Why should we care about homeless ex servicemen?
Discussion
Hear me out here.....
Hearing all these stories about tower blocks I regularly see comments that people can be housed but we can do nothing about ex servicemen living on the streets. These seems to have gone up a notch because Camden are emergency funding lots of people yet no doubt there are lots of homeless people in Camden and elsewhere who are not house.
My questions are
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
Otherwise, is it just a case of people emotion above fact and reality - which in this case is that the council have a duty to ensure the safety of their tenants.
Hearing all these stories about tower blocks I regularly see comments that people can be housed but we can do nothing about ex servicemen living on the streets. These seems to have gone up a notch because Camden are emergency funding lots of people yet no doubt there are lots of homeless people in Camden and elsewhere who are not house.
My questions are
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
Otherwise, is it just a case of people emotion above fact and reality - which in this case is that the council have a duty to ensure the safety of their tenants.
Mojooo said:
Hear me out here.....
Hearing all these stories about tower blocks I regularly see comments that people can be housed but we can do nothing about ex servicemen living on the streets. These seems to have gone up a notch because Camden are emergency funding lots of people yet no doubt there are lots of homeless people in Camden and elsewhere who are not house.
My questions are
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
Otherwise, is it just a case of people emotion above fact and reality - which in this case is that the council have a duty to ensure the safety of their tenants.
This.Hearing all these stories about tower blocks I regularly see comments that people can be housed but we can do nothing about ex servicemen living on the streets. These seems to have gone up a notch because Camden are emergency funding lots of people yet no doubt there are lots of homeless people in Camden and elsewhere who are not house.
My questions are
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
Otherwise, is it just a case of people emotion above fact and reality - which in this case is that the council have a duty to ensure the safety of their tenants.
If you want to help, one of my business partners does a lot of good work in this specific area with Launchpad;
https://www.veteranslaunchpad.org.uk/
Yes, more ex services in homeless population, for a myriad of reasons, some unwell, some struggle to readjust to civvy street, some came from destructive backgrounds, the forces gave them a structure and without that they struggle, some prefer a more solitary existence (I know a chap who lives in the woods near me, ex Para, pleasant enough but quite private and wants no part of "society").
Are they more deserving? It's impossible to quantify really, how do you score deservability? I suppose the military covernant should offer more support and veteran support shouldn't rely on charities.
Are they more deserving? It's impossible to quantify really, how do you score deservability? I suppose the military covernant should offer more support and veteran support shouldn't rely on charities.
my brother had a school mate who joined the Navy, officially a signaler on a Auxiliary supply ship
unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
cirian75 said:
my brother had a school mate who joined the Navy, officially a signaler on a Auxiliary supply ship
unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels are owned by the MOD, but manned by civilians, not Navy personnel. They do have some Navy personnel serving on them for some of the key weapons functions, manning helicopters and the like, but I doubt they'd have any Navy signallers aboard, as this would be a fairly standard civilian role on any vessel, surely?
Also, what on earth do you mean by "was not a volunteer SF solider"??? ALL our forces personnel are volunteers, given that we don't have conscription in this country, and the special forces (both SAS and SBS) only recruit from forces personnel who have already been in service for at least 18 months. Around 90% of those who go for selection fail it, and the notion that someone could suddenly find themselves posted to the Special Forces on the whim of senior officers is laughable.
Getting back to the real world, however, whilst there is still without doubt a disproportionate level of ex-forces amongst the homeless community, it's nothing like as bad as it used to be.
It's not all that long ago that squaddies who'd joined the forces at 18 or even younger straight from home would find themselves out in civilian life after 30-odd years of adult life having never had to pay a monthly bill or do a supermarket shop, much less budget for a whole range of expenditure. It's easy to understand how, under those circumstances, many of them found themselves out on the streets. At least now, as I understand it, they get pretty decent training on how to adapt to civilian life before they go.
cirian75 said:
my brother had a school mate who joined the Navy, officially a signaler on a Auxiliary supply ship
unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
Someone has been feeding you porky pies. None of the above makes any sense whatsoever.unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
its what I've have found out 4 hand, it does sound off.
The known facts are, he was in the Royal Navy, he did go to Afghanistan several times, within weeks of leaving his wife left him.
He did get sectioned.
And it was his old mates from school are ones that helped him, not the RN or social
The known facts are, he was in the Royal Navy, he did go to Afghanistan several times, within weeks of leaving his wife left him.
He did get sectioned.
