For latest news see the news archive section
17th July 2018
Our apologies to the Membership for the lack of information on the Website over the last few months. We did point out that due to the Brexit negotiations there was possibly little opportunity for our claims to be given the serious attention they demand from Government Ministers. It would appear these negotiations are likely to grind on at considerable expense to the taxpayer for the foreseeable future.
You will have noticed no doubt from my letter to Caroline Dinenage MP that she has created a log jam in our approach to Government Ministers by implying she was prepared to progress our legitimate claims to Occupational Pensions only to find she had no intentions of doing so after many months of delay. We will be demanding she is de-selected as an MP at the next General Election for this Constituency. I think I am correct in stating that at the same time she was the driving force in the Governments intentions to introduce “Early Years Education” for the under five year olds. This at the same time as she duped us into thinking she was prepared to supposedly progress the injustice of our being denied Occupational Pensions! We wonder what the cost to the Taxpayer this scheme will amount to and why her priorities changed?! Help to bring in female votes no doubt if not deselected by then! This is how Political Parties increase their General Election votes at the Taxpayers expense!
In the mean time our Chairman designate, Chris Watkins, has been exploring with myself, as Treasurer, the possibilities of investing some of our Capital to provide additional income from our savings to date. If Bank interest rates begin to rise as anticipated now it will be interesting to see what difference that will make?
More important to our Members is to know we do have a legitimate claim to Occupational Pensions as set out in Command 675 February 1959. To Quote as follows below:
ARMED FORCES PENSIONS In the report of the Advisory Committee on Recruiting under the Chairmanship of Sir James Grigg (Command 545 October 1958) recommendations were made for improving the pensions of other ranks, family Pensions and the non-effective benefits generally of the Women's Services. The Government accepted these recommendations and this paper sets out the main features of the revised terms. Existing rules generally remain otherwise unchanged and detailed regulations will be issued in due course.
One of the detailed regulations to be issued in due course was that Transitional legislation would be introduced to enable years of Service in the armed Forces to be counted towards Civil Service Occupational Pensions if and when they subsequently became Civil Servants. As above, the recommendations were made for improving the Pensions of all other ranks etc generally across the board, as stated and not just subsequent Civil Servants.
At the present time we are seeking resolutions to the above and will keep the website informed as and when we are able. We are hoping to persuade The Andrew Marr Show on Sundays to Question the Prime Minister about them.
I had just completed this update for the Website when I received your Email dated 29th June. We will send David Kendrick a copy to see if he will oblige us in the meantime.
Our many thanks to Our Members for your continuing support.
Regards to one and all.
David Robson Secretary General CAFFUK
Caroline Dinenage MP House of Commons LONDON SW1A 0AA
23rd November ‘17
Dear Caroline Dinenage.
LONG TERM GOVERNMENT FRAUDULANCE, DUPLICITY,EMBEZZLEMENT and MISAPPROPRIATION of Armed Forces Occupational Pensions 1958– 2017:
Enclosure: Cabinet Office letter dated 16th May 2017.
References: Your letter dated 2nd August 2016 with extract from Command 545 (Grigg Committee)
1958. Your letter dated March 2017 enclosing copy of letter dated 3rd March 2017 from Mr
Ben Gummer MP. My letter to you dated 15th September 2016.
Thank you for your letter, Reference 2 above.
1.With reference to the enclosure of the Cabinet office letter dated 16th may 2017. There is no difference in principle between our claims and those of Regina.v.Savundra and Walker of Fire Auto Marine Insurance Company who were found guilty of gross fraud on appeal in 1968.
2.The monies paid in Premiums to their Insurance Company were unable to meet insurance claims because they had been used by S and W to finance their own lavish lifestyles. When the Government failed to pay the Armed Forces Occupational Pensions from 1990 onwards Government Ministers and Treasury Mandorins paid out on Politicians expenses and Foreign visits together with Pomp and Ceremony instead. This amounted to gross fraud in relation to Armed Forces Pensions payments.
You may be aware that it was this kind of Political corruption which prompted Oliver Cromwell in the 17th Century to dismiss Parliament and Politicians and rule the country as a Lord Protector instead for five years before he died in 1658.
It is 10 years now since I first made you aware of our legitimate claims to Occupational Pensions. Successive Governments including yours now have also failed to recognise and pay our Members Pensions since we started to retire in the 1990’s. (See Cabinet Office letter enclosed and dated 16th May 2017). This Cabinet Office letter confirms as did Mr Callaghan in the early 1960’s when he was Minister of Defence, that the low level of Armed Forces pay had to be considered in relation to the Pensions they received. What he omitted to say and must have known, was that according to the Pension Scheme rules at the time 90% of the Armed Forces would not qualify for an Occupational Pension anyway!
In the letter at ref 1 you referred to how we might progress our claims since the letter detailed the very essence of why we have a legitimate claim to Occupational Pensions. I brought this matter to your attention in 2008! Subsequent to this letter you were requested to give our Federation an assurance on at least four occasions for the benefit of our Members that you would progress our claims as you stated at the start of this letter. Four times you failed to do so. You are the Principal and your Secretary is your Agent and not your self appointed Deputy MP for your information! Please ensure I do not have to repeat this advice. I have a right to expect you to sign all your letters to me and not your Secretary.
Subsequent to the above in reference 3 we suggested how we thought our claims could be progressed by requesting the Prime Minister to set up an independent Departmental Committee to liaise and supervise, as necessary, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Treasury together with the Civil Service and MOD, for the implementation and payment of our Pension entitlements as a matter of urgency. You made no response to this letter or took any similar or alternative action.
