... To ask why some of you are against the charity "Help for Hereos" ?

[Sheitgeist]

Just noticed this on another thread. What is the problem? My son has just joined the armed forces, so am particularly interested.
Thanks

Or Heroes, even

Some people see UK involvement in any recent war as unnecessary and an invasion of countries that can deal with issues themselves. Because of that, they don't see soldiers as heroes but as part of an invasion of sorts.

I'm not saying that is how I see it, but that is how some people do.

Thanks, sub
I can understand the invasion interpretation of recent action; not sure why some people deem it fair to blame service personnel though

I'm not 'against' it (I know some of the things they fund and it's important), but I do worry about the rhetoric of calling soldiers 'heroes'. On the one hand, I can see that it's a charity, it needs a name that makes clear why people need help and allows those people receiving help to feel self-respect. On the other hand, it contributes to the idea that I have found a fair few teenagers have, that war is innately heroic.

I have a couple of friends who work in the military and they are concerned about youngsters not going into it with their eyes open, so I don't think it is just me being a wussy liberal.

People who were conscripted to fight automatically get my sympathy and support.
People who chose to do a specific job do not automatically get my sympathy and support.

People who were conscripted to fight automatically get my sympathy and support.
People who chose to do a specific job do not automatically get my sympathy and support

^totally agree with this ^

Why does choosing to join the armed services make you a 'hero'? I don't think it does.
Does this charity only help soldiers injured during heroic acts? Shouldn't it help veterans injured carrying out mundane tasks.

I'm not against it as such but I think the support for veterans and their families should come from the armed forces and be funded by the gvt.

The idea that "all soldiers are heroes" is similar to "all nurses are angels" etc - its simply not a true statement.

One of the most amazing people I know is ex military - I support him in everything he does. He knows his former job has given him experiences, good and bad, that have shaped him, changed him and moulded him. None of those experiences have made him a hero though.

15 years ago bullying was rife in the armed forces. For all I know there is a very good chance that it still is.

I hugely appreciate the sacrifice that some military people have to make, and choose to make, but not every soldier, sailor or airman is automatically a hero.

While agreeing with a lot of what others have said the main thing for me is the use of the word "heroes".

Not all soldiers are heroes. It's a special word that should only be used in exceptional circumstances, not for anyone routinely doing a job they are paid to do.

I'm not against it, I have and will continue to donate to Help For Heroes. :)

I don't support this charity because it has a much more limited remit than others. It restricts itself both in terms of what it does (capital projects only) and who it helps (personnel who served in Iraq or later campaigns only).

I prefer SSAFA, which has a network of caseworkers nationwide (and even a few overseas), helps anyone who has ever served (or their dependants, including those who did National Service), engages in both capital and grant giving works, and provides services such as halfway houses for Forces wives separating after DV and adoption SW services for a very mobile population who would otherwise never be able to complete the necessary processes because of their frequent moves.

I understand why it's been set up, and I also understand why it's been marketed in the way it has been, but I think that everyone should get help according to their need, not on some sort of preferential basis according to what job they've done. In an ideal world (which we are nowhere near), big corporations would pay their bloody taxes, and the NHS and the support structure would be able to look after veterans who needed it - and firefighters who needed it, and teachers who needed it, and secretaries who needed it, and callcentre workers who needed it, and people who'd never had a job who needed it - without having to make a special case for them.

I also have issues with the concept of heroism as the province of one profession, and not something found in unexpected places everywhere.

Totally agree with you all about the use of the word "heroes": soldier and hero are not synonymous, and yes giving the impression that war is somehow "heroic" is just... wrong. Should an ill considered name stop people actually supporting the work if a charity though?

Meh. I think a person who puts their life and wellbeing on the line for the sake of others is a hero. That's what the armed forces do isn't it?

I don't have any strong opinion on them either way, but I think that some people object to charities taking on roles like this because this sort of support ought to be demanded of the government, not left to charities.

Also I do think the whole "heroes" thing is a bit cringey and American. (And I am half American!!)

I also dislike calling all soldiers "heroes". No doubt some are, and they do a great job which I couldn't do. I have upmost respect for them, but we don't have forced conscription and they've all made the choice to join the army. It's their job, I'm not sure how doing your automatically makes you a hero?

I have a fairly ambivalent attitude to the forces and certainly don't like the "heroes" hyperbole. I do think, though, that if soldiers are injured while serving they should be adequately supported and compensated by the government as if it were an industrial injury. I don't see it as a role for a charity.

Sauvignon it does indeed help veterans injured while carrying out inane tasks, as you put it. I can't say too much because it will out me completely, but several close family members have had a lot of help on a lot of levels from Help for Heroes. You don't have to have to have had a limb blasted off by a landmine in order to qualify..

Current and ex-service personnel face unique challenges if they suffer from mental or physical health problems, I think it is absolutely right that they should be treated by people who are experts in that area and in places where they are free from judgemental views while they recover.

A great deal of the knowledge and advances that have been made by these people in terms of rehab after trauma of various kinds is now being used in mainstream hospitals to help victims of RTAs etc. Therefore the entire population is potentially benefiting.

I will continue to support them.

I agree with the points made about the use of the word heroes, but I will still donate to that charity.

My main objection to it, despite the fact that I support it, is that it's paying for things that should be paid for by the treasury. You could say that about plenty of charities that provide essential services that people really would suffer without, but I think it sticks in my throat more because war is the governments responsibility.

Alibaba has posted the point that I wanted to make, ie that all service and exservice personnel are within H4H's remit no matter whether their injury was sustained in action or not.

The charity was founded on a kitchen table not far from here and the name was chosen because it was catchy, without any long term ansty consideration about the meaning of heroism in modern socio-political contexts (insert your own bit of pseudo babble here)

At the time the more established military charities like SSAFA, Royal British Legion, Army Benevolent Fund were percieved as being run for and by WW2 veterans. Of course this wasn't true, but perception is nine tenths of the battle when it comes to fund raising. H4H managed to raise awareness of the plight of more recent casualties and just for that it deserves my support and will continue to get it.

As ArcheryAnnie said, in a sane and functioning society, support should be available to all according to need, not to a few selected on the basis of the job they have done.

When somebody joins the armed forces, they choose to do things that their superiors tell them to do. Ultimatley their highest superior is the Prime Minister

So if some morally corrupt politician tells you to go and kill innocent civilians in Iraq (for example), you must do so

That isn't heroic, it is extremely cowardly. You have delegated your moral decision making and humanity to somebody else

Damn I want edit post so much...

My second paragraph

The charity was founded on a kitchen table not far from here and the name was chosen purely because it was catchy, and not with any long term angsty consideration about the meaning of heroism in modern socio-political philosopical contexts insert your own bit of pseudo babble lifted direct from any anti-war at any cost columnist here .

I have supported HFH and donated money but I am very uncomfortable with the name, to me it seems part of a wider deification of military personnel, not yet on the scale of USA but getting there.
I have no issue with the work they do, although it saddens me that such work is reliant on charitable donations, it's just the "Heroes" thing that irks me, but I am also irked by phrases like "Our brave boys" As pp have said, they are doing a job that they have chosen to do.

I read something a while back about a senior ranking guy in the Army who was frankly embarrassed by the sentimentalising and the "Hero" label, can't for the life of me think where I read it but was a very interesting article.