Military covenant to be enshrined in law

On a visit to HMS Ark Royal, Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged his support for the Armed Forces by announcing that the military covenant will be made law.

A description of what the Military Covenant is...............here

Under our previous administration the Covenant was abused. Reading the description it is easy to see how both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ripped the heart out of our military. The hurt and pain they inflicted by their actions is indescribable, but despite that the British Military did its duty, stood up to the plate and without favour carried out its tasks, even in the face of some of the most horrific propositions.



Mr Cameron explained that the covenant, the state's responsibility to its Armed Forces, will be rewritten and enshrined in law for the first time.

The covenant is an informal understanding of the state's duty of care to its Armed Forces. Until now, it has been regarded as an obligation rather than a firm rule set out in legislation.

Yesterday, Mr Cameron declared that the new Government will underline its commitment to the Armed Forces by putting it into law.

A new covenant - which will include rights to prioritised NHS treatment, decent housing and education for Service families' children - is to be given legal force in a new Armed Services Bill.

Addressing sailors, Marines and airmen aboard Ark Royal, Mr Cameron said:

"It's time for us to rewrite the military covenant to make sure we are doing everything we can.

"Whether it's the schools you send your children to, whether it's the healthcare that you expect, whether it's the fact that there should be a decent military ward for anyone who gets injured.

"I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that's written into the law of the land."


I can not applaud this enough, I have carried arms and stood under the flag of this fair isle. However Mr Cameron will NEVER get my full support until Dr Liam Fox is removed from office.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Much has ben written in the blogosphere about the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and the complete contempt by our current government to our forces.

This is clearly demonstarted in this post here....... by myself last year.

Infact hit any of the military, MOD, Armed forces tags at the end of my posts and see the trail it gives you.

However it was also reported and blogged by many that indeed the government had gone to court to reduce the payments to the injured like Ben McBean....see here.

Knobhead Ainsworth stated that a full review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme was to be carried out to make it fairer. (Save money more like).

Well I have unearthed the terms of reference for the body that is to carry out this review.
Please see below and make your own opinion.

Personally I have not seen such a quality load of Quango, red tape, twisted, over complicated BULLSHIT for a while.
There is no way that this will be succesful, will be transparent or indeed come out as a win situation for any member of our armed forces.
The treasury will be the only winner by using convaluted terms of referance to reduce payment.

Filthy socialism at its best.

Vote for labour and watch another 270 odd coffins return to the UK, and another 3000 servicement live in poverty and misery due to injuries not being compensated.


Also note the name in the forst sentance below...........slimy shit!




The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Kevan Jones): The Government committed to implementing in full all the recommendations arising from the Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme when it was published on 10 February 2010. As the Review acknowledged, considerable detailed work is required to translate the Review’s high level recommendations in to legislation. An important first step is the formation of the proposed independent medical expert group, which I an establishing on an interim basis today in order to meet the timescales envisaged by the Review. The terms of reference, structure and membership of this interim medical expert group which will advise on armed forces compensation is set out below:


Terms of Reference


The interim Independent Medical Group is established as a result of the AFCS Review (Cm 7798) published on 10 February 2010. Its role primarily is to advise on the appropriate levels of compensation for all the specific injuries, illnesses and diseases highlighted in the AFCS Review as being areas of concern, in time to be included in the consultation in Autumn 2010 leading to the legislation planned for early 2011 to implement the Review.


In addition, the interim Group will also, as appropriate:


a. provide initial advice on the list of recognised diseases that, on the balance of probabilities, are predominantly caused by service in the armed forces since 6 April 2005;


b. provide initial advice on those injuries, illnesses or diseases that might be made worse by service during the first six months of service that are currently excluded from the Scheme. This advice will need to distinguish between those injuries, illnesses or diseases that might simply be triggered by service, but are not caused by service (perhaps such as asthma which might only become apparent during initial training);


c. advise on the definitive structure and membership of the Group, beyond the transitional Group which would only be in existence for around 12 months;


d. advise on any other medical matters in relation to the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes that the Minister for Veterans requests it to provide.


Membership


The Chairman and expert members of this interim Group will comprise senior licensed consultants drawn from the relevant specialties, including: Trauma/Orthopaedics, Neurology, Ear/Nose/Throat, Occupational Medicine, and Mental health. The MOD’s Senior Medical Adviser to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) will also be a member of the Group. Three lay members will also be appointed to the Group: one from Service/ex-Service Organisations on the statutorily established Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation (CAC), one from the in-Service representatives on the CAC, and an injured serving person who has claimed under the Scheme. The Group will be able to draw on other expert advice where required.


The Chairman of the Group will be a member of the CAC that advises the Minister for Veterans, and the Chairman would present the advice of the Group to Minister as a member of the CAC. The advice and the Government’s decisions in relation to it would be published together at the same time on the MOD’s website.


The following individuals have been appointed to form this interim group:


Chairman: Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE, FRCP, FFOM, FMedSci


Expert Members: Professor David Alexander MA(Hons) C.Psychol PhD FBPS FRSM(Hon) FRCPsych; Professor Linda Luxon FRCP; Dr John Scadding MD FRCP; Dr David Snashall MSc FRCP FFOM LLM; and, Professor James Ryan OStJ, MB, BCh, BAO (NUI), FRCS (Eng), MCh (NUI), Hon FCEM, DMCC(SoA), RAMC(V)


MOD’s Senior Medical Adviser to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel): Dr Anne Braidwood CBE MRCP MRCGP


Lay Members: Lt Col Jerome Church MBE, General Secretary British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association, member of the CAC, representing the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations; Col Robin Vickers, Army Pay Colonel, representing the three single Service members on the CAC; and, Col David Richmond, a serving member of the armed forces who suffered an AK47 bullet wound that shattered his femur in Afghanistan in June 2008 who was injured when Commanding Officer 5SCOTS.


