Resettlement in Bournemouth?
 

Think Again...!!!!
Veteran in Bournemouth homeless as he is 'not a drunk or drug addict' | Daily Mail Online

Er, he's been out for 14 years!

Why on earth should he be a priority?

...because in some places a military veteran is respected for what he gave to his country, and looked after.

My father retired as a WO1 in the Infantry.He then worked his nuts off until age 55 when his pension kicked in and retired to Northern Cyprus along with his BEM. Happy to enjoy the sun and live a modest lifestyle. All good, until health issues depleted his savings and he had to return to UK having sold his little apartment at a loss. He is still very proud of the fact he has never claimed a penny from HMG, he even returned his cold weather payments. Now he is getting medical treatment here but sleeps on a futon in a family members home. Told he was low priority and is looking at a 3 year wait.

So much for the military covenant I suspect. Like all things generated by the current buffoon occupying No10, it's easy to "bloviate" an idea, appearing to give a commitment, whilst knowing that in reality it means nothing. We can only hope that our veterans (of which I'm one) use their nous, and common sense to take the best they can from an ungrateful government that seems more migrant centric than caring for those who have given service to the nation. Who in the public sector has awarded themselves a 10% pay rise, whilst announcing a further five year freeze on public service salaries, if we re elect them ? I don't want any sort of priority over my fellow countrymen, I want the equality that I gave the best 30 years of my life to preserve. Sorry lads, rant over. Best to those you know in need, some sad stories here, perhaps our military covenant amounts to helping ourselves these days.

Smudge

ooooooooh...........that is a little harsh!

smujsmith,

While I have an equally low opinion of politicians, and have no wish to defend them, in the interests of accuracy and fairness I think I should point out that the MPs did not "award themselves a 10% pay rise". They don't control their own pay any more. The increase in pay was the decision of their independent standards body, IPSA, formed in the wake of the expenses scandal:

IPSA Home Page

Indeed MPs of all parties talked about fighting the pay rise, not taking the money, giving it to charity, etc. They were falling over themselves to be seen to be doing the right thing, knowing that a pay rise for them at a time of wage restraint for the public sector was politically embarrassing and morally indefensible.

Anyway, back to the main subject of the thread.

no excuses.........unforgiveable.......just plain unforgiveable! Funny how they were awarded a huge (30% if I remember rightly) pay rise by an independent pay review body approx. 13 or 14 years ago......they cheerfully accepted that, siting that it was justified on the grounds that it had been awarded by said independent pay review body. When my branch of the emergency services used the same body, who also recommended a 30% pay rise for us, (hey, what could possibly go wrong?), we were told their recommendation didn't count for us! Before anyone kicks off, I'm not making a point about pay rises.........my point is that this government, and indeed the d*ckheads that sit opposite them, have a disgraceful attitude to our armed forces. They create chaos, and then expect the cream of Britain's youth to sort it out! I'm embarrassed for them as a proffession!! apologies for the thread drift.......and indeed the rant.:ugh:

and no, I'm not an anarchist or bleeding heart liberal.........I'm a patriot....and that's why I care!

Smuj, you can blame No 10 but not just the present incumbent. They are all almost the same. Only Maggie promised restoration of military pay and then delivered it.

Other than that, Tories cut harder than Labour, but both cut.

Once again, in an attempt to insert some facts into an emotive discussion, if we take these figures as correct (yes, I know its wiki, but I doubt this page has been subverted by someone):

Salaries of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear that MPs did indeed get a 26% pay rise,as stated by mopardave, albeit in 1996. However, between 2006 (before the recession started) and 2014, a period of 8 years, their salary went up by 12%, an average of around 1.5% a year.

MPs Salary
 

FWIW I believe MPs should get a decent salary. £67060 is actually not great when you consider their weight of responsibility. I believe they should get more.

However, before I get completely flamed please hear me out. I think they should get paid more but that needs to be it. No sitting on the Board of Directors for God knows how many companies. No 'consultancy fees'. No other cr@p.

I realise these top up payments come from private companies not the public purse but if we pay them properly they may actually devote more time to doing what they're paid to.

I seem to recall that whilst William Hague was the Foreign Secretary he sat on the Boards of 6 or 7 companies. I would guess that his primary job kept him busy enough that he couldn't devote too much time to these other jobs. So what I'm wondering is why on earth would these companies pay a high profile politician to sit on their board when he rarely if ever showed up? :suspect: (can you sense the sarcasm?!).

The question of the 'independent' pay review body sets off the alarms on my personal BS sensor though. The AFPRB is supposedly just as independent but got clear direction. Independent my @rse.

Anyway back to the thread. It's not his veteran status that should bump him up the list in my opinion. It's the fact that he's paid tax for several years and made a positive contribution to society. I'd love it if his previous service could help him but I'm a realist and don't really believe the covenant will ever actually be acted upon in any meaningful sense, even if it really should be.

BV:hmm:

In this area priority housing goes to immigrants and 'victims of marital abuse', some of the latter being from many miles away. Their children also get automatic places in their nearest school thereby denying them to long-time residents who then have to have a trek to another further away. As the housing allocated is all in the same area one school gets all the 'incomers'.

Quite right Biggus.........I'll give you that. But let's not forget, they do very well out of their allowances and expenses......not to mention directorships/consultation fees......sometimes involving conflicts of interest. They didn't even have to provide receipts in some cases, for heavens sake! And yes BV, they should have a good wage........but dear god.......some of them are a disgrace, and certainly do not set much of an example to the rest of us, especially under present circumstances. And don't get me started on some of the peers........fiddle your expenses.......serve a prison sentence and then take your seat in the house of lords.....I'd get sacked for the slightest financial transgression as I'm sure you would be too. Sorry gents........our political system and many of its "beneficiaries" are nothing to be proud of.........unlike the young men and women who put their lives on the line!

