I suppose that is one way of making sure our Veterans don't end up on the street!

[d000hg]

actually as its defined by the veterans association

That this is how they define it today neither supports nor contradicts Paddy's assertion about the origin of the term, in fact his whole point is that the modern definition has changed to what you posted.

[vetran]

That this is how they define it today neither supports nor contradicts Paddy's assertion about the origin of the term, in fact his whole point is that the modern definition has changed to what you posted.

Paddy asked when, I referred him to Veteran's association which published their definition in 2020.

As my post was in 2022 two years after the Government changed the definition, mine is correct and Paddy is an old whiney fart!

HTH BIDI

[WTFH]

Paddy asked when, I referred him to Veteran's association which published their definition in 2020.

As my post was in 2022 two years after the Government changed the definition, mine is correct and Paddy is an old whiney fart!

HTH BIDI

Bloody cancel culture with these liberal snowflakes changing definitions of things.

[Whorty]

The Troubles

That's what I get after too much guiness, followed by a vindaloo

[Whorty]

actually as its defined by the veterans association (they probably are in the know but some may disagree) -



There is no requirement for involvement in armed conflict or even attacking anything more dangerous than a pan of Gravy. Uncle Albert probably counts.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...eet_v9_web.pdf


Even those that haven't pointed a rifle at an enemy may have worse prospects returning to Civvy street, this is why the Armed forces covenant was launched.

Mental health & homelessness frequently are the issues.

So, a group that has a vested interest in getting as many members as possible (and probably money too) defined a term that maximises their ranks? Well, must be right then

[Whorty]

As for the original post .... why shouldn't these pilots maxiise their income if someone is willing to pay them? The UK government could make a counter offer, but instead they leak it to a red top to vilify these pilots.

And let's face it, the risk of british pilots going head to head with chinese pilots is pretty low, to zero. I'm guessing we've never had an incidence of a chinese fighter pilot engaging with a british plane?

All a storm in a bone china tea cup.

[d000hg]

As for the original post .... why shouldn't these pilots maxiise their income if someone is willing to pay them?

Selling their government-funded training to a hostile nation?

[vetran]

So, a group that has a vested interest in getting as many members as possible (and probably money too) defined a term that maximises their ranks? Well, must be right then

actually the government defined it as part of the legislation to support the armed forces covenant this is just the quango that administers it.

[vetran]

As for the original post .... why shouldn't these pilots maxiise their income if someone is willing to pay them? The UK government could make a counter offer, but instead they leak it to a red top to vilify these pilots.

And let's face it, the risk of british pilots going head to head with chinese pilots is pretty low, to zero. I'm guessing we've never had an incidence of a chinese fighter pilot engaging with a british plane?

All a storm in a bone china tea cup.

China is hardly a friendly power. They have installed a number of backdoors in technology they sell to us and have aggressively positioned themselves to take over the financial world.

Would you think it was the same were it Russia? China isn't that far away in those terms.

[Whorty]

Selling their government-funded training to a hostile nation?

Is there a clause in the contract to say that they can't do this? Are our nurses or doctors equally tied down?

Are China really hostile, or are they just another bogey man that our governments create to keep us sheep-like? I'm trying to think when China have threatened us directly?