Help for Heroes

#1
Are we being taken for a ride by the government and MOD?
I feel that the money we are all raising is being used to fund what the government should be paying for.
Help for Heroes should not be helping injured servicemen to get just the basics to get by but should be there to give them extras on top of that.

The recent payouts to Royal Marine Ben McBean http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/62039/MoD-s-pitiful-award-for-an-injured-hero
and earlier this year to Mark Ormrod http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7311448.stm highlight the fact that the charity money we put in is being used to pay for what the government should be putting its hand in its pocket for.
 
#3
Or for having your arse patted if you are a female office worker.

Compensation payouts these days are a mess and also a complete and utter disgrace. It reminds me of that dit which went around in the early 90s with many of the WRNS claming huge amounts when they were pregnant...

Lose a limb in the Falklands - £10,000
Lose an eye in Northern Ireland - £8,000
Die on active service - NOK gets £25,000
Get pregnant and leave the RN - £300,000.

No further comment.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#4
sadindiefreak said:
.
Help for Heroes should not be helping injured servicemen to get just the basics to get by but should be there to give them extras on top of that.
I'm afraid I disagree, bitching about who should and shouldn't be paying to support our wounded achieves nothing, procrastination of the worst kind. By adopting a non-political stance H4H is achieving results now (and the publicicty it has generated effectively forced the Government to increase Hedley Court funding by £24m). The moral argument will be resolved at the next election when this shower of sh!t are sent packing for, amongst many other things, failing to fulfil the primary responsibility of every government: Ensuring an effective defence of the realm.

I was at Twickenham yesterday, the atmosphere was amazing, no sense of cynicism at all just a huge feeling of achievement, and a brilliant game; 52,000 people united in an honourable cause, very moving. I am still struck with a sense of wonder that so many influential and famous folk decided to give their time and effort for free to what they saw as a worthy cause, it says as much about them as the cause, the moral argument has already been won in most people's minds.
 
#5
chieftiff said:
sadindiefreak said:
.
Help for Heroes should not be helping injured servicemen to get just the basics to get by but should be there to give them extras on top of that.
I'm afraid I disagree, bitching about who should and shouldn't be paying to support our wounded achieves nothing, procrastination of the worst kind. By adopting a non-political stance H4H is achieving results now (and the publicicty it has generated effectively forced the Government to increase Hedley Court funding by £24m). The moral argument will be resolved at the next election when this shower of sh!t are sent packing for, amongst many other things, failing to fulfil the primary responsibility of every government: Ensuring an effective defence of the realm.

I was at Twickenham yesterday, the atmosphere was amazing, no sense of cynicism at all just a huge feeling of achievement, and a brilliant game; 52,000 people united in an honourable cause, very moving. I am still struck with a sense of wonder that so many influential and famous folk decided to give their time and effort for free to what they saw as a worthy cause, it says as much about them as the cause, the moral argument has already been won in most people's minds.
Couldn't agree more with your feeling ChiefTiff.

We went to the game as well and a good time was had by all. Everyone was in good spirits and it was great to see so many of the good and great showing up to share it with us. A bit of the old British spirit coming out.

You're also right that we can show this current government what we think of them when it does come to the vote. We need to make sure that we do this together.

Lets keeping "Helping our heroes"

When's the next game?

Neil - Supermario

:nemo:
 
#6
Sorry but no.
By the time we've got rid of the "peoples party" it will be far too late.
Charities like HFH will be the normal way of "topping up" disgusting payouts, and no one will think any different.
Those injured in service should NOT be using the likes of HFH to buy basics, as SIF has said.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#7
Lamri said:
Sorry but no.
By the time we've got rid of the "peoples party" it will be far too late.
Charities like HFH will be the normal way of "topping up" disgusting payouts, and no one will think any different.
Those injured in service should NOT be using the likes of HFH to buy basics, as SIF has said.
By the time "we've" all argued about who should and shouldn't pay it will be too late for the people in need, the moral argument is in all reality nothing more than a standpoint!

Ultimately nobody is going to convince a government, who fails repeatedly to fulfil it's responsibility to the people of the armed forces to increase the defence budget in the immediate future. Even were someone to pull of this piece of magic, who is to say the mandarins at MoD will prioritise that funding to where we think it should go? It seems that politics and government have become a game played by people whose primary purpose is to forward their own agenda, not that of the people they represent. H4H is shortcutting the bullshit and bollocks, it's not right and I agree the repurcussions are likely to be important, there's actually an article in today's Telegraph about this, but H4H is improving peoples live now.

Link to Telegraph article

The whole thing is reminiscent of how The British Legion came into being!
 
#9
I hope I'm wrong but I can't see things getting any better under the Tories when they get in.
The party of tax cuts will do just that and its always defence that suffers first.

I'm also not saying that H4H should become political and try to squeeze more money out of the government coffers. It is fantastic the work they do and if it means providing the basics for injured servicemen because the government refuses to then so be it.
It is up to all of us to show the powers that be we are far from happy with the situation as it stands now and the more voices of discontent they hear then maybe they will do something about it.
I won't hold my breath though.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
#10
sadindiefreak said:
I hope I'm wrong but I can't see things getting any better under the Tories when they get in.
They certainly don't seem to be saying anything different so I suspect you're right.

