[Closed] Help for Heroes - a moral dilemma

If you don't like what it calls itself, why GAF?

I guess perhaps some people feel that if you describe everyone who wears a uniform as a "hero" it might devalue the term and the achievements of some genuinely heroic individuals. On the basis that they don't all receive medals for bravery/heroism we can probably assume that the term in this particular case is being misused.

I can understand why that might windup some people. Although I don't know if that's the case for the OP as apparently slimjim is a pacifist. I don't know if pacifists feel that the term hero shouldn't be devalued, probably not I would imagine.

Isn't only because of our forces that people in this country have the freedom to be pacifist (whatever that entails)? I am anti-war but I think I am also a realist. Anybody wiling to put their life on the line to protect my freedoms may not be a "hero" but they are definitely worth my support when they return.

I think the charities will accept your money to support the casualties even if you don't agree with Blair's Jingoism.

wrecker - Member
Nope, I definitely joined because I wanted to go to far off places and kill the locals.

How did you end up a clerk then?

Well, originally I wanted to join the SAS, but they weren't recruiting so they suggested the AGC as their training is just as tough....

if you describe everyone who wears a uniform as a "hero"

I'm with AA and wrecker above.

I feel dirty 😉

The individuals can be heroes even if the cause itself is unjust. The best way to help our forces is to not send them off to fight people in places we can't find on a map for reasons of made up bullshit, but as long as we keep doing that, we should look after them when they come home in bits. Of course, the government should be doing that but it seems like they like the invading much more than they like the consequences.

heroism.

POSTED 6 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
barkm - Member
How many of the people supported by H4H were injured in action?
I ask because of a trip to Kenya where a party of H4Hs were present. One was an officer who had broken her back and was in a wheelchair. She had broken her back skiing.

It doesn't matter. Assuming she was receiving support from H4H, H4H is a welfare charity for all service men and women providing support irrespective of how they received their wounds or injuries.
All here on the website, so you don't have to make assumptions

From that FAQ;
Help for Heroes considers anyone who volunteers to join the Armed Forces, knowing that one day they may have to risk all, is a hero. It's that simple.

I made no assumptions at all. And my question hasn't been answered.

It matters because people give money to the charity to support servicemen wounded in the line of duty, not those hurt on holiday, even if those might only be a small proportion.

I feel dirty

The individuals can be heroes even if the cause itself is unjust. The best way to help our forces is to not send them off to fight people in places we can't find on a map for reasons of made up bullshit, but as long as we keep doing that, we should look after them when they come home in bits. Of course, the government should be doing that but it seems like they like the invading much more than they like the consequences.

Anybody wiling to put their life on the line to protect my freedoms may not be a "hero" but they are definitely worth my support when they return.

I think I'm willing to put my life on the line to protect your freedom, im fairly convinced your freedom would be perfectly safe without having sent a single troop outside of our borders in the last 25-70 years.

I'm genuinely interested to hear squaddies/ex squaddies reasons for signing up, and whether they think Britain would not be free without military intervention within above timeframe.

I'm with the OP on not giving any money to H4H. It's become like a stealth tax to enable politicians to send people to war without having to consider their care when returning.

They would be better using the money to lobby for a larger part of the defence budget to be spent on after care.

It might also stop the right wing nuts like Britain First using them to push their views on the gullible.

Why? Sense of adventure mainly. Didn't fancy a 9-5. Wanted to get a trade, and hopefully achieve something I could be proud of. All of my friends went into construction and I nearly did too. Largely, I achieved what I set out to and I'm hugely proud of the work carried out by my unit in the ops I participated in and those I didn't. My medals hang on the wall alongside the lid and dagger I worked so hard for.

Timeframe? Nobody knows what's coming. I'm sure those who signed up in 1936 didn't know they'd be legitimate heroes due to the nature of the task given to them, just as those who signed up in 1999 didn't know they'd be cast as illegitimate heroes due to the task given to them.

The individuals can be heroes even if the cause itself is unjust.

Does that extend to acts of terrorism? Or the freedom fighter saving his tribal leader from an incoming Allied grenade?

Timeframe? Nobody knows what's coming. I'm sure those who signed up in 1936 didn't know they'd be legitimate heroes due to the nature of the task given to them, just as those who signed up in 1999 didn't know they'd be cast as illegitimate heroes due to the task given to them.

Wrecker - forgive me, I do respect your work and can imagine the pressure and danger was massive. I just don't agree with the principle of blindly going in under the charge of a governing body that I may or may not agree with.
In 1936 I think objectors would've been hanged or shot for treason if they chose not to fight, times have changed.

I just don't agree with the principle of blindly going in under the charge of a governing body that I may or may not agree with.

slimjim78 - Member

Does that extend to acts of terrorism? Or the freedom fighter saving his tribal leader from an incoming Allied grenade?

IMO, yes. Heroism and courage doesn't recognise sides. And right or wrong is so often a question of where you stand. Probably a bit beyond Help For Heroes remit, mind.

lets not get started on the heroism of suicide bombers then

IMO, yes. Heroism and courage doesn't recognise sides.

For great gallantry, skill and devotion to duty when in charge of a Lewis gun in HM Motor Launch 306 in the St Nazaire raid on 28 March 1942.

Motor Launch 306 came under heavy fire while proceeding up the River Loire towards the port. Sergeant Durrant, in his position abaft the bridge, where he had no cover or protection, engaged enemy gun positions and searchlights ashore. During this engagement he was severely wounded in the arm but refused to leave his gun. The Motor Launch subsequently went down the river and was attacked by a German destroyer at 50 to 60 yards range, and often closer. In this action Sergeant Durrant continued to fire at the destroyer's bridge with the greatest of coolness and with complete disregard of the enemy's fire. The Motor Launch was illuminated by the enemy searchlight, and Sergeant Durrant drew on himself the individual attention of the enemy guns, and was again wounded in many places. Despite these further wounds he stayed in his exposed position, still firing his gun, although after a time only able to support himself by holding on to the gun mounting.

After a running fight, the Commander of the German destroyer called on the Motor Launch to surrender. Sergeant Durrant's answer was a further burst of fire at the destroyer's bridge. Although now very weak, he went on firing, using drums of ammunition as fast as they could be replaced. A renewed attack by the enemy vessel eventually silenced the fire of the Motor Launch, but Sergeant Durrant refused to give up until the destroyer came alongside, grappled the Motor Launch and took prisoner those who remained alive.

[b]Sergeant Durrant's gallant fight was commended by the German officers on boarding the Motor Launch[/b]. This very gallant non-commissioned officer later died of the many wounds received in action.

I admit, the sainsburys Xmas ad got to me. I love the idea of humanity looking past the insanity of war and enemy, even just temporarily.

Have you seen the interviews with the band of brothers guys?
It's not even personal "we were just doing what we were supposed to do".
****ing heartbreaking.

I'm genuinely interested to hear squaddies/ex squaddies reasons for signing up

I'm an ex Squaddie, and yeah, I'm a long time out, but still got a fair few t shirts.
I did a couple of courses, and went to a few places, some good, some, less so, and saw a few things.
Why did I join?
Well, where I grew up, in a small village in North Yorkshire, there wasn't a lot going on, so it gave me a way out.

As for charity?

This:

[url= http://www.talking2minds.co.uk/tm/how-we-can-help/ ]Goes to help with PTSD etc... [/url]

"Hero" is overused and not just in the Forces, sportsmen for example? As others have said though, "Help for average guy/girl trying to do his/her job in the wrong place at the wrong time" wants for a little snappiness.

I joined up because I wanted to be a fast jet pilot, for the same reasons I like mountain biking I suppose. That didn't work out, but I still wanted to work with aircraft, do an interesting job and travel a bit. Plus most of my mates were joining up.

So forgive me if I'm reading this wrong, but 'protecting the British freedom' came further down the list than - not many opportunities round this way - will get free training/paid for privilege - play with some really cool toys - will get to see some cool places - my mates were doing it ?

Like I said earlier, I can see those attractions. It seems a lifestyle choice. But as I eluded to earlier, it's not in my name that our boys get sent abroad to do the dirty work. It's the propaganda effect of H4H that bothers me.

Best wishes go to anyone injured in their line of duty. I wouldn't even wish that on my enemies..

The 'propaganda' pushed by both H4H and MP's has nothing to do with the military. We are apolitical, we obey our masters, the taxpayer, via the elected officials.

