[Closed] ...and at the going down of the sun, and in the morning...

I work in a different line of business, but redundancies are happening everywhere, why should the army be any different? Even folks off sick are being made redundant in industry.

Although these guys do an amazing job, not one I would like to do, but they did volunteer. Back in 1940's they didn't have such luxury,

Sits and waits to be totally flamed but hey ho

Well there is a difference between a planned redundancy and taking the opprtunity of someone being injured in the line of duty in order to give them the heave-ho.

These are planned redundancies and reading several articles about this although you may not be fit for war, you will have to be in enough of an able position for work before you get the boot. So some kind of return to work assessments will be done.

I may sound harsh but in the 1940 etc you had no choice, you went to war and there was little support when you returned, intact or not. Now a days it's a choice, lifestyle

1_ it's not a normal job so you can't compare redundancies in the army with other 'lines of business'
2_ I hardly think that post-WWII should be heralded as the benchmark for how servicemen should be treated

Well there is a difference between a planned redundancy and taking the opprtunity of someone being injured in the line of duty in order to give them the heave-ho.

That's not the case and is not allowed in law so I doubt it. You can only make roles redundant and not people IIRC so if the role is occupied by an injured soldier then they will go.

It would seem equally bizarre in my eyes to only make fit servicemen redundant. That way, eventually, you end up with an army full of soldiers unable to fight.

What I do hope is that they have made adequate allowance to help these people get jobs in the future as they will find it harder than others. Unfortunately from what I know of the army and our governments in general this will not be the case 😥

Is it not a fairly established historical fact that once they served their useful purpose, servicemen have been abandoned to fend for themselves ?

The Evening Standard the day before Armistice Day eleven years ago :

[url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-948057-from-battlefields-to-the-streets.do ]From battlefields to the streets[/url]

Now I don't know how accurate the claim that one in four rough sleepers are ex-servicemen is, but it has certainly long been accepted that many former members of the armed forces end up with an alcohol dependency, untreated PTS, and homelessness, all of which is quite disproportionate to the general population.

The suicide rates are also totally disproportionate to the general population, eg, more veterans of the Falklands War have killed themselves than died in the conflict. And that is true of both sides.

War, despite its glorification by warmongering politicians and newspapers, is a nasty business which ****s up the minds of those who it doesn't kill.

Equally nasty is the way our society treats those it no longer has any use for. The only thing that matters is "money", humans are expendable. If that bothers you then I suggest you consider your options carefully when you are next asked to vote, and perhaps settle for a different set of priorities. Otherwise - just carry on.

I feel uncomfortable about the recruitment adverts on telly for the Army. They talk about the benefits and particularly the latest one, which is half jokey and in 'HR-speak'. None of them mention war, killing people, or being killed or wounded.

This is wrong. The advert does not accurately represent the job.

In WW2 Hitler's army was in control of most of Europe and he had very clear designs on us. To me, with the information I have, that seems like an iron-clad reason to go to war.

With Afghanistan and Iraq I am not at all convinced that we have a reason.

Still support the troops though. Just wish the politicians would actually go and fight, that would make them think their decisions through!

Everyone will soon be 're-employed' on workfare schemes or just simply left to downsize in perpetuity until there's nothing left.

This is a really difficult and emotive question. However, the Armies job is to fight the Queen's enemies and for that you rather need fit people. If the Army is to reduce to 82k and we have 2k soldiers with 'life changing injuries' then that is a large proportion of people who cannot go to war even without considering those who cannot fight for other reasons like being too unfit or injured in other ways. Each case should be considered on its own merits but to have the Govy declare that no wounded soldier will be made redundant as the opposition are demanding is purely political opportunism.

Dogsby

This begins to illustrate the percentage of the Army who have received serious and very serious injuries over the last 10 years or so of war - injuries many had no right to survive.

I am not sure where the 2k figure came from and I may have just read it somewhere. It is true that there are poeple alive today that would not be if they had received their injuries five years ago. Not sure 'right to survive' is the right wording though.