Shameful betrayal of UK's soldiers

[Banquo's Ghost]

The US may have come in for some flak recently about the medical facilities her soldiers endure, but as ever, Mr Blair has to take things that little bit further (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2347521.ece).

The biggest issue here is that military hospitals are now almost all closed, so soldiers have to be treated among the general public. One minute bits of you are being spread over the Iraqi landscape and the next you're in a ward with people whose major concern is missing Eastenders that evening.

:furious2:

It's repulsive and shameful. I'm spitting with anger, so it's best I leave further commentary alone and post the link.

Blair is called to account over abandoned troops

By Terri Judd, Sophie Goodchild and Andrew Johnson
Published: 11 March 2007

British soldiers returning from war are suffering unprecedented levels of mental health problems amid claims that the long-standing "military covenant" guaranteeing them proper care is in tatters.

More than 21,000 full-time servicemen and women who have served in Iraq, as well as army reservists, have developed anxiety and depression, an Independent on Sunday investigation can reveal today.

Official figures suggest two dozen military personnel have killed themselves since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 a figure which includes 17 confirmed suicides and six where inquests are pending. Combat Stress, the charity for war veterans suffering from mental problems, has warned that it is seeing an annual rise of 26 per cent in its caseload; more than 1,000 former soldiers are homeless.

The figures prompted military experts, politicians and mental health charities to claim that Tony Blair is in breach of his duty of care for those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians, leading figures in the arts and entertainment, and relatives of dead soldiers have put their names to a letter published in today's Independent on Sunday. Signatories include the playwright Harold Pinter, campaigner Bianca Jagger, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, and MPs Peter Kilfoyle and Ben Wallace.

Their letter calls on the Prime Minister to give the young men and women who risk their lives for this country the just and fair treatment that they deserve. Readers are also invited to sign the letter, which will be handed to Mr Blair on 20 March, the fourth anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

"Servicemen and women are receiving insufficient treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder," it says. "Many are desperately ill, out of work, homeless and even suicidal. We believe that the military covenant is broken, and that you have neglected the young men and women who carry out your orders."

Senior military figures weighed in last night, accusing the Government of breaching the military covenant, which states that in return for fighting wars on behalf of the nation, the Government must provide all care necessary.

The extent of the hidden costs of war is exposed in the same week that five British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the highest toll since 2003; 6,600 British troops have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 600 flown back to Britain for treatment. But Combat Stress and the British Legion say even these figures grossly underestimate the scale of psychological injuries among troops.They accuse the Ministry of Defence of abandoning vulnerable soldiers, some of whom experience crippling nightmares and flashbacks, by closing dedicated military hospitals and putting troops in civilian wards.

Air Marshal Sir John Walker said he believed the military covenant is at " breaking point". The former head of Defence Intelligence said: "Has the covenant been broken? Well, in my opinion it has certainly been stretched to breaking point. I am afraid sending our forces into an illegal war is a severe breach of trust."

At the end of the month, Britain will become the only country in Europe without a dedicated military hospital when it closes Haslar Hospital at Gosport, Hampshire. Troops will be treated at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.

But letters published this weekend in The Observer reveal that soldiers are receiving inadequate treatment. In one case, Jamie Cooper, the youngest British soldier wounded in Iraq, spent a night lying in his own faeces after staff allegedly allowed his colostomy bag to overflow. Other servicemen complain of being left without pain relief and of unbearable noise on the ward. The revelations follow the recent scandal over conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, which has prompted a review by President George Bush.

Many battle-scarred troops also face waiting up to 18 months for treatment on the NHS.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are united in their condemnation of the Government's failure to give traumatised troops the care they deserve. Dr Liam Fox, the Tory Defence spokesman, said there was no doubt that the military covenant had been broken. "British forces are severely overstretched."

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former First Sea Lord and the last head of the Royal Navy, said extra support is needed if Britain is to carry on with the same levels of troop deployment.

Roger Bacon, the father of Major Matthew Bacon, who died in a roadside bomb attack, said that Tony Blair had got Britain into an "appalling mess" .

An MoD spokesman said that the defence budget had increased and that junior soldiers had received a substantial pay rise.

Royal Marines do not suffer from PTSD (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2347537.ece)

At the bottom of the last link is an open letter to the Prime Minister. If you feel strongly about this issue, I urge you to send your support to the address noted. :bow:

[Scurvy]

At the bottom of the last link is an open letter to the Prime Minister. If you feel strongly about this issue, I urge you to send your support to the address noted. :bow:

If everything the article says is true, then it is terrible,

--> I have a problem with letters (and petitions) though, it is very unlikely Blair would ever pay attention to a letter telling him he's doing something wrong..

[Banquo's Ghost]

If everything the article says is true, then it is terrible,

--> I have a problem with letters (and petitions) though, it is very unlikely Blair would ever pay attention to a letter telling him he's doing something wrong..

Fair enough, but if we just sit back and do nothing, nothing will ever get done. Sometimes one has to try.