And it was his old mates from school are ones that helped him, not the RN or social
A lack of care and support in relation to the mental health of ex servicemen (and women) is often what puts them on the slippery slope to homelessness. All too many end up hitting the bottle, which can lead to domestic violence, fighting and other criminal behaviour which ultimately starts the arrest, prison, homeless cycle. One of the first questions you're asked on arriving in prison now is 'are you ex forces' as it's so commonplace that various charities are now working in the prison population to help these guys.
When I was a student in Swansea I got chatting to a homeless guy who was sat in a doorway and I asked him what his background was. He told me that he had been a pilot in the RAF and had flown Tornados in the first Gulf War. Naturally my BS meter started going off, but as I had a friend who's brother was a Tornado pilot, I knew some relevant questions to ask. He knew all the answers and expanded on them massively. He told me that the whole experience in the Gulf had affected him more than he'd thought and that he'd hit the bottle. His drinking had affected him at work, and rather than recognising the problem, the RAF booted him out. The spiral effect resulted in his drinking getting worse, falling behind on the mortgage and subsequently losing his home, and his wife and kids leaving him. Had there been a decent system in place to recognise mental health issues and to support them, then this chap may have avoided his life disintegrating. Sadly I have a friend in the forces at the moment, and her current experience would suggest that not much has moved on, lots of talk about mental health in the armed forces, but not a lot of action.
When I was a student in Swansea I got chatting to a homeless guy who was sat in a doorway and I asked him what his background was. He told me that he had been a pilot in the RAF and had flown Tornados in the first Gulf War. Naturally my BS meter started going off, but as I had a friend who's brother was a Tornado pilot, I knew some relevant questions to ask. He knew all the answers and expanded on them massively. He told me that the whole experience in the Gulf had affected him more than he'd thought and that he'd hit the bottle. His drinking had affected him at work, and rather than recognising the problem, the RAF booted him out. The spiral effect resulted in his drinking getting worse, falling behind on the mortgage and subsequently losing his home, and his wife and kids leaving him. Had there been a decent system in place to recognise mental health issues and to support them, then this chap may have avoided his life disintegrating. Sadly I have a friend in the forces at the moment, and her current experience would suggest that not much has moved on, lots of talk about mental health in the armed forces, but not a lot of action.
sidicks said:
Mojooo said:
Hear me out here.....
Hearing all these stories about tower blocks I regularly see comments that people can be housed but we can do nothing about ex servicemen living on the streets. These seems to have gone up a notch because Camden are emergency funding lots of people yet no doubt there are lots of homeless people in Camden and elsewhere who are not house.
My questions are
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
Otherwise, is it just a case of people emotion above fact and reality - which in this case is that the council have a duty to ensure the safety of their tenants.
This.Hearing all these stories about tower blocks I regularly see comments that people can be housed but we can do nothing about ex servicemen living on the streets. These seems to have gone up a notch because Camden are emergency funding lots of people yet no doubt there are lots of homeless people in Camden and elsewhere who are not house.
My questions are
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
Otherwise, is it just a case of people emotion above fact and reality - which in this case is that the council have a duty to ensure the safety of their tenants.
Mojooo said:
1 - are there a higher proportion of servicemen amongst the general homeless population?
2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
1. Unfortunately the experience some of the men who serve have in war does change them. I'd be surprised if someone came back and immediately adapted to normal life but a few never manage it. There may be other aspects of the services that draw in people without close family ties or support networks, for example my grandfather joined the Navy from an orphanage and my grandmother the Wrens from a violent family.2 - if so do they deserve better treatment then the normal homeless?
If these servicemen are homeless as a direct result of something to do with their job and it is a known problem then shouldn't the armed forces take responsibility as part of their budget?
2. Well I'm not sure if people deserve to be homeless, after all we do live in one of the wealthiest societies on earth. People become homeless for a wide variety of reasons and I'm not going to judge who is most worthy or in need of assistance.
3. They do provide assistance but with limited resources and almost limitless commitments.
It would be interesting to know if there are any statistics on the proportion of homeless ex-forces who have ended up there as a result of PTSD vs just having been institutionalised fro a young age and not having the skills to cope with civilian life when they leave.
After all, this isn't a new problem, and since the end of WW2, a relatively small proportion of our armed forces have actually been in a situation to potentially develop PTSD, I would've thought?
It would be easy to put all the effort into high profile mental health services for those who have come back severely damaged from a war zone, but if that only represents a relatively small proportion of the homeless ex-forces, it's probably not the best answer.
