Exclusive report: British Soldiers need loans to eat, report reveals

[DogPoundPup]

Source: The Independent

Sunday, 11 May 2008

A highly sensitive internal report into the state of the British Army has revealed that many soldiers are living in poverty. Some are so poor that they are unable to eat and are forced to rely on emergency food voucher schemes set up by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Some of Britain's most senior military figures reacted angrily yesterday to the revelations in the report, criticising the Government's treatment of its fighting forces.

The disturbing findings outlined in the briefing team report written for Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, include an admission that many junior officers are being forced to leave the Army because they simply cannot afford to stay on.

Pressure from an undermanned army is "having a serious impact on retention in infantry battalions", with nearly half of all soldiers unable to take all their annual leave as they try to cover the gaps.

The analysis, described by General Dannatt as "a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the views and concerns of the Army at large", states: "More and more single-income soldiers in the UK are now close to the UK government definition of poverty." It reveals that "a number of soldiers were not eating properly because they had run out of money by the end of the month". Commanders are attempting to tackle the problem through "Hungry Soldier" schemes, under which destitute soldiers are given loans to enable them to eat.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-report-soldiers-need-loans-to-eat-report-reveals-825928.html

[Ellen Forradalom]

1. Loans??

Try food.

[mcctatas]

2. So we aren't the only ones who treat our soldiers like chattel?

Well that makes it all better then...
:sarcasm:

[sutz12]

3. My first thought, too.

We're not the only ones treating our military people like crap.

Oh, joy.

:sarcasm:

[crikkett]

10. who do you think we learned it from?

at least soldiers arent' being put up in our homes anymore.

[mac2]

4. Ya the good ole Empire.

God Bless the Queen. Her cousin George is the same way isn't he?

[sutz12]

7. It's Tommy this, and Tommy that...

and Tommy 'ow's yer soul?
But it's Thin Red Line of 'Eroes
When the drums begin to roll.

--Kipling

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Thankfully at least one British soldier will never need a loan

so he can pay for a couple cans of corned beef or pork and beans to keep himself from starving until pay day rolls around. He can just pop around to his granny's house if he gets hungry. She always has a well stocked larder.

[mac2]

8. He looks pretty soft to me.

He needs the service which gives him some physical training. You never know when he's going to need to ride that horse against the enemy. Like that will ever happen.

[JohnyCanuck]

12. To be fair to Harry,

he did take part in military operations in Afghanistan but was withdrawn from the action when news of his whereabouts was leaked by the press. Too bad he apparently seems to swallow the government bullshit as to the reasons for the war (or he is just playing his part in helping promote the propaganda).

This pic shows him looking tough in his battle gear.

The 'good war' is a bad war
9 Jan 2008
In his latest article for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes how the invasion of Afghanistan, which was widely supported in the West as a 'good war' and justifiable response to 9/11, was actually planned months before 9/11 and is the latest instalment of 'a great game'.

"To me, I confess, are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for dominion of the world."
Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, speaking about Afghanistan, 1898

SNIP

The reason the United States gave for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 was “to destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11”. The women of Rawa say this is false. In a rare statement on 4 December that went unreported in Britain, they said: “By experience, that the US does not want to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realisation of their economic, political and strategic interests in the region.”

The truth about the “good war” is to be found in compelling evidence that the 2001 invasion, widely supported in the west as a justifiable response to the 11 September attacks, was actually planned two months prior to 9/11 and that the most pressing problem for Washington was not the Taliban’s links with Osama Bin Laden, but the prospect of the Taliban mullahs losing control of Afghanistan to less reliable mujahedin factions, led by warlords who had been funded and armed by the CIA to fight America’s proxy war against the Soviet occupiers in the 1980s. Known as the Northern Alliance, these mujahedin had been largely a creation of Washington, which believed the “jihadi card” could be used to bring down the Soviet Union. The Taliban were a product of this and, during the Clinton years, they were admired for their “discipline”. Or, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “ are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history”.

The “moment in history” was a secret memorandum of understanding the mullahs had signed with the Clinton administration on the pipeline deal. However, by the late 1990s, the Northern Alliance had encroached further and further on territory controlled by the Taliban, whom, as a result, were deemed in Washington to lack the “stability” required of such an important client. It was the consistency of this client relationship that had been a prerequisite of US support, regardless of the Taliban’s aversion to human rights. (Asked about this, a state department briefer had predicted that “the Taliban will develop like the Saudis did”, with a pro-American economy, no democracy and “lots of sharia law”, which meant the legalised persecution of women. “We can live with that,” he said.)