Iain Duncan Smith is the biggest benefit scrounger in the country, scum the lot of them.

http://youtu.be/97gNKutA2Nw

I'm not sure that this is altogether correct, Bob Viking. Here's the entry from the Register of members' Interests (June 2014)
HAGUE, Rt Hon William (Richmond (Yorks)
So completely untrue, and mendaciously so, too. He has been an excellent Secretary of State and many (if not most) within the FCO were very sad to see him go.

But back to the OP: What on Earth has the government or the Local Authority done to cause this chap to be homeless. How can this be 'the Gumints problem?'
Assistance in transition? Yes.
Priority for Service related injuries and conditions? Yes.
Housing Assistance on leaving the Services (because of LA registration issues)? Yes
Assistance in registering children with LEAs and for SEN? Yes (we experienced this problem returning from overseas last year).
Assistance in providing housing for ex SP, some 10 years after they leave the Services, and have no health/mental health problems related to that Service? Not sure....

Edited to add:
If the company he works for went into liquidation he would be entitled to a redundancy payment from the government of about £6000 for 14 years service.... Plus being able to claim housing benefit he has no excuse to be homeless.... Besides he's had 14 years to put his name on the council housing list, so why should they rush to help him now?

And then there's these comments from the local Council:
In other words, not a story.

Resettlement in Bournemouth?
 

WUH.

I apologise for tarnishing the good name of a man you clearly have a great deal of fondness for. I will concede that I have not carried out quite the level of research that you have.

I may well be wrong about Mr Hague but I stand by my argument. Politicians should have just one job and I'd rather we paid them properly so they could concentrate on it.

There's a lot else I would change about their remuneration package but let's not go there.

BV

WUH

I'm afraid you've been a bit 'economical with the actualité' and BV is right.

The register of members' interests only lists payments and interests relating to the session of parliament in which they were issued. You picked 2014, long after William Hague left the public eye.

If you head back to 2002 when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs you will find:

Source: House of Commons - Register of Members' Interests

Adding up the median values, Mr Hague pocketed an additional £171,500 that year.

[quoteIain Duncan Smith is the biggest benefit scrounger in the country, scum the lot of them.][/quote]

wow.......I watched that PP. After years of zero or 1% pay rises, I'm in no mood to be lectured too, or be told we're all in it together, by politicians of any colour........they're a bloody disgrace as a profession.:ugh:

Mopar Dave,

Hope you're well.

Everyone reckons that the MP pay increase last year was quite reasonable under the circumstances - yes, it was a big one but it was stil only supposed to reflect their middle/senior management responsibilities. But in reality, the buggers gave themselves a HUGE pay increase, indirectly, when IPSA awarded them a pension fund injection of (it claimed) £10m. IPSA focused on the estimates of the cost of the pension to us all but no one bothered to look at it from the perspective of its value to the MP. We'll never get the deficit down (the Autumn Statement waffle shows us that) or get the public sector pay review right, when, quite clearly, MP remain as out of touch (at best) as ever.

Some Sqn Ldrs/Wing Commanders get pinged by breaching the annual pension allowance when they get promoted. Apart from that, no one can contribute more than £40,000 per annum into their pension. Our illustrious legislators got around that by slight of hand. They only contribute (ostensibly) about £9000 per annum, or 13%. But.. the Exchequer contributes another 29% or so - staggeringly generous, it represents a huge benefit, but to keep the rabble quiet, IPSA's view is that it costs the taxpayer 'just' £14,000 a year. After the pay rise an MP with 15 years of service will get an extra £2,850 a year in retirement. Across 600 MPs life spans this works out at about £60m, not £10m.

It's all about perspective and leverage. Talking of which, this from last week might be of interest to you and your colleagues.. paras 13-17 refer. Reading between the lines, I wonder if the real horse trading, negotiation and/or capitulation about the fire fighters pension dispute has started. In light of massive cost cutting that became clear on Wednesday, this might be priceless for you (all). It seems that the actuarial starting point for the fire fighters pension fund has been revised (downwards) to the tune of 5% over 10-15 years because of a (gosh!) last minute discovery of type of dog up. This will give the employer lots more room to absorb costs itself rather than pass on increased contributions when the pension scheme cost cap is breached and contributions need to be changed. In other words, I wonder if the hand of Sir Humphrey can be detected in this..

I used to help out in a homeless shelter in Peterborough - not often, just a couple of days a week. Out of every 30/40 'guests', 15 or 20 would be ex forces, and many ex RAF (possibly because of the concentration of RAF camps in the region). The council gave preferential treatment at the time to immigrants and women. I make no comment on that other than to reflect the official policy in the city. The most tragic case I remember was that of a former CT/FS in his late 40s who went from retiring on a good salary and to a good pension to losing his wife to divorce, his kids to a manipulative former wife, his home to a sleazy and uncaring financial services sector and his pension to a greasy solicitor. He lived under a plastic sheet opposite the multiplex cinema.

He had no fight left in him, I often wonder what happened to him. He had no sense of entitlement, he simply had no concept of the notion that he could raise his hand and reasonably be able to expect help. It wasn't pride that kept him from doing so, he simply wasn't wired to doing it. A mate e-mailed me a FoI request done after last month's widows pension announcement. The savings by not making it retrospective is relatively, a pittance. Certainly a hell of a lot less than the £15m the g'ment is currently crowing about by wishing to save on cutting immigrants rights to benefits. The Covenant isn't worth much, just a bauble to put on a political xmas tree.