Mode of working


The Group itself will not be expected to create its advice from first principles. Instead, the MOD would investigate issues and draw up evidence-based proposals for the Group to consider and either validate or advise, support or challenge in the same way that the MOD conducted the work of the AFCS Review and used the Independent Scrutiny Group to validate this work. The MOD will provide secretariat support to the Group.


The Group will meet as and when required, perhaps 4-6 times during its existence. Between meetings business will be conducted via correspondence. Some meetings may be conducted virtually via video- or telephone-conferencing.


Terms of Appointment


The Chairman and members of this interim independent medical group to advise on Armed Forces compensation will be appointed until February 2011. The roles will not be remunerated, but the MOD will reimburse reasonable travel and subsistence expenses. The Chairman and members will be expected to follow the Seven Principles of Public Life enunciated by the Nolan Committee.

Spot the Difference

No neither can I.

Willie Rennie MP............My local member of the 646 club and claimer of £450.00 quid food allowance.

(Yes I know its only £400.00 but gotta love him for trying)

Also note I was being nice with the joker picture............I had 1 of a c....no never mind.

He is a Lib Dem Defence Spokesman........ooops person gotta be PC here.

Well read this pile of pure shit and see what I mean.

I commented as you will see.........sorry once it goes through moderation but me thinks it might not.

Anyway I very politely (yes I am lying now) asked him to visit this link.

Typical cheap shot comment politician.
But he is a Lib Dem 3 placed politican and of the same class as Bob Ainsworth by the quality of his posting.
Poor, unresearched, weak, and not pertaining to the def spending issue at all.

He will be handed to the GOT and All Seeing Eye for a special award.

I await him blocking me now.

MoD 'institutionally incapable' of succeeding in Afghanistan

The former commander of Britain’s military operation in Helmand province has warned that the Ministry of Defence is “institutionally incapable” of succeeding in the conflict in Afghanistan.

Major-General Andrew MacKay said the MoD had failed to adapt to 21st Century wars, instead issuing messages from London that often had “no relevance at ground level”.

He said the British Army had “consistently failed” to understand the motivations of local Afghans and called for a fresh “hearts and minds” strategy focusing on the local culture and economy.

His critique, comes four months after he resigned his post as head of the British Army in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Northern England.

He officially stepped down for “personal reasons”, but colleagues said he resigned in frustration at a lack of equipment and resources and the direction of the Afghan war.

This gent is no fly by night military cowboy........he is a counter-insurgency expert and Prince Harry’s former commanding officer, Maj-Gen Mackay also led the Helmand task force in 2008, including a successful operation to recapture the important town of Musa Qala.

Bigger info here


Now why is it we are in this position.
Surely we have history from previous campaigns to look back on to give us a better understanding!

But the MOD uses civillians to call the shots, tell me exactly what exp our PM, David Cameron, Bob Ainsworth all have in ensuring that our conflicts are executed efficiently and properly..............none. They are motivatied by there own egos and there own agendas (or Obamas agenda). And please do not go onto me about they have military advisors........ they keep quitting because they are being overulled and cretins like Ainsworth keep speaking.


Ok so back to history......The history to prove my point take two parts: the first identifies disquieting similarities with preparations for WW1, utilising an extract from the authors pamphlet: If ‘It’Resonates Ignore ‘It’ - If ‘It’ Reverberates Explore ‘It, whilst the second part explores the results of a scientific approach developed in Germany between 9/11 and 26/11/2001.




And I quote.......
Moving our thought train down the track a bit further we can demonstrate, through
reflection, the recurring problem of decision making based on incomplete information, the incoherent picture, and faith in assuming that the present will be
like the past.

I am drawn back to WW1 as it is an event, so horrendous, that it is difficult to
believe, but Rwanda, Somalia, the atrocities in the Balkans are all examples of such
inhumanity. Yet as these conflicts developed very little changed from the West’s
perspective, we still needed big, relative, numbers to ensure superiority, we still
looked to the military to provide what became known as shock and awe through
overwhelming fire power; factors which provided a warm feeling that statistically we
would be unlikely to lose. Indeed Rumsfeld did try to change the numbers, reducing
the logistics tail, reducing personnel numbers, whilst increasing the fire
effectiveness; unfortunately he didn’t fully grasp the significance that battle is
just part of a system which is dynamic and undergoing a particular state called war.

If a country is to have a Ministry of Defence rather than a War Office, if it is to
have an ethical foreign policy rather than an Imperial Preference or Commonwealth
Preference, then it must develop sensitivity to the policy and strategy it deploys.
This means moving away from mechanistic doctrine, which expeditionary or manoeuvre
warfare has really become, to something which has sensitivity towards the system it
is striving to change – solutions always have a natural habit of becoming part of
the problem.

This means developing rational for a new lens to view these challenges, a lens which
is ground in substantive philosophy, with subsequent theory and methodology for
achieving what might be termed the three VVVs: viable, valid and victories across
the many conflicts with their own indigenous sensitivities.

