Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    Senior Member Petamocto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rusagonis/Waasis, NB
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    Can the country not give a little extra consideration to the men and women who choose to serve in our armed forces?
    A well-meaning sentiment, but keep in mind that not everyone who serves in the military does so honourably (or even effectively).

    She definitely served honourably, and deployed, but the problem is that there is no real way to distinguish the good ones from that bad ones.

    By "bad ones" I'm not necessarily just talking about people who get thrown out for conduct, because that is a fairly small number.

    What I'm talking about are people who may spend a couple years in the Army, but never actually pass the training to get to the point of being qualified.

    Those people can then say "I spent two years in the Army" and the average civilian would think that's an honourable thing to do, but if that "soldier" never actually got qualified, then they didn't end up "serving" at all.

    That person who may have failed one course and then faked an injury on the next course will get released, and they'll be able to use their service number for the rest of their lives to get military discounts on things, and that drives me insane.

    These numbers are much higher than the amount of people thrown out for poor conduct, and there are thousands and thousands of them who were effectively "fired" for lack of a better term because they could not meet the standard of people who actually do serve.

    I know you mean well, but all that to say, don't assume that just because someone did some time in the military that they deserve special treatment. She served effectively and honourably, but a lot don't.
    Donít order from Wolverine Supplies. PM me for details.

  2. The Following User Liked This Post By Petamocto

    Billythreefeathers (05-01-2019)

  3. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Just left of Sask.
    Posts
    1,373
    Perhaps I’m thinking of a different event, but I think I saw something about this case that makes me think that her and her husband were both being deployed on short notice and as part of her FCP she was taking her child to her parents and then deploying same day.
    I may be mistaken, but if that’s the case, does it change anything in relation to the case?
    What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

  4. #23
    Senior Member M1917 Enfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Eastern Ontario
    Posts
    5,523
    From a Nation Post story from last year -



    "By 2004, though, the couple was finally posted to the same base, both in high-readiness units designated for short-notice overseas deployments.

    Fawcett was tapped to apply for Canada’s elite special forces unit, Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2, but by the time she had her interview she was seven month’s pregnant. She planned to reapply after her maternity leave.

    Keiran’s arrival — on May 7, 2005 — required the couple to map out a Family Care Plan, a military order for soldiers in high-readiness units to always be prepared with child care in case of a prompt deployment.

    Fawcett and Smith’s FCP needed special attention: It was possible they could both be deployed abroad at the same time and Keiran had health problems, he was partially deaf and had a blockage between his stomach and his intestines. Should their duties overlap, the couple’s FCP was to leave Keiran with Smith’s parents.

    On the morning of the crash, Smith was ordered onto base for an urgent training session prior to imminent deployment to Africa. Fawcett’s unit was expected to be next, she says, so she activated the plan to have Keiran’s grandparents step in as caregivers.

    After the catastrophic crash, her rehabilitation was difficult but the results remarkable. She found the pain easier to bear when channeled into sport rather than traditional physiotherapy. And she used her grief over Keiran as motivation.

    “I kind of thought, okay, if Keiran was alive right now, what would I want to learn to do with him? Swim, bike, run,” she says. “Three skills you would normally want to do with your child. Every step my son wasn’t going to take I would take in his memory.”

    In 2008 she redeployed to Afghanistan. Two years after her own son’s death, her mission was to bring 20 families of Canadian soldiers who had been killed on deployment to visit Afghanistan to see how and where their sons had lived, fought and died.

    Meanwhile, her bills for prosthetic legs and leg repairs piled up, she says. So, 15 weeks after the crash, she applied for military disability benefits. The military’s initial investigation deemed her on duty at the time of the crash but her unit’s new commander disagreed and denied her claim.

    “I was the dutiful soldier. I was trying to restart my career, waiting for the next challenge, the next level, the next promotion,” she says. So at first she let it go.

    As the bills continued to mount, however, and as she heard of other soldiers with similar injuries approved for benefits and disability pensions, she decided to file a grievance in 2009.

    After a two-year wait, Fawcett’s case was finally addressed — but the military’s decision to deny her benefits was upheld. So she sought a judicial review by the Federal Court.

    A judge found the military’s decision to deny her benefits to be unreasonable and ordered a re-evaluation.

    In 2015, her claim was yet again denied. So again she sought the court’s review, and again it was sent back for re-evaluation. The military’s assessment did not change and Fawcett again appealed. Last year, a third Federal Court judge finally ruled in the military’s favour.

    Fawcett is now appealing that decision.

    “I was serving my country and at the same time not being able to pay for my legs and my leg repairs,” she says. “I had such amazing experiences when I had both my legs and it’s really hard to have to admit to yourself that you don’t have the support of your chain of command.”

    In February, on the anniversary of the crash, an envelope marked FINAL NOTICE arrived at her home. She opened it knowing what was inside: a bill for $34,151.15 from the company that makes her prosthetic leg.

    “This is for repairs for my leg from when I was still in uniform, serving my country. I find it difficult to swallow. My little boy would (have been) 13 in May. It’s hard to believe 12 years have gone by and I’ve spent the last 10 years fighting for a pension.”

    The heart of the dispute is the interpretation of “on duty.”

    The military argues it was personal factors not military service that caused Fawcett’s injuries; that at the time she was acting as a mom not a soldier.

    Fawcett argues she was required to have a Family Care Plan by military order and activated that plan to accommodate her and her husband’s preparation for deployment; she was in uniform during work hours with the approval of her commanding officer to execute the care plan.

    Earlier this month she says she received a letter with an offer from the military’s lawyers.

    “It essentially said they won’t give me a disability pension but they’ll name a building after my dead son. It was very upsetting.”

    For its part, the Canadian Armed Forces says it does not minimize Fawcett’s loss but stands by its decisions."