After all, this isn't a new problem, and since the end of WW2, a relatively small proportion of our armed forces have actually been in a situation to potentially develop PTSD, I would've thought?
It would be easy to put all the effort into high profile mental health services for those who have come back severely damaged from a war zone, but if that only represents a relatively small proportion of the homeless ex-forces, it's probably not the best answer.
cirian75 said:
my brother had a school mate who joined the Navy, officially a signaler on a Auxiliary supply ship
unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
Your mate is a Walt. That's story makes no sense on so many levels.unofficially that a total lie.
deployed repeated with special forces way above the norm, he got his SF training before deployment.
But was not a volunteer SF solider,
when he eventually came back he was a mess, wife left him and took his son. Navy and social services didn't seem to do anything for him.
It was left to my brother and 2 other school mate to sort him out after got sectioned.
My opinion, in the mid 2000s ex service men with many deployments did not get the help then needed once they left.
RFA's are not RN. RN do not feed into SF, you would need to be a marine first. Nobody is drafted into SF you apply for it, and it has a very high failure rate.
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 25th June 07:48
meehaja said:
Yes, more ex services in homeless population, for a myriad of reasons, some unwell, some struggle to readjust to civvy street, some came from destructive backgrounds, the forces gave them a structure and without that they struggle, some prefer a more solitary existence (I know a chap who lives in the woods near me, ex Para, pleasant enough but quite private and wants no part of "society").
Are they more deserving? It's impossible to quantify really, how do you score deservability? I suppose the military covernant should offer more support and veteran support shouldn't rely on charities.
This is pretty much it. A lot of people who join would have gone off the rails earlier if it wasn't for the forces. The forces give you structure, discipline and a sense of pride. More importantly a sense of purpose and camaraderie.Are they more deserving? It's impossible to quantify really, how do you score deservability? I suppose the military covernant should offer more support and veteran support shouldn't rely on charities.
Imagine losing your job, home and friends all at the same time, and the society you now live in is vastly different to the one your used to.
If you then throw in a bit of PTSD and you can see why it happens.
98elise said:
Your mate is a Walt. That's story makes no sense on so many levels.
RFA's are not RN. RN do not feed into SF, you would need to be a marine first. Nobody is drafted into SF you apply for it, and it has a very high failure rate.
As far as I'm aware, anyone in any of the three forces can now apply for the SBS, but in reality yes, of course the majority of them are Marines.RFA's are not RN. RN do not feed into SF, you would need to be a marine first. Nobody is drafted into SF you apply for it, and it has a very high failure rate.
That doesn't make the original story any more plausible, of course.
RedTrident said:
You should look at the stats for the prison population.
I despise the adverts on TV. I've seen first hand the consequences of serving in the armed forces for many of my friends. Particularly those that joined at 16.
When gaoler there was a steady stream of ex-forces, mainly soldiers, coming through, mainly minor public order offences or drunkenness. With our regulars we would, on occasion, phone their units and they'd come and pick them up. I had a Hants friend who used to serve in Portsmouth and he did the same sort of thing with ex navy. There used to be support to an extent. I despise the adverts on TV. I've seen first hand the consequences of serving in the armed forces for many of my friends. Particularly those that joined at 16.
We had one who served through North Africa and then up through Italy and he was the only soldier in his unit to survive to the end of the war. He would go through their names when he was drunk and then get furious when he forgot one. Next morning we'd release him in time for him to shower and change at home and then go to work in Smithfields.
There was support but it didn't seem to work for anything other than the instant. Nothing seems to have changed.
The OP's question seemed to ask who is responsible and whether special treatment is merited. These people are being put into positions where it is known that a certain percentage will suffer injuries, be they physical or mental. If the army didn't treat its wounded then there would be uproar. The same should go for those with mental problems.
It is a case of 'you broke them, you mend them' to a degree. It all comes out of our taxes of course, but the injuries are predictable. I think special treatment is merited.
There were loads of mentally damaged ex soldiers, seamen and flyers when I was a kid. It wasn't mentioned as there were so many. We had one bloke in a print firm I worked for who was a desert rat, medals galore. His mind was blown. The firm kept him on and the journeymen covered for him, doing his work. That's no small thing as it was piece-work. You got paid depending on how much you did. A lot of that sort of thing went on.
Oceanic said:
I think a starting point is why people join in the first place.
ThisEdited by Oceanic on Saturday 24th June 23:35
The armed forces, particularly the Army, are very very good at finding and using whatever potential even the most unpromising entrants have. If when they leave civilian employers can't do the same then it's not the Army's fault.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff