We had a statement yesterday on redundancy in the armed forces. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110302-0001.htm#11030267000492
The minister ran into difficulties with some of the former Chiefs of Staff who questioned the fairness of the redundancy payments. The problem became complex when the Minister said it would be ‘fair’ when previously he had suggested it would not be ‘mean’. Forces personnel are alert to this short of word juggling and had it not been challenged I think there would have been problems about its interpretation in the services. Eventually I intervened to suggest that the Minister put it in writing and deposit a copy in the House library and I am pleased to say he agreed to do so.
My Lord, Will Future Force 2020 be based on similar to the “Big Society” ?
Will “Big Future Force 2020” be totally reliant on volunteers such as those of the TA. Are our armed services likely to emulate those of the USA where a National Guard hold a prominent role?
Regards the difference between “mean” and “fair” this seem’s somewhat obscure from a Government professing transparency in all realms. It does suggest the package of redundancy will be less at this point than previously.
“The Military Covenant”
The term “covenant” essentially means “familial-love” the essence of which is non-breakability;
and this is in direct contrast to “contract” which can be broken, or otherwise terminated short of one or more of the parties being killed-off.
Lord Soley’s topic (and issue) is principally one of law and binding- contract.
It should not be mis-titled “Covenant”.
(For instance, for all the centuries that the People of Israel had no country, no land, and were scattered worldwide, they survived under foreign-imposed contractualities simply by their own inner-heart-and-spirit namely of Jewish covenance).
Any-one and especially such governance, civil-service, and people-directors, educators, or influencers as seated parliamentarians opening an issue-topic has a duty to communicate unequivocally, within the three Principles of Good Communication and Argumentation namely with (1) Clarity (2) Charity (towards others thereto communicating) and (3) Self-correctibility (upon being shown wrong, or neglectful of any essential).
Clarity includes unequivocality.
Lord Soley should have published under the title “Military Contractualities” and then focused in upon the particular contract-area the lawmakers need be writing, or re-writing, aright.
That “familial covenance” may overlap with contractuality is also vital :
For further instance, in the area of life-saving duty and possibly of “friendly-fire”, a ‘medic’ may fail to adequately cover and press upon a blood-gushing wound, but that is less likely if that wounded other is his best-mate or brother;
and that is a major element of covenance –
as well as being contractuality under military and civil Law.
0033F040311.JSDM.
Lord Soley’s topic (and issue) is principally one of law and binding- contract.
It should not be mis-titled “Covenant”.
a. a formal agreement of legal validity, especially one under seal.
b. an early English form of action in suits involving sealed contracts.
Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English ( Anglo-French, Old French, noun use of present participle of covenir { Latin convenīre to come together, agree; see -ant
OK Carl, but your toe-dipping into Dictionary-ing stopped short of the essential overlap-definiens I am intimating, one of which is given (through Babylon.) by wikipedia:
“Covenant: a solemn promise …”
(not a contract)…
Wikipedia’s dictionary says (further)…
“It is commonly found in religious contexts, where it refers to sacred agreements between God and human beings.”
To “hijack” the term ‘covenant’, under a Law and Contractuality primary-context such as The Military, I say is very poor Clarity, Charity, and Self-Correctibility;
and I say that zero-tolerance should be allowed to politicians, civil-servants, teachers, and all others paid to get things right and to communicate them right e.g. to us People, who fall short of any of those marks;
and especially should the zero-tolerance grow more punitive the bigger the number of human-livings being taken/given to the individual (((on the basis of one adequate human-living is £200 per week, no-assets: see argumentation elsewhere, please))).
Taking your research (definition-ing)there is a clear schism in both Constitutional and Other Law and Usage, creating an outright conflict between one sort of covenant (the ‘Godly-Love’) and another sort of covenant (the Contractual and legally-enforceable).
So what we are contributing here is stet, and needs to be continued, to a clear completion-of-distinction level:
Lord Soley, please ?
1515F040311.JSDM.
Covenant, ‘a solumn promise’
Now since when has any politician been able to keep a promise solumn or otherwise!
Military Pay and, for that matter, a sharp, dedicated Military force, has always served the United Kingdom well. It is perhaps the biggest Tragedy of all in these economic Times that Families are forced into harsh choices, and many loose their homes, and it is certainly more noticeable than the Military problems and Redundancy Pay, but that too is simply a sign of the Economic Tims, and is also very Tragic.
I have always had a great respect for the Military, and feel we need to afford those brave Souls who don the Uniform the best we can offer them, and fear this will not happen, that they will be shortchanged.
So I can be glad you stick up for them in this instance.
You’ll have to excuse Carl, any time anythign to do with Biblical themes are mentioend he looses his temper as if we all want “a Theocracy like Iran” for an allusion to them.
Zarove, give it a rest, please. There is no evidence that Carl is loosing his temper because he posted a reference that was devoid of comment.
This is me being nice.
Thank you
They say that those who become senior officers ie Brigadier or above during their working lives, are the ones who know how not to volunteer when ordered to do so!
In their case as well being a member of a good Pall Mall club, but never being seen to “join” it, is a prerequisite of high military office!
Ladytizzy, why don’t you give it more of a rest. Carl pretty well does this any time I say anyhtign about Biblical anything, even if its just a nice little quote.
The armed forces are another group of people who suffer grave exploitation. Except those at the top who cream off huge amounts of the funds allocated.
The reduncies would be better taken from those who sit at desks and are not in the main arena. We may need action men, but, we need far less desk sitters. Funny how no one ever wants to embrace these issues in any part of our government or institutions.
What is happening is we are so top heavy the only outcome that can possibly take place is to topple from the imbalance.
And who is at fault?
The armed forces are another group of people who suffer grave exploitation.
I’ve never heard that be..f..o..r..e..!!
In fact it is the wackiest remark from a sane person I think I can ever have heard!
@TwmO’: Well if you think that is an insane supposition I suggest you speak to a few military families.
They are exploited, always have been, since long before Nelson. In fact, even before Henry V.
Exploit = to make use of selfishly or unethically.
Just exactly what do you mean servicemen are ‘not’ exploited? Will you elucidate?
Exploit = to make injurious use of (selfishly or unethically).
JSDM.
I said Wacky not insane! please!
They get the pay; they take the risk.
It is their look out.
By contrast I knew one or two men who were conscientious objectors during WW1, b1884, and religious men of high intelligence.
They volunteered for the mines, which were not entirely safe paradises either. They lived.
Perhaps Maud would also say that miners are(were) exploited. In the gold mines of Brazil they most certainly are, in the way they have to court death to earn paltry pay.
3000 Welsh Archers were massacred at the Battle of Acre in the 3rd crusade; many of them had sold their properties at home to pay their way to those crusades. They were exploited, and not entirely wise to volunteer, would you not say?
Exploited!
They get the pay; they take the risk.
It is their look out.
They rarely complain unlike the people who enjoy the freedoms that they give their lives, unquestionably, to protect.
They lived.
Possibly because others died protecting this land.
The one good thing about military training, and living in Wilts/ Dorset, I am surrounded by military barracks of one sort or another, the one good thing is, that a good many thoroughly ignorant men get a training in a variety of thoroghly useful skills, mechanics, welding,hgv driving even, etc, that they would not otherwise get.
Most of them join because the pay is much better than they would get anywhere else, and in that sense join to make their fortune in time honoured fashion.
In the third crusade the Welsh Archers joined in no uncertain terms to make their fortunes by returning with big booty, which was what lured them in to joining. Not one returned.
In a world where intellectual capacity is the
most important capital factor in most people’s lives, seeing the world may well be
helping to create their potential fortune, rather than languishing in a dole hole in Liverpool or Newcastle.
The wages themselves are a guarantee for most of them for mortgages and jobs and don’t they scream if those guarantees are not realized.
I have little sympathy for “widows either, or charity for heroes; none whatsoever. The “glamour” the women see in a soldier or whatever, is the “prospects”.
If they are not realized then they should keep their grief to themselves.
The “glamour” the women see in a soldier or whatever, is the “prospects”.
So in effect you are saying a lot of women prostitute themselves ?
I agree most join the forces to better themselves, in most cases making an excellent choice between that and drug dealing on the streets or other criminal activity. The pay is not tremendous considering what you risk and must be balanced against the prospects.
The Charities are not founded by the ordinary servicemen & women. The grief when one falls is generally kept within the confines on the unit.
Twm O’r Nant your life would possibly be entirely different without these men & women. The taxation they pay at times is measured in pints of blood, limbs and lost years of life, you really do not compare to that.
There is a very old saying,
You owe your freedom to a soldier not a politician.
Wise words that should be heeded when debating the reasons men and women join the Armed Forces, and yes I was a Regular Soldier for over 30 years!