    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ilitary-bosses
    Orange man is bad, Lemon man is good, Sock man is Canada's saviour!

  5. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,220
    I could give a rats arse if she was on duty or not. PAY FOR HER PROSTHETIC FFS!

  6. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Lee Enfield

    Forbes/Hutton (05-01-2019), Suputin (05-01-2019)

  7. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    4,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Petamocto View Post
    A well-meaning sentiment, but keep in mind that not everyone who serves in the military does so honourably (or even effectively).

    She definitely served honourably, and deployed, but the problem is that there is no real way to distinguish the good ones from that bad ones.
    Sure there is but that takes good strong leadership,
    By "bad ones" I'm not necessarily just talking about people who get thrown out for conduct, because that is a fairly small number.

    What I'm talking about are people who may spend a couple years in the Army, but never actually pass the training to get to the point of being qualified.

    Those people can then say "I spent two years in the Army" and the average civilian would think that's an honourable thing to do, but if that "soldier" never actually got qualified, then they didn't end up "serving" at all.
    Don't forget those who end up being injured by incompetent instructors , I personally know on such case who was injured during basic , after serving in the reserves and government honorably, with a commendation from SOFCOM . long story but there is slag and there are those who get injured in training .

    That person who may have failed one course and then faked an injury on the next course will get released, and they'll be able to use their service number for the rest of their lives to get military discounts on things, and that drives me insane.

    These numbers are much higher than the amount of people thrown out for poor conduct, and there are thousands and thousands of them who were effectively "fired" for lack of a better term because they could not meet the standard of people who actually do serve.

    I know you mean well, but all that to say, don't assume that just because someone did some time in the military that they deserve special treatment. She served effectively and honourably, but a lot don't.
    interesting approach …...don't vet the chaff but screw the good ones ……….product of the civil service indeed

  8. #26
    Senior Member M1917 Enfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Eastern Ontario
    Posts
    5,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Enfield View Post
    I could give a rats arse if she was on duty or not. PAY FOR HER PROSTHETIC FFS!
    You don't understand! Turdo even said that some in the military are asking for more than the government can give!

    Now if this was money for a kid from Toronto who moves to Afghanistan to kill coalition forces, well they have plenty of money for him!
    Orange man is bad, Lemon man is good, Sock man is Canada's saviour!

  9. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By M1917 Enfield

    Billythreefeathers (05-01-2019), killer kane (05-02-2019), Relic49 (05-01-2019)

  10. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Petamocto View Post
    A well-meaning sentiment, but keep in mind that not everyone who serves in the military does so honourably (or even effectively).

    She definitely served honourably, and deployed, but the problem is that there is no real way to distinguish the good ones from that bad ones.

    By "bad ones" I'm not necessarily just talking about people who get thrown out for conduct, because that is a fairly small number.

    What I'm talking about are people who may spend a couple years in the Army, but never actually pass the training to get to the point of being qualified.

    Those people can then say "I spent two years in the Army" and the average civilian would think that's an honourable thing to do, but if that "soldier" never actually got qualified, then they didn't end up "serving" at all.

    That person who may have failed one course and then faked an injury on the next course will get released, and they'll be able to use their service number for the rest of their lives to get military discounts on things, and that drives me insane.

    These numbers are much higher than the amount of people thrown out for poor conduct, and there are thousands and thousands of them who were effectively "fired" for lack of a better term because they could not meet the standard of people who actually do serve.

    I know you mean well, but all that to say, don't assume that just because someone did some time in the military that they deserve special treatment. She served effectively and honourably, but a lot don't.
    This is a very long winded red herring and has nada to do with my comment.

    IF there are losers out there taking the system for a ride then we find a way to deal with them. That is one issue. A completely different issue is giving our service men/women current and past a little extra consideration for having stepped up to serve their country.

    Because currently there are hundreds of thousands of lame & lazy who have never spent a second in the service of their country or put their life on the line for their country who are reaping all kinds of benefits above and beyond that which are veterans get, including IVF and sex changes etc etc etc.

  11. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Suputin

    Lee Enfield (05-01-2019), M1917 Enfield (05-01-2019)

  12. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    The fact that the government is pissing our hard earned money up against many walls is not justification for adding another.
    You think treating our veterans decently is "pissing money against a wall?" Never served a day did you? Never actually volunteered to die for your country?

    I won't argue that the govt blows money like a drunken sailor on all kinds of idiotic stuff but going the extra mile for the men & women who did put their lives on the line for the country is not one of them and honestly I find the suggestion that it is, somewhat insulting.

  13. #29
    Canadian ForcesMember Billythreefeathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vesper Sask
    Posts
    9,702
    I think she served her country well,,

    and will server her country again and better as a CPC MP,,

    OR do you think we should keep Bill Blair for a second term

    her motivation to once again serve is not on being denied a pension but on the fact the Bill Blair did SFA to help her
    Last edited by Billythreefeathers; 05-01-2019 at 04:34 PM.

  14. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By Billythreefeathers

    killer kane (05-02-2019), Lee Enfield (05-01-2019), M1917 Enfield (05-01-2019)

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Just left of Sask.
    Posts
    1,373
    I don’t know the woman or know anything about her beyond what I read in the papers, but I’m willing to bet we could do a lot worse than her as an MP.
    Judging by the fact that she returned to Afghanistan to serve in whatever capacity she could, after losing her leg, speaks volumes.
    What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

  16. The Following 8 Users Like This Post By Swingerguy

    Billythreefeathers (05-01-2019), Forbes/Hutton (05-01-2019), killer kane (05-02-2019), Lee Enfield (05-02-2019), M1917 Enfield (05-01-2019), Relic49 (05-01-2019), Rory McCanuck (05-01-2019), Suputin (05-01-2019)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •