The James McClean Sponsored Poppy Thread

[Ned Nederlander]

Not sure he'd be welcomed to a truce carrying a rifle either.

Or be much of a help during a kick about.

 

*it's making me angry now*

[PWL]

2 hours ago, Shotgun said:

This I did not know. What did they do before then? Saucepans and colanders like when we were kids?

 

As noted by @Ned Nederlander the British Army entered the war in cloth caps with most Scottish regiments wearing glengarry hats. Germans wore the caps shown in pic as well as the classic pikelhaube spiked helmet. However, they were made of leather and were more ceremonial and offered next to no protection. 

And if you think that's bad, the French uniform in Aug 1914 included bright red trousers.....

[GNU_Linux]

Just now, BFTD said:

You know what women are like about men with a detailed knowledge of military history.

I'm an expert in the Battle of the Bulge.

[Sergeant Wilson]

23 minutes ago, Bert Raccoon said:

Has he pulled?

It's the next best thing.

[Priti priti priti Patel]

42 minutes ago, BFTD said:

You know what women are like about men with a detailed knowledge of military history.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Margaret Thatcher

[expatowner]

We're becoming more and more like America with this "support our boys" stuff.
If we're going to send young guys around the world to shoot at people and get shot at, we should be supporting them when they get back rather than relying on charitable handouts.

100%

[101]

Bump! Never too early to pay our respects for the families of the dead and the injured at war, by erm cutting their funding. Good auld Rishi I'm sure he will be buying an extra poppy to help the charities make up the short fall in Government spending.

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/rishi-sunak-plans-to-cut-funding-for-armed-forces-veterans-by-40-267860

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, 101 said:

Bump! Never too early to pay our respects for the families of the dead and the injured at war, by erm cutting their funding. Good auld Rishi I'm sure he will be buying an extra poppy to help the charities make up the short fall in Government spending.

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/rishi-sunak-plans-to-cut-funding-for-armed-forces-veterans-by-40-267860

The absolute, fucking nick of that uber-gammon article:

Quote

Veterans often come home questioning why the [sic] were sent to (insert war-torn country here) - odds are that question will be hanging even heavier over their heads now they will no longer receive the same level of benefits they deserve.

A: You were sent there because you signed up to kill people and get killed in return for a regular pay cheque, no questions asked. British soldiers are contracted employees, not conscripts - get all their post-task benefits launched in the sea. 

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

A: You were sent there because you signed up to kill people and get killed in return for a regular pay cheque, no questions asked. British soldiers are contracted employees, not conscripts - get all their post-task benefits launched in the sea. 
 

Future benefits would be part of the deal they signed up for so cutting those would be like Robert Maxwell raiding the pension fund

But that’s irrelevant because the premise of story is bollocks anyway

Veterans funding is actually planned to drop because there are expected to be less veterans

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775151/20190107_Enclosure_1_Population_Projections_-_UK_Armed_Forces_Veterans_residing_in_Great_Britain_-_2016_to_2028.pdf

[101]

36 minutes ago, virginton said:

The absolute, fucking nick of that uber-gammon article:

A: You were sent there because you signed up to kill people and get killed in return for a regular pay cheque, no questions asked. British soldiers are contracted employees, not conscripts - get all their post-task benefits launched in the sea. 

 

If you are injured at work your employer should be liable to either look after you should you be unable to do that yourself or to ensure you have the tools to go back into society. The chances of being injured at work for most people are slim thankful but due to the nature of their work there is a high chance that people in the forces will be injured either physically or mentally I'm not sure basic care should be "launched in the sea"

Not everyone in the forces is there to kill people and regardless of their assigned job and the politics around the lunacy of sending them there the Government should, in my view, be a model employer and they continue to badly let down veterans 

20 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Future benefits would be part of the deal they signed up for so cutting those would be like Robert Maxwell raiding the pension fund

But that’s irrelevant because the premise of story is bollocks anyway

Veterans funding is actually planned to drop because there are expected to be less veterans

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775151/20190107_Enclosure_1_Population_Projections_-_UK_Armed_Forces_Veterans_residing_in_Great_Britain_-_2016_to_2028.pdf

 

There may be a decline in the number of veterans but currently a huge amount of their care is provided by charities, if the charities didn't exist and the government had to provide the care or face thousands of service people and their families lying around then they might be less inclined to storm about the world pretending to be some kind of international police force.

[vikingTON]

25 minutes ago, 101 said:

If you are injured at work your employer should be liable to either look after you should you be unable to do that yourself or to ensure you have the tools to go back into society. The chances of being injured at work for most people are slim thankful but due to the nature of their work there is a high chance that people in the forces will be injured either physically or mentally I'm not sure basic care should be "launched in the sea".

Being injured in combat when your job is to be trained and engage in combat with the specific aim of injuring/killing your opponent is not the same as slipping on a wet floor at work. It's a fundamental risk that you accept when you sign up to serve in the armed forces. 

