What a way to treat our troops.

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/69o2mbm

Here we have a young man that has lost both his legs carrying out his duties for his country, and now the powers that be are to throw him on the scrap heap.

He and his wife and children, will lose their family home, and he will have to seek a job, which in it's self is a big problem, but with no legs almost an impossibility.

Would it not have been better for them to sack a more senior staff member who's holding down a cushy desk job and let this guy take his place?

[Sqad]

I do indeed take your point.

These heroes always say that that want to be treated like all the other soldiers and no differently.

If he still had both if his legs intact, would he still have been made redundant?........YES.

So he is being treated, as he wished, the same as his mates.

Although, I do have sympathy with your remarks.

[mike11111]

I read the link. The average pay-off seems to be £400,000 + pension, which does soften the blow somewhat.

[boxtops]

There was something on the television recently about the difference in treatment US veterans receive from the way the UK treats its returning troops - I only know what I am told, but I wonder how a US vet in this situation would be treated. I never had any involvement with the forces until I met OH, now I am in a family and friends circle with a long Forces background, and the way ex-service personnel are treated dismays me. It takes a long time to rehabilitate back into civilian life if you have all your faculties, let alone like this fellow. Great while you're in the system, but no wonder so many single guys who are demobbed end up on the streets, no right to housing points when they come out. I would rather demo for rights for the troops than for increasing fuel prices - Help for Heroes has been (and is) a wonderful organisation, but it's disgraceful that a charity is now doing what the Governments have not done, for ex-servicemen in need.

[Coobeastie]

He'll get a lump sum payment (average £400,000)...more than enough to buy a nice house so he's not going to be homeless and he says himself he will be financially secure.

Why should somebody else be sacked simply to give him a job.

[Sqad]

boxtops......yes, yes.....I agree entirely, but AOG´s question was..."Should he have been sacked?"

[boxtops]

Sounds a lot of money but he's a young man, it won't last very long in terms of a house and future salary.

[THECORBYLOON]

He has not been sacked, he is being medically discharged. Would you rather that every injured soldier were kept on and able-bodied soldiers were discharged? Who is going to re-train them all?

[boxtops]

Yes - agree, I didn't answer the question. As with people in my own employment, if you are medically unfit to do the job, then you are discharged, so the answer to AOG's question has to be "yes" - he can't do what he was hired to do. Sadly - as in many walks of life - employers can't create "light duties" to employ people unfit to carry out their earlier roles. I'm not arguing with that as an employment law principle, and unfortunately in this chap's case, he lives in a tied house which comes with the job, so has to move. My dismay is not with the principle of his case, but how ex-servicemen fare after they are no longer employed by the MoD.

[Sqad]

CORBY...you are correct......medically discharged.......and your point is well taken.

[anotheoldgit]

mike11111

Money isn't everything, the Army seemed to be this chaps life, and he could have still contributed greatly if he was allowed to remsain in the Army.

Now he will spend hours, days, years most likely jobless and house bound, contemplating what might have been.

[boxtops]

It depends what his skills and talents were in the Army, I guess, as to what he can turn his hand now.

[e.crespo]

This article, from the Mail, highlights for me the problems of a top-heavy military. Is this where the class divide is greatest? http://www.dailymail....ttaches-cut-back.html
There seems to be no shortage of cushy desk jobs for some.