[jambutty]

The armed forces have always been poorly paid compared to civilians.

The government would argue that servicemen get their food, accommodation and clothing free plus free transport three times a year to go on leave so their ‘take home’ pay would always be less than a civilians. They claimed that when you added in the cost of food, accommodation and clothing the resultant pay was on a par with civilians. They also argued that a married serviceman would also get an extra allowance. I think that it was here that creative accounting was invented.

There was a time when, as far as the navy was concerned, you could get discharged early, for a fee, if you had a job to go to that paid more than the navy did.

I understand that today a service person’s pay includes the cost of food etc and that cost is deducted from the weekly pay. So if he goes on leave for a few days there are no deductions for food for the duration of the leave.

You cannot compare a service person in action with a fireman or policeman doing their duty. There is one crucial difference – a soldier is being shot at and bombed. I accept that on occasion some firemen and police are pelted with missiles but their chances of being killed on duty are very small compared to a service person on active service. Neither will put their life on the line if their CO deems the situation is too dangerous. A soldier on patrol cannot opt out just because the bullets are flying.

Our service men and women deserve a higher rate of pay and just as important equipment fit for purpose.