11-11

[Digit]

I'd like the answer to a different question. According to a news report today there are now just two soldiers for each Whitehall Warrior.
It seem on the face of it to be rather disproportionate. Chiefs and Indians comes to mind.

Roy.

 

[woodbloke]

.....
I agree about Grade 5s, though, they should all be exemplary. Should...

They should all spend 3 months at the frontline. No special treatment.

Some do Roger...my SWIMBO spent 6 months in the Falklands and that is an operational theatre. Equally she could have opted to go to Iraq or could if she (or even I) wanted put in for a post in Afghanistan...plenty of civvies do :wink: Washington DC is a better posting though :lol: - Rob

 

[andycktm]

iraq or afganistan............. choices,choices some people get all the luck.

 

[big soft moose]

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

If the soldier can do the job, and wants to, let him do it. Do you imagine that senior civil servants are unskilled or inexperienced? Or that supply and logisitcs need no skill or expertise?
Soldiers are badly paid, but then so are most low-rank civil servants.

I'm a mid grade civil servant - county council type - and we dont get a flipping bonus for doing our jobs propperly - we are expected to do our jobs propperly for our salaries - why should civil servants in govt ministries be any different. (what we got in reward this year was a pay freeze - but thats by the by)

I understand that individual MOD civil servants didnt get very much but alltogether 47 million quid is still a lot of money - which could have been better spent on kit for the boys in the front line - thats point 1

point 2 is that if the civil servants in charge of logistics are doing such a great job that they "deserve" a bonus - how come the lads at the front dont have a decent supply of kit (for example during the para's tour they had to rely on freinds and relatives sending them batteries for their night sights because they werent issued with enough likewise they , and indeed every other battle group have been short of body armour, boots, cold weather gear etc etc) surely ensuring that the troops have kit is the very meaning of logistics :roll:

 

[hog&bodge]

I saw no one wearing a Poppy in my area, aAnd yes I do live in a
very multicultural area...15 or so years ago people use to fly flags
and display poppy's in their windows, now it is only me.
I find it very disheartening and sad we have lost this very important
day of the year in my area...
We do have graffiti supporting the Taliban on walls..We have had it cleaned
of but it keeps coming back.
Gorden Brown need to wake up and smell the coffee..home grown
terrorists are here and need to be addressed..
sorry if I went off topic a bit but I feel isolated.
Alex.........

 

[andycktm]

Truth is Alex, Gordon and labour don't care.......

 

[big soft moose]

.....
I agree about Grade 5s, though, they should all be exemplary. Should...

They should all spend 3 months at the frontline. No special treatment.

Some do Roger...my SWIMBO spent 6 months in the Falklands and that is an operational theatre. Equally she could have opted to go to Iraq or could if she (or even I) wanted put in for a post in Afghanistan...plenty of civvies do :wink: Washington DC is a better posting though :lol: - Rob

falklands may be an operational theatre in the sense that there is an ongoing operation there , but its hardly comparable with a tour in iraq or afganistan - no one is shooting british forces in the islands afaik, or planting IEDs etc

and yes those civil servants who choose to go to afganistan or iraq are to be commended, but by comparison with the troops in the hills they have a fairly safe tour at bastion or wherever - as evidenced by the fact that civil service deaths in those theatres are rather lower than the troops death toll (in fact have any civil servants been killed in either theatre ? ) - I note that you could choose to go - no one gives the troops a choice , they go where they are ordered.

I mean no disrespect to you or your wife - and i'm sure you both do your jobs concientiously and earn your pay - but at the bottom line the lot of the civil servant is not the same as that of the serving officer or enlisted - and IMO its the latter that the money should be being spent on

 

[woodbloke]

and IMO its the latter that the money should be being spent on

...as I said earlier, the cash as a bonus paid to civil servants comes out a global salary 'pot' and has no impact on the troops at the sharp end...it's a way of giving us a small pay boost (and in most cases it is small) without all the implications of the pension system.
As for the implication (I think) of civil servants going into the actual front line...that's plainly daft, although working in the Green Zone in Iraq was probably as close as you'd ever want to get.
The Falklands is as I said, a theatre of operations. When I visited the Tornados were scrambled (and HMS Nottingham) at 3.00am in the morning 'cos an Argie ship had strayed :roll: into the exclusion zone. Similarly, rubber dingies have been found on the shoreline from time to time...Argie SF's being dropped by submarine for a bit of a recce. Although there's no covert danger, it's always just underneath the surface and everyone who's there is aware that a conflict could erupt again very smartly...especially if the oil starts to flow :wink:
and btw, the guys go willingingly into a war theatre in most cases...it's what they signed up for! - Rob

 

[andycktm]

I find it terribly sad how the average soldier is considered expenable. :shock:

 

[big soft moose]

and IMO its the latter that the money should be being spent on

...as I said earlier, the cash as a bonus paid to civil servants comes out a global salary 'pot' and has no impact on the troops at the sharp end

yeah but at the end of the day its all from the general exchequer and the governments excuse for the kit shortages is that they dont have enough money.

I agree that 47 million in bonuses is small beer compared with the billions spent on bailing out banks, or with the money spent (read wasted) on consultants and initiatives - but its still money that could be saved and redirected to pay for - for example body armour - last time i checked a second chance vest was about a k - so that would be more than enough for every man in the battle group to have one rather than squadies having to buy their own.

and i still dont think that bonuses are deserved - imo the salary (not to mention the pension scheme which is a lot better than average) is what a civil servant is paid to do their job propperly .

on your second point I agree that most of the boys go willingly into combat theatres - Ive lots of freinds in the armed forces ( I was washed from POC for being "unlikely to conform with military discipline "- had i not been i might be there myself) and more credit to them - but if we are sending the lads off to war whether in iraq, afganistan or the falklands if that blows up again, it ought to be encumbent on the govt to give them the kit they need to do their job propperly rather than making weak excuses about lack of resources while squandering tax payers cash on duck houses, mp s pay and bonuses for people who are already being paid to do their jobs.

 

[big soft moose]

I find it terribly sad how the average soldier is considered expenable. :shock:

soilders have always been considered expendable - and to an extent thats how a war has to be fought - and most soilders know this going in and accept that they take a soilders chance

however theres a difference between being "expended" taking the risks you expect to be asked to face such as enemy action and being needlessley expended because you werent provided with the right kit , support etc

both are terribly sad but the latter is an absolute disgrace to the country that sends their young men off to fight but doesnt care enough to give them a fighting chance.

 

[woodbloke]

...the salary (not to mention the pension scheme which is a lot better than average)

The majority of lower grade Civil Service jobs are not that well paid tbh, but that's compensated for by a better expectation of retaining your job over a longer period of time than outside the MOD....doesn't always happen of course, but generally 'once in' it's very, very hard to get rid of an individual. I know of a couple of cases where people have been 'let go' but the process has been convoluted and has taken years.
The pension used to be very good (final salary) which I'm in but it got changed several years ago to something far less desirable
The issue of bonus's is something we clearly disagree over. My position is clear as is yours, so I'll say no more - Rob

 

[big soft moose]

Fair enough rob - like i said no slight to you or swimbo is intended - my real greivance is with the govt that sends our young men off to fight "but cant find the money" to give them the equipment they need - yet seems to have no problem finding money for other purposes. such as

47 million for civil service bonuses

17 million for a chlamidiya screening programe which the audit commision says was a wate of time

3.3 billion on the olympics - including 547 million for a stadium they didnt really need

78 million - for mps expenses and allowances

and not forgetting the £78 billion that the govt put into the bank bailouts

but to provide an afganistan battle group with enough batteries, body ammour and boots to last the tour - plus enough maintenance time and fuel to keep the air support in the air - "oh no we havent got any money" :roll: ](*,) :duno:

 

[Jake]

And £50m to build a coastal footpath.

Government is full of competing demands and objectives, and it is very easy to get all single issue as an outside observer.

 

[big soft moose]

And £50m to build a coastal footpath.

Government is full of competing demands and objectives, and it is very easy to get all single issue as an outside observer.

dont even get me started on the coastal footpath... if ever there was a project not thought through properly.

I agree about the competing demands - schools, hospitals etc etc but when i deal with competing demands on my (much more modest) budget i prioritise them on the grounds of imnportance and urgency - and none of the things listed above should IMO be prioritised above decent kit for the armed forces

(or above hospitals, schools, police etc etc for that matter )

 

[Digit]

On your patch BSM.
A local farmer and wild life park owner is having a footpath driven through his property, thus destroying his livelihood. The interesting part is that the local council has spent a fortune on this dispute and it is heading for the Appeal court. At various points along the proposed rote, acording to the owner, the council is even breaking its own safety rules on proximity to cliff edge, crumbling cliffs, width of path etc. They were recently advised by a HSE inspector that they could face manslaughter charges if someone goes over a cliff edge and that their insurance would not cover claims.
They proceed!

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

On your patch BSM.
A local farmer and wild life park owner is having a footpath driven through his property, thus destroying his livelihood. The interesting part is that the local council has spent a fortune on this dispute and it is heading for the Appeal court. At various points along the proposed rote, acording to the owner, the council is even breaking its own safety rules on proximity to cliff edge, crumbling cliffs, width of path etc. They were recently advised by a HSE inspector that they could face manslaughter charges if someone goes over a cliff edge and that their insurance would not cover claims.
They proceed!

Roy.

And don't forget the Gaderene drive to force through legislation that bans dairy farmers keeping calves and mothers in a field where a pubic footpath goes through. If that happened round our way, many dairt farmers would be forced out of business.

 

[Digit]

They aren't bothered. I remember one Minister looking aghast at the suggestion this country is overcrowed retorting that 'from the air only ten percent is built up!' Such ignorance is its own defense

Roy.

 

[head clansman]

hi

I hear mention 47 million and i hear it only averaged about 1 thousand per head, thats an average ,now we all know someone has picked up a bloody great big bonus and we all know at which end of the salary scale it would have gone to , for doing what his job ? well who actually did his job ?

my boss here at portland was a grade 7 equivalent to a captain in the navy back in 1996 his salary was 37 thousand, 2009 now + bonus yikes , i never seen any of it , i was a mere PTO professional technical officer in other words his gofer. :evil: while he sat with feet on desk. this hole goverment and system is totally corrupt. hc

 

[big soft moose]

On your patch BSM.
A local farmer and wild life park owner is having a footpath driven through his property, thus destroying his livelihood. The interesting part is that the local council has spent a fortune on this dispute and it is heading for the Appeal court. At various points along the proposed rote, acording to the owner, the council is even breaking its own safety rules on proximity to cliff edge, crumbling cliffs, width of path etc. They were recently advised by a HSE inspector that they could face manslaughter charges if someone goes over a cliff edge and that their insurance would not cover claims.
They proceed!

Roy.

you hear stories like this all the time when you work in rights of way but mostly when you check the fine detail it doesnt stack up.

unless the footpath was already in existence and the farmer has obstructed it by creating a wildlife park across it - in which case more fool him.

that aside under the operative legislation (Countryside and rights of way act 2000) if it is a claim or a creation the council would need a public enquiry to enact it and there is no way that the public enquiry pannel would support a creation like this, particularly if oppopsed by the HSE.

secondly it is patently unlikely that the council would create a path so close to a cliff edge that there is a serious danger of people falling over it - particularly against the advice of their own insurers

thirdly the opperative charge would not be manslaughter but corporate homicide - and in order to be found guilty of that the council wouldf have to be shown to be in breach of their duty of care.

and finally fourthly unless the fall hazard is actually within the bounds of the footpath (normally a 3ft corridor) the council would not be liable for the fall in anycase - of which their insurers would be aware

you have to be aware that its in the landoweners interests to talk against the council and taken anything he says with a large pinch of salt