• Manchester United Message Board

  • A Yahoo! User Oct 13, 2010 01:49 Flag

    Rank and Pension of Soldiers Killed on Active Service | Petition of Soldiers Pensions

    Hi all. PLEASE can you all sign this petition for soldiers pensions at the above link and pass it on to all of your friends and families. For those of you who don't know, Sergeant Matty Telford was killed 3rd Nov 2009 by a rogue Afghan Policeman. Now, you will all remember him from the news as Sergeant Matty Telford but the army give his children his pension at Corporal rate because he was a Sergeant for less than a year. The unfairness of this is that he was promoted so he could do this job in Afghanistan and had he not been promoted he would have been doing a different job and may have been with us today. After this petition was started it came to light that this is happening to a lot of our soldiers' families.

    If a soldier was being paid as a sergeant when he was killed, then it seems to me that that should be the basis for his widow's pension.

    If you agree, please sign.

    (In signing the petition you will not be expressing a political opinion on any of the conflicts our servicemen are dispatched to.)


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • the military have always had a thing about what used to be called substansiated rank, at the end of the ww2, a relative of mine was serving as a squadron leader(worked his way up through the ranks) but on de mob he was a flt leutenant as the squadron leader was an unsubstansiated rank So try imagining how many others were unsubstansiated between then and now. Agree its unfair but think trying to catch fog with this petition

      • 1 Reply to jul
      • I feel very split about this issue. On the one hand I know the parents of a soldier wounded in Afghanistan. Part of the story is here:


        When you read stuff like this you can’t help but be moved and think the wounded/killed and their families deserve everything we can give them. And certainly, it seems mean to quibble over the deceased’s rank in order to shave off the kids’ inheritance.

        On the other hand, for those who don’t get killed or injured (and frankly, only a small proportion do) the armed services appear to be a very feather bedded existence. On top of the not too ungenerous pay comes all sorts of tax-free bonuses and benefits, from subsidised housing to unbelievably long holidays to generous pensions to retirement at 50 or 55.

        Three decades ago I had a landlady who at 18 had married her boyfriend who then went to war (WWII) and was killed. She had been living off her widow’s pension for the 40 years since. She deliberately didn’t work or remarry as that would harm her “entitlement”. It has always been wise for girls to marry their squaddies before they get sent away.

        We are told that the services are over-stretched with all their commitments. And yet, less than a tenth of the army are in Afghanistan at any one time. And can anyone tell me what useful work the air force and navy have done in recent conflicts? I’m increasingly coming to the view that the armed services are an expensive luxury which exists more for its own sake than for the defence or other use of the country.