It is not our place to question, the nature of our business is to follow orders to achieve success in austere and challenging environments, often hostile to our presence. I wouldn't expect you to understand, it's very difficult to get your head around. However, that discipline is what helps keep everything together when the shit is hitting the fan. Without it you get the My Lei massacre and the like.

Yes, certain recent deployments have been questionable, no matter that, what you have currently is an Army of around 85,000 volunteers who would put themselves in harms way for you, without question, when needed.
Heroes? No, mostly just dedicated, professional individuals who do it because they want to.

RBL and Combat Stress are much better options for your coin.

There are many other countries who do not share our national compassion. I was deeply moved and saddened to see so many U.S. Forces veterans on the west coast beaches around LA, wheeling themselves on boards, no legs, some with no arms and all of them with no support or help from their administrators or public

US Veterans have a far better system of support than the UK forces. The Veterans Administration has had some organizational issues in recent years, but what is provided to US veterans far surpasses that which is given to UK veterans. If people don't want the help, they don't have to have the help.

I struggle with the idea that Thatcher's and Blair's wars in some way helped keep us safe. It made us targets.

BillMC - Member
I struggle with the idea that Thatcher's and Blair's wars in some way helped keep us safe. It made us targets.

Please do expand on that statement.

Whyever not?

Thatcher's wars? The Falklands? Surely that's a more black and white one than Iraq/Afghanistan? As was GW1, the Balkans, Sierra Leone. People have short memories. We were targets anyway, as a Western, secular, ostensibly Christian, leading free-market economy. France, Spain and Bali, just off the top of my head, have all been hit by fundamentalist terrorism despite a much less interventionist stance than us.
OP, perhaps British people are generally embarrassed when talking about patriotism etc, as well as being part of a highly skilled team, but I think they're certainly motivating factors for most. I'm proud of what I do and I think HM Forces are a force for good in the world. Remember the media just report the bad stuff!

but I can't get my head around the word 'hero'

It's really the wrong word but it was obviously too strong an alliterative temptation for them.

Slimjim, as a pacifist are you prepared to go another country and talk to those people directly who are stopping a village from building schools, re-opening a market so they can have a standard of living again or just so villagers can live in peace or do you just leave that to someone else.
I'm ex forces, have lots of friends who are still serving or just retiring and some who didn't make it. I know none who are 'killers' and nearly all think of themselves as defenders. Defending the mate next to him, the contractor rebuilding a school or water supply, the villagers who just want their freedom. A lot of these people now work these same areas doing humanitarian work. Heroes by a single action probably not and they don't think of themselves in that way either they are just doing there job much the same way as Fire, Ambulance and Police personal do too, only after when they recount the tails to others they realise they have done something special. A soldier going out on patrol not knowing if they are going to be shot at as the run out of base, whilst talking to a local or blown up searching an area to be made safe for the villagers to use. No less heroic than a fireman going into a burning building or the person in the street that breaks up a fight whilst others just look on.

As a nation if we send people to war we should look after them when they return. It shouldn't be left to charities. I would much rather we hadn't sent troops into battle as not only do I disagree with the justification, I disagree with the action.

You are not on your own OP the name of the charity grates with me too and I share bencoopers view on the chain of logic which is so faulty.

It must be lovely being a pacifist.

Thank goodness we all don't think like that otherwise the country would be invaded, sharpish, and we would all end up as slaves.

Ive read some cretinous stuff before but this is close to being the winner.

but happy to live in a safer country because of them?

Yes, of course we do. Frankly, that is a ridiculous suggestion.

Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole war on terror are based on commercial interests - not national security. The reason Al Quaeda, ISIS and the Taliban exist in the first place is because America and its allies have repeatedly attempted to manipulate the political situation around the world to serve our industries.

My two points to add. I was in the forces directly from school for 4 years before going on to do other things. I can't honestly say that I or the folk I met in the forces were heroes just for joining up. I didn't go into a conflict zone but if I had it would have been by instruction not free choice so not sure that makes a great dal of difference. I also don't think standing on a land mine automatically makes you a hero. There are heroes in the forces imo, who risk more to save colleagues of members of the public but being in the forces (or being injured whilst in the line of duty) does not make you a hero.

Secondly, interesting conversation with a friend was is an officer in Afghanistan who was pretty scathing about some of the men who stood on mines or got themselves shot as they had not followed clear protocols. He felt the best thing they could have done would have been court marshalled some of them instead of making them 'heroes' as a warning to others to pay more attention to their personal safety but it clearly would be propaganda suicide at home. Are you a 'hero' if you are brave enough to be there but a muppet who didn't follow instruction and risked the welfare of others who had to extract you?

Slimjim, as a pacifist are you prepared to go another country and talk to those people directly who are stopping a village from building schools, re-opening a market so they can have a standard of living again or just so villagers can live in peace or do you just leave that to someone else.

As a pacifist I am against this notion of acting as world police, setting foot in other countries where we may be, but are also usually not welcome. More often than not we create further trouble for ourselves down the road by meddling in cultural and/or political affairs. Our motives are often veiled as humanitarian but as eluded to above, it usually deflects from a political and economic gain.

The links between munitions companies and many governments leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth.

For me it's as simple as: armed forces = for defending home territory
Nothing more.

For me it's as simple as: armed forces = for defending home territory

This.

And if you think the various wars we've been involved in in the last 20 years were to preserve home security then you're sadly deluded.

^^ And ironically the Ministry of War was renamed the Ministry of Defence.

Personally I think the government should be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act and forced to change the name back to Ministry of War/ War Office.

It would certainly be more honest.

I much prefer that title.

DB.

Which government would you prosecute then lynch, the labour one?

The last round of wars... Afghanistan/ Iraq have in no way improved our security

They have however motivated a several ordinary British people to turn against the UK

Certainly the 7/7 bombers cited those wars as justification for their attacks in their suicide videos

For me it's as simple as: armed forces = for defending home territory

We're an island. Trying to fight an enemy once they've set foot on our shores is tactically unsound, a conventional style engagement would put the UK civilian population at risk, the other option is an asymmetric engagement, which would require cooperation of the civilian populace, which would again expose them to risk. Our fictional enemy can let loose with abandon as they are fighting an enemy with no fallback option and no risk to their own civilian population and economic heart.

A defence force still needs the ability to project power to protect our borders before the threat arrives.

There are two aspects to this which wind me up, the first being the assumption that anybody in the armed forces who becomes injured is automatically a 'hero' and deserves better treatment than is available on the NHS for the likes of 'non-heroes' such as firefighters, paramedics, police etc who may be injured through their work (which clearly isn't heroic enough).

The second is the assumption that serving in the armed forces in Afghanistan gives automatic 'hero' status. The local paper is full of drink driving stories, most resulting in a one year ban, the notable exceptions being squaddies who get the 'hero' treatment (although they probably just spent 6 months fixing landrovers in Camp Bastion) and get let off by the magistrate with a warning.

The reality is the troops get treated on the NHS as everyone else and don't get any special treatment. However, as I understand it, one trauma ward is tweaked for military use reflecting the large numbers which were being admitted and the severity of the injuries.

jamj1974

As a nation if we send people to war we should look after them when they return. It shouldn't be left to charities. I would much rather we hadn't sent troops into battle as not only do I disagree with the justification, I disagree with the action.

You are not on your own OP the name of the charity grates with me too and I share bencoopers view on the chain of logic which is so faulty.

^^^THIS^^^

natrix - Member

There are two aspects to this which wind me up, the first being the assumption that anybody in the armed forces who becomes injured is automatically a 'hero' and deserves better treatment than is available on the NHS for the likes of 'non-heroes' such as firefighters, paramedics, police etc who may be injured through their work (which clearly isn't heroic enough).

The second is the assumption that serving in the armed forces in Afghanistan gives automatic 'hero' status. The local paper is full of drink driving stories, most resulting in a one year ban, the notable exceptions being squaddies who get the 'hero' treatment (although they probably just spent 6 months fixing landrovers in Camp Bastion) and get let off by the magistrate with a warning.

If this is really happenning for that reason, it's wrong and it shouldn't be. I agree the term grates, for random members of the Forces as much as the England football team. I'm not a hero, but I've met one or two.

I don't think I've ever agree with an off-topic post more- I do resent the existence of Help for Heroes for all the reasons you state, and I was a bit worried it was just me.

I am completely with your post above OP- we need an armed forces for home defence, nothing more. We are not the world police. A direct threat would be a threat of invasion (even if that's invading other countries in Europe if it's an obvious conclusion we'll be on the target list at some point, like in WW2).

For this the size of the army is still way too big. It seems crackers to be spending money on an armed forces to go off to the Middle East whilst cutting benefits, NHS budgets etc. etc. It should be the first thing to go. But, since the army does exist, why isn't the government that sent them there giving them the support they need instead of a charity?

It's all bonkers.

The reality is the troops get treated on the NHS as everyone else and don't get any special treatment.

Apart from the H4H recovery centres, Headley Court rehab centre, financial support etc, etc

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/how-we-help/recovery-centres/

A military either has an expeditionary capability or it hasn't. Without one, we would be unable to continue to help with humanitarian operations (hurricane/earthquake relief, MAC/infrastructure taskings)

Yup, you don't want to mess with Oxfam's crack Black Ops operatives.

You don't need the military for humanitarian operations, and they're not really the right people to do that - fund humanitarian work directly, instead of using a hugely expensive military to do it.

Cut the armed forces by 2/3rds. You've now got a token "home defence force", unable to meaningfully contribute to any kind of overseas ventures, even ones you might approve of, or protect the UK's interests or her people overseas, or meet our obligations to NATO. You've saved £20bn, not a lot compared to the NHS and welfare budgets. Meanwhile, you've put a lot of people out of work.

A defence force still needs the ability to project power to protect our borders before the threat arrives.

I see no incompatibility with a Japanese style Self Defence force and the ability to get to where the bad guys are quickly. Or indeed the Swedish model which involves a military with such levels of sophistication that makes any invasion so costly to the enemy that means it's simply not worth it.

I think most folk just don't want our armed forces being used as the pointy end of a foreign policy that's designed to get brown people to do want we want, or give us what we want for nowt.

I see this said quite a bit. A military either has an expeditionary capability or it hasn't. Without one, we would be unable to continue to help with humanitarian operations (hurricane/earthquake relief, MAC/infrastructure taskings), or getting others out of the shit such as in Bosnia or Sierra Leone. Are you happy for us to stop contributing to operations like that? because a defense force would not be able to. Kind of goes against the flow of agreeing with foreign aid.

I know what you mean to say but that is utter BS to suggest only an offensive army allows us to help out abroad.

You've save £20 Billion

O rly?

The government is in favour of replacing Trident at a cost of around £100 billion.

I can't think of any overseas ventures that are actually likely to happen that'd be worth the UK's involvement. And I think having people not in work is preferable to having them in work in the army.

Disingenuous. £20bn per year, as you know. £100bn are the Trident replacements projected full life costs (50yrs+). The point stands.

Most people weren't imagining WW2 until a few years before it broke out. Or the Blkans, or Sierra Leone, or GW1. Luckily, there are people paid to think about and plan for these things.

There is a mindset now, after Iraq and Afg, that intervention is inherently unethical. In the 90s, the West was pilloried for not intervening in Rwanda and the Balkans (earlier). It's cyclical. With a resurgent Russia threatening Europe (credible deterrence?), Islamic fundamentalism and bonkers regimes like North Korea, plus the South Atlantic, I can think of plenty of potential future conflicts.

Its really not true to suggest that the reason we need an armed force is so that we can do such amazing humanitarian work abroad with our foreign aid

I know what you mean to say but that is utter BS to suggest only an offensive army allows us to help out abroad.

The vast majority of what we did between maggies and tonys wars was exactly that.

Exactly - the humanitarian work is really just glorified training. My point still stands - paying the military to do humanitarian work is much more expensive than properly funding the humanitarian work directly.

properly funding the humanitarian work directly.

The military are the best (and in many cases the only) people for the job.

The military are better at providing food, medical and disaster relief than Oxfam, Save The Children, MSF or many other expert organisations?

Natrix - I was specifically referring to care within the NHS. However, I'm unsure how the MOD spending part of its budget on care and rehabilitation at Headley Court is seen as `special treatment', and perhaps more an indication of the need particularly following the recent conflicts.

bencooper - Member

The military are the best (and in many cases the only) people for the job.

The military are better at providing food, medical and disaster relief than Oxfam, Save The Children, MSF or many other expert organisations?
Posted 18 seconds ago # Report-Post

Depends how dangerous it is!

