... 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

And Armed Forces Veterans support isn't the only thing that some might argue should be covered entirely by government and not left in any way to charity. What about Lifeboats?

Lifeboats? Now they are heroes. Unpaid volunteers risking their lives to save others.

"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."

It's not all , just those who have served since the Iraq War, and who have a need which fits their defined charitable purposes, which are considerably more limited than those of SSAFA and RBL.

I don't give to this charity because the use of the word heroes is fundamentally dishonest.

Even if they used a less dishonest word I'd still have my doubts because the presentation of this charity is part of a growing fetishisation of the military and we definitely don't want to follow the US in this regard.

I'm not a supporter. to me, Being a soldier is a job that earns a wage. Just because a charity has a snazzy name doesn't make it worthy. You might as well start a charity called Aid for Maids or Wishing Well for Office Personnel.

It has inordinately large reserves and a narrow remit.

I also dislike the name and the idea that violent conflict is innately heroic.

As a pp said, lifeboat volunteers are heroic. They risk their lives, unpaid to save others.

Armed forces are doing a job that they have chosen to do, knowing the risks involved, and are getting paid to do!

I have donated to Help for Heroes because I feel sorry for the trauma and injuries sustained by people who are essentially the misguided pawns of politicians. BUT the name is awful and makes me cringe.

I too am uncomfortable with the terminology. Not all service personnel are heroes although there those who do perform heroic acts within the remit of their role - but I think the same can be said of firefighters, police, RNLI, doctors and many, many others.

I am not comfortable with a move towards an orthodoxy that service personnel are intrinsically heroic - and that there is potential for some to see themselves as somehow special or above the law or normal social constraints by merit of this "heroism".

Actually I have just realised that nauticant has worded it perfectly in the second sentence of the post above.

I do support H4H, but we have DD's set up to the RAF Benevolent Fund due to DH serving with them, and now DS1 serves with the army, we have one set up to the Army Benevolent fund.

No-one in the armed forces who I have met sees themselves as "heroes". I think the name of the charity might put people off a bit, tbh.

I am on a name change but posted under another on another thread.

Help the heroes were there for 2 people I know when they lost their husbands in recent years.
I know folks don't like it when I point it out but other charities including the top charity didn't want to know.
Without this charity these widows have openly said they couldn't have coped as well. They have a total of 6 children between them who lost their daddy and also needed support and their dads recognised for the bravery they showed defending others.
OP, I give regularly and so do so many others thank goodness.
I don't agree with many of the wars that are happening, but unfortunately when you sign up they don't ask you what wars you would like to fight and which you'd like to pass.
I hope you are proud of your son and can see past the none supporters.

Putting aside the issues around terminology, and I agree those issues are there, the more significant problem is the one raised by Meditrina and DidotheDodo.

Help for Heroes are massively overfunded and have a very restricted remit. Their publicity has been great and they now have large reserves that they cannot spend because of the way they are set up, and this is at the cost of other charities which support the military, families and former military.

morethanpotatoprints Are you sure it was H4H which helped the families you know?

I'm not being arsey, but curious. Because H4H basically doesn't do that sort of individual family support. They do not have trained volunteers, and at least when first set up decided to restrict themselves to infrastructure projects. Have they changed their charitable purposes since then?

I think the H4H fetishisation definitely occurred, at its peak about 2010 (Headley Court white elephant swimming pool and all that) and a lot of people thought wrongly they did everything for everyone.

I support H4H along with a number of other forces charities. But then I know a fair few ex-servicemen, some of whom have life long challenges due to their service.

A couple of people on here have said that H4H only support those who have served since Iraq and simply not true as 30 seconds on their website would tell you. They support all the services and from all conflicts. They also work with the other forces charties

Help for Heroes are massively overfunded and have a very restricted remit.

That is very true, polkydot.

24 hours after remembering the war dead and people are debating whether armed forces are heroes.

oops hit post too soon!

They also work with other forces charities big and small including giving them cold hard cash.

Yes it would be lovely if we didn't need them, yes it would be lovely if the government stepped in but we know that won't ever be a reality.

AuntieStella.

Yes, I believe so, they coordinated a huge event where thousands were raised with these 2 women and their children at the forefront.
The same charity that make collections in shopping centres, I believe.
The local press were there, town mayor and the children asked to produce pictures and talk about their daddies.
I fill up everytime I think of them.

Because (unlike the world wars) the servicemen have made a career choice to take the wages in return for a wage knowing and factoring in the risks and dangers involved.
The armed forces are now little more than mercenaries fighting for Americans to have cheap oil

I disagreed with the war in Iraq. I disagree with the war in Afghanistan. I don't think the UK or US Government are honest about their own role in the creation of the problems in the middle east that lead to such wars.

As such, buying into a concept like "help for heroes" feels to me like perpetuating this dishonesty and denial even though I have nothing personal against people who choose to fight for their country.

H4H website

Easy to see that it says it offers help for those in current service (and if you look at their charitable aims, that is defined as Iraq onwards)

Also that the only individual support is for capital items (equipment etc). They mention they work with other service charities, which indeed they do. For it is SSAFA and sometimes RBL who provide the caseworkers who work directly with families, identify all their needs and find the funding, whether from their own funds or almonised from the plethora of other relevant charities, of which H4H is but one, and one with a pretty narrow remit.

1. "to ask" does not make it a AIBU.
2. its a TAAT, a deleted thread at that.
3. it was answered on the original thread you got it from.

Grockle - that's what I was going to say !

grockle

1. It maywell be unreasonable to ask someone a question if it's something they don't wish to discuss (is there an official MN guideline about what constitutes an acceptable AIBU, or are you the arbiter?)

2. I have no idea what a TAAT is

3. I hadn't seen any discussion about it in the previous thread; I had only read the first few responses about HFH being a contentious charity (was one of the first to see thread) and then pondered the issue before posting.

I have enjoyed the eloquent (as usual :) ) responses from MNers, thank you all.

It would be very strange indeed for this not to be a worthwhile topic of discussion.

I'm not against them, but I don't look at our injured soldiers as 'charity', so I strongly disagree that a 'charity' should be supporting them. They have sacrificed a great deal because of our Government and its choices, so I think the Government should be picking up the pieces and making sure these men and women are cared for and supported.