You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
He'll turn 20 next month, and has been recently made redundant from his first 'proper' job.
He just dropped this one on me today. He is going to look at a trade within the Army.
A trade is a good plan.
I think if my son in the future asked me about it that would be my recommendation. Can't say I would want him being shot at directly
I think it's a good thing. Good discipline for life, good experience of life, a salary. Possibly travel, possibly move up to leadership.
Mrs_oab holds the opposite is view, and would hate our lot to join up.
I would ask him for what reasons he wants to join , get him to really think about it and all the implications, and if it's what he really wants I wouldn't stand in his way .
Why not the Navy or RAF? They don't seem to get shot at as much but would probably have some excellent trades opportunities as well.
Two replies and the sort of almost reassurance I was after.
He had his job less than a year. He was installing LED screens, sound systems and temporary wifi at clubs, exhibitions, indoor and outdoor concerts. Hoping his short experience working in that field might stand him in good stead to be an army electrician.
I work in the defence sector and do a lot of work with the military, so not a bad choice if given the chance to learn a trade given the limited choices available elsewhere. Depends on whether he has the right attitude to stick with the discipline. The military are also now providing civilian qualifications for all trades - joining the likes of the Signals means plenty of relatively well-paid roles in industry and not being front-line.
Having grown up as a navy brat - would I **** and would encourage my children similarly. Navy or RAF perhaps (though RAF are still stationed on the front line) but no way to army. Merchant Navy isn't a bad shout and you join with a foundation degree in mechanical or electrical engineering after 3.5 years training. Depending on who you sail with you can see some nice parts of the world, get paid far better and are less likely to end up as a name on a plinth somewhere. No brainer IMO.
That said and done, he's a big boy and its not really your decision to make, you can only advise him as best as you can.
How conflicting this would be. Really proud for son/daughter to serve the country (same as Grandad's did). BUT the realisation of him/her facing going to war!!!!
I would be very pleased but make sure its a worth while trade he's after that will transfer well to civvie street, a full career in the Army say is 22 years at 20 yrs old that's 42 yrs old still a whole career ahead till official retirement afterwards. Theres too many 40 something security guards ex rifleman etc, exciting when young but no good outside of the forces.
I'd be worried to death if he joined the Navy. Though that seems to be the go to arm of the services nowadays.
I have an inherent fear of being on ships at sea.
If I go to the Isle of wight on the ferry, I'll be on deck looking for the nearest thing to swim to in case!
I was going to suggest the Royal Engineers, which would fit into the Army electrician bit.
Royal Engineers offer a variety of roles and can be very front line, embedded with the Para's as well.
Commercial diving qualifications also a possibility in the RE.
Well, I enjoyed my 12 years in the Army.
Some will enjoy it, others won't.
Ask him how he'd feel about having to shoot another human being - also, if he's comfortable with being sent to do the government of the day's bidding.
It all seems like a lot of fun until it isn't anymore, then it's a bit late...
Lots more interesting Engineering opportunities in the Navy if that floats his boat (or indeed, ship). Paid for my uni course + some on top (before the £9k came in). Much less chance of getting shot too.
Commercial diving qualifications also a possibility in the RE.
Diving or driving? If former, all well and good, if the latter, so what? Who really wants to slog their days out in a lorry cab, certainly none of the drivers I ever speak to would recommend it.
Sounds like he's got his head screwed on, should be encouraged and supported and thanked for being forthright about his life plans.
Good on him, he'll love it.
I remember my interview panel when I was going through RCB
"how would you feel about killing someone?"
"how would you deal with a significant injury, like losing your legs"
You have to demonstrate you've thought it through not just "yeah, get some"
They don't just ply you with 'fun' stuff when you go on their application sessions (though there is a lot of that)... I got to drive a Foden truck & challenger tank & shoot stuff!
Do it, I wish I had sometimes.
I'm getting out next year after 8 years in the RAF, as a aircraft techie, seems I was in your position at 19 as your son, I've had a wail of a time, learnt a great trade and seen a good amount of the world (sandy and hot). I would still recommend it, but for me, now it's just not right for me, I'm fed up of spending a lot of my life away from the Mrs and want to be settling down. Salary is good, but with the new employment model that's coming, many techies like me are gonna be without their incremental pay rises and the attraction of better pay on the outside is seeing a good lot of us leave.
It's a hell of a career, there are a few traps for service personnel to fall into though, mostly...
Drinking away all their pay - drinking culture is prevalent in some units.
Not planning for after service e.g. how to sell their skills on the outside - i find it surprising how many ex forces don't link things like not flapping when under fire to civvy speak 'delivering under pressure'. Going into a trade helps but is by no means a guarantee in avoiding this.
Keeping an eye on just how green the grass is when considering getting out - it seems common to overlook how much food/rent costs on the outside,and just how easily employers can get rid if they don't like you.
At 20,there is of course still time to dip your toe in the water with the reserves, if you don't like it,you walk away,no return of service.
Take a look at the RFA. Train as an ETO and get paid while training. As its Merchant Navy he will get paid more, get more leave and have some say over your life IE could leave for the cruise ships or go ashore. Still get to work closely with the military but not quite as front line. There seems to be a shortage of ETO's at the moment...
My mates who joined the army all ended up in the infantry and soon jaded with it and not good for a career, freinds in the RAF and Navy were all set for life with good training and high demand skill sets.
If I had joined up it would have been the Royal Engineers
If he likes it he will have a great time. There are loads of education and trade options. I enjoyed my time in the Army. Would do it all over again. Learnt a lot about life, people and traveled the world. It also promotes from within and you can go all the way from the bottom to the top. I've seen it happen on a few occasions.
Ultimately it's his choice and I wouldn't recommend he joins the reserves.
A rather cruel irony is that the only member of my family to be killed in action was my brother in law. A REME attached to the Welsh Guards and killed on the Sir Gallahad.
If your son said he might join up?
I'd disown him. Probably not, but I'd be very upset and disappointed. My family have always been pacifists as far back as we can tell.
I was going to suggest the Royal Engineers, which would fit into the Army electrician bit.
REME for electrical though surely?
Some good advice here. Your boy should definitely make the distinction between 'Regiments' and 'Corps'. Personally, i'd choose the latter always.
I left school at 16 with practically zero qualifications and zero ambition, and somehow managed to stumble into the RAF. 10 years on, i get paid more than most of my peer group, have been all over the world (North America, South America, Africa, Scandinavia, Asia, the Middle East...), and have loads of transferable skills. I'm also working towards a degree, which is paid for mosty by the company.
I'm also a Joint Service Mountain Biking Instructor, so i get paid to take groups out for Adventurous Training.
It's not perfect, and he'll have to be prepared for some bad times. But if he is are mentally prepared for the obvious, then he'll have access to some of the best training available, some amazing opportunities, and have a solid career for 20+ years.
I'd actively encourage mine to go off to sandhurst, or (assuming a couple of notches down the clever scale) Joining the RAF / navy as a techie. Not sure about front line infantry though.
However, I absolutely would not stand in their way either and support whatever decision they make, ultimately they'll do whatever they want, so go with the flow!
I was going to suggest the Royal Engineers, which would fit into the Army electrician bit.REME for electrical though surely?
Engineers do all the non vehicle electric, power. Think civil engineering. REME, automotive mechanics
A couple of the lads in school joined the Army at 18-20 years old, the first was a rugby mad, super fit keen lad who had the life of Riley - he spent about 10 years playing rugby for one of the Army teams playing against RAF and Navy teams all over the world in between being in the 'regimental police' (that's vaguely what I remember it being called) basically being mean to new recruits who messed up, finally took a cushy job in recruitment based in our local barracks before finally leaving and moving straight into a PC role with our local police force (one that seemingly never recruits) and into armed response with a year or two - I think he's left the police now. He always maintained his own thoughts and opinions and wasn't a stereotypical shoulder (he could goes hours without mentioning it).
The other joined because that was all that was available to him, he bought into all the brain washing, married a fat horrible nasty women to get a house or something, left the moment his 4 years was up and has been a **** up ever since - he always seems to be caught between being one of those guys who still acts like a squadie 15 years after he left despite the fact he hated it and left as soon as he could.
This was between the first and second Gulf wars so apart from being in NI towards the tail end of the troubles they didn't have to face War as such.
It's only a tiny example but it's the only experience I have of it, so if my Son asked to join up it would depend, if he really wanted to do it, I'd begrudgingly accept it, even if my Wife never would - but if we was doing it because he felt it was all that was left to him I'd try to talk him out of it. It's no guarantee of anything, but unlike other jobs it does change people, and few return back to who they were before.
I'm Ex RAF, joined up in a technical trade (electronics). Spent most of my time in working in Satellite Communications and came out into the same line of work. I had a great time and would do it all again in a heartbeat. If my kids expressed an interest I'd happily encourage them to consider joining up. The best thing your lad can do is go down to the CIO and have a chat with all three services.
At the risk of a slagging from the Army bods on here- I used to be an instructor in satcomms to the services and most of the Army Signals troops said they wish they'd joined the RAF....
Diving or driving?
Diving.
[url= http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/26639.aspx ]http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/26639.aspx[/url]
REME for electrical though surely?
[url= https://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/115/electrician ]https://www.army.mod.uk/rolefinder/role/115/electrician[/url]
gobuchul - Member
...Commercial diving qualifications also a possibility in the RE.
My brother did that in the 1960s. He was trained for demolition and in the armoured suits for really deep stuff.
He was really looking forward to civvy life and big money, but he got blown up during the British withdrawal from Aden. That totally buggered him for deep diving and he never made his fortune, but he loved it and would do it all again tomorrow given the chance.
Poor bugger now lives a miserable life on his 45' yacht on the Great Barrier Reef (usually with a boatload of young lovelies). 🙂
I would do my very best to talk my kids out of joining the army if they were looking at infantry/paras/dog handler/driver/cook/etc.
If they were looking at going in as an officer, then not happy - but at least they would have good options when they got out.
If he gets offered the opportunity to go into one of the trades, then fair enough I guess. But unless he has good qualifications, it will be very unlikely nowadays.
Two of my sons friends went into the Navy and RAF at 18yrs old (6-7yrs ago). Both had reasonable A levels and went in as technicians with the belief they would quickly progress to better, higher skilled roles. Both are still doing same jobs, that won`t be transferable once they leave (one refueling aeroplanes and the other refueling helicopters).
Both are still doing same jobs, that won`t be transferable once they leave (one refueling aeroplanes and the other refueling helicopters).
*edited, as i misread your post*
They will both have loads of transferable skills, whether or not they know it. Hands-on refuelling will be about 5 percent of their trade.
Id be pleased they wanted a trade as an ex army tradesman. I'd recommend the signals for a decent trade with transferable skills. A tech preferably for skills qualifications pay and rank. Signals also has para Commando and sf options. I walked out of the army straight into a well paid job lined up before I left. I move a couple of times always straight into work. I then joined the fire service and they love a forces background. A very worthwhile career I think
interestingly those that actually joined etc and did time in the services enjoyed and recommended it. The rest is just all second hand opinion with no understanding. You progress on ability and there is loads of training and skill all accredited. They even fund the education or training and give you time off to attend including all the sports and adventure training stuff. I went from CSE's to MSc by the time I left. Including mountain Exped Leader, APM and PRINCE2 project manager. Dosent include my trade skills etc and my driving licence's. Drive tanks, jump out of planes, shoot weapons and travel. Hated it! LoL
All non transferable and I didn't enjoy it or leave with a very good pension <tongue firmly in cheek>
As an aside the resettlement support provided by the forces is for life, not just when you leave.
I'd encourage if it. My experience is (most) young men benefit from the camaraderie, fitness and discipline. It doesn't suit everyone but I've rarely met anyone who regretted it and I meet lots of people who have regretted their early choices, careers etc..
Well worth some research, talk to lots of people and often there are opportunities to do a week in etc..
I'd try to discourage it. I've long believed that an endless supply of cannon fodder only encourages our governments to embark on more fruitless, pointless, reckless foreign misadventures that ultimately benefit only an elite.
It would break my missus' heart & I wouldn't be happy for him to join infantry,but right now ,I reckon their apprenticeships are worth their weight in gold.
IMO vast majority of current civvie engineering apprenticeship schemes are very poor.
RAF -just because my grandad was in during ww2 & the uniforms are better. 🙂
Oh and the RAF folk we met in Pitres always seemed to be flying somewhere to mtb/ski .
RAF - the uniforms are better.
"Light" Blue.
PFFFFFT.
😛
Get him to talk to army carreers about which qualifications he needs to get into Sandhurst, then get them and apply accordingly. This is the advice given to me by a very senior member of forces when I was a lad
Pawsey - how long has it been since you all left though? From what's been said its been a good while. I work with a lot of ex forces (navy admittedly, mostly bomber crew) and they don't have much to shout about barring ou fees getting paid.
Tinybits - officers aren't any smarter than tradesmen, its a different skill set is all. Some of the folk I grew up with who went on to be officers weren't all that.
I don't have children but my younger brother joined up and enjoys it. He's army but attached to a RAF regiment so gets to play in Chinooks. Has seen a bit of the world, hot and sandy too and got some good skills from it he can use when he comes out. People don't have to sign up for 10 years etc it's generally done on 4 year contracts now.
He gets paid well and will get a pension too. Getting a good trade will serve him well in future. Of course there's the chance of combat , goes with the territory.
I spent 9 years in the reserve forces (TA) and enjoyed it. Learnt a lot, grew up a lot, gained a lot and had a laugh and met some new friends.
Personally I'd say go for it.
/squirrelking/
Left in 2013, joined in 1975. Think that qualifies.
The opportunities are there for everyone and they are Tri service. You'd be surprised how many don't avail themselves of the opportunities on offer. I'd suggest those that haven't just didn't apply. Not sure when your bomber crews left?
I took my driving licence at 17 after a four week course. That was my first qualification, they sent me to a civilian outward bound school as well.
All that was during basic training before I went to a regular unit
I've long believed that an endless supply of cannon fodder only encourages our governments to embark on more fruitless, pointless, reckless foreign misadventures that ultimately benefit only an elite.
Such as providing humanitarian relief in Napal? Or evacuating the British from South Sudan? Or running Ebola relief centres in Sierra Leone?
It's not like the films.
My left-leaning 19 yr old is at uni and has joined the OTC. Not sure I'd want him to be an infantry officer in an over-deployed army. I'm worried.
My thoughts are why not? It's his life, he'll either love it or hate his stint. When my sons old enough it's up to him whatever he wants to do.
It would break my heart to think he would be anywhere near either end of a gun in military service.
Such as providing humanitarian relief in Napal? Or evacuating the British from South Sudan? Or running Ebola relief centres in Sierra Leone?
Go work for Oxfam, then. Or Save the Children, or MSF, or Greenpeace etc. All the humanitarian work you'd ever want, without being complicit in killing people.
The whole humanitarian military thing really winds me up. It's like defence jobs - a ridiculously expensive way to do something which could be accomplished much more effectively by civilians at a fraction of the cost.
Mentioned earlier up there, 4 year contracts??? As far as I'm aware in the RAF its 12 year engagement, which means nothing really, I signed up on a 9 year, extended to 12, an will get out at 8. As long as you've done a return of service, which for me is 3 years after my last bit of training, you can ask to get out, used to be 6 months notice. But is now 12 months, for my trade anyway, just means I can use the resettlement grants well and take my time CV polishing
Six years of fleet air arm for me got an HND and let go in 2005 had a good off as I was a little broken when I was booted so paid my uni lol. If i could go back now and continue Id have to say no as I know have a good life and job but would tell any youngster to go for it Id seen a lot of the world id never get the chance too again. PS Tif pay is/was horrendously crap but there is a nice HND making it worth while rather than forces qualifications that are not recognised by many.
I thoroughly enjoyed my six years in the infantry, but if my kids wanted to join I would try and steer them towards the RAF, reasons being that in my interactions with them they seemed to generally have a more comfortable and stable life, better accommodation/facilities and general quality of life.
The whole humanitarian military thing really winds me up. It's like defence jobs - a ridiculously expensive way to do something which could be accomplished much more effectively by civilians at a fraction of the cost.
So your proud pacifist ideals would not have allowed you to agree with this:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/tsunami2004.politics1
or this
Engineers do all the non vehicle electric, power. Think civil engineering. REME, automotive mechanics
Ah, right. I was thinking civil engineering (which has zero electrical content, I was one). Makes sense that RE would include electrical engineering though.
I once toyed with joining TA and due to my profession was initially advised I should go for REs. Then a REME officer mentioned to me something about being "on the Rhine within 4 days of the balloon going up" and REs being shot at whilst building bridges and his lot, if fired upon, "get into our trucks and *** off". Sounded like good advice, so I didn't join at all.
I work in telecoms and have interviewed and employed lots of ex-forces, have to say that the RAF Satcomms type people have more transferable skills to telecoms over the Signals. Signals I would suggest have better IT skills, all the people I saw could set up PC's/Servers/LAN's etc.. Whereas the RAF people had better telecoms, remote management type skills.
A trade job within the army could be a very good option. Friend of mine's son maintains Apaches.
If you are worried about his security you could see if he's interested in the RAF. I see @bazz made same point
The military has been subejct to dramatic cuts so kts certainly not as secure a career as before but I would not be automatically against working for Her Majestry
So your proud pacifist ideals would not have allowed you to agree with this
You misunderstand my point. Yes, it's nice that a billion-pound warship helped in disaster relief, but a much, much cheaper ship could have done just as good or better a job.
Put a fraction of the MoD's funding directly into civilian disaster relief, and it'll have a much bigger effect. Something like the US Peace Corps.
You misunderstand my point. Yes, it's nice that a billion-pound warship helped in disaster relief, but a much, much cheaper ship could have done just as good or better a job
Youve misunderstood my point, there wasnt a civilian crewed ship nearby, there are no civilian crewed disaster relief ships cruising the oceans ready to respond, the Navy regularly trains for disaster relief and has been fairly effective in the past at rapid reaction scenarios, a much, much cheaper ship doesnt have gas turbines that can get there as quick, utilising a warship as an emergency response vessel is tax payers money well spent..........and quite nice.
But that's just justification after the fact - "we've got these billion-pound warships, isn't it nice we can use them to rescue people?"
Far better not to have built them in the first place, and use the money for something much more socially responsible. Or, not bother replacing them, and spend the billions earmarked for their replacements to do something better.
Far better not to have built them in the first place, and use the money for something much more socially responsible. Or, not bother replacing them, and spend the billions earmarked for their replacements to do something better.
I can't think of anything more socially responsible that defending your populace, it is the first and most important obligation of any government.
The opportunities are there for everyone and they are Tri service. You'd be surprised how many don't avail themselves of the opportunities on offer. I'd suggest those that haven't just didn't apply. Not sure when your bomber crews left?
Within the last 7 years. That said bomber boats are a whole different world to the rest of the services.
Didn't mean to imply you were talking out your hole if that's what you thought, just some of the timeframes being employed are a little dated.
I can't think of anything more socially responsible that defending your populace, it is the first and most important obligation of any government.
You can do that without trying to project power around the world. Have our wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria etc made us safer? Probably the opposite.
You are short sighted and forget previous wars
I would not be very happy, largely because of how our armed forces are often-misused by our government. I am also a pacifist so probably wouldn't be keen from that perspective either.
I understand many people have had a positive experience of it and can't argue with that.
You are short sighted and forget previous wars
We as a nation do seem to get into an awful lot of wars, don't we?
It would break my heart to think he would be anywhere near either end of a gun in military service.
Me too.
It's either that, you ignore countries who ask for your help, are invaded or you are marginalised.
Well said Ben. Put the money into other things, including training, youth opportunities and overseas aid and all the good things could be achieved and a wider range of people helped in greater numbers.
I desperately wanted to join the infantry straight from school. My parents very carefully made exactly zero fuss about the idea, steadfastly did not disapprove in the slightest.
I never hit the minimum weight required and moved on to other things.
🙂
23 years service for me. Infantry initially but I transferred to a Corps when my knees started to suffer.
I had the opportunity to join a trade from the begining after good exam results, but simply wanted to be a soldier first and foremost and remain proud I wore my local county regiments cap badge, although it has now long since ceased to exist due to defence cuts. There's a camaraderie in teeth arms that doesnt exist in other branches of the military (imo) and an infantry regiment is like a family.
I've seen some amazing places and had opportunites I wouldn't have had in a civillian job. That said, for my own son i'm in total agreement with Bazz. The RAF are much better looked after and the organisation as a whole is far better managed than the Army. Sort of in the same way as I wouldnt want my son riding motorbikes, but i've had them since I was a teen.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with aspiring for a career in the military. I joined becasue I wanted to make a difference and have helped farmers during the foot and mouth crisis, covered the firefighters strikes, helped with the London Olympics, flood relief, combated smugglers in the far east and much more.
Unfortunately two unpopular wars overseen by two unpopular governments have skewed some peoples views of the military.
I'd suggest looking at the Navy as well.
I'm not in the forces, but work with the Navy everyday (we build stuff for Navy ships)
The Navy are suffering a bit with recruiting at the moment - I think your son could do well if he has a bit of drive/motivation.
Unfortunately two unpopular wars overseen by two unpopular governments have skewed some peoples views of the military.
Orcmaybe some peoplevjust dont like war.
You are short sighted and forget previous wars
Yeh, 'cos the whole Suez thing was great wasn't it..................
Don't forget the effect that combat could have on your son's mental health. I've got a friend who has PTSD after serving in Afghanistan in the RAF and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Make sure that he understands the risks as well as the potential benefits.
Ex Forces too and would do it all again at the drop of a hat.
There is a huge spectrum of roles in the forces and suggest that your son looks into all three branches. The Army is a hard life compared to the RAF but the Navy also tough in that you are months away at a time on ship routine which is demanding and not for everyone.
Go work for Oxfam, then. Or Save the Children, or MSF, or Greenpeace etc. All the humanitarian work you'd ever want, without being complicit in killing people.
As Cheekyboy pointed out, the Armed Forces have countless capabilities which simply aren't available in civilian worlds. Similar argument to Cheekyboy, but from an RAF perspective:
The charities above don't have access to large Air Transport aircraft, so where do they go when they need some? The RAF maintains the capability to get to otherwise inaccessible parts of the world, and thus to reach people who simply can't be reached by MSF in their Landrovers. They can also respond within hours to incidents thousands of miles away; that's the reason why, the day after the Nepal earthquake, i was in the middle east preparing to fly aircraft loads of DfID aid directly into Kathmandu. As much as you might like to disagree, there is simply no one else who can maintain these capabilities.
Closer to home, if you are involved in an aircraft crash anywhere in UK airspace (any aircraft, Military or Civil), it'll be a joint RAF / RN unit which comes out to sort you out. Name any UK aircraft crash in the last few decades, and it's the Forces who came to the rescue. Baddies put a bomb in a vehicle, and it's the Forces who come to the rescue. G4S fail to meet their commitments to Olympic Security, and it's the Forces who come to the rescue.
I understand your sentiment, and i think it would be wonderful to live in a world where we didn't need Armed Forces. This world isn't that, and to suggest otherwise is dangerously naïve.
I'm not arguing we don't need armed forces, I'm arguing we need much smaller armed forces, and to invest the difference in other things - like a civilian heavy airlift capability, for instance.
You're still using the "we've got it, so we may as well use it" argument. My argument is the humanitarian stuff the military does is great, and we should definitely keep doing all that stuff, but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
we should definitely keep doing all that stuff, but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
That may be true. Using the Military to do anything is expensive.
However, to be an effective military force, the armed forces need to be of a certain minimum size and by the very nature of would they are really for, they should have plenty of spare capacity when not involved in warfare.
The argument is all about what are they for?
Rightly or wrongly, this is what the current government think they are for:
Our vision is for a secure and prosperous United Kingdom, [b]with global reach and influence.[/b] Everything we do in the UK and around the world is driven by our determination to protect our people and our values, and ensure that our country prospers.
You can't do that with a couple of companies of soldiers and a few patrol boats.
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf ]National Security Strategy[/url]
bencooper - Member
I'm not arguing we don't need armed forces, I'm arguing we need much smaller armed forces, and to invest the difference in other things - like a civilian heavy airlift capability, for instance.
On the other hand I think we need a decent sized military, ie more boots on the ground, but with more emphasis on actual defence instead of expensive toys like Trident and Aircraft Carriers which are really imperial tools and no longer necessary.
There should also be a commitment to properly looking after our military both during and after service.
The military is an honourable profession, which unfortunately is frequently dishonourably used by our politicians.
but it can be done better and more cheaply by civilians.
Who would you use to safeguard your medical professionals