I've reproduced the Telegraph article by their Defence Correspondent Sean Rayment below, maybe Lamri wants to point out where the thread went off track because I'm buggered if I can see it!:

Sean Rayment in The Telegraph said:
Defence chiefs warned not to become reliant on service charities
Defence chiefs have been warned that the military's policy for compensating troops injured in battle is "confused" and too reliant on service charities, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

The Army's most senior generals have also been told that compensation levels for the most seriously-injured troops are still too low when compared to civilian payouts, even after a recent doubling in the maximum tariff.

The warnings emerged as rugby stars from around the world lined up at Twickenham yesterday for the Help the Heroes Challenge Match, which aimed to raise £1 million to support wounded servicemen and women. Gordon Brown praised the sportsmen's efforts last week and told them: "You are doing it for the greatest of causes."

Whilst such fund-raising appeals are warmly welcomed by the military, concerns have been voiced within the Army that injured troops should receive fuller compensation by right, rather then being left to rely on charitable donations.

Fears are now emerging within the Ministry of Defence that unless compensation levels are increased substantially, injured troops will be forced into taking legal action against the government.

Under current rules, a soldier seriously injured in a road traffic accident in an operational theatre such as Iraq or Afghanistan, or even in the UK, could, if they can demontrate negligence on the part of the MoD, be entitled to greater compensation than a colleague sustaining similar injuries in battle.

An Army document obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, entitled Claims, Compensation, Criminality and Criticism, states that many within the military community regard compensation levels as "insufficient".

The document, recently presented to the Executive Committee of the Army Board, also suggests that it is unacceptable for compensation paid to seriously-injured troops to be subsidised by charities.

It states: "What is now apparent is that there is a perception that 'compensation' levels are insufficient. As in previous conflicts, servicemen are having to rely upon charitable donations from organisations such as Help For Heroes, the Royal British Legion and other organisations.

The document highlights the case of an Iraqi civilian who was accidentally shot and wounded by a British soldier, and was awarded £2 million. In another case, an RAF typist received £484,000 for repetitive strain injury to her thumb.

Comparing such awards to civilians with lower payouts to troops injured in battle, the document states: "It is difficult to justify the perceived inequalities between the awards. While the levels of compensation claims remain low it will be in the best interests of those seeking financial 'compensation' for their injuries to allege negligence against the MoD.

"Steps have recently been taken to raise the level of compensation, but are they adequate? Is it appropriate in the current legal/political and social climate for injured servicemen to receive or rely upon charitable donations? Do the compensation schemes compare to, say, provision for a fire officer or policemen killed or injured on duty?"

In July the MoD doubled the amount of compensation available to the most seriously-injured soldiers from £285,000 to £500,000. In addition to this, injured troops also receive a guaranteed income payment which is dependent on age and length of time served.

Many senior officers now believe that despite increases in the size of pay-outs, many injured servicemen and women will become dependent on service charities for financial hand-outs later in life.

The Royal British Legion, the biggest of the service charities, raised around £88 million last year, of which around £54.2m was spent on the ex-service community.
 
#12
Lamri said:
Completely agree.
You get more for tripping over a cracked paving stone.
You need to do the extended DSS training course for compensation claims.

It's only when you leave the mob do you realise how naive we are to the ways of the world.

A 100% civvy has years of experience in the ways of the social department and how to scam every last penny of tax payers money.

I just wish governments would wake up and realise our service people don't ask for much, pay and an afterlife.

Gripe ended.
 
#13
To take this on and on, should the tax payer fund lifeboats? We pay for coastguard helos, but the RNLI is totally reliant on charitable donations. What about funding for cancer research? Macmillan nurses? All charities which rely on (not solely, but to a certain degree) charitable donations carry out essentail work.

Where will it end? I agree that anyone who volunteers, is sent out to fight, and returns injured (however severe) should be fully supported by those in power who sent said soldier/sailor/airman to war. Any government, serving or subsequent, which does not is morally corrupt and only deserving of our scorn.
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#14
From my own experience I believe that the RNLI is better off as it is for funding, if the Government gets involved most money given by them would be used up in increased administration costs demanded by the Civil Serpents
 
#16
A 100% civvy has years of experience in the ways of the social department and how to scam every last penny of tax payers money.


Sorry Waspie, I take exception to that comment. I agree with a lot of what you say but.... Whilst there are plenty of civvys who know exactly who to screw to get benefits, there are plenty who have no clue, and plenty who should be getting something but can't. How many pensioners (who should claim) don't just because they don't know?
 

RNFLUNKY

Lantern Swinger
#17
Watching the old goole box on the weekend. One advert for donations to Great ormond Street - fair one. Next thing on The 2012 Olympic funding is X amount - erm, justify that.!!! Priorities a miss here me thinks! Shame..
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top