Example from the West - WW1

To make this point might I consider again the [Viscount]Haldane [Secretary of State for War 1905-1912] scenario, but look at it from a slightly different aspect which possibly exposes a couple of ‘traps.’ You will recall the other two participants in the ‘military conversations’ (from 1906) included Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary and Col Henry Wilson (1911); where Grey through his support for this secret activity, which included keeping Parliament in ignorance, placed himself in a very difficult position in 1914; a ‘trap’ he strives to mitigate in his book Twenty‑Five Years. Instead of shaping his policy by what was best for his country, he had clearly allowed his mind to become obsessed by pathological visions of what other nations might think of the British‑and perhaps of himself.

Wilson also seems to have created his own ‘trap’ as he did not regard the
prospective dispatch of the British Expeditionary Force to France as a means of
avoiding the defeat of France, as Grey and Haldane claim to have been their
conviction; but as a glorious military adventure that was to lead the Anglo‑French
Allies into the heart of Germany before Christmas. Indeed, on August 1st 1914,
Wilson was found in ‘tears of baffled rage,’ in the Admiralty building at the
seeming possibility that the British Army might not, after all, be allowed to enter
the fight.

The four bitter years of war that actually resulted, when Wilson had looked for
perhaps four months, with three million British and Empire casualties changed his
view of Continental warfare and of his country's participation in them. "Next time,"
he told the officers of the Senior Officers School in 1920, when he was lecturing
there as a Field‑Marshal and Chief of the Imperial General Staff, "next time we
must keep out of the scrum and pinch the mufflers."
Suggesting continental warfare was not the business to be in and that a new form of
asymmetry should be thought about. It might be worth noting that Fisher had proposed
a different strategy of amphibious warfare through the Baltic and then south to
Berlin.

Trapped by experience

This example from history cannot be considered complete without consideration of the
role scientific thinking might have played, establishing frameworks to enable
decision makers and strategists to better understand the nature of the complexity
they were being challenged with. It is left to the reader to draw comparison with
the last decade where strategy became synonymous with management consultancy speak
and trapped by its own doctrine. The sad state of affairs of nearly one hundred
years ago can be no better described than by the late Captain Russell Grenfell RN
(1892 - 1954) on the inadequacy of scientific thinking, or indeed any kind of
scrutinisable thinking, in preparation for war:

……..These plans involved a drastic reshaping of higher army organization, which
had previously been devised for Colonial and not for Continental warfare. Mr.
Haldane takes a good deal of credit to himself in his books for this reorganisation,
to which he is certainly entitled. But he is not entitled to the claim he also makes
that it was due largely to "scientific thinking" on his part, both as regards the
administrative reforms introduced and the strategy on which they were based. The
reforms, as he himself admits, were not the consequence of deep and original
thinking by him and his military advisers, either separately or in combination; they
were mainly imitations of the German system which he deliberately and openly copied
from information obtained during a visit to Berlin in 1906, though they were
naturally adapted to British requirements. And, as we shall see, there was little
that was scientific about the Haldane strategy.

………….But an even more weighty accusation remains to be leveled at Mr.
Haldane's "scientific" approach to war, consistently ridiculed by Lord Fisher. The
basic assumption on which Haldane's whole outlook towards a European upheaval rested
was itself false. ….. These were scientific questions which Mr. Haldane and Sir
Edward Grey might have asked themselves as preliminaries to coming to a decision
about the French conversations. But such questions clearly never occurred to them.
They jumped straight to a superficial assumption which happened to be wrong.

That the two Ministers Haldane and Grey made this fundamental error of strategy was not their fault. They were not trained for war. But the question arises why they did not seek the advice of those who had been????

And this is exactly what we face today!!! We never seek advice and we blindly follow.

Afghan air force to quadruple in size

In a report in Reuters...........see here........ it is being reported that Afghanistan will receive more than 150 fixed- and rotor-wing aircraft from its Western allies over the next six years, the Afghan Defense Ministry said on Monday, quadrupling the size of its neglected air force.

Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, speaking during a parliament debate on Monday, said by 2016 the Afghan Air Force would have an additional 152 aircraft, bringing the total number to more than 200. The air force currently has 52 aircraft.

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman General Zaher Azimy said they were working on obtaining the aircraft sooner.

"We have in our developmental plan to bring the delivery time to 2014. We are working on this," Azimy said, adding the United States would be the main provider.

The fleet will include 74 MI-17 transport helicopters as well as fixed-wing transport planes and fighter jets, Azimy said.



Sorry 74 heavy lift helicopters !!!!!...........a quick look on Wiki tells us it has a payload of approx 32 men. Dear me imagine what we could do with 74 helicopters in Afghanistan of this size.

Oh and before someone starts shouting saying its a Russian airframe, its of Russian supply.................us soft arses here in the UK will be paying the bloody Russians to build them.

In the meantime we have to wait for 2013 to come along to take delivery of our 22 new Chinooks for our troops as detailed last week by Mr 21 out of 23. ...............Oh wait I lied ............ in fact I did what he did as he has only ordered 10 with an option on another 22.........see here.

But hey what another 300 servicemens lives.............only a stamp and a shitty written letter eh!

The contempt that this government show is beyond belief.
Also notice the spineless Tories and the what the point of being here Lib Dems have said sweet F.A.

Defence Spending

Minister: I’ve had another good idea.

