Any thoughts

[debbie B]

This was in the Express today.. A fright train is comming.

SOLDIERS SACKED IN COST CUTTING EXERCISE GET CALL UP TO FIGHT AGAIN BY DESPERATE MOD
Soldiers who were sacked when their expert services were no longer required but before they could claim a full pension have been called up to fight again because the Army is shot of staff.
The specialists dragged back into the frontline are understood to include bomb disposal experts, whose services are desperately needed in Iraq.
The men were sacked under a controversial policy called manning Control, which critics say is being used to cut costs at the expense of the military.
In further evidence of shortages, the Ministry of Defence has also admitted that 13 Royal Navy ships are at sea without their full crew complement. In a parliamentary answer; Defence Minister Ivor Caplin said the Army has called up 12 soldiers whom it had sacked and a further 1,917 remain on the reserve list.
Soldiers who have been dismissed are planning launch legal action. They claim that the MoD has been abusing the system to push out older troops rather than foot the bill for the more expensive option of a medical discharge.
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch, who uncovered details of the call ups says he has seen documents showing that cost was a factor in discharging at least one soldier thought Manning Control instead of on medical grounds.
Mr Keetch told the Sunday Express: “It is ridiculous that soldiers are being sacked and then called up again . the Army has been undermanned since Labour came to power. “Something has been going seriously wrong inside the MoD if perfectly good soldiers have been sacked. “This is no way to treat soldiers and no way to encourage more recruits.
“There is mounting evidence that the Manning Control system has been abused, with perfectly capable soldiers losing their jobs at great cost to themselves and their families.
“It would be better for the MoD if it launched an inquiry now, rather waiting until large numbers of soldiers sue for unfair dismissal.”
Soldiers face careers reviews at seven, nine and 12 years service. If there is a large number of similar aged soldiers blocking the promotion of younger candidates, some could find themselves dismissed under Queen’s Regulations 9.413: Not required for a full Army Career”.
Soldiers are supposed to be warned 12 to 18 months before being dismissed that they are being submitted for review.
Solicitor Tom Reah, who has gathered more than 200 soldiers who are considering launching a class action law suit, told the Sunday express: “Its incredibly stupid”
“Its nonsensical because some of those people who have been called up have been out for so long and they haven’t kept up their fitness. Many only do a few hours a year on the reserve list.
“I will be meeting with people over the next two to three weeks to decide how to proceed”.
One soldier he is representing, Corporal Paul Biddis, was selected for SAS training just weeks before he was told he was no longer needed. He claims he was bullied into signing up for Manning Control and told he could not visit his son, who was in hospital with meningitis unless he signed. His son suffered brain damage and his wife has been treated for depression. Earlier this year, Defence Minister Lewis Moonie said that manning Control had been suspended.
However; an MoD spokeswoman said: “ I can confirm that the Army has not suspended Manning Control points.
“In the last four years approximately 200 people have been discharged under the mechanism but we do not hold the data centrally on who exactly has been called back”.
The Army is not alone in straining to cope with over stretched resources.
Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has also admitted that naval deployments have been effected by shortages of staff.
The destroyer Manchester, frigates Cornwall, Kent, Lancaster, Norfolk, Portland and Sutherland, mine counter measure ships Quorn, Atherstone, Penzance and Cottesmore, the survey ship Scott and the parole vessel Leeds Castle are all at sea without full crew compliments.
The MoD admits that the need to provide cover during the strike by fire-fighters has forced some sailors to miss out on key training.
REPRODUCED IN FULL…FROM THE SUNDAY EXPRESS SUNDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2003-09-21 ARTICLE BY TIM SHIPMAN (DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR)

[harry hackedoff]

This sound like the scam they tried launching a while back. Whereby soldiers would have to re-engage, to avoid the MOD having to pay full pension entitlements.
Well done, Debs
Aye,

[debbie B]

Found this too

Sir - The charge against the Ministry of Defence is not, as Ivor Caplin seems to think (letter, July 3), that Manning Control Points have been used legitimately to create space in the ranks for promotion, but rather that soldiers with exemplary service records have reported being threatened with MCPs and bullied into releasing themselves or signing up to new short-term contracts.

In these cases, the MoD certainly saves itself significant pension liabilities. Personnel actually discharged under MCP might be only 209 in the past four years, but it is clear that many more have been forced to jump. Some soldiers will be testing Mr Caplin's version of events in the courts.

Mr Caplin claims there has been no suspension of MCPs, and nor are there any plans to do so. Why, then, did Louis Moonie MP, Mr Caplin's predecessor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, tell Parliament on June 5: "A wide-ranging review of soldiers' career structures and terms of service is presently underway. This will include consideration of the continued utility of Manning Control Point reviews as a structural control mechanism. In the meantime, against the background of current Army manning shortfalls, there are no plans to conduct any MCP reviews in the next 12 months."

So: a 12-month suspension of the policy and a review of its utility. Is Mr Caplin suggesting that Mr Moonie misled Parliament? Or has Mr Caplin suddenly changed the policy?

From:
Paul Keetch MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, London SW1A

[Tab]

Well it did not stop them calling up hundreds of reserveists for the Suez crisis, and stopping every one from being demobed. To get them acclimatised they ran them round a ten mile road track in full kit in tempatures of over 100'o. Quite few of them died from heat exhaustion
and even more wound up in hospital, it was then it came out that one per cent of us were expected to die in training and that was acceptable, as this last lot took the Regiment over the limit for deaths in training, a statement was issued that they were being trained for war and if they are not fit now even more could die later on the battlefield, nothing more was ever said.

[harry hackedoff]

Debbie, that was the point

or signing up to new short-term contracts.

In these cases, the MoD certainly saves itself significant pension liabilities.

Any chance of you posting yer mug shot, By the way

[Jason The Argonaut]

Any chance of you posting yer mug shot, By the way

Harry you naughty boy

[debbie B]

ok only if you post a comment here
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBrownletter/

[Whitey]

They did the same here after the Gulf War, sent over 200,000 soldiers packing, and now they are calling them back. I say the powers that be want to give the world to women, minorities and immigrants(legal and illegal) who don't want to include the rest of us in their future so I say let them call them up to fight for "Their" country. Sorry your guys got pissed on too, but they got a choice now, walk on by for principle or bow their heads and collect a check.

[Smoke286]

Whitey, it is my understanding that Rumsfeld has plans to cut back further on the overall size of the US military, disbanding some divisional units in favour of smaller special forces groups and new technological systems. It is also my understanding that a goodly portion of senior Pentagon leaders were given their walking papers after the "end" of the war in Iraq because they disagreed with this long term plan.

[Whitey]

Smoke,
Yes that is right. SpecialForces are good troops, but the reality is SF supports the grunts, the grunts are the milk, flour and eggs, SF is the sugar. I've operated with grunts and SF and support and Rumsfeld has opperated with what? His stock portfolio? You need SF to do a vriety of missions, but in the end grunts are the sledge hammers that bust in the doors. Most SF come fromgrunt units and I hope would agree. Rumsfeld ain't been right about anything since pharmicuticals. I think we need more SF, more light infantry and less dumb ass tanks. Tanks are good to fight tanks, not much else. APC's?Too many too slow. We need more CIA, we need more FBI, we don't need tanks.

[debbie B]

Here is an example from the brown letter web site of how this Gov treats is servicemen/women

was directed to this site from the gulf war vetrans site.
I too was forced to leave the armed forces at a time when i was
starting to suffer from verious symptoms related to my service in the
first gulf war. As soon as i brought my medical problems to the
attention of my line manager (troop commander) and the MO i was
treated very differantly.
Career progression stopped as my health sufferd, i was qualifiyed 2
ranks up but was held back and just had to watch as my peers past me
buy. I made attempts to address this issue but was told my time would
come. and it did, two years later in the form of a "brown letter"
your services are no longer wanted and its your fault.
I swore on the good book to serve and protect my queen and country.
the MOD took the best part of my life, then once my body showed signs
of gulf war syndrome the MOD tossed me on the scrap heap and i was
not the only one.
For years i have felt bitter and betrayed by this treatment but felt
the system would just flick me to one side. im so glad someone has
had the courage to stand up to this and expose the manning point
system. this goverment can not afford to treat soldiers and there
familys this way.
please direct me to the right poeple for help on this issue
thanks

please visit our site at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBrownletter/

thanks

[debbie B]

Found this little nugget

Manning Control Review

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers since 1997 who were subject to Manning Control (a) submitted a redress to the Army Board and were still dismissed and (b) had their redress rejected by the Board, but were retained. [130007]



Mr. Caplin: None.

AND

Phil Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from members of the armed forces who believe that they have been encouraged to leave the Service before they have completed enough years to qualify for a pension; and what action he will take to investigate the complaints. [125377]
Mr. Caplin: Central records of applications for Redress of Complaint have been maintained only since 1997. Since then there have been two applications relating to the manning control policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement.
The Manning Control Points have never been used as a way of avoiding pension commitments.

AND

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to manning control in the last 10 years submitted a redress to the Army Board against being discharged; and how many were (a) discharged and (b) retained after the redress. [92699]

Dr. Moonie: Central records for those who have submitted a Redress of Complaint to the Army Board have only been maintained since 1997.
Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement.


Now I know and some that frequent this site know soldiers that have, one or two have probably sat on the boards.
Three times this question has been asked

STAND BY

[harry hackedoff]

Good effort Debbs,

[debbie B]

thanks
one i found today....pensions again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3170512.stm
this realy gets me

[BenChug]

They used to have something like that here as in you had to be a OFFICER to GET full pension if involved in a accident that took you out of services. Enlisted ranks didn't have the privalige of getting paid out after car crashes and such.