By early 2001, convinced it was the presence of Osama Bin Laden that was souring their relationship with Washington, the Taliban tried to get rid of him. Under a deal negotiated by the leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamic parties, Bin Laden was to be held under house arrest in Peshawar. A tribunal of clerics would then hear evidence against him and decide whether to try him or hand him over to the Americans. Whether or not this would have happened, Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf vetoed the plan. According to the then Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, a senior US diplomat told him on 21 July 2001 that it had been decided to dispense with the Taliban “under a carpet of bombs”.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=470

[mac2]

13. Leaked to get out of it?

So what he is in Afghanistan and they find out? Just move him to Iraq.

[JohnyCanuck]

15. Leaked to get out of it? Possibly.

Can't be good for the regal lungs of the 2nd in line to the throne to be breathing in all that depleted uranium laden Afghan (or Iraqi) dust.

PRESENTATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (23 June 2005)

Keith Baverstock PhD; Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Kuopio, KUOPIO, Finland

I have, during a career of some 30 years, developed expertise in evaluating risks regarding the environmental and occupational exposure to ionising radiation and radioactive materials in many different situations. I have done this in the context of employment by the UK Medical Research Council (1971 to 1991) and the European Regional Office of the World Health Organisation (1991 to 2003), both ostensibly "independent" organisations.

Between 2000 and 2002 I examined the evidence relating to risks from the mildly radioactive depleted uranium. My concern was especially raised by the specific exposure context of inhalation of the dust particles produced when a depleted uranium munition impacts a hardened target and burns, producing fine particles of DU oxide (DUO). This material has no natural analogue and does not arise in the normal refining and processing of uranium for nuclear fuel. There is, therefore, no prior experience of exposure to this material than its use in Iraq in 1991.

According to the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP), inhaled DUO would pose a hazard to the lung from radiation if it were insoluble and a chemical toxicity risk to the kidney (physiological toxicity of kidney malfunction) if it were soluble.

DUO is in fact part insoluble and part sparingly soluble. Since 1998 evidence has accrued that human cells exposed in the laboratory to low concentrations of DU exhibit changes characteristic of malignant cells and indeed, when implanted into host animals, will lead to malignancy. In these experiments it seems unlikely, given the low concentrations and the experimental conditions, that this effect is mediated by radiation, but is rather a chemically mediated genotoxicity. (See for example 1-6 The non-radioactive element, nickel, produces similar effects and is an established carcinogen.

In 2001 this evidence led me to believe that inhaled DUO particles, which are capable of penetrating the deep lung (where they would be retained for long periods) posed, for a period of weeks to months, not only a radiotoxicity risk but also a chemical genotoxicity risk and potentially a synergy between the two. Thus any risk evaluated on the basis of the ICRP recommendations would be likely to underestimate the true risk.

In addition, that DU is only mildly radioactive through alpha emission, raises the possibility of a further risk route mediated by the so called "bystander effect". (See for example; 7, 8) Here a single cell "hit" by an alpha particle sends signals to surrounding cells causing them to behave as if they had been irradiated. In circumstances where bystanders predominate (low dose exposure to alpha particles for example) the bystander effect acts to amplify the "radiation effect".

Thus, detailed examination of DUO reveals three potential risk routes in addition to the conventional radiotoxicity caused by direct irradiation, namely, chemical genotoxicity, synergy between radiation and chemical toxicities and a bystander route.

http://www.grassrootspeace.org/keith_baverstock_23june05.htm

[LiberalFighter]

6. Not knowing the facts...

The scheme symbolises a change from the tradition of soldiers getting three square meals a day for free. Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay.

The controversial Pay as You Dine (PAYD) regime, which requires soldiers not on active duty to pay for their meals, has seen commanding officers inundated with complaints from soldiers unhappy at the quality of food that they get and the amount of paperwork involved.

Senior officers warn in the report that "there is a duty of care issue" and add that the "core meal" provided to soldiers on duty "is often not the healthy option". The confusion of which soldiers even qualify for free meals while on duty is revealed in the admission that "in some areas the soldier has to pay and then claim back and in others the duty meal is included in the contract".

I would ask whether the soldiers are being paid sufficiently to pay for basics. If so, are they squandering it on liquor or other expenses?

I would suggest that they should revert back to providing the meals in a mess hall and reduce their pay based on what they had considered the amount they figured was the meal allowance. Or do they live off base?

[bean fidhleir]

9. "New Labour" / "Third Way" / "LINO" / "Cryptotories" strike again

Like the "New Democrats" over here - Clinton et al - "New Labour" are thinly-disguised Tories.

Adam Smith had their number: " 'All for ourselves and nothing for other people' seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind". The ruling class *always* tries to starve the rest of us. "{employers} are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their {starvation-prevention} rate" (Smith again)

[mac2]

14. Labor party over there is full of Conservatives just like our Democratic Party here.

They give good speeches and get elected. Then they side with the other party on votes and goals.

[LynnTheDem]

11. So do many US soldiers.

And when bUsh does away permanently with food stamps, more US soldiers will require loans to eat.

That's the rightwing way of "supporting the troops"!