Official: Really Minister? Another one… that’s your fourth this week. We’re struggling to keep up with this torrent of wisdom. Dare I ask what this one involves?

Minister: Well, I had given some thought to preparing a proper defence review, like we did in 1998, that could weigh up our foreign policy priorities and try to match some capabilities to them….

Official: But…?

Minister: But, I decided that was all bollocks, so I thought I’d announce something completely disconnected to confuse the enemy…

Official: To confuse the enemy, minister?

Minister: Well, if it looks like we don’t know which end of the bat to hold, the enemy will be sure to disintegrate into panic and low morale!

Official: Yes, Minister…

Another day, and another large defence announcement. It’s not that I’m cynical about these announcements now, but they produce a Malcolm Tucker-ish response in my kitchen (often when listening to Radio 5).

It’s often the authoritative tone with which these announcements are delivered. And yes I am referring to the shit Quentin Davies and his Tory select committee member James Arbuthnott both on Radio 5 last evening.
It makes it sound like there is a plan – and I’m just not sure that’s true.

However little gem is the purchase of 22 new Chinook helicopters (and please God, let them have bought the ones with the up-to-date avionics, so that there is a fighting chance that they can be used. And please, Father Christmas, can you grant me the festive wish, that some twit hasn’t decided to try and bolt some bits on in Britain to please some sour faced constituency MP about to lose his or her bell tower in an end of expenses electoral shocker) in exchange for the Harriers at Cottesmore and a squadron of Tornados.

Now, the helicopters are needed. No question about it. Sooner than 2013 would be nice (could we not lease them sooner?) because we might not have the money to continue fighting in Afghanistan nor Iraq come 2013, but forgive me when I say did a certain US President not commit a withdrawl by then, are we to remain on our own?, and could we not have a defence review to decide exactly what it is we are doing in the whole defence/security realm? Just a little one?

Because, we can debate endlessly the timeless classics of British defence:

* East of Suez

* The Special Relationship

* Nukes or no nukes

* Our special role as maritime power

* Europeanization

We can debate them. And I’m sure we will. But what I think would be nice is if the UK could adopt a set of hard and fast preferences – things which will remain stable for 30-50years. And within these preferences there will be, of course, policies and events that test the stability of the preference. But we are without preferences at the moment. We want to be transatlantic, but we want to be European… we want to be a bridge between the two. And a naval power, and a humanitarian force.. oh, and a provider of aid, ooo, and a nuclear power, but not one that would ever use them, oh, and we’d like to do it cheaply please. Yesterday.

According to Pugh/Augustine curve projections there will be no navy by 2040. Because the costs will be too high to sustain it. Tinkering around the edges of the defence budget, and defence provision just simply no longer cuts the mustard. We have to come up with some stable preferences – that genuinely reflect our abilities and the size of our wallet – and we need to stick to them. I would say ‘bye-bye carriers’, but I’d have a swift pound that BAE will have made the government promise to give them £30bn quid for work in lieu.

Give me f*****g strength........


H/T to Rob Dover

Worrying Defence News

Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News is about to break the news that major defence cuts are on the way. They will be announced next week, including the closure of at latest one RAF base and a scaling back of the British base in Cyprus. The cuts should have been announced in the PBR this week but the MoD couldn't agree the details in time.

According to Channel 4 News...


The cuts have been caused by a six billion pound overspend, mainly on the procurement of new aircraft, submarines and ships. A senior official at the MOD told the programme that the department was in 'real financial trouble.' As well as the closure of an RAF base and the Cyprus reduction, Channel 4 News understands there will also be cuts in IT, human resources and back office functions, and more controversially the MOD Police. Senior Whitehall sources have admitted to Channel 4 News that the futures of the Navy's two new aircraft carriers and the A400M aircraft are in doubt. Defence could face cuts of up to 16% over three years because of the government's decision to half the deficit.


If all this is true, this could dominate the news over the next few days.

Go see here and watch the wee video.

Notice it did not make the PBR.
And Gordon denies he leaned on Darling..............F****ng Liar!!!!!!!!!

You watch the spin.........

Global economics
Cuts to assist afghanistan
Deficit reduction
NATO partners assisting

FFS!

Trafalgar Day Speeches

The 23rd October marked Trafalgar Day.
To mark the day a speech was given by several high ranking military figures.

I have noted 2 of the speakers.
Surprised no one else pointed their comments out.



General Sir David Richards, Chief of the General Staff :

"This is a war that needs to be fought and can be won.....we haven't sold it very well and we need to do better."

"If the Afghan people asked us to go tomorrow, we would have to go. We are there under a United Nations mandate."

"If we give up Afghanistan tomorrow, I absolutely guarantee you that if you are an al Qaeda memeber or Taleban, they will pour back into southern Afghanistan and they will have the freedom to plan and train and conduct operations which now they don't have."

"General McChrystal talks about 2013 (for a pull out of troops). The Chief of the Defence Staff and I have said that's pretty challenging. Being cautious military men, we're talking about 2014."

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff :

Afghanistan must not be "the template for a future UK defence structure that can do nothing but more Afghanistans.....the range of threats to UK interests is greater than that."

Cuts showing in Business

Whats the official statement???

You know............everytime we re-patriate a serviceman back to the Uk??

Everytime a family member dares to say that the death was avoidable we need more equipment for the troops.





The statement is "The Government is doing everything in its power tospeed up the procurement of equipment for our armed Forces"......or words to that effect.

On the plus side you would have thought that a war regardless of its motives would have a positive effect for certain industries.......................WELL NO.

Today it was announced that the Defence group Qinetiq will fall short of its earlier profit expectations, blaming delays to large contracts from the UK government and continued uncertainty over US policy in Afghanistan.

Well you can read a bit more Here in the FT.

Kind of shows that all the cack that spouts from The 1 eyed mentallist and Bob the Knob Ainsworth about "doing all they can" to be just that...........spouted cack.



In the words of the great Malcolm Tucker ..............Gordon "fuckity bye"

A Very Sad Day

Today marks a milestone.

Not a good 1 but rather a very sad 1.

Today a C17 Galaxy will arrive at RAF Lyneham and the town of Wootton Bassett will again show its customary respect and humility it has become WORLD famous for as the cortege passes through.

The milestone...........the 100th repatriation ceremony.





If I may quote a certain Dr John Reid who serves as Defence Secretary "That the troops would be home without so much as a shot being fired".

Well you Labour fuckmonkey 100 repatriation ceremonies and 235 military deaths later, want to take your ill thought words back???

How many more????

God rest em!!

Subrosa, and VotR all have the same video.........worth a look.
You might need a tissue.

Source

Ok Fuckwit Defend this one then, your eye, your handwriting????

Further to the now famous Gordon Brown letter to the mother of Guardsman Jamie Jane another monumental fuck up has occurred.

So come on Gordon do please explain this 1 then.

It transpires today that the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was horrified to find that his name was spelt wrong on the Elizabeth Cross that she received.

An accompanying scroll signed by the Queen had the same error.

Lieutenant Richard Shearer, from Nuneaton, Warwickshire, died in a roadside bomb attack four years ago, aged 26. Maureen Shearer opened the package on Friday to find that the medal and the document featured a non-existent middle initial “A”.



Mrs Shearer, a retired teacher, said: “I just couldn’t believe it. The least we deserve is to have his name spelt correctly.”

It was not the first time that the family had had to deal with a distressing error — the young soldier’s coffin was inscribed with the wrong date of birth when it was flown back from Iraq.

The incident follows the criticism at Gordon Brown for misspelling the name of Grenadier Guardsman Jamie Janes in a handwritten letter to his mother.

Mrs Shearer, a mother-of-two, said: “I’m extremely upset. Losing a son is devastating and I still think of Richard every single day. I opened the package on Friday and just couldn’t believe it when I saw they had got his name wrong.

“I can only think that it was a clerical error but when it comes to something as important as this then the details must be checked, double-checked and made 100 per cent accurate.

“It may just be a name and number to somebody at the Ministry of Defence but my son was a real person who is still missed by all his family and friends to this day. The least we deserve is to have his name spelt correctly.”

And there lies the problem.............what the government and its department actually think.

It emerged last week that civil servants at the MoD were sharing a £47 million bonus pot, while the Government were cutting the budget for frontline soldiers.




Mrs Shearer went on to say “I just can’t believe they’ve made such a mistake, especially with the controversy around the recent letter Gordon Brown wrote to another grieving mum.

“With Ministry of Defence staff getting such huge bonuses they could at least spell my son’s name right. It is only a small thing but the medal is supposed to recognise the sacrifice Richard made, so we want everything to be just perfect.

“Four years ago I watched Richard’s coffin being unloaded at RAF Brize Norton and I broke down when I saw they got his date of birth wrong.
“Our boys deserve so much more than this. I hope no other mum has to endure these mistakes in the future.”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: “The MoD would like to apologise for any distress caused to Mrs Shearer. We will of course be sending a new Elizabeth Cross.”

So let me just see if I saw that correctly. This is the second time the Government dept has made an error on this servicemans details????
His name as above and his date of birth when repatriated.

I bet this man also got the indignity of a ramp ceremony so the government could ensure his mother got the full gambit of pain.


Proof again...............as if it was needed, of the way Labour treat our Armed Forces.


Source

MOD Again............but a bonus?????

Lots being written today about the MOD and its new bonus pyments for "Staff in the front line" according to Postman Pat Alan Johnson.

Now that sounds good but it is not the troops he is referring to............oh no.....its the sad sacks in Whitehall.

VotR has a good piece here so pop over and have a look to update yourself.

However what I wanted to do is advise on probably the most bloated and in efficient dept in government as we speak.

Simple example:-

As of 1/4/09 the number of civillian posts in the MOD was 86970 (source)

ROYAL NAVY SUMMARY

STATISTICS
PERSONNEL SUMMARY

ROYAL NAVY
Trained Strength Nov 2008 34,710

Note: The above figures include 7,700 Royal Marines but do not include the approximate figure of 2,300 personnel from the Army attached to 3 Commando Brigade.

Not included in the above figures are approximately 2,270 civilian personnel manning support ships operated by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA).

As at November 2008, the Naval Service had a deficit of 1,300 trained personnel.


ARMY SUMMARY

STATISTICS
PERSONNEL SUMMARY
(January 2009)
Trained Strength 98,280


RAF

The RAF operates almost 1,109 aircraft and, as of 31 March 2009, had a projected trained strength of 41,440 regular personnel.


So quick spot maths gives us 174430 people who you could define as uniformed staff.
That plays an MOD civillian group of some 86970.

Giving a 2:1 civvy to uniform ration.

UN F****NG believable.
2 to 1...........where else other than the MOD even in government could you have such a ratio.

Talk about a fat, bloated, inefficient department.

And to further prove the point read this earlier post I did some months ago on the the MOD staff who are actually paid full tiem to do NOTHING.

So keep paying the bonus for nothing and we will keep watching the bodies arrive at RAF Lyneham then driving through Wooton Bassett.

MoD Why carry on with it as it is?????

I am being very lazy today and am quoting the whole article in the Times.

There is a very good reason for this.
When you read into this is it not actually 2 stories that both need aired independantly. See here, then see my artistic talents below to pull the 2 stories apart.

2 further examples of the contempt for our armed forces and further hiding of the shocking wasteage in the MoD.

Thousands of unfit and disabled Service personnel, including Afghanistan casualties, will be encouraged to leave the Armed Forces for civilian life under a planned efficiency drive.

Soldiers injured in war zones, many of whom rely on their regiments to find them an office-based job, will be given assistance in finding posts “more suited” to them.

The proposal is expected to cover 5,000 to 6,000 Service personnel categorised as medically unfit.

Restraints on recruitment budgets have meant that the continuing employment of servicemen who can no longer be assigned to combat roles has become a bigger problem. Nearly 1,150 Service personnel have been wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The planned redeployment in the civilian world of unfit or disabled military personnel, under a scheme known as Welfare Pathway, generated by Kevan Jones, the Veterans Minister, is to be announced in the autumn.

Yes the same Kevan Jones.............Mr Smear.

But if you paid them proper compensation and funded the recruitment process you could retire the medically hurt and ensure the sacrifice made is not a certainly financial hinderance to the rest of there lives............but we have all blogged on this before..........what this stinks of is another labour method on the cheap.

The ministry’s treatment of Service personnel has been roundly criticised in recent months. Disputes over the level of compensation awarded to injured personnel have soured relationships and led to accusations against the Government of penny-pinching.

Last month the ministry was forced to announce a review of compensation claims for Service personnel with multiple war wounds after an outcry over a soldier who was awarded payment for only three of his 37 injuries.

Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, 23, who served in southern Afghanistan with the 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, lost both legs and suffered serious head injuries when a landmine exploded in Helmand province last September.

Diane Dernie, his mother, threatened to take the MoD to the High Court because though her son was awarded £152,150 in compensation for his three worst injuries the assessment did not take account of all his other wounds.


So as I said Labour cheap tactics, but now comes the absolute cherry on the top.

At the same time it has emerged that more than 4,000 “out-of-work” civil servants at the Ministry of Defence have been paid full-time salaries while assigned to a “redeployment pool” — waiting for up to two years to be given new jobs in the department or elsewhere in Whitehall.

Although the MoD insisted that they continued to do “meaningful work”, a senior military official told The Times: “All they have to do is turn up and sit at a desk and fill in job applications.”

The disclosure that thousands of MoD civil servants are being paid simply to turn up and apply for jobs will embarrass Whitehall chiefs.

As at September 9, according to MoD figures, there were 879 staff in the redeployment pool, 56 of whom have been stuck there for more than two years, waiting on full pay for another assignment.

All of them had lost their jobs because the projects in which they were involved had been completed or scrapped.

The MoD said that 116 staff members had been in the pool for between 12 and 24 months, 182 for six to 12 months, and 525 for less than six months. The ministry was unable to say how much the scheme was costing. A spokeswoman said: “During the time they spend in the redeployment pool, staff are expected to turn up for work each day. The staff in the pool receive a full salary as they will be working in meaningful jobs. We have a responsibility to manage our people effectively.”

Another weapons grade example of a Labour f**k up.

Gordon Brown in Afghanistan Photo Opportunity

H/T Gerald Scarfe Cartoons

General Sir David Richards

Today is the first day in his new job of General Sir David Richards.

General Richards will become Chief of the General Staff with his troops engaged in a bloody conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In Whitehall, he will have to fight to ensure he gets the equipment his men and women need to do the task - a challenge which left his predecessor Sir Richard Dannatt frequently at odds with ministers.

Sir Richard had not been a quiet occupant of the post and his departure has been accompanied by continuing controversy and a disgraceful, Labour-inspired smear campaign that backfired spectacularly.

Some old military hands believe he should have been less outspoken and played a more political game behind the scenes in Whitehall. His refusal to do so almost certainly cost him the top military job as Chief of the Defence Staff.

However, from the outset Sir Richard felt that, for the good of the Army and his soldiers, playing by the old rules was no longer tenable. Within two months of taking over as CGS, he accused the Government of abusing the "military covenant" of mutual protection between a nation and its armed forces. Even if his political masters did not respond to these reproaches, the British public most certainly did. Troops who used to arrive back from Iraq or Afghanistan to a desultory greeting from family and friends now march proudly through their garrison towns. Sir Richard's insistence that men and women sent to war should be adequately equipped may have angered our pusillanimous ministers, but it endeared him to the soldiers who are his, and our, first concern. Those who criticise his forthrightness should ask what else he was expected to do.

It remains to be seen whether Gen Richards will be as outspoken as Gen Dannatt in his new role.

I for 1 wish him all the best in his new role but warn him of the beast that is Whitehall and our current Government.

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank....another stinging article

Yesterday in the Times Lord Guthrie wrote an article.

Lord Guthrie was probably the best Chief of the Defence Staff to ever oversee British armed forces. See Here.

