[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
MILITARY COVENENT , WILL IT BENEFIT CARERS?? - Page 3 - Carers UK Forum

MILITARY COVENENT , WILL IT BENEFIT CARERS??

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
Forces personnel are people who have always had problems resettling into civilian life. During the Napoleonic Wars, if wounded beyond their capacity to continue fighting, they were sent home and left to beg, ignored and treated terribly by a system that didn't care about them.

WW1 was probably the first war to make the government think in terms of proper support for troops returning home ("land fit for heroes"), but it wasn't until 1944 that some of the first disability laws in this country were drawn up - largely aimed at supporting returning wounded personnel into rehabilitation and re-employment.

Yes, ex-forces people deserve help with adjusting to civilian life, especially if they've been injured in the line of duty. Additional help for equipment, etc., should come from the existing MOD budget: if there's waste in the NHS, there's much more in the MOD where estimates for any weapon purchased always seem to be at least 3x lower than the eventual cost. There's no doubt that families deserve support.

But so do the many families I work with, some of whom are desperate for help that simply isn't available. If the military covenant makes it even harder for those families, then I'm against it - because those people need help now and are being refused it because the money isn't there. If it is used to support people with fewer needs, no matter what they've done for this country, it simply isn't right.

Because carers do a hell of a lot for this country too, and are ignored and in some cases treated terribly by a system that doesn't care about them.
copied over
I must be honest i am quite shocked at the reaction from carers on this forum re the help that carers may be able to receive along with veterans , Over the years we have had funding made available for various groups , i for one have never ever worried that the extra funding they recveive may impact on what i believe we as carers deserve , take foster carers , when i first found out what they receive i was against the payments , they receive £420 per child per week , for picking up the problems from another family , yet we as carers looking after our own family are in recept of such a low allowance,we should welcome anything that will help and support , as the Prime minister says, people who may be disadvantaged due to their service within H.M. forces ....
George, I cannot see a problem with what is being posted here.

We have all agreed that ex-service personnel should not be disadvantaged by the result of their service. All of us.

However, we also feel that ex-service personnel should not receive preferential treatment at the cost of others in greater need. In other words, no one should be disadvantaged in favour of someone else.

Is there a problem with that, because I truly cannot see what the problem would be?
Just read the posts .. look the covenant aint a "NEW IDEA" it exists now and has been with us for decades ,the only change we have is Cameron & Miliband want to make some political gain by enshrining the coveneant in law, and as far as i am concerend if it is law, i will ask for whatever i am entitled to by the new LAW. the priority treatment has been with us, as i say for years , but it is only for war disabled pensioners and the treatment must be for the war injury/illness atributed to service . to say they should not be entitled to social housing , schools , university , council tax discount , travel discounts and more is wrong, we should not begrudge any help we can give to ex sevicemen/woman , we have asked for help for the carers of veterans for years , probably will never see it but we must ask , i cant remember how many carers we have for veterans , that is from WW2 right up to present day i did read something a while back that we may have some 150-000 carers looking after veterans , spouse`s , sons daughters , parents the covenant may be able to help and support them , but some on this forum to me, appear to be against them getting help for the care work they do , as carers what are we campaigning for , if we ask for more cash for carers , pensioner carers to be paid the allowance , students to be paid, if you care for more then one person extra cash, allow working carers to be able to work for more then £100 per week,working carers to recieve respite care the list is endless ...if we get what we want ... who loses out --- or will we get help for those who need it the most- ie means testng for carers benefits ....
I do not think that you have read the posts properly, George, or you are putting your own interpretation on them, an interpretation which is not there. I think that you will find that we are all saying that services should be allocated according to need, not allocated based on status, in this case membership of the armed forces.

In asking for priority and preferential treatment as well as exemption from the means-testing which all other members of society are subjected to you are also asking for all systems of social welfare to become more, not less, unequal and unfair in order to meet the needs of what you consider to be a particulary deserving group. The military convenant, quite rightly, explicitly applies only to those who have been disadvantaged by military service, it is not a free pass to services to which individuals would otherwise have no access or for which they would otherwise have to pay.
I agree, and anyway many other public servants such as police, nurses, ambulance crews, and fireman also serve in the public interest, sometimes at great risk to their health .., and Karl Marx of course summed it all up very well:
"In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners]from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".[/b]
I am absolutly gobsmacked about the replies here.

My dad served in 1 para and fought in singapore and Cyprus winning medlas putting his life on the line, during a taining exersie a jump went wrong. He now has more metal plactes in his legs than bones. This covenant will insure that unlike my dad, others wont be told to get out of forces accomadation within x amount of weeks of getting out the hospital. It will insure that there will be some sort of job /training (with payment) rather than just having the family move out and live on benifits, the army essentially abandond us. We were already suffering this made it all the worse. My dad was still on hospital strength morphine and crutches with a wife two pre teens and a 3 year old. It was sheer luck we moved to a place that was rebuilding or we would have been on the streets, quite literally. the unemployed do not pay rent why should those risking their lives for us pay rent too? This covenant will give the families choice where to send the children to schools, its the same choice none service personel have, why would anyone deny service personal this choice? having gone through the military school system, trust me a choice would be welcomed. A service personal dying for his country leaves a widow, so all of a sudden its wrong to care for widows? yes if htey manage to get jobs and look after themselves/remarry they should not be supported...but to deny them support until then does what? puts their children into care which cost £420 approx per week per child not including expenses and travelling allowence and petrol allowence etc and puts the mother on the street. Would you do htat to your mohter? your children? no? they why do it to someone elses? Image Image
Please read the posts again, I think that you will find that you too have misinterpreted them.
I dont think you have quite got the point of this thread - if we measure need by suffering then why not look at my mum who was at the receiving end of the Allied carpet bombing? As a teenager she was a Red Cross nurse in Germany watching her whole world go up in flames: let us not kid ourselves, Bomber Harris was a war criminal because he deliberately targeted civilians, and Winston Churchill was happy to pass the ammunition. So, lets get real, in War there are no winners, only victims.
This covenant will insure that unlike my dad, others wont be told to get out of forces accomadation within x amount of weeks of getting out the hospital. It will insure that there will be some sort of job /training (with payment) rather than just having the family move out and live on benifits, the army essentially abandond us.
No one would suggest that this wasn't wrong and is precisely what the military covenant should do.

No one is suggesting that military personnel and their families should be disadvantaged in any way. The military covenant should ensure reasonable treatment of families, and that hasn't always happened.

But it has been suggested that they should be treated better than others are - and that would be wrong. That is all people are saying here.