Options

Remembrance Sunday. Remember this

mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
Forum Member
✭✭✭
When you see Cameron and Clegg on tv laying a wreath at the Cenotaph, saying how much we owe the brave men and women of our armed forces, remember they cut ex-soldiers and war widows pension entitlement in 2011, the now disgraced Dr Fox executing the deed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346527/Liam-Foxs-heartless-pension-cuts-hit-war-widows-retired-servicemen.html

Ministers were branded 'heartless' last night for pension cuts that will cost retired servicemen and war widows hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox was blasted over the coalition Government's controversial decision to link all public-sector pensions and benefits to the Consumer Price Index instead of the higher Retail Price Index.
Changes introduced in the last Budget mean, for instance, that a 27-year-old corporal who lost both his legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan would miss out on more than £500,000 over his lifetime
And the 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would lose almost £750,000 as a result of the changes.

Comments

  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    When you see Cameron and Clegg on tv laying a wreath at the Cenotaph, saying how much we owe the brave men and women of our armed forces, remember they cut ex-soldiers and war widows pension entitlement in 2011, the now disgraced Dr Fox executing the deed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346527/Liam-Foxs-heartless-pension-cuts-hit-war-widows-retired-servicemen.html

    Ministers were branded 'heartless' last night for pension cuts that will cost retired servicemen and war widows hundreds of thousands of pounds.

    Defence Secretary Liam Fox was blasted over the coalition Government's controversial decision to link all public-sector pensions and benefits to the Consumer Price Index instead of the higher Retail Price Index.
    Changes introduced in the last Budget mean, for instance, that a 27-year-old corporal who lost both his legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan would miss out on more than £500,000 over his lifetime
    And the 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would lose almost £750,000 as a result of the changes.


    This is the date of your link

    By Ian Drury for the Daily Mail
    Updated: 18:32, 12 January 2011
  • Options
    smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Also, please don't forget all those standing there who voted for the Iraq war and were responsible for the killing of thousands of soldiers.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,589
    Forum Member
    Annsyre wrote: »
    This is the date of your link

    By Ian Drury for the Daily Mail
    Updated: 18:32, 12 January 2011

    The date of the article is irrelevant. This thread is about remembering and those Tory actions were spiteful and mean whatever date
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Rules which denied about 4,000 war widows and widowers a military pension are to be changed next year.

    From April 2015, those who "remarry, cohabit or form a civil partnership" would be entitled to the pension for life, the Ministry of Defence said.

    Under current rules some have to surrender their survivor's pension.

    Irene Wills, chair of the War Widows' Association, said Prime Minister David Cameron had apologised for the delay in implementing the change.

    She said: "Mr Cameron said he is sorry we had to wait so long, but he realised that it was a mistake and he is very pleased to now right that mistake and allow all widows to keep their pensions."

    She met Mr Cameron on Saturday to deliver a thank you letter.
  • Options
    HillmanImpHillmanImp Posts: 2,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Also, please don't forget all those standing there who voted for the Iraq war and were responsible for the killing of thousands of soldiers.
    I did not vote Labour, but nevertheless, I do not think labour voters are responsible, rather all UK citizens over 18 our responsible, via agreeing to live and abide by the rules of our democratic government.

    On labour's side, Saddam was not voted in by the electorate, his regime was responsible for millions of deaths during iran/iraq war. There wasn't much to say that was nice about the regime. Due to 9/11. in a sense, some significant sections of the sunni religion had declared war on the west (it was a bigger event then pearl habour) . Iraq was a sunni area controlling a majority non-sunni people. I guess the destruction of that non-democratic control of non-sunni Iraq was a valid response to 9/11.

    Labour, standing by the USA, was the only valid thing our nation could do. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with democracy.

    the British service men and women who died, did, in effect, help save our democracy, and they are heros. They deserve to be remembered. War is a horrible business but those that fight in it, do not make the horrible decisions, it is us democrats in the privacy of the polling booth that vote for death or life.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,589
    Forum Member
    HillmanImp wrote: »
    I did not vote Labour, but nevertheless, I do not think labour voters are responsible, rather all UK citizens over 18 our responsible, via agreeing to live and abide by the rules of our democratic government.

    On labour's side, Saddam was not voted in by the electorate, his regime was responsible for millions of deaths during iran/iraq war. There wasn't much to say that was nice about the regime. Due to 9/11. in a sense, some significant sections of the sunni religion had declared war on the west (it was a bigger event then pearl habour) . Iraq was a sunni area controlling a majority non-sunni people. I guess the destruction of that non-democratic control of non-sunni Iraq was a valid response to 9/11.

