Forum Topic

Service men and womens accomodation.

What a crazy country we live in. Our service men and women join the army to ostensibly fight for their country, and their reward for this service is to keep them in barracks that you would not keep pigs in (nothing has changed since my National Service days in the 50's)Yet we spend millions on better accommodation for asylum seekers,televisions for murderers, rapists and child molesters, and as Abu Hamza will testify bags, of cash for telling us how how he hates us. We put him in clink and all his demands are met by the gutless PC liberal brigade, who demonstrate and tell us all what a disgrace we are. When can we see a a similar demo for oor brave service people

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6722d26 Comments

Did anyone see Dispatches on Channel 4 last night it showed our troops waiting for resupply in Helmund, A 24 hour op turned into 4 days then they gave the ground back to the Taliban. They are also working with only 6 Chinook helicopters for the whole of Afganistan. So much for Tony B saying they are there to help in a peace keeping role.

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6717d

You are about as funny as watching paint dry

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6717d

keiththese offices are not just lovely, they would outshine the late lamented Saddam's palaces (prior to them being blown up of course!) just think how much equipment could be bought with the money this refurb of the MOD's pad costs.

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6718d

Lovely new offices for MOD staff,don't you think...?

Keith Iddon ● 6718d

I do distinctly recall at the time of the Falklands complaints about inadequate equipment and preparation. Remember we had to gut cruise liners to transport the troops down and the conflict itself was partly due to the inadequate garrison kept on the islands which encouraged the Argies.Lord Carrington did resign over the Falklands but it was clearly his personal misreading of the situation that had led to the conflict.Of course the buck ultimately stops with the Prime Minister but no-one was suggesting Margaret Thatcher resigned at this point. I think it is a very dangerous doctrine to make every set back or management failure in Government a resigning issue. If that was the case Ministers would micro-manage their department and it would lead to a massive increase in the day to day running of the country by politicians - nobody wants that. The best interests of everyone is served by letting the experts get on with it - not just in the military sphere but right across the administration. Ministers should confine themselves to setting broad strategy as defined in their manifesto or the will of Parliament and ensuring that we are getting value for money.

Dan Evans ● 6718d

Dan, you put the points over well but to the man in the street it all boils down to what ever government is in at the time to a degree, when we went to the Falklands the army air force and navy had everything it needed even though we lost a lot of equipment from exocet attacks and some good men were lost also. But now we cant keep up a prolonged action because in the last ten years the armed services have been decimated of men and equipment by people who know nothing about warfare, you only have to look in the press over the last couple of days the M.O.D. (run by the government) have said the recruitment age has been increased to 35 years to cover the short fall of troops because they now don't have enough cannon fodder. As for the housing I have said before that is now in the hands of private contracters.

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6718d

"Whatever you say, at the end of the day Blair and his ministers are ultimately to blame; I would call it government mismanagement in every respect"Look - Guy's - haven't you heard?In the end it all boils down to choice - the soldier choosing to ... no I am not going to draw that in as an illustration of a point but you might understand my drift ... - the people choosing to live within the 'newly drawn' smell of Mogden - under the 'newly drawn' 24/7 flightpath - to walk these smashed slabs in Hounslow instead of using a car - and to seek out Ernest Saunders medical team who now do a grand job on parental advice for early diagnosis of dyslexia?Blair and his ministers are just exercising their choice - in not taking on the job - of  …  …  being in charge.Sarah FelsteadCloud Cuckoo LandIsleworth

Sarah Felstead ● 6718d

As an American president once said "The buck stops here"!Whatever you say, at the end of the day Blair and his ministers are ultimately to blame, I would call it government mismanagement in every respect. What act of incompetence will compel him to sack the ministers (and generals) concerned

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6718d

Edward, I'll address your points as you are a person who won't heap abuse on me for disagreeing with you.Firstly when you say that it is the government not the top brass who have the last word on equipment you are not necessarily wrong. After all they are writing the cheques on our behalf but this doesn't mean they do or should micro-manage the operation of the armed services.Secondly, I think we need a bit more clarity about what is meant by Government. All service people work for the Ministry of Defence and that organisation is part of the mechanism of government but not the same as the Government as in the Labour Cabinet. Most decisions within the services will be taken by the MoD in consultation with senior officers and won't involve Ministers. It is the responsibility of the MoD as a whole to make a case for getting budget allocations from central government. Overall the services are not underfunded as we spend an unusually large part of our GDP on them. Within their budget it is up to the MoD to set spending priorities.Retired General Sir Michael Rose has said that Tony Blair should have spent his holidays reading a report about equipment shortages in the army rather than sunning himself by the pool. Sgt. Steve Roberts was killed due to the lack of an armoured jacket which costs £167 (not £169 as I said previously). Sgt. Roberts had called General Mike Jackson's claim that the troops in Iraq were fully equipped for war a 'blatant lie'.The point about this case is that Sgt. Roberts died not because the army didn't have armoured jackets but because the jackets weren't transported out in time to the theatre of war. This is a management and operational failure and whether the fault lies with the generals or mandarins at the MoD it is totally unsupportable to blame Tony Blair. You can blame him for the ill-judged military intervention in Iraq but not for the specific failings that led to this soldier's death.Similarly I would say that blaming ministers for poor quality army accommodation is difficult to justify. The army and the Mod set their own spending priorities and the deterioration of housing for soldiers and their families is due to decades of underinvestment. The retired generals that are coming out and making an issue of this now would have been better employed lobbying harder for their troops when they were in a position to make a difference.On the issue of private contractors you may be right that this has led to greater expense than necessary. Private Eye detailed this week how the refurb of the MoD's HQ is to cost as much as £2billion compared to the original estimate of £740 million. This is being done through a PFI contract which anyone can recognise is a con however it works for the army because it allows the Government to cheat on lending restrictions and spend more money. The alternative to PFI is that the money isn't spent at all.The Sunday Telegraph was quite an interesting read on the armed services at the weekend. It is always likely to be the best informed paper for obvious reasons and it was venturing the opinion that all these retired generals speaking out was likely to ultimately prove to be a disaster for the armed services. There is often a book or a lecture tour to accompany a headline grabbing denunciation of the Government. The opinion voiced in the Telegraph was that these generals are ultimately sowing the seeds of disaster for the armed forces. Tony Blair has actually been relatively supportive of the services (for a Labour PM) but Gordon Brown is well known to regard them as the most profligate and wasteful of all government departments and sees ample opportunity to cut their budgets. Those generals still within the army reportedly see these 'campaigns' as a major disaster because they focus attention on the budget of the services as a whole.Everyone would agree that service people deserve good accommodation and that our troops should be properly equipped in battle. There are two solutions - we give the services more money or the services make cuts elsewhere to fund these priorities. Which do you think Gordon Brown is going to suggest? If you believe that in advancing these arguments I'm in anyway knocking the courage or commitment of serving British soldiers there is little further I can do to convince you otherwise. My view is the people who are really holding our forces in contempt are the ones who are attempting to use issues such as this for political purposes.

Dan Evans ● 6718d

No kevin, I have much more important things to do,like cleaning my medals and telling my grandchildren war stories.It doesn't surprise me though, that you made a cock up of the web address, it would appear that you do this quite often, thank god your not in Iraq, you would probably end up shooting your own comrades. Now you really must put on your pyjamas,and retire to bed, it's way past your bedtime!!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6719d

Pray tell me young man, where and when did I say that I blamed President Blair for lack of equipment in Malaya and Korea. If you had half a brain you would see that I was referring to a lady who had commented on this thread, about her ex husband's experience in Korea, read it, the lady's name is Ann!You seem to be very selective in what you comment on,I still haven't noted any comment that suggests that you sympathise with them.You seem to dwell on the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet, and still get things totally wrong. Read some of the other comments by other contributors to this thread, and get "Ruperts out of your head, you would not recognise one if he came up and sat on you. Just one more question "When and where have you served in any of the armed forces (cadets and boy scouts not included!)

