Is this any way to treat our brave troops?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/38fnxar

Surely before turning them out to the scrap-heap they should be given the choice to serve out their time doing a cushy desk job?

That is the very least we owe them.

And some of those now serving in cushy safe jobs, should take their places on the front line.

[Count-A-Strong]

And what 'desk jobs' do you think exist for them in an underfunded army, in the middle of a recession?

[sandyRoe]

A soldier who was 'cannon fodder' isn't necessarily the best candidate for a pen pushers job.

[bednobs]

sorry, have to agree really. In the article it says that only a proportion of them will have been injured on duty, so presumably, the rest of them have bad backs or health conditions that lead them to be unable to do their job. Other jobs, both in the private and public sectors would get rid of people on capability grounds if they couldn't do the job they were employed to do so i don't really see what is different here

[THECORBYLOON]

The leaked document says ''only a proportion of those discharged are likely to have been injured on operations... this number is likely to grow as operations in Afghanistan continue'' and yet the Mail has chosen to interpret "a proportion" as meaning "many", odd that, eh?

[bednobs]

telegraph, tcl, telegraph!

[bednobs]

plus " a proportion" could mean 90% or 1 % could it not?

[daffy654]

They are not necessarily 'brave troops' AOG, they are doing the job they are paid to do.
If they become unfit to do that job then they should make way for someone who is able.

[Goodsoulette]

Desk job, if its not a vacancy how can they possibly have it. How can they necessarily be suitable for that job even if there is a vacancy.

I'm all for supporting our troops. I think on the whole they do a good job and our armed services are actually something to be proud of but even if they were injured on duty, it's not something they didnt realise could happen to them when they joined up.

[boxtops]

I agree with the last two posts, it's part of the job, it's a risk they take. What we do need to do is to make sure that injured troops are properly supported here (and Help for Heroes is wonderful, but not a Government promise) and that people are helped when they're demobbed, injured or not, to settle back into civilian life - which is very different from what they've been used to as serving troops. We can't make office jobs just to keep them employed.

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

Get your facts right.

You anti Daily Mail phobia, is getting to make you look silly, the report was from the Telegraph not the Mail.

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

'Cannon Fodder'????? ' Pen Pusher'?????

Your ignorant descriptions, obviously makes you stand out as a very ignorant person, a person that obviously has not the slightest inclination of what certain jobs entail.

[anotheoldgit]

How many of you who have criticised this post, would accept being sacked if one had been injured at their civilian jobs?

[MrJabezClegg]

Aog if anyone on here got sacked it would be the old ( Where there's blame, there's a claim )

[Answerprancer]

Before I clicked this open I thought "let me guess..AOG"

[123everton]

Would our brave troops really want to have a pen pusher covering their back in a fox hole?

[boxtops]

AOG, re your last post ^^, I've had colleagues with work-related injuries who have been retired on early ill-health retirement because they're not fit to do the job they were employed for. Normal employment practice.

[anotheoldgit]

boxtops

Yes retired, but voluntary retired, not sacked.

It is left to the employee, no employer would be allowed to sack a person for such reasons.

[bednobs]

of course they would be allowed! People get sacked on incapability grounds if they can't do the job they are employed to do