Enshrine the Military Covenant in UK Law

[HTG]

Yer man who started the petition you're being asked to sign has this doozy off a poll on his twitter feed.  Hard not to link it to Wisconsin but the use of "criminal" in the question is a belter. Some of the responses ... 

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrevorCoultMC/status/1297785531657588736

In short, the boy's a total banger.

[Savage Henry]

That’s some good sleuthing, P&Bers.

[Gordon EF]

Raymond seemed like a nice, if misguided, fellow at the beginning of this thread. Reading the last few pages though, frankly he can f**k off and shove his petition up his arse.

[Hillonearth]

As someone has said previously, a lot of this comes down to the definition of "veteran" being so sketchy. Someone who has spent three weeks not cutting it in basic training in Aldershot or somewhere before being papped out services no longer required isn't by any stretch owed an enduring debt by the general public for being the failure they'll more than likely continue to be in civilian life, and any suggestion that they receive continuing special treatment on account of their "service" is obviously ridiculous.

On the other end of the scale, someone who spends 20+ years being relatively well-paid and retires without making even rudimentary provisions for civilian life almost certainly doesn't deserve special treatment either. The most recent figures I can find are that a sergeant - which isn't high up the ladder at all - would earn around 40k p.a. and retire on a pension of around half that.

Notwithstanding the fact they move around a lot, you'd have to be a real dimwit not to have at some point over that couple of decades picked an area you want to settle in, put down a deposit on a place there and rented it out till you needed it. It's difficult to see why someone earning decent money for an extended time would even need on a housing list in the first place.

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Hillonearth said:

As someone has said previously, a lot of this comes down to the definition of "veteran" being so sketchy. Someone who has spent three weeks not cutting it in basic training in Aldershot or somewhere before being papped out services no longer required isn't by any stretch owed an enduring debt by the general public for being the failure they'll more than likely continue to be in civilian life, and any suggestion that they receive continuing special treatment on account of their "service" is obviously ridiculous.

On the other end of the scale, someone who spends 20+ years being relatively well-paid and retires without making even rudimentary provisions for civilian life almost certainly doesn't deserve special treatment either. The most recent figures I can find are that a sergeant - which isn't high up the ladder at all - would earn around 40k p.a. and retire on a pension of around half that.

Notwithstanding the fact they move around a lot, you'd have to be a real dimwit not to have at some point over that couple of decades picked an area you want to settle in, put down a deposit on a place there and rented it out till you needed it. It's difficult to see why someone earning decent money for an extended time would even need on a housing list in the first place.

This is a far more considered response that Raymond and his ilk deserve. They use “veteran” only as a cynical means of trying to drum of jingoistic support for UK nationalism. They’re the British equivalent of those headbangers in America who will throw about “veterans” and “our boys” as a mask for a host of far-right, reactionary lunacy. You find the same types trying to hoodwink people into supporting their extremist views by latching on to other emotive issues they know will get public sympathy (our kids are being GROOMED and we’re just honest salt-of-the-earth patriots demanding ACTION! Our jobs are being stolen and we’re just down-home decent lads looking for PATRIOTIC SUPPORT and if you don’t agree, you’re not really BRITISH!).

They’re the scum of the earth.

[Savage Henry]

5 minutes ago, Antlion said:

This is a far more considered response that Raymond and his ilk deserve. They use “veteran” only as a cynical means of trying to drum of jingoistic support for UK nationalism. They’re the British equivalent of those headbangers in America who will throw about “veterans” and “our boys” as a mask for a host of far-right, reactionary lunacy. You find the same types trying to hoodwink people into supporting their extremist views by latching on to other emotive issues they know will get public sympathy (our kids are being GROOMED and we’re just honest salt-of-the-earth patriots demanding ACTION! Our jobs are being stolen and we’re just down-home decent lads looking for PATRIOTIC SUPPORT and if you don’t agree, you’re not really BRITISH!).

They’re the scum of the earth.

You’ll also notice he’s vanished after getting rumbled, so a coward as well as a fraud.

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Savage Henry

[oneteaminglasgow]

I did enjoy the brass neck of asking people to support a policy, and then point blank refusing to engage with anyone wanting to discuss the motives and outcomes of that policy.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Raymond seemed like a nice, if misguided, fellow at the beginning of this thread. Reading the last few pages though, frankly he can f**k off and shove his petition up his arse.

The first sign that he was a wrong 'un was being called Raymond in the first place.

[The Other Foot]

I am fully in support of Raymond Patterson and his initiative. 

 

Spoiler

 

[Jacksgranda]

On 25/08/2020 at 11:29, Hillonearth said:

As someone has said previously, a lot of this comes down to the definition of "veteran" being so sketchy. Someone who has spent three weeks not cutting it in basic training in Aldershot or somewhere before being papped out services no longer required isn't by any stretch owed an enduring debt by the general public for being the failure they'll more than likely continue to be in civilian life, and any suggestion that they receive continuing special treatment on account of their "service" is obviously ridiculous.

On the other end of the scale, someone who spends 20+ years being relatively well-paid and retires without making even rudimentary provisions for civilian life almost certainly doesn't deserve special treatment either. The most recent figures I can find are that a sergeant - which isn't high up the ladder at all - would earn around 40k p.a. and retire on a pension of around half that.

Notwithstanding the fact they move around a lot, you'd have to be a real dimwit not to have at some point over that couple of decades picked an area you want to settle in, put down a deposit on a place there and rented it out till you needed it. It's difficult to see why someone earning decent money for an extended time would even need on a housing list in the first place.

(a) When I see the word "veteran" I conjure up the image of someone who has served 20 years or thereabouts.

There are men over here who would have served about that in the UDR, for example.

(b) You may have hit the nail on the head there.

[coprolite]

My attempts to rebrand a Help for Heroes bake sale at my work as "cakes for killers" were very unpopular genuinely upset a few people and made some people dislike me (more?). On the plus side, I found it mildly amusing. 

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

My attempts to rebrand a Help for Heroes bake sale at my work as "cakes for killers" were very unpopular genuinely upset a few people and made some people dislike me (more?). On the plus side, I found it mildly amusing. 

Faerie cakes for faeries would probably result in death threats

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Bake for Bootlickers?