    Labour, standing by the USA, was the only valid thing our nation could do. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with democracy.

    9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq
  • Options
    HillmanImpHillmanImp Posts: 2,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq
    Yes it did. 9/11 was caused by significant sections of sunni people of Saudi origin (and else where) of the sunni religion. It was an act of war. Our response to take out the Sunni in Afganistan and Iraq was probably the right things to do. You can tell by people of the SUnni faith now joining Isis that Sunni is related to the 9/11 issue. I am no expert in religion etc etc, just simply looking at twitter and other feeds. Sunni was significantly involved in anti-americanism and anti-west and possibly more importantly anti-Iran and anti-israel.
  • Options
    trunkstertrunkster Posts: 14,468
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

    ...and the radicalisation of British Moslem's has nothing to do with the Iraq war then - it's just used as an excuse.
  • Options
    BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,589
    Forum Member
    HillmanImp wrote: »
    Yes it did. 9/11 was caused by significant sections of sunni people of Saudi origin (and else where) of the sunni religion. It was an act of war. Our response to take out the Sunni in Afganistan and Iraq was probably the right things to do. You can tell by people of the SUnni faith now joining Isis that Sunni is related to the 9/11 issue. I am no expert in religion etc etc, just simply looking at twitter and other feeds. Sunni was significantly involved in anti-americanism and anti-west and possibly more importantly anti-Iran and anti-israel.

    You are seriously citing twitter as a reliable source for what you say?
    You post some quality nonsense on here sometimes but this is way off the scale
  • Options
    jclock66jclock66 Posts: 2,411
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    HillmanImp wrote: »
    Yes it did. 9/11 was caused by significant sections of sunni people of Saudi origin (and else where) of the sunni religion. It was an act of war. Our response to take out the Sunni in Afganistan and Iraq was probably the right things to do. You can tell by people of the SUnni faith now joining Isis that Sunni is related to the 9/11 issue. I am no expert in religion etc etc, just simply looking at twitter and other feeds. Sunni was significantly involved in anti-americanism and anti-west and possibly more importantly anti-Iran and anti-israel.

    Tony, is that you?
  • Options
    Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Remembrance has been well and truly hijacked by politicians and sections of the media.

    I've lost count of the government policy announcements over the last few days attempting to piggy back on the back of it.

    There really should be some sort of window either side or Remembrance where such announcement isn't allowed.

    To me it feels like the whole thing has been stolen by politicians and sections of the media for their own ends. The likes of the Mail use poppies and Remembrance as a rod to beat people with.

    I'm sick of it, non of these people realy care about the dead.

    It's being turned into a weapon used for rule by fear.
  • Options
    TyrTyr Posts: 625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    HillmanImp wrote: »
    Yes it did. 9/11 was caused by significant sections of sunni people of Saudi origin (and else where) of the sunni religion. It was an act of war. Our response to take out the Sunni in Afganistan and Iraq was probably the right things to do. You can tell by people of the SUnni faith now joining Isis that Sunni is related to the 9/11 issue. I am no expert in religion etc etc, just simply looking at twitter and other feeds. Sunni was significantly involved in anti-americanism and anti-west and possibly more importantly anti-Iran and anti-israel.

    No. It really didn't. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

    None of the 9/11 attackers had any connection to Iraq whatsoever. Infact, Saddam's regime was always extremely hostile towards Al Qaeda and it's Wahhabi ideologies.
  • Options
    mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    HillmanImp wrote: »
    I did not vote Labour, but nevertheless, I do not think labour voters are responsible, rather all UK citizens over 18 our responsible, via agreeing to live and abide by the rules of our democratic government.

    On labour's side, Saddam was not voted in by the electorate, his regime was responsible for millions of deaths during iran/iraq war. There wasn't much to say that was nice about the regime. Due to 9/11. in a sense, some significant sections of the sunni religion had declared war on the west (it was a bigger event then pearl habour) . Iraq was a sunni area controlling a majority non-sunni people. I guess the destruction of that non-democratic control of non-sunni Iraq was a valid response to 9/11.

    Labour, standing by the USA, was the only valid thing our nation could do. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with democracy.

    .

    Some of the deaths in the Iran/Iraq war were a result of the missiles the US supplied to Saddam in 1983. When he used chemical weapons, including sarin, a motion condemning Iraq at the UN Security Council in 1987 was vetoed by the Americans. We stood with them then.
Sign In or Register to comment.