutions (DWP, NHS etc) as a whole.

Furthermore, paid employment will jepordise payment of benefits (that's one reason why disability allowance is a disincentive to return to work) and the Treasury would question they payment of compensation of personnel who continue to remain in the Services. I agree that we need to do what we can to assist and support injured service personnel, but it is a burden that should be shared across the Nation and not just within this Department.