His attack in the paper was savage.
He wrote.........substantial budget waste. He said the “insufficient needs” in Afghanistan was explained by the size and structure of the MoD, he argues with 87,000 civilian staff employed for 175, 000 servicemen

“At the head of this unwieldy edifice are six ministers, each enjoying a private office and their own staff - six private empires, with their own turf to be jealously guarded. Sadly, bigger does not mean more efficient; usually quite the opposite.”

He highlighted the lack of military experience among civil servants who were “parachuted in to lead this complex department with little idea of how it works”. Few high calibre people existed in a “dumbed down” Civil Service.

He reserves his venom for the numerous “special advisers” who have dominated government “who confuse the chain of command and wield huge power in unscrupulous ways”.

“Yet ministers are sometimes more comfortable with these inexperienced young people than with senior staff,”.

Instead of being strident ministers are “frozen with indecision” and terrified of making mistakes that leads to delay and “insurmountable financial problems”.

He was critical too of Whitehall’s failure to recognise that “Britain is at war” with politicians believing it was “another day of awkward things happening in far away places”.

The conflicts are only seen as “inconvenient blips” that had to be “muddled through until things return to normal”.

In his still unpublished report Bernard Gray, commissioned to examine MoD profligacy, says that “political fudge” in the MoD has been responsible for more than £35 billion wasted in equipment projects that are constantly delayed.

The full and complete article is here. Get a coffee and have a read.......superb!!

Politicians ordered the Army into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they did not give soldiers the wherewithal to succeed. Gordon Brown writes about courage, and can be eloquent and sincere when expressing sympathy for bereaved Service families, but words are not enough.

Gray Report Leaked

Remember Channel 4 news reported that the government had blocked the publication of the Gray report.

This report was carried out by Bernard Gray, a leading businessman and former special adviser to Labour defence ministers, and was all about MOD spending.

Well channel 4 said it was bad and well guess what it is horrendous.
The Times has a leaked copy of the report.

The Times describes it as A DEVASTATING official report suppressed by ministers has revealed that soldiers’ lives are being put at risk by “endemic” failures at the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The secret dossier blames “political fudge” and Whitehall incompetence for the plight of soldiers in Afghanistan who are provided with inadequate frontline kit.

The 296-page report, leaked to The Sunday Times, claims the scale of MoD bungling is so severe it “is harming our ability . . . to conduct difficult current operations”.

The publication of the document will be a severe embarrassment for Gordon Brown, who has insisted that the armed forces always receive the equipment they need.

The report was commissioned by John Hutton, who resigned as defence secretary in June, and was due to have been published last month. However, Hutton’s successor Bob Ainsworth, backed by the prime minister, decided to bury it after ministers were plunged into a damaging row with General Sir Richard Dannatt, the recently retired army chief, over equipment shortages.

Although all nearly 300 pages are not published themselves this article gets the full treatment in the Times.

See Here and here.

I will leave you to read the links yourselves but the tone of the wording is used shows further weapons grade failings in our PM, our Governmnet, Ainsworth and his predecesors and the MOD as a whole. Makes me actually have a little sympathy for John Hutton.

Words fail me right now!!!!

Anyone for a wee wager on the next smear campaign then??????

You have lost how much?????

This is an amazing story for all the wrong reasons.

It shows complete and utter "words can not describe" incompetance.
And who is the big boss........the one the only Bob Ainsworth.

It transpires today that nearly £7 billion of military equipment has gone missing from Ministry of Defence.

Un-bloody-believable............or actually given the man at the top yes very believable.

The National Audit Office has refused to sign off on MoD records that £6.6 billion of assets exist because of “inadequate levels of evidence”.

The assets include about a sixth of all vehicles, weapons and radios used by British forces and are equivalent in value to the entire annual defence equipment budget.
Please note that last sentance.

The items in question include £1.25 billion of equipment deployed with British forces, such as machine guns, night vision goggles, encrypted radios and body armour.

Defence officials were unable to account for £350 million worth of fighting vehicles that were in theory being used for training and operations.

The remaining £5 billion of assets that could not be accounted for were predominantly raw materials and spare parts, ranging from bolts and oil to jet engines and propellers.

Are we not currently in a war with the constant stories from families of the fallen, injured servicemen and women, military chiefs bith serving and retired that the above equipment is needed in theatre but nothing is forthcoming. Shortages of equipment, including night vision goggles and radios, have been blamed for the deaths of several British service personnel.

Well apparently it is about but can not be accounted for, well a good chunk of it anyway.
The MoD insisted last night that the equipment was “never physically lost” and that the NAO figure was an “extrapolation” from its audit.

It said that at the time of the report, the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency, which is responsible for supplying the armed forces, was unable to satisfy the NAO’s demand for paperwork to verify the assets.

Utter cobblers.
I have blogged on the complete incompetance of the MOD method of procurement before. See here.
This is another blatant example of a government deparment completely out of touch with reality.
Having to spin lines like - the NAO figure was an “extrapolation” from its audit, just goes to prove my point.

So come on Bob........bust a gut and sort this one out!!!!!

Colonel Stuart Tootal

We are all quite aware of recent verbal attacks on the government in relationship to its policy on troops and equipment in Afghanistan, by former and serving military commanders.

Jock Stirrup
Mike Jackson
Bob Stewart
Charles Guthrie
Brig Ed Butler

Mr 21 out of 23 Bob Ainsworth having carried out weekend television jokes and radio broadcasts by trying to make cheap political gain over the tories has failed to stem the flow criticism.

Today Gen Richard Dannant launches another stream in the Telegraph.

I dont think Dannants comments will carry much weight but perhaps this mans might.

Colonel Stuart Tootal was O.C. 3 para.
He left the army a year ago under what can only be described at absolute disgust of the government treatment of UK Armed Forces.

His 1,200-strong battle group was the first to set boot in Helmand province in 2006 on a totally unrealistic “peace support mission”. They landed shortly after John Reid, then defence secretary, announced that “we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot”.

During its six-month tour of duty, 3 Para fired more than 479,000 rounds and became embroiled in the fiercest fighting for a generation: 15 of Tootal’s group were killed in battle and 46 wounded.

Colonel Stuart Tootal said: "Soldiers are robust and losing comrades will hit hard, but it will also reinforce their determination. He went on, ministers are risking soldiers' lives by failing to provide the right resources and "a proper strategy and a justification" that the British public can understand. He criticised the PM saying, "Gordon Brown took a reassuring tone, saying there had been a 60% increase in the number of helicopters in Afghanistan and £6 billion had been set aside for future investment over the next 10 years". Tootal is sceptical, calling the provision “woefully inadequate”.

“The issue is not generally lack of air support, because support provided by the Americans is very good,” he says. “The key is lack of troop-carrying helicopters. It’s a major weakness. We had six helicopters, of which we were the majority users, and we were one battle group of 1,200 men in a total force of 3,500.

“You’ve now got nearly 9,000 troops in Helmand and while there’s been some increase, the Chinook fleet is only up by a few helicopters. A number of Sea Kings have been brought in but these are smaller and less able and Lynx can’t fly in the hottest part of the day and can only lift one or two individuals and a limited amount of equipment. So even though there has been — and will be — more helicopters, lift support for British troops in Helmand is still woefully inadequate.”

The issue has bite because the Taliban have adapted their tactics to take advantage of this weakness by killing with roadside bombs and improvised explosives: “It may be that the most recent casualties, from Operation Panther’s Claw, are not directly attributable to lack of helicopters but there are many, many troops who might have been alive today had we had enough helicopters.”

Tootal identified helicopters as a problem even before his troops left the UK. Having worked up a number of scenarios — raids on Taliban compounds and so on — he could see there would not be enough helicopter hours (ie, helicopters and/or crew to fly them) available to allow his teams to move as one force. “Every time someone turns round and says there isn’t an issue of helicopters, when clearly there is, how much credibility can the Government have?”

A damning final statement there I believe.

"Troops can't do everything from the air," he went on.

"But if they are using vehicles when a tactical situation dictates they should be using helicopters, they will be exposed to unnecessary risk and operations will lack vital flexibility."

Finally, he insisted: "The war in Afghanistan cannot be a half-hearted affair. It is a sad inevitability that there will be more losses.

"Our soldiers are doing a superb job. They accept risk but if they take risk due to shortages and the absence of a coherent and properly resourced strategy, the casualty rate will be higher and success will be elusive."

Post his resignation from the army after his tour of Helmand, he now has a new role as head of global security for a corporation. He may well wear a smart city suit but beneath his perfectly pressed shirt beats the heart of a soldier, dismayed at the continuing row over resources for our forces in Afghanistan and the lack of a clear objective.

He still gets e-mails from soldiers starting “Hiya Boss.

This story line is not going away........why can the government not see it???

Corporal Anthony Duncan

Corporal Anthony Duncan is 1 of the 2 compensation cases that Bob Ainsworth (who is currently away on holiday) is trying to have his financial settlement reduced.

Cpl Duncan was originally awarded a lump-sum of £9,250 after being shot through the leg with a high velocity bullet in As-Samawah in southern Iraq in 2005, fracturing his thigh and leaving an open wound.

His payout was increased to £46,000 by a Pensions Appeal Tribunal after it was told of complications following extensive surgery which exacerbated the overall effect of his injuries.

Cpl Duncan, who underwent 11 separate operations on his leg and extensive rehabilitation at the Headley Court centre in Surrey.

What many people do not realise is that Cpl Duncan IS CURRENTLY SERVING with the Light Dragoons near the town of Gereshk in Helmand.

He is understood to have been involved in the recent operation Panther's Claw and was a friend of Lance Corporal David Dennis, who was buried yesterday after being killed by a roadside bomb.

Although the two servicemen have already received the money, the Ministry of Defence is challenging both decisions, fearing that the panel's interpretation of the law would set a precedent affecting "the large majority" of cases.

Nathalie Lieven QC, representing Mr Ainsworth, told a panel of three judges that the tribunal's decision was "arbitrary" as it was based its decision on the men's "overall condition" when they made their claim rather than the specific injuries, referring to how Cpl Duncan had since been cleared fit for service in Afghanistan.

So the whole basis of the claim is actually you sent him back to a combat zone, having had 11 operations on a leg. He has just watched his mate die and get repatriated home. As he is in afghanistan he must be fit..............Bulls**t.

I feel for this man. Wait until he returns home, wait until the uniform comes off, wait until it really hits him.

Many servicemen, commanders, politicians have condemed this action. The Royal British Legion accused the Government of "cheating servicemen of their rightful due".

Another disgraceful and shameful act of Labour trechary to the British Military.