Places MSF are currently working: http://www.msf.org.uk/where-we-work

Quite a few dangerous places there, where the British army has no presence.

This is completely stupid. MSF carry out risk assessments, they WILL NOT GO some places without military presence. Where the british military are and are not is irrelevant to a french charity.

The Help for Heroes Rehabilitation Complex at Headley Court was built with funds raised by the H4H, not from MOD spending http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/how-we-help/headley-court/

If a firefighter for example received a similar injury to a serviceman they would not be able to access such a specialist facility, but would have to rely on the NHS.

The French Army are in quite a few of them though. I'm not belittling the work of NGOs by the way, but a military force can provide its own security (or that of NGOs and various other agencies) better than a civilian organisation.

This is completely stupid. MSF carry out risk assessments, they WILL NOT GO some places without military presence. Where the british military are and are not is irrelevant to a french charity.

They're an international charity. Of course they do risk assessments, the point is they can operate in some very dangerous places by working closely with governments and local groups, not by waving guns around.

Is the MOD doing much humanitarian work in Syria at the moment?

The military are better at providing food, medical and disaster relief than Oxfam, Save The Children, MSF or many other expert organisations?

I don't see Oxfam, Save the Children or any others with a fleet of Hercules or the people trained to do air drops. Before any ships arrive at ports or commercial cargo planes land at airports lots of work has gone on usually by military forces to make them suitable. You only need look at Haiti and Kashmir earthquakes when you had the military of various countries getting aid to those that needed it.

I don't see Oxfam, Save the Children or any others with a fleet of Hercules or the people to trained to do air drops.

Give them even a fraction of the MOD's budget, and they'd quickly acquire that capability. Though they already have very, very good logistics capability anyway.

If we gave these organisations a reasonable chunk of the 50 odd billion we spend on the military they could probably afford a few Hercules and more staff

Regarding the humanitarian side of things, adding to Wrecker's examples, the military have put a huge presence out in West Africa recently - it seemed every free man and his dog with the requisite medical training was being shipped out on rotation. This rapid reaction ethos seems to be how our Forces are being set up for in the future.

I have some sympathy for the OP for 2 reasons.

1. Most are very unlucky but not hero's. Joining the military means that getting shot and blown up is part of the job description, although I imagine you have to look quite hard in the job spec to find that bit

2. The charity really should be called Help for Government as it is raising the money to do the work the MoD should be paying for out of its budget. It puts these people in harms way so should be looking after them. I suspect calling a charity "Help for Government" probably wouldn't raise much money.

The vast majority of what we did between maggies and tonys wars was exactly that.

You said we needed them to do this [ humanitarian work]we dont

natrix - Member

The Help for Heroes Rehabilitation Complex at Headley Court was built with funds raised by the H4H, not from MOD spending http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/how-we-help/headley-court/ /p>

If a firefighter for example received a similar injury to a serviceman they would not be able to access such a specialist facility, but would have to rely on the NHS.

Headley Court was there before H4H, although they have splashed quite a bit of cash on the place. As we've withdrawn from Afghanistan now, I wonder if there's spare capacity for civil emergency services?

I don't see Oxfam, Save the Children or any others with a fleet of Hercules or the people trained to do air drops

You said we needed them to do this [ humanitarian work]we dont

Wrecker, you're completely missing the point. The comparison isn't between the military and the current NGOs, it's between the military and what the NGOs could achieve with even a fraction of the military's funding.

It's about value for money. How many people could be helped with, say, £10bn diverted from the MOD budget to NGOs? A huge number.

Natrix - Help for Heroes contributed to improving part of the physical facilities - Headley Court is not new.

To suggest that they are better equipped than the military at providing humanitarian relief is ludicrous.

Everyone is pointing out how the military have all the money and all the best toys

To suggest the army is better at humanitarian work than humanitarian organisations is as daft as suggesting humanitarian organisations are as good at war as troops [ assuming funding is equal]

Wrecker, you're completely missing the point. The comparison isn't between the military and the current NGOs, it's between the military and what the NGOs could achieve with even a fraction of the military's funding.

To suggest the army is better at humanitarian work than humanitarian organisations is as daft

Now you are deliberately missing the point.

They're charities!!!!!

So what? Charities in many areas already get lots of funding from government departments and local authorities. Just extend this to the MOD.