[Ronin]

Fair enough, but if we just sit back and do nothing, nothing will ever get done. Sometimes one has to try.

you don´t do nothing....in the next elections you kicks his ass out of office....letter´s and petitions don´t change squat....votes do....well...unless you are in Florida :book:

[Banquo's Ghost]

you don´t do nothing....in the next elections you kicks his ass out of office....letter´s and petitions don´t change squat....votes do....well...unless you are in Florida :book:

As a long time member of Amnesty International, I have to disagree. For single issues, letters, petitions and demonstrations have some good effect, even against tyrants.

When it comes to elections, most people won't vote to treat soldiers better, but for whatever party promises them a fatter wallet. Being a political activist is not just waiting for the next election.

But I do understand the feelings of disenchantment. :bow:

[Quid]

This disgusts me and I am not even British. You lot really have to do something about this.

It is appalling for a government to ask for the life of young soldiers and then give nothing in return. That a country such as Great Britain with a huge history of the armed forces (look at all the fancy names for the regiments - I love this) can just stand there and take all the rubbish that is coming from the plonkers that lead the country is beyond me. It really is.

Living in a direct democracy, changes may take longer but they can be achieved with relative ease. EU - no thanks...

Quid

[InsaneApache]

Wasn't it ever thus. Remember the gripe I posted about what the government did to my grandad ? And he fought in two world wars. :shame:

In the early 19th centuary the UK parliament passed the vagrancy laws aimed at veterens of the Napoleonic Wars.

The services have always been treated disgracefully by politicians of all hues, except in wartime, when they needed these guys to pull the politicians nuts out of the fire.

Still, what do people expect from the sociapath who currently leads the government?

I wonder if Tonys lad being in the services would change anything? Most probably, his mum would wring Tonys neck if he shat on his son as much as he has shat on others sons.

:no:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IA is correct up to a point, the army has always been reviled, but then in the past it was composed of criminals, rapists, murderers and the other scum of the Earth.

As to this in particular, all I can say is that I had planned to join the army as a matter of course after doing my MA. Now I have to seriously consider if the risk to life and limb is worth it when I'll be dropped as soon as I get home.

Blair wants to know why recruitment is falling? Well it's because servicemen aren't looked after.

[Pannonian]

British governments have always treated soldiers as subjects or citizens, who aren't any different from anyone else in this country except they absorb an inordinate amount of attention from the state. This has changed in recent times because the army has been idealised as never before, and the soldiers, thanks to rising standards of education, are actually living up to those ideals. But don't expect the fundamental approach to change for the better - the British mindset doesn't allow it.

The Labour government is actually taking very good care of the soldiers, whether they're in the field, or back home. However, its idea of very good care doesn't fit the army's idea of very good care. Labour sees soldiers as civil servants, and the army as another branch of the civil service that needs both funds and regulation. So don't accuse this government of betraying the soldiers, but accuse them of being clueless.

[ShadeHonestus]

Labour sees soldiers as civil servants, and the army as another branch of the civil service that needs both funds and regulation. So don't accuse this government of betraying the soldiers, but accuse them of being clueless.

I remember the subject coming up when we trained with some British Royal Marines, but can't for the life of me remember. How much is the enlisted man payed over there? Is it in line with other civil servants?

When I was in the USMC, an E-3 was paid about $1,200US a month. Out of which we had to pay for our uniforms most of our non-firearm equipment, all personal items, and in too many cases, our food on top of that we were of course taxed. The only thing provided was a 12 x 12 room that slept 4 and medical attention which varied with the current base.

[Bijo]

All they gotta do is make sure their military gets proper treatment. Is that so much to ask or to think of? Damn England, damn Blair. Damn him to the fires of Hell. Damn them all those responsible for this.

[Scurvy]

All they gotta do is make sure their military gets proper treatment. Is that so much to ask or to think of? Damn England, damn Blair. Damn him to the fires of Hell. Damn them all those responsible for this.

What has England got to do with it?



The Labour government is actually taking very good care of the soldiers, whether they're in the field, or back home. However, its idea of very good care doesn't fit the army's idea of very good care. Labour sees soldiers as civil servants, and the army as another branch of the civil service that needs both funds and regulation. So don't accuse this government of betraying the soldiers, but accuse them of being clueless.

Interesting, is the army given funds to pay for itslef, or do the government regulate the army (ie. would the army have to pay for its own milirtary hospitals when given the funding)



the army has always been reviled, but then in the past it was composed of criminals, rapists, murderers and the other scum of the Earth.


This explains a lot of the British mindset towards the army, but i think it changed with the World Wars...

:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This explains a lot of the British mindset towards the army, but i think it changed with the World Wars...

:2thumbsup:

Well yes, it has changed but only in the minds of the public, not institutionally. we have a long tradition of abandoning our warriors once they are of no use to us. After fighting the Armarda the British seamen were kept on the their ships in the hope that they would all die in the wretched conditions and thus not have to be paid, despite the best efforts of Drake and Raleigh.

To give you an idea of the funds shortage the head of the Admiralty has gone of record saying he would be happy with "Two carriers and an extra billion a year."

[doc_bean]

All they gotta do is make sure their military gets proper treatment. Is that so much to ask or to think of? Damn England, damn Blair. Damn him to the fires of Hell. Damn them all those responsible for this.

It's not like the rest of the western world is doing much better, the military is often seen as more trouble then it's world in the new united Europe.

[Vidar]

I've just sent my details to the Independant's open letter to Tony blair. I have for a while now been more than angry, more than disgusted at the the actions of MP's, MSP's and all the rest of the profiteering Scum that seem to be able to Manipulate and Abuse the privileged positions they find themselves in. Although I have signed up to have my name added to the open letter I still wonder what difference it will make, at the end of the day, Tony Blair and all the others who have had a hand in this bloody mess, can just walk away, they wont suffer in any way, there seems to be no legal retribution that can be handed out for such an almighty betrayal. When I read about soldiers dying for want of equipment or Care when they return home it makes my blood boil, There seems to always be enough money to fund the pomp of westminster,the changing of the guard or MP's Expenses. I could rant for ever, but I have no Answers, just Anger :wall:

[Fisherking]

The troops of any nation are at the mercy of its politicians. They fallow orders and don't decide where, when or how they are deployed.

What ever anyone thinks of the troubles they are involved in, they should not be made to bear the brunt of the criticism or to suffer deprivation of any sort.

Not treating their health issues I would deem as criminal and all hell should break loose.

[Papewaio]

Air Marshal Sir John Walker said he believed the military covenant is at " breaking point". The former head of Defence Intelligence said: "Has the covenant been broken? Well, in my opinion it has certainly been stretched to breaking point. I am afraid sending our forces into an illegal war is a severe breach of trust."

Is he still in the military?

It is a modern world with modern sensibilities, that is if you kick a ball around the field and have the mind of a small rodent you will have the Queen worrying about your health.

On the other hand if you put your physical, mental and emotional health on the line you might at best get a piece of cannon.

[Scurvy]

I've just sent my details to the Independant's open letter to Tony blair. I have for a while now been more than angry, more than disgusted at the the actions of MP's, MSP's and all the rest of the profiteering Scum that seem to be able to Manipulate and Abuse the privileged positions they find themselves in. Although I have signed up to have my name added to the open letter I still wonder what difference it will make, at the end of the day,

I don't belive letters/petitions have any real power, its a token disagreement - nothing more (especially for this kind of thing)




Tony Blair and all the others who have had a hand in this bloody mess, can just walk away, they wont suffer in any way, there seems to be no legal retribution that can be handed out for such an almighty betrayal. When I read about soldiers dying for want of equipment or Care when they return home it makes my blood boil,

I think its very unfair to call it a betrayal, a mistake perhaps, but their has been no deliberate actions against the military..

as for funding, the public (rightly) think education, health etc. are more important, and so more money is put into them, Mp's like their money, but in the grand scheme of things, dont take up all that much...

lastly why legal action? if the soldiers are found to have been mistreated in hospital, then they can gain' compensation, but Tony Blair cannot be legaly "retributed" for going to war, soldiers know they may die, --> he made the decision, even if it is the wrong one, he still had every right to make it...

:2thumbsup:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Making a lot of noise can't be a bad thing. I'd make sure it was done in front of any recruiting stations. Let the prospective soldiers know that they might suffer the same poor treatment. Bringing down recruitment levels might get the proper attention.

Isn't there some kind of triage in the public sector for medical treatment? Don't the worst cases and emergency ones go to the head of the queue?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They all go int the emergancy queue.

[Mooks]

We can always hope that a ex-soldier finds Blair in a dark alley somewhere.

[Adrian II]

Sounds like a bad rap. The drive and petition have my full sympathy.

[Pannonian]

Making a lot of noise can't be a bad thing. I'd make sure it was done in front of any recruiting stations. Let the prospective soldiers know that they might suffer the same poor treatment. Bringing down recruitment levels might get the proper attention.

The main barrier to recruitment is that kids would rather do other things. Prosperity means they don't need to join the army any more to see the world, while pay is far better in civilian work. And unless the country was actively threatened, duty has traditionally been the preserve of the ruling class.


Isn't there some kind of triage in the public sector for medical treatment? Don't the worst cases and emergency ones go to the head of the queue?
The CoS' complaint was not that soldiers weren't being treated, but that they were being treated in a non-military environment. Ie. they were being treated as normal British citizens, in a manner which adversely affected their future effectiveness as soldiers. What he wanted was for soldiers to progress through the entire cycle of care in a military environment, so they would not lose their identity through prolonged and unnecessary contact with civilians. If that is the correct assessment, triage and privileged treatment won't help the fundamental problem of a civilian government not understanding the military's needs.

[Quid]

I don't belive letters/petitions have any real power, its a token disagreement - nothing more (especially for this kind of thing)


Perhaps I come from a country where petitions actually still have meaning and CAN change things. Here, it's the first step to a referendum. I think it's a good thing and should be persued.

Quid

[Samurai Waki]

The US's VA Network is a far cry from Perfect.... but Jesus, Thats Terrible. At least the US is making some major headway in Dramatically Boosting our Funds for Injured, Maimed, or Veterans with PTSD.

[Scurvy]

Perhaps I come from a country where petitions actually still have meaning and CAN change things. Here, it's the first step to a referendum. I think it's a good thing and should be persued.


which country is that?

--> I think protest marches/strikes can have an effect and are worth doing, to take part in a protest march people have to put some effort in, and its a lot more visable for those they criticize. My main complaint about petitions is the lack of real effort people put into them, i can sign many petitions/letters on the internet now, and feel nice and good about myself, when in reality I have done very little to bring about change

:2thumbsup:

[Divico]

which country is that?


:2thumbsup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Direct_democracy_in_Switzerland

Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government.


EU - no thanks... : :2thumbsup:

[Somebody Else]

Here's (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article1500230.ece) another article...

[caravel]

Not at all surprising. We've had, boots that melted, combats that were described as "like tissue paper", sharing of body armour, rifles that broke apart (yes I know that was in the past), borrowing of equipment from allied troops and more.

A catalogue of failings and underinvestment, in a country with byzantine taxation, increasing unemployment and overflowing prisons. Where is the money going?

:thumbsdown:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Where is the money going?

To every special interest group that demand and receive a hand out. The devil is in the priorities, apparently, proper medical care for military personnel is way down the queue of things to do today. If being in the military is considered a buffoon's occupation, by those in power that control the purse strings, than the grunts will go begging. Another sacrifice for those that already give a heaping plate full already, and an undeserved one at that. So, who's to take up the banner to rectify this injustice?

[Pannonian]

To every special interest group that demand and receive a hand out. The devil is in the priorities, apparently, proper medical care for military personnel is way down the queue of things to do today. If being in the military is considered a buffoon's occupation, by those in power that control the purse strings, than the grunts will go begging. Another sacrifice for those that already give a heaping plate full already, and an undeserved one at that. So, who's to take up the banner to rectify this injustice?
Actually, most of the money is going to the NHS who are supposed to treat these soldiers. Originally conceived as an investment that would reduce its levels of funding as the population's health improved, it's long been recognised that the NHS is a bottomless pit that will swallow whatever cash is thrown at it, and still ask for more. Various governments have tried to regulate or split off fragments to reduce state commitment to it, but the three-lettered monster always manages to find a reply, and the electorate will always find fault with the government over this issue.

[ezrider]

If the prince takes a round in the leg he won't end up in an NHS hospital for damn sure.

[Slyspy]

The closure of Haslar hostpital is a local issue to me, but sadly popular protest has only extended the life of the facility. Soon the military will pull out and the NHS services will slowly be relocated to Queen Alexandria hospital (always assuming that the latter's expansion programme is ever finished).

The Government of the day never treats it's soldiers well. They should, they have a moral duty to do so, but they never do. It comes down to money unfortunately. Although willing to piss money away on military R&D projects no one ever seems willing to spend money on care. That, and the fact the the MoD is basically incompetent when it comes to the real world, has seen the closure of military facilities.

Now, to make matters worse, injured and traumatised soldiers are having to go through the NHS which, while willing, is not ideally equipped to deal with their conditions. Further more this means that in many cases the soldiers have had to join the NHS waiting lists or, worse, pay for private care. This is utterly unacceptable, but is a direct and forseeable result of the closure of military hospitals.

Edit:

No ezrider, he would get private treatment in the same way that any other soldier who can afford it would be wise to do. Only the taxpayer will end up paying anyway!

[BDC]

Actually, most of the money is going to the NHS who are supposed to treat these soldiers. Originally conceived as an investment that would reduce its levels of funding as the population's health improved, it's long been recognised that the NHS is a bottomless pit that will swallow whatever cash is thrown at it, and still ask for more. Various governments have tried to regulate or split off fragments to reduce state commitment to it, but the three-lettered monster always manages to find a reply, and the electorate will always find fault with the government over this issue.
No one thought that medical advances would keep happening, apparently.

The fact is medicine is a lot more expensive now than back when the NHS was first founded, when it consisted of some morphine and a pat on the back if you managed to get better.

[Vidar]

I think its very unfair to call it a betrayal, a mistake perhaps, but their has been no deliberate actions against the military..

as for funding, the public (rightly) think education, health etc. are more important, and so more money is put into them, Mp's like their money, but in the grand scheme of things, dont take up all that much...

lastly why legal action? if the soldiers are found to have been mistreated in hospital, then they can gain' compensation, but Tony Blair cannot be legaly "retributed" for going to war, soldiers know they may die, --> he made the decision, even if it is the wrong one, he still had every right to make it...

:2thumbsup:

Sending men and woman to fight, poorly equipped and when they are injured physically or mentally not looking after their needs to the fullest extent is not a mistake if you keep on doing it, it is a betrayal.

Mp's Do like Money and spend it freely.

you can take a look at some of the money here
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

A reduction In the expense bills of a few Mp's Would probably buy a hell of a lot of Body Armour or Medical support for troops when they return home for whatever reason. I think if Anyone deserves to be paid vast amounts It's those who put their lives on the line.

Why legal Action? because voting with a bullet would be the wrong path to take.

Soldiers do know they may die, Thats why they deserve better treatment than many have received. Politicians should first work out what kind of peace they want, then work out if, with the resources available they can achieve this. Not just hand everyone a pointed stick and throw them into battle. As for Tony blair maybe I am being unfair, He did say something about Blood sacrifice, after all
:2thumbsup:

[caravel]

Actually, most of the money is going to the NHS who are supposed to treat these soldiers. Originally conceived as an investment that would reduce its levels of funding as the population's health improved, it's long been recognised that the NHS is a bottomless pit that will swallow whatever cash is thrown at it, and still ask for more. Various governments have tried to regulate or split off fragments to reduce state commitment to it, but the three-lettered monster always manages to find a reply, and the electorate will always find fault with the government over this issue.
You're spinning what the "government" wants you to spin and assuming what they want you to assume. We are on the road to private healthcare. A working NHS is not part of the plan, it has to be seen to fail in order to justify the transformation, and corrupt officials and public sector workers are, as ever, the scapegoats for this. If corruption and money disappearing into a bottomless pit were grounds for not giving any more money and eventually privatizing the whole thing, then what do we do with the Labour government? The NHS simply does not have anywhere near enough investment ploughed into it, what it does get is very severely reduced by the amount of compensation claims. The saving of the NHS would be a multi billion pound operation, involving complete rebuilding of dated and insanitary hosptials, that the British government prefers to spend on a war and nuclear arms renewal.

[Pannonian]

You're spinning what the "government" wants you to spin and assuming what they want you to assume. We are on the road to private healthcare. A working NHS is not part of the plan, it has to be seen to fail in order to justify the transformation, and corrupt officials and public sector workers are, as ever, the scapegoats for this. If corruption and money disappearing into a bottomless pit were grounds for not giving any more money and eventually privatizing the whole thing, then what do we do with the Labour government? The NHS simply does not have anywhere near enough investment ploughed into it, what it does get is very severely reduced by the amount of compensation claims. The saving of the NHS would be a multi billion pound operation, involving complete rebuilding of dated and insanitary hosptials, that the British government prefers to spend on a war and nuclear arms renewal.
Erm, it was Aneurin Bevan, the champion of the NHS, who admitted the funding would never end, that his original assessment was wrong. He went on to say it was nevertheless worthwhile, despite the unceasing problems it would cause all governments that kept it going. Criticise Nye for being too Nu-lab if you wish.

[Tribesman]

Nothing changes



And have you seen the old man

Outside the seaman's mission

Memory fading with

The medal ribbons that he wears.

In our winter city,

The rain cries a little pity

For one more forgotten hero

And a world that doesn't care

or alterntively....

Oh no more I'll go Waltzing Matilda
All around the green bush far and near
For to hump tent and pegs, a man needs both legs
No more waltzing Matilda for me

They collected the wounded, the crippled, the maimed
And they shipped us back home to Australia
The armless, the legless, the blind and the insane
Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla
And when the ship pulled into Circular Quay
I looked at the place where me legs used to be
And thank Christ there was no one there waiting for me
To grieve and to mourn and to pity

And the Band played Waltzing Matilda
When they carried us down the gangway
Oh nobody cheered, they just stood there and stared
Then they turned all their faces away

Or more importantly

Those weary old heroes of a forgotten war
And the young people ask "What are they marching for?"
And I ask myself the same question

or one of my favourites
How do you do young Willy McBride ? but he said nothing 'cos he is *******dead .

So to the subject , some in the other topic said the bad treatment of veterans is because the government cannot run a hospital service , while this subject is the result of the government selling off sections of the hospital service (though part of the american problem is exactly the same especially in the cleaning and maintinance departments ), the truth is , wounded ex-soldiers ain't no bloody use to the government so why do they think the government should bother...apart from a bit of lip service at election time .

[Papewaio]

Ribbons and shiny metal cost a lot less and gather far more votes with the electorate then medical care.

So whose fault is it? The politicians or the electorate?

[IrishArmenian]

Why does Blair insist on being the envious younger sibling to Bush?
If Bush cute puppies up, Blair has to cute puppies up even more.
Though be wary, Brits, he has yet to eclipse the Iraq War, so brace yourselves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I don't know, in the last decade he's obliterated our centuries-old form of government and replaced it with one almost completely defective, and we an't ever put it back.

Blair Killed Britain.

AH HA! I have something to write about, iambic-pentamiter here I come!

[BDC]

Looking at the numbers of soldiers in the hospital in question (only a dozen I think at any one time), I think it's quite likely there just aren't enough injured soldiers to keep a military hospital open. Think of it this way, would you rather be treated in a large hospital with specialists, or in a tiny military hospital where any specialists are going to have to be brought in specially for you, so won't have the experience or team or whatever?

If you're seriously burned, would you rather be treated by a non-specialist military doctor (I'm not sure how this works in reality, just stressing a point), or by a burns specialist? There's not much question there.

The real headline here should be "Battles no longer so costly field hospitals are needed!".

[Redleg]

Nothing new for the UK, I poem from Kipling


went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[Ja'chyra]

This is the same issue that is raised time and time again. If you want the money to pay for defence it's got to come from somewhere and the government seem happier to spend it on ID cards, foreign aid and expense claims.

I'm a civil servant and I know the hoops we have to jump through get anything done, some of those hoops are perfectly justified but at other times you have to weigh the cost of one piece of kit against another e.g. do we give them thermal sights or do we give them better weapons cos we can't afford both, but all the public see is the media slagging of civil servants for not supplying the troops with what they need.

And for this we get a 2.5% pay rise on top of a poor basic wage and a bonus scheme that is more like a lottery, and they have the audacity to say we don't care :shame:

Sometimes we all want to leave, but at a time when we can't fill the empty posts we already have if we don't do it who will? Personally I'm just too lazy to get a new job :whip:

[Banquo's Ghost]

More tender loving care (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2369016.ece) from Her Majesty's government. :shame:


This is no way to treat a soldier

Pte Steve Baldwin was badly injured in the bomb attack that claimed the lives of three friends in Iraq. His doctor says he has post-traumatic stress disorder. The MoD says he must leave the Army because of his 'temperamental unsuitability'. By Terri Judd

Published: 18 March 2007

Private Steve Baldwin remembers little about the roadside bomb. His first recollection is coming round on the floor of the armoured Land Rover to find one of his closest friends dead on top of him. Two more colleagues died in the attack.

"I can remember screaming. I could smell the smoke and soot, feel the grit in my teeth. I kicked open the door of the Snatch and climbed out. I turned around and looked back in. I grabbed Leon [Pte Spicer] and was slapping him and screaming, but I knew he was dead," the 22-year-old explained.

The two young men, who had trained and joined the 1st Battalion Staffordshire Regiment together, had been mid-way through a patrol in the volatile Amarah region of southern Iraq when a roadside bomb exploded. Pte Baldwin and another soldier were seriously injured.

Pte Baldwin had happily joined the Army, knowing he would go to Iraq and relishing the opportunity for adventure. He felt excitement and fear in equal measure. But he came back, according to his family and friends, a broken man. He had changed. As well as being physically disabled, he was tortured by nightmares, flashbacks and violent mood swings.

An NHS doctor diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Military doctors refused to accept his diagnosis or award Pte Baldwin a medical discharge. Instead, he has been told he will be discharged for " temperamental unsuitability" in effect, fired. To a soldier, once proud to wear a British Army uniform, it is the ultimate insult.

A week after The Independent on Sunday highlighted the plight of abandoned servicemen and women thousands of whom suffer from PTSD, anxiety and depression but are failed by the system Pte Baldwin said: "They call it a family and say they look after their own. But they don't even phone and check how you are doing. You just feel pushed aside."

The young man is a striking illustration of the unprecedented levels of mental health problems being suffered by soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many complain of feeling discarded and betrayed. Experts are predicting a mental health "time bomb", with thousands more veterans expected to experience severe problems first identified as " shell shock" during the First World War.

Thousands of British soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are living in virtual poverty back in the UK because their compensation payments have been delayed, in some cases by up to three years.

The government-run Veterans Agency has admitted that more than 7,000 former soldiers are waiting to receive financial help. Critics say the payments system is slow and bureaucratic.

"It's been hell for my dad and me," Private Kevin Challis told The Mail on Sunday. Private Challis, who was wounded in Iraq in 2004, is still unable to work because of his injuries. He has waited five months for compensation but none has come. He says he cannot afford hot water or heating. He pays for food using his father's pension and his income support of £118, which he receives every two weeks.

After the IoS investigation into the plight of soldiers, leading politicians, military experts and figures from the arts have accused the Government of breaking the Military Covenant, which guarantees that troops will receive proper care and support in return for their sacrifices. Five hundred people have signed a letter to Tony Blair on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, following disclosures that soldiers are facing homelessness, poor medical treatment and even the threat of prison because of trauma-related behaviour.

There has been a chorus of condemnation, with politicians from all sides, as well as military figures, accusing Mr Blair of abandoning soldiers after they have served. The country's last military hospital is also due to close this month.

The Tory MP Boris Johnson said: "There is a strong argument for assuring our armed forces that they will be treated, at the very least, in a separate ward, and in an environment where they are surrounded by people who understand the nature of their experience. The Government should certainly live up to its promises, and recognise the special sacrifice the military makes in the service of this country."

Sue Smith, whose son Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, was killed in July 2005 and who founded the Military Families Support Group, said: "I can't understand why they can't have a military hospital which would take pressure off the NHS, which is already cracking. Politicians ... don't listen at all to military families."

Michael Meacher MP said yesterday: "The Government should meet the families of the bereaved to discuss their concerns and to meet their requests for fair and proper treatment for servicemen and women, in line with the Military Covenant."

Pte Baldwin, who has taken the rare step of speaking out despite still being a serving soldier, says he supports this newspaper's letter to Mr Blair.

The scars where the roadside bomb tore into Pte Baldwin's arm and back stretch across his body. Surgeons had to stitch other muscles together to replace the triceps he lost in his right arm. Slowly, he has recovered the use of his limb, but it is the mental scarring that has proved so debilitating. The flashbacks and nightmares bring back the horror of the 16 July 2005. He still wakes up in a cold sweat.

"I had been in the end vehicle but they were short of a man so I joined the front vehicle. Leon and I were to share the top cover. He said, 'I'll go first and you do the radio.' Two minutes later, he was dead," he explained. It was not until someone dragged Pte Baldwin from his futile attempt to revive Pte Spicer that he realised he, too, was bleeding heavily.

After being injected with morphine, he sat in the back of a Land Rover, awaiting a helicopter as he watched colleagues attempt to revive another friend, Pte Phillip Hewett. "It was like seeing something out of a film. It just wasn't real," he explained.

It was not until he reached the military field hospital that he realised Pte Hewett and patrol commander 2nd Lt Richard Shearer, 26, had also been killed.

After he was flown home, the flashbacks increased, the nightmares plagued his sleep, he became prone to violent mood swings and lost his ability to concentrate. "We were driving up a road one day and a moped went past and backfired. I just froze. It brought me to tears," he said.

He would break into violent rages, smashing up the house. "Sometimes the flashbacks would start with the explosion, sometimes it was something totally different. Seeing Leon and slapping his face is an image that comes back a lot. I would feel myself getting angry for no reason, but I couldn't stop myself. I would kick things and throw things about. I knew it was wrong but I couldn't help it."

The Army sent him to two psychiatrists, but both refused to diagnose PTSD.

Mrs Baldwin said: "He used to be so laid back. But when he came back it was awful, I felt I was treading on eggshells. I worked really long hours because I didn't know what I was coming home to. I was terrified almost every day. He was not the man I married. He was a completely different person." They split up, and Pte Baldwin returned to his family home in Nuneaton and locked himself away.

"I was told I was borderline mental illness. I was not entitled to a medical discharge. I would get a 'temperamentally unsuitable discharge'," he continued. The discharge means he does not get the compensation his family believes he deserves.

Pte Baldwin was awarded £10,000 for physical injury, but experts said he could lose out without a medical discharge for mental injuries. Instead of automatically being eligible to be considered for further compensation he would have to apply himself, enduring an uphill struggle as military doctors have already dismissed the diagnosis of the NHS.

Today, Pte Baldwin and his wife are trying to rebuild their marriage and their life. In sharp contrast to the military medical services, the NHS has diagnosed him with PTSD and he is receiving counselling. His regiment and old friends are now back in Iraq. For six months, he has been waiting to hear what is happening with his discharge. He feels abandoned.

One of the few people outside his family and close friends to keep in touch is Sue Smith, mother of Pte Hewett. "It is disgusting the way he has been treated," she said. "It is pretty sad that these lads do their duty for Queen and country and once they get back injured nobody wants to know."

[InsaneApache]

The betrayal of the Military Covenant by this government is criminal. It was nice to see that the signatures on the petition crossed party lines. Even Brain Eno got in there, one of the musicians I most respect and admire. :2thumbsup:

It really has come to something of a state, when a wounded soldier ends up on £113 a fortnight income support. :thumbsdown:

The priorities of this regime are arse about face. They are proposing to squander £9.2 billion on hosting a games for cheats and druggies but are not prepared to do their duty to the services by ensuring that they have the right equipment and medical care they need.

It would be interesting to see what the outcome of an election would be, if one were to be held tomorrow.

[Vidar]

I agree, Criminal, sums it up nicely. But would an election make much difference? :inquisitive:

[Scurvy]

But would an election make much difference?

:no:

[King Henry V]

Ribbons and shiny metal cost a lot less and gather far more votes with the electorate then medical care.

So whose fault is it? The politicians or the electorate?
Both: the electorate's for being so shallow and easily-impressed by cheap PR spins and the politicians' for taking advantage of this.

Seeing as the military covenant has been broken, I think that troops would be fully justified in refusing to be deployed to theatres of war where their persons may be put at risk.

[Scurvy]

Seeing as the military covenant has been broken, I think that troops would be fully justified in refusing to be deployed to theatres of war where their persons may be put at risk.

when they joined the army they know they may be put at risk, its what they're payed for, i agree that they are undervalued and not well looked after, but troops have little justification for refusing to fight when ordered too...

if the army command refused to be deployed then it's much more credible

:2thumbsup:

[InsaneApache]

when they joined the army they know they may be put at risk, its what they're payed for, i agree that they are undervalued and not well looked after, but troops have little justification for refusing to fight when ordered too...

if the army command refused to be deployed then it's much more credible

:2thumbsup:

This may come as a bit of a surprise but soldiers don't join up to die or become maimed. Most do it for the crack. The issue here is the implicit understanding that if and when a serviceman is called upon to fight for his country, then the government of the day has a duty of care. A duty to ensure that the serviceman has the equipment he needs, (as in desert boots for desert fighting, as a pose to the modern day equivalent of ammunition boots for marching up and down the square) and it has a duty to look after the man if he is wounded and his family, if he is killed. This is patently not happening.

[King Henry V]

From what I have read in the kinks in this thread, the military covenant has been presented as such:
Soldiers agree to put their lives at risk in the best interests of the country. In return, the government agrees to provide proper levels of care and support for those who may have been injured as a result of military activities.
As far as I can see, this contract has been breached by the government, therefore soldiers are under no obligation to uphold their side of the bargain.


Looking at the numbers of soldiers in the hospital in question (only a dozen I think at any one time), I think it's quite likely there just aren't enough injured soldiers to keep a military hospital open. Think of it this way, would you rather be treated in a large hospital with specialists, or in a tiny military hospital where any specialists are going to have to be brought in specially for you, so won't have the experience or team or whatever?

If you're seriously burned, would you rather be treated by a non-specialist military doctor (I'm not sure how this works in reality, just stressing a point), or by a burns specialist? There's not much question there.

The real headline here should be "Battles no longer so costly field hospitals are needed!".

The articles have mainly referred to soldiers who have experienced psychological trauma as a result of service in the Army. In such an instance, military doctors are very much needed, as many soldiers feel that only doctors who had military experience are able to understand their plight.

[Scurvy]

This may come as a bit of a surprise but soldiers don't join up to die or become maimed. Most do it for the crack. The issue here is the implicit understanding that if and when a serviceman is called upon to fight for his country, then the government of the day has a duty of care. A duty to ensure that the serviceman has the equipment he needs, (as in desert boots for desert fighting, as a pose to the modern day equivalent of ammunition boots for marching up and down the square) and it has a duty to look after the man if he is wounded and his family, if he is killed. This is patently not happening.

indeed, the government are not doing enough, but (unfortunately) would claim it is, as far as i can tell soldiers have very little influence over whether they are deployed or not, they have every right to complain about the lack of help, but refusal to obey orders is a rather dangerous route to go down

:2thumbsup:

[InsaneApache]

Mutinies have occured in the UK forces in the past. Some might be surprising.

Invergordon Mutiny was an industrial action by around a thousand sailors in the British Atlantic Fleet, that took place on 15-16 September 1931. For two days, ships of the Royal Navy at Invergordon were in open mutiny, in one of the few military strikes in British history.

[Scurvy]

Invergordon Mutiny was an industrial action by around a thousand sailors in the British Atlantic Fleet, that took place on 15-16 September 1931. For two days, ships of the Royal Navy at Invergordon were in open mutiny, in one of the few military strikes in British history.

but 300 or so of them lost their jobs, and the leaders were jailed, it may have been successful, but at a price

:2thumbsup:

[King Henry V]

However, do you really think any present-day governenment could afford to take the same action if such an even occured?

[Tribesman]

For two days, ships of the Royal Navy at Invergordon were in open mutiny, in one of the few military strikes in British history.

There have been lots of mutinies and strikes in British miltary history not a few . Lots and lots if you include empire and dominion forces(including empire and dominion forces stationed in Britain) .

[ShadeHonestus]

I remember the subject coming up when we trained with some British Royal Marines, but can't for the life of me remember. How much is the enlisted man payed over there? Is it in line with other civil servants?

Anyone have an answer to the question I posted in #10?

[Whacker]

I agree also, what's being done (and not done) to these soldiers is completely criminal.

My best, most realistic suggestion is to heavily co-opt the media on this. Get as much heavy media attention and focus on it as you can. For better or worse, there's no real way to get a people fired up than through news on their TV or Newspapers, esp. when something 'sacred' like a nation's veteran soldiers who were injured in the line of duty are being sorely mistreated. Get enough focus on it, then enough politicians whose careers depend on good ratings will notice, and it will get proper attention. It may suck, but it's the best thing I can think of.

[Tribesman]

Anyone have an answer to the question I posted in #10?
Here you go ....http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/RegularArmy/ArmyLife/PayAndLeave/Soldier/
lets face it those wages are crap , even if you make it to W.O.1 .

[ShadeHonestus]

Here you go ....http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/RegularArmy/ArmyLife/PayAndLeave/Soldier/
lets face it those wages are crap , even if you make it to W.O.1 .

Thanks Tribes and yeah, those are crap...although better than what I experienced.

[Hosakawa Tito]

That's why you see quite a few get out and join the private sector security forces in Iraq. They're making up to $100,000 a year doing the same job.

[ShadeHonestus]

That's why you see quite a few get out and join the private sector security forces in Iraq. They're making up to $100,000 a year doing the same job.

Well they don't quite enjoy the benefits of the 3-D battlefield, but security-wise I can see that.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Its not all peaches & cream. There's one from my area that has been kidnapped in Basra (http://noburqua.blogspot.com/search/label/jonathan%20cote)
Some guys are really risking a lot for a $100,000.

[IrishArmenian]

Despicable, Blair should be flogged more times for this. The worst possible thing to do to a veteran is to throw them to the curb as soon as they retire from service... They get the message that they fought only so that those who served, signed up to potentially sacrifice themselves, can get kicked while they are down, trying to fit back into an unforgiving and unjust system.