Last month I contacted the Veteran's Agency concerning their insulting article referring to us as "disaffected Veterans". I was not happy with their explanantion so I wrote again. The offending, and offensive, article has now been removed and today I got the attached letter.
GerryL



_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

GerryL

I agree this is a good apology. BUT! Again (see also Civil Servants - role of) reference is made to
"the content was not kept up to date and is now outdated and inaccurate in a number of
areas" My personal view is that the phrase "not kept up to date and is now outdated" is relevant.

Based on the various and frequent questions asked by members of this forum, the answers given
by MOD (and implied in the answers given by FCO and HD) reflect ACCURATELY the CS S views
expressed in the outrageous, but now removed, article which they sponsered. Responsibility of
VA, fine, but I await an apology from CS S, but I'm not holding my breath!

Regards,

David

Interesting to note that in the qualifying statement on the VA website, since removed, was that of the different interpretation of those rules by the MoD/FCO/HDC/CS.

When they have different interpretations, and each department subsequently alters the rules of engagement to suit themselves; it follows that it becomes an incomprehensible stew: deeply inpenetrable and certainly, non-transparency ensues.

You would think that just one person in authority would actually sit down and write the rules that EVERONE follows. Much like the ten commandments in the bible. Clear, lucid and to the point. No grey areas. It then poses the question: We are told to follow the rules, but why cannot the Civil Serpents be bothered to follow the rules?


Hmmmm

Arthur

May I take this opportunity, Sunday, 18th. February, 2007, to wish our Chinese supporters, and evryone else of course

GUNG XI FA TSAI

A Happy New Year for the year of the Pig.

Gerry, that letter is almost an exact carbon copy of the one I received ! :: Tony