johnnythefox70 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I for one will NOT be signing any e-petition for this i pay my taxes the same as anyone else in any other job why ahould they jump the queue or be given special privileges, and would advise anyone else thinking about signing it because of pressure from ex services and familys of serving personell to make your own decision. If you want to sign then do so but if you think this is unfair and dont agree then dont sign it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I for one will NOT be signing any e-petition for this i pay my taxes the same as anyone else in any other job why ahould they jump the queue or be given special privileges, and would advise anyone else thinking about signing it because of pressure from ex services and familys of serving personell to make your own decision. If you want to sign then do so but if you think this is unfair and dont agree then dont sign it. Well done for jumping straight in there with both feet, have you actually looked as to what service personnel are entitled to? Or did you just decide that you pay your taxes and no one should get anything that you are not getting. I bet it really bugs you that serving personnel get 50% off at dominoes pizza, because you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I bet it really bugs you that serving personnel get 50% off at dominoes pizza, because you don't. If that is the case its a commercial decision by a private company, and would have more to do with PR than any concern for soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 If that is the case its a commercial decision by a private company, and would have more to do with PR than any concern for soldiers. There is also a forces discount card ,giving you an average of 20% off most retailers, the savings can be quite large when you use it all the time from food to holidays,cars,clothing ,leisure.anyone can apply,all you need to give is your dates of service and your military number Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 leisure.anyone can apply,all you need to give is your dates of service and your military number Would a 30 year old service number do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The Americans are so much better at this. From dedicated veterans hospitals all over the country, to discounts or even free entry at attractions and sporting events. In my experience they even extend this to members of allied armed forces and their families. It's not just the fact that they do all this, but that the public don't question or begrudge these small concessions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Would a 30 year old service number do. If it is yours then yes,you also need to provide proof of service, your little red book's front page in pdf format will do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The Americans are so much better at this. From dedicated veterans hospitals all over the country, to discounts or even free entry at attractions and sporting events. In my experience they even extend this to members of allied armed forces and their families. It's not just the fact that they do all this, but that the public don't question or begrudge these small concessions. Yes they are so very much better and yes they do extend it to allied armed forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The Americans are so much better at this. From dedicated veterans hospitals all over the country, to discounts or even free entry at attractions and sporting events. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Military veterans are dying needlessly because of long waits and delayed care at U.S. veterans hospitals, a CNN investigation has found. What's worse, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is aware of the problems and has done almost nothing to effectively prevent veterans dying from delays in care, according to documents obtained by CNN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The grass isn't always greener on the other side. I am only quoting from my own experience and didn't claim they were perfect. Of course it's possble to put a negative spin on anything with the help of Google. The key point I was trying to make was that any small concessions US veterans do receive are not begrudged by a public who are largely grateful for service and sacrifice on their belhalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The grass isn't always greener on the other side. It's not that green on this side when it is constantly urinated on. Why do the British public begrudge a few perks for the armed forces? http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/15/we-can-do-better-by-our-veterans/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I am only quoting from my own experience and didn't claim they were perfect. Of course it's possble to put a negative spin on anything with the help of Google. I don't need Google its common knowledge the problems American veteran hospitals have had from Vietnam onwards. It's not that green on this side when it is constantly urinated on. Why do the British public begrudge a few perks for the armed forces? Maybe the issue is I would not want or expect perks preferential health care treatment if I was in the army, if soldiers think they should have perks that's fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I don't need Google its common knowledge the problems American veteran hospitals have had from Vietnam onwards. Maybe the issue is I would not want or expect perks preferential health care treatment if I was in the army, if soldiers think they should have perks that's fair enough. You asked if a 30 year old army number was acceptable for discounts ,were you in the forces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 You asked if a 30 year old army number was acceptable for discounts ,were you in the forces? I have no intention of asking for anything because I was in the army 30 years ago, it was just a bit of banter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think you should have a read of this.Page 3 is a good place to start https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49469/the_armed_forces_covenant.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think the army should be taking care of issues soldiers have because of their service, if the means putting more money into army health services for that to happen then the money should be made available as long as it is extra money and not out of the health service, if they need specialist treatment fast tracked then the army should pay for them to go to a private health care provider if necessary. The government main concern is cost rather than what is best for soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The government sets the budget for the Army and the nhs,so it doesn't matter who pays for it because they both come from the public purse,the Army used to have it's own hospitals, i was born in one in Iserlohn in Germany, i had a shoulder op in the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich. but these were taken from the military or drastically reduced in size.Even when it was a military hospital civilians were allowed access to all it's facilities.The QE was knocked down and a civilian hospital built on it's site. How can you say the governments main concern is cost rather than what is best for soldiers when your whole argument has been that you disagree with the military having privileged treatment?as enshrined in the covenant and part of the armed forces act . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) How can you say the governments main concern is cost rather than what is best for soldiers when your whole argument has been that you disagree with the military having privileged treatment?as enshrined in the covenant and part of the armed forces act . What the government says and what it does are two different things, everything they do has an eye on cost. Injured soldiers are just an inconvenience for governments that they would like to go away. They could put in the money to give soldiers the best healthcare available if they wanted at the end of the day it all comes down to money. No government is going to come out and say they don't agree with or scrap the covenant, more for political reasons than any concern for soldiers. What it comes down to for me is as a have already said, would I want preferential treatment because I was in the army, over my mother son or daughter, the answer is no. How then could go on to say I don't mind having preferential treatment in front of someone's mother son or daughter. That's just my thinking if soldiers think they should be treated differently regards health care that's up to them. Edited March 18, 2015 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 What the government says and what it does are two different things, everything they do has an eye on cost. Injured soldiers are just an inconvenience for governments that they would like to go away. They could put in the money to give soldiers the best healthcare available if they wanted at the end of the day it all comes down to money. No government is going to come out and say they don't agree with or scrap the covenant, more for political reasons than any concern for soldiers. What it comes down to for me is as a have already said, would I want preferential treatment because I was in the army, over my mother son or daughter, the answer is no. How then could go on to say I don't mind having preferential treatment in front of someone's mother son or daughter. That's just my thinking if soldiers think they should be treated differently regards health care that's up to them. Again you are going in circles you state the government should do more for the armed forces,well they have enshrined the covenant in the armed forces act 2011,and this gives armed forces better treatment which is what you keep saying you want.I think you are just another one of those bitter civilians that resent that the armed forces may get better treatment than yourself or your family. Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve.you say you want the government to provide for better treatment of the military, yet are unhappy when shown that there are acts to ensign that very thing.I doubt very much that you have read the links i have been posting up otherwise you would have a better grasp on what it all entails and who is entitled to what,but i can see by your posts that you don't actually have a scoobys what it all entails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve.you say you want the government to provide for better treatment of the military, yet are unhappy when shown that there are acts to ensign that very thing. Its very simple I have no problem with the government putting extra money in to help soldiers regards healthcare, what I do have an issue with is if soldiers are being fast tracked or given preferential treatment over other NHS patients. What is difficult to understand about that. ? That's my view no one needs to agree. I think you are just another one of those bitter civilians that resent that the armed forces may get better treatment than yourself or your family. As I said If I was in the army I wouldn't want preferential treatment, i am surprised some soldiers do. If they do that's fine its up to them. Edited March 18, 2015 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carman06 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Happily signed. The military in this country are not looked after or respected nearly as much as other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 It is a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand I believe that all people should get the same treatment, with no-one queue jumping. On the other, people who have literally risked life and limb for their country deserve to treated in accordance with the covenant. Any difference in treatment should not, in my opinion, cover all military personnel, but should cover those who have a proven record of service at the sharp end. It wouldn't be easy to apply and might cause resentment, but they don't appear to be getting a fair deal at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Its very simple I have no problem with the government putting extra money in to help soldiers regards healthcare, what I do have an issue with is if soldiers are being fast tracked or given preferential treatment over other NHS patients. What is difficult to understand about that. ? That's my view no one needs to agree. As I said If I was in the army I wouldn't want preferential treatment, i am surprised some soldiers do. If they do that's fine its up to them. Again read the links I gave you about what fast tracking entails,being in the armed forces is hard enough at times without winging civvies like yourself bleating away not knowing what they are talking about.. Or better still why don't you take a trip down to Headly Court a specialised rehabilitation centre for the armed forces,getting themselves "preferential"treatment and the best care there is ,heck they even have a new gym and swimming pool for their own use,what a waste of tax payers money having all those doctors and nurses looking after a "preferential " few. Edited March 18, 2015 by welsh1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Or better still why don't you take a trip down to Headly Court a specialised rehabilitation centre for the armed forces,getting themselves "preferential"treatment and the best care there is ,heck they even have a new gym and swimming pool for their own use,what a waste of tax payers money having all those doctors and nurses looking after a "preferential " few. Who said it was a waste of tax payers money. ? I would see it as tax payers money well spent as long as soldiers are not queue jumping. Take mental health for example in front of a civilian with the same issue depression etc, I have no problem with that. If facilities like Headly Court and similar are there what is the point of the petition. ? There are 15 military Departments of Community Mental Health (DCMH) providing outpatient mental health care in the UK. All are staffed by psychiatrists and mental health nurses with access to clinical psychologists and mental health social workers, offering treatments including medication, psychological therapies and environmental adjustment where appropriate. The current regional method of DCMH delivery of outpatientcare, supported by the NHS Trust inpatient facilities, allows us to offer treatment promptly at a location close to the patient’s home or unit. In-patient treatment is a last resort but all personnel who require emergency inpatient care are admitted immediately. Those with a serious problem are offered an appointment the next working day and those with other mental health problems are offered appointments within 28 days. This compares extremely favourably to the NHS. Edited March 18, 2015 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Who said it was a waste of tax payers money. ? I would see it as tax payers money well spent as long as soldiers are not queue jumping. Take mental health for example in front of a civilian with the same issue depression etc, I have no problem with that. If facilities like Headly Court and similar are there what is the point of the petition. ? There can't be favorites when it comes to health care. I would not agree to people in any profession having preference over others. I would be happy to sign a petition for mental health provisions to be improved for all. A scenario your teenage daughter needs mental health assessment, someone that was in the military gets preferential treatment and fast tracked in front of your daughter. She goes on to kill herself . Do you think an injured soldier should be fast tracked or get preferential treatment over a child with serious injuries. ? I am talking more about equals, a soldier loses a leg in battle, a civilian loses a leg in a car crash, I don't see how anyone can argue that the soldier should be fast tracked or have preferential treatment over the civilian, the same goes for mental health issues. As a soldier would you want to get preferential treatment over a member of your family etc. ? Who said it was a waste of tax payers money. ? I would see it as tax payers money well spent as long as soldiers are not queue jumping. Take mental health for example in front of a civilian with the same issue depression etc, I have no problem with that. If facilities like Headly Court and similar are there what is the point of the petition. ? So do you have a problem with a soldier with mental health issues getting preferential treatment or not?,you seem confused " would not agree to people in any profession having preference over others. I would be happy to sign a petition for mental health provisions to be improved for all. A scenario your teenage daughter needs mental health assessment, someone that was in the military gets preferential treatment and fast tracked in front of your daughter. She goes on to kill herself . :hmm" " I don't see how anyone can argue that the soldier should be fast tracked or have preferential treatment over the civilian, the same goes for mental health issues" ". Take mental health for example in front of a civilian with the same issue depression etc, I have no problem with that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.