[the tungston weasel]

Being injured in combat when your job is to be trained and engage in combat with the specific aim of injuring/killing your opponent is not the same as slipping on a wet floor at work. It's a fundamental risk that you accept when you sign up to serve in the armed forces. 

It's a fundamental risk yes. But soldiers take this risk being told they shall be cared for adequately should the worst happen.

[Gaz]

4 minutes ago, the tungston weasel said:

11 hours ago, virginton said:

Being injured in combat when your job is to be trained and engage in combat with the specific aim of injuring/killing your opponent is not the same as slipping on a wet floor at work. It's a fundamental risk that you accept when you sign up to serve in the armed forces. 

It's a fundamental risk yes. But soldiers take this risk being told they shall be cared for adequately should the worst happen.

Do they?

It's not exactly a hidden secret that ex-forces personnel who are forced out due to injury aren't treated particularly well.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

11 hours ago, 101 said:

There may be a decline in the number of veterans but currently a huge amount of their care is provided by charities, if the charities didn't exist and the government had to provide the care or face thousands of service people and their families lying around then they might be less inclined to storm about the world pretending to be some kind of international police force.

So in summary :

Virginton  is arguing that veterans shouldn't receive the deal they signed up for because he has no sympathy for them

You are arguing that they should receive a lot more than they were promised because you have lots of sympathy for them.

 

 

 

(apologies in advance for  oversimplification)

[G51]

The Armed Forces generally recruit 16-18 year olds who have flunked school and have a choice of either joining the Army or spending the rest of their life on the dole/working in the Co-op/selling drugs/a mix of all three.

When you consider that the Army will actually offer career progression, decent pay and a level of respect from their peers and elders in society, then it's no wonder the kids choose the Army over the life of poverty at home.

There are very few 16 year olds that are capable of making a moral decision on whether it's good or bad to join the Army, and the ones that are capable aren't flunking their Standard Grades.

It's not as simple as "You know you're getting paid to kill people when you join the Army, so you shouldn't receive veteran support after". For most of the bairns that sign up, that's not really a factor that they consider. The Army knows exactly the type of person it's targeting - those who know service in the Armed Forces is the last opportunity they're going to get in life to earn a decent wage and a bit of respect.

[101]

49 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

So in summary :

Virginton  is arguing that veterans shouldn't receive the deal they signed up for because he has no sympathy for them

You are arguing that they should receive a lot more than they were promised because you have lots of sympathy for them.

 

 

 

(apologies in advance for  oversimplification)

I have never seen the contract they are given so no idea what they are promised but yes if the state wishes to parade them about ( they do) then they should also look after them.

I don't generally agree with very much that the armed forces do especially recent conflicts but it is hypocritical in the extreme that the UKg use them as a quick photo op and then treat many of them with utter contempt

[vikingTON]

47 minutes ago, G51 said:

 

It's not as simple as "You know you're getting paid to kill people when you join the Army, so you shouldn't receive veteran support after". For most of the bairns that sign up, that's not really a factor that they consider. 

Tough. They're actually legally responsible adults, who don't get the right to pick and choose the conditions that they like about a career and dinghy the ones that they do not.

The social contract that the public has with its professional armed forces in any right-minded democracy is that they will be paid throughout their term of service - whether on active duty in a warzone or nowhere near one - and in return they accept the inherent risks of serving in a violent combat zone from time to time. If they want compensation or extra support after their career is finished, then they should be punted to a zero-hour contract setup while serving in the army to balance that out. They don't get to have it all ways. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by vikingTON

[G51]

12 minutes ago, virginton said:

Tough. They're actually legally responsible adults, who don't get the right to pick and choose the conditions that they like about a career and dinghy the ones that they do not.

The social contract that the public has with its professional armed forces in any right-minded democracy is that they will be paid throughout their term of service - whether on active duty in a warzone or nowhere near one - and in return they accept the inherent risks of serving in a violent combat zone from time to time. If they want compensation or extra support after their career is finished, then they should be punted to a zero-hour contract setup while serving in the army to balance that out. They don't get to have it all ways. 

Being a legally responsible adult doesn't mean you can't be daft, vulnerable and exploited by someone offering you one last chance to get out of Dodge.

If you're going to recruit these kids when they're too young to really understand the choice they're making, then you owe it to them to support them through whatever it is they suffer as a result of that employment - whether that's PTSD, loss of limbs, whatever.

[Torpar]

Yes joining the army puts you at risk of being seriously injured, PTSD or death but what other profession (apart from professional footballer maybe) gives you the opportunity to do cartwheels on the famous Ibrox turf??

[topcat(The most tip top)]

51 minutes ago, Torpar said:

Yes joining the army puts you at risk of being seriously injured, PTSD or death but what other profession (apart from professional footballer maybe) gives you the opportunity to do cartwheels on the famous Ibrox turf??

Groundsman?