army Housing....shocked

mrschuck

just read this on online news as hubby in army and many others disgusuting...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/married-soldiers-housing-wrangle-061123329.html

Gonzo33

Don't believe everything you read. This has been bandied around for a few months and there has been no official decision, although my understanding is that the MOD believe it to be unworkable.

Esoog

Check out the thread on arrse for some good discussion as opposed to good old outrage.

This is my favourite quote though heh

My GF and I rent a house, we pay £850 a month and neither of us are on popstar wages. A Pte and his/her spouse could easily afford to rent, they'd just have to accept that they might not be able to afford a nice house with garden and driveway. They'd also need to accept that the wife can't just stay at home eating crisps getting fat and popping out sprogs, she'll have to actually get a job and contribute.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/177962-no-more-msqs.html

AFF_company_representative

Hi mrschuck,

We put this announcement on our website yesterday:

The Times is today reporting that “Married soldiers living in Army accommodation will be forced out of their homes under cost-cutting proposals”. Julie McCarthy, AFF Chief Executive has been involved with all strands of the New Employment Model work and in particular that of the Future Accommodation Project. Whilst it is true that one of the options (of many) was the limiting of Service provided accommodation to a specified number of years, it is AFF’s belief that this was not only unpopular but considered unworkable by both the Federations and the Single Services and would therefore be unlikely to be the approved recommendation.

There is no doubt that the Defence Estate is expensive to maintain and that changes need to be made to make its long term future viable but that does not mean the withdrawal of accommodation altogether and until we know more, families should not be worried by stories such as this. Rest assured that AFF is continually making the case for Service provided accommodation, for greater investment in its upkeep and for increased availability in high-demand areas.

peteuk

The real question here for me is what is good for the goose is good for the gander!!!!!

So if they do limit access to married quaters, what about those single peeps in blocks. Cause at the end of the day we both get paid the same, so just because one has a wife and kids why should he be treated differently......

It will never work....

tinkerbell28

Esoog wrote: »

Check out the thread on arrse for some good discussion as opposed to good old outrage.

This is my favourite quote though heh


http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/177962-no-more-msqs.html

See yeah. It's just soooo easy for women or indeed men. Being moved every 12-36 months to sustain a worthwhile, meaningful career. With prospects of promotion and pay rise, to justify the childcare......oh wait no silly me.

All I predict is lots of boarders like Dannat said, added to that even more speperation, due to tours, as lots of people being made redundant.

That infact it will come to the point, why stay married? As when they are in the country, on call, whatever, then you'll get two weekends if you are lucky. So lots of divorces, lots of single mums, can you imagine the outrage! Why live apart all the time, just separate and claim benefits as singlies, why not? Not to mention that Ofc, you'll have lots of service personell leaving.....saves a redundancy payout no? Me cynical, never.

Oh and they would have to do this for singlies to, I think they'd find it would be illegal to discriminate against someone for their marital status, which this would be. Good luck trying to find cheap accommodation with one income in the sticks somewhere.

Esoog

I take it you didn't read the points on arrse then? There are some very valid ones, regarding super garrisons for instance and their reasons

tinkerbell28

Yes, you are aware however, its not just the Army? There is the Navy, Marines and RAF.

Yes ideally they would all be clumped together. The nature of the Navy is well, they are based near coastal towns on the whole. Expensive house prices. The nature of the RAF, they are based in rolling countryside for runways and noise pollution. Again expensive house prices.

Not to mention where is all the money going to come from for these super bases, we cant afford that. All the costs of upping and moving, costs of cleaning and making safe land to sell. It is by no means cheap to move or necessarily cost effective. Its really quite annoying when people think they know how it is or how it should be, just because they signed up to arrse :rotfl:

Esoog

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Its really quite annoying when people think they know how it is or how it should be, just because they signed up to arrse :rotfl:

Bore off....

Not to mention where is all the money going to come from for these super bases, we cant afford that.

I'll bite; Er, not been to Catterick recently? Or Merville Barracks? They're already here.

As for crabs & matelots? Who cares.

tinkerbell28

Yes, you suit arrse. Walter mitty types always tend to turn to insults when they get called out :cool:

Esoog

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Yes, you suit arrse. Walter mitty types always tend to turn to insults when they get called out :cool:

zzzzzz....

I'm guessing you've not been to Colly/Catterick recently then. It wouldn't exactly be hard to turn the soon to be vacant crab bases in Scotland into a "Super Garrison" north of the border either. SFA is an "easy" target for savings, especially since annington bleed the MOD dry at every chance. It might happen, it might not, not a lot anyone can really do about it

The nature of the Navy is well, they are based near coastal towns on the whole. Expensive house prices. The nature of the RAF, they are based in rolling countryside for runways and noise pollution. Again expensive house prices.

To be honest good old Annington etc could probably easily build some "affordable" houses in these locations with first preference given to the families. The savings made over time would outweigh the initial building costs. At the beginning all the pads would moan, quite rightly, but over time it would just become the norm. The guys signing up would still sign up and wouldn't be used it to any other way... It's "doable"