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6719d

Whoops - I meant www.arrse.co.uk. I hope you haven't spent the last six hours looking at the one I misdirected you to!

Andy Jones ● 6719d

You got your sites mixed up that one links to porn sites so we now know what you do on the net!

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6719d

I supposed that I should be quite honoured that I have been accused of ranting by Andrew Michael John Atkinson who is an unparalleled master of the art, but I can't see where he gets the idea I'm unsympathetic to the service people who are ending up in rubbish accommodation. Unless AMJA is about to explain to us why Tony Blair is reponsible for poor kit and equipment in Korea and Malaya the examples given surely point to the fact that there is an historical problem in the army.Speak to any rank and file soldier and they will tell you that with a few honourable exceptions the 'Ruperts' treat them with contempt while enjoying far more comfortable living conditions. If you don't believe me go to www.arsse.co.uk which is a discussion group for army personnel, you'll see the views I expressed are shared by serving and former soldiers.

Andy Jones ● 6719d

AnnIt matters not one jot how long ago it was, your husband deserved better, both before, during and after the conflict. I personally salute him.I spent my 19th birthday in the Med. en route to Korea, but things changed and I was posted to Malaya. The equipment that those young infantry men were given was nothing short of a disgrace, as were the barracks. I also recall how those courageous little men the Gurkah's, stood shoulder to shoulder with us. Look how the scumbags who rule us treated them.......inferior pay and pensions, not allowed to work here on their discharge, or bring their families over to be with them.I wonder if Blair would let his son join the army and go to Iraq to do his dirty work.......answers on a postage stamp please!!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6719d

Nothing changes.....my ex husband served with the Middx Regt in Korea.  They were sent out there without winter clothing.I know, I know, it's a million years ago.

Ann S. Allridge ● 6719d

Dan & KevinAfter your initial rant about my observations on this thread,you have gone quiet. I await the source of your information. You must have seen and read the other postings, have you any differences to air regarding them?The pair of you went to great lengths to mention human decency, but had you not noticed, not one word of sympathy for our service people. I guess I know where you are both coming from!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6720d

Spot on Andrew.

Keith Iddon ● 6720d

The government are responsible. These government ministers should be asked how they get away with allowing our service personnel to live in accommodation not fit for animals:  Secretary of State for Defence, Rt Hon Des Browne MPMinister of State for the Armed Forces, Adam Ingram MPUnder Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord DraysonUnder-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans, Derek Twigg MP

Gareth Evans ● 6720d

Just to add my support for A.Atkinson, the government and not the top brass have the last word on equipment, as Andrew has said generals etc might advise but don't buy the stuff. The government has put accommodation in the hands of private companies who make a nice profit for work not done, then they can say it is not our fault it is the man from Joe Blogs the builder.To all the knockers try being in the desert under equipped as the foot soldier is and also the commanding officers, it goes from private up to general in the field.

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6721d

Have you ever been in the armed forces, by your reply it would seem that you haven't any idea of how the army works. Yes the military are involved, and make "recommendations", it is then prioritised against the requirements of all the other services Army-Navy-RAF etc. You must be very naive if you believe that the military can overide the recommendations of ministers and civil servants. As regards your comment about lumping asylum seekers in with child molesters, would it have been ok if I had put them in a seperate box? If you want to talk about human decency, which is very commendable, why dont you speak up for abused children in care homes, pensioners living on a pittance, having worked all of their working lives. I suppose in this PC world it gives you a certain amount of "kudos". Start treating and giving ALL of the people born in this country with the dignity,respect and support given to those seeking residence here. Then and only then can you say we live in a just and equal society. We gave Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri asylum (I notice that you ignored that remark)and look how they repaid our generosity. Perhaps while I am on the subject, you can tell me why most of those seeking asylum, are in the main, males between the ages of 18 and 30, with very few women,is it because they are safe where they are, and the men are not? I am as decent a person as the next, but i can also see when I am being taken for a ride!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6721d

War is a racket...FACThttp://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Anti-War-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865

Paul Davis ● 6721d

Whatever the make up of the Defence Procurement Agency I very much doubt that when it comes to battlefield equipment anybody but military personnel makes the purchasing decision. I would hope that we would never employ a senior military officers who were dictated to by the Government on the detail of how they should equip their troops. If you are right the armed services are a complete disaster area.It is the Government's job to provide the budget for them. On the face of it they (or I should say we) are very generous. £7 billion ought to buy lots of nice equipment and presumably this doesn't include mega projects like aircraft carriers, subs and the Euro-fighter. Of course provision of accommodation wouldn't come out of this part of the budget but even so the same principle applies. Ultimately the military are responsible for managing their budget and if personnel and their families are being asked to live in sub-standard accommodation it must be due to neglect on behalf of senior officers. I don't know whether Kevin is right that the budget has been mainly spent on officers accommodation but all the complaints I've heard during the recent coverage of this issue have been from lower ranks. Before dismissing Kevin as a twit you would need to come up with more convincing evidence that he is wrong.He is also probably right in saying that one less officers mess would have paid for the missing equipment. The body armour that was taken away from the soldier who subsequently was killed cost just £169. Although people have tried to make political capital out of this it is blindingly obvious that the quartermaster was at fault in not ensuring enough of this equipment was in the theatre of operations. The problem as I understand it was that stores had been reduced prior to the conflict.In addition I entirely agree with him for condemning you for lumping asylum seekers in with child molesters. This isn't a question of being PC, it is about human decency.

Dan Evans ● 6721d

Further to your snide comments her is the make up of the DPA (Defence procurement Agency)responsible for equipment purchasing for the armed forces;5400 staff employed£7 billion budget70 project teams managing 1000 projectsOnly 19% of staff are from the military the rest are civilian. (81%)1,800 engineers and scientists.I cannot imagine 81% of civilians will let 19% military get what they want, or do you with your vast knowledge know different? I would like to know the source of your info ; Officers benefits-how would a squaddie know what they are or you for that matter?  You dont seriously believe that one less officers mess refurb. or the loss of a ceremonial band would easily pay for equipment that was lacking do you? When and if you answer, try and be as accurate as you can with your reply and stop the PC  rubbish and I may well take you seriously!!!!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6722d

I was expecting some twit to come up with something like this PC rubbish, tell me "know all" when and where did you serve in the armed forces? So we can't mention asylum seekers getting better treated that our soldiers, without some idiot like you calling it "nasty"! This country is supposed to be a democracy, I lost family in France fighting defending this right,and PC twits like you will never prevent me from expressing an opinion. So my friend go and get a life. Generals dont buy inferior equipment, thats the job of the government who buy so called "best value" The top brass don' have a say.Do you truly believe that Generals would be allowed by the government to spend it however they liked.........Do me a favour.

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6722d

How nice of you to lump asylum seekers with child molesters. Ignoring the obvious nastiness of this perhaps we should be looking at who is actually responsible for this problem. A serving soldier called a phone in today and said that lots of money has actually been spent on accommodation for the services but most of it has gone on officers' quarters.This country spends more per capita on defence than any other country in Europe. Officers are amongst the best paid in the world and they also get a huge range of extra benefits. Having been given an allocation from us tax payers it is up to the top brass on how they wish to spend it. All the evidence is that they would rather buy expensive and often unusable military hardware (possibly with some benefiting from kickbacks) than look after the welfare of the private soldier. When soldiers in Iraq die due to lack of body armour this is not the fault of a government minister but those within the army who have spent the available funds on something else. One less officers' mess refurbished or ceremonial band would have easily paid for the equipment that was lacking.

Andy Jones ● 6722d