3. Now you have added your signature to the letter in reference 2 from Mr Gummer M.P. In doing so you have confirmed you never had any intention of progressing our legitimate Pension claims in the first place. Once again your condolences are totally out of order again and your prevarication over the last eight years has cost some of our Members their lives in the meantime and without any recognition of the service they gave this country in their retirement! Bogus asylum claimants have been much better served in the meantime.
Despite our legitimate claims to Occupational Pensions our Members are the only 20th Century employees not to have benefited from Occupational Pensions in both the Public and Private domain during their years in retirement. All early attempts by Government Ministers at Duplicity suggests that the Armed Forces were no different from many other Public and Private employees who had no access to Occupational Pensions. When challenged to name them they were unable to do so because there are none! This was confirmed by our own research! This despite the Governments directives and intention to ensure they would be given parity with Civil Service Pensions as retired Civil Servants. This amounts to a total neglect of the Duty of Care we are owed and Gross Fraud since the 1990’s. Now the Prime Minister claims to be Governing in the interests of “One and All”! But not on the interests of yesterdays Armed Forces apparently! The Prime Minister also claimed the Conservative Party values the Armed Forces. History proves this is incorrect to date.
The best years of our retirements have now been lost to our Members and our children in terms of foreign holidays and cruises. Compare this with what Civil Service Occupational Pensions have been able to afford in terms of the purchase of Foreign property etc. Now our members are all in their Eighties even the purchase of adjustable beds and chairs along with mobility scooters for getting about are unaffordable without our pensions.
As regards retrospection Mr Gummer refers to. You know as well as we do and Mr Gummer knows, this has been brought about by successive Governments and now yours by ignoring the implementation requirement of the 1958 Government. If this is not an example of the neglect of a duty of care towards the Armed Forces and duplicity we don’t know what is!
4 . As Anthony Sampson points out in his publication “Who runs this Place?” - His insight into Political thinking with reference to “Pensions Funds”, he quotes-
“And the people who run them have developed their own priorities and interests which have become very different from the interests of Policy holders.” The MOD, Robert Maxwell, Sir Philip Green etc for example!
As for Mr Gummers claims that our Pensions would be a claim on the Taxpayers this is yet another pack of lies, false pretences, and duplicity! He knows as well as we do there is no such thing as a “Free Lunch” where Pensions Funds are concerned.—See Cabinet Office letter dated 16th May 2017 in Enclosure 1.
You have become known as Caroline Duplicity M.P instead of Caroline Dinenage M.P. You are also the Third member of your Conservative Party as its M.P. for this Constituency to treat the Armed Forces with utter contempt.
David Robson Secretary General CAFF UK
Copies to the Prime Minister and copies to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Now this might not be the end of Our Pensions claims on the Government, And it might not be the beginning of the end of Our Pension Claims on the Government. But it is perhaps the end of the beginnings of Our Claims.
To Download this document Please click the Icon Here
Letter To Caroline Dinenage MP
Caroline Dinenage MP
House of Commons
February 7th 2017
Dear Caroline Dinenage,
Armed Forces Occupation Pensions entitlements Pre and Post 1975
I replied to your letter dated October 31st 2016 enclosing a copy of PRO 58/88 file title—Records Administration MOD, on November 10th 2016.
I have had no response from you or the Government and its Departments which have been contacted in the meantime. That is with the exception of a letter from you Dated 9th December 2016 with an update on the issue of “Assisted Dying”! This is especially disappointing since I pointed out that due to the present age of our members you were requested to bring these matters to the attention of the Government as a matter of the “Utmost Urgency”. Many of our Members are now in their late 70’s or early 80’s with still nothing to show for their service to this country!
It may be you have been indisposed since October 31st, as I haven’t noticed your appearance at Prime Minister’s Question Time on Television? If this is correct could you please advise me regarding what alternative arrangements MP’s have in place on such occasions.
It may be your Researches have been seeking the outcome of “Records” acquired by the liaison Officer referred to as a Mr E.T. Williams for the Grigg Report Detailed records Department as on the last page of your enclosure PRO 58/88 dated 13th September 1956.
These above Records should indicate and comply with the Records we requested from the MOD and Civil Service personnel Departments you kindly passed on for us recently. That is —-
Those dates and personal details of all Members of the Armed Forces. Royal Navy, Royal Airforce and Military who subsequently became Civil Servants following their Armed Forces Careers.
It may also be that the present Government Department for Work and Pensions, DWP, can also provide these details? In which case could you provide for me a Line Diagram of the present Management structure of the Pensions Department indicating their names and responsibilities please?
It has been noticeable to me regarding Prime Minister’s Questioned Time that despite the otherwise distractions of BREXIT and the other demands upon the Prime Minister at this point in time, that several questions have been raised regarding other non related Pensions Schemes which she has replied to.
Could you please confirm for the benefit of our Federation’s Members they have your assurance you will progress these matters with your utmost urgency.
We shall look forward to your earliest convenient reply.
Thanking you for your kind attention,
To Download this document Please click the Icon Here
Latest: Letter to David Robson from Carolyne Dinenage MP
A reply will be added in due course,
David Robson, CAFFUK
CAFF to Caroline Dineage MP Letter 15th September 2016
Our suggestions regarding further progress of our Pension claims in order to progress them further are as follows
Please forward our letters as enclosed and addressed to the MOD Civil Service and Armed Forces Personnel Departments as soon as possible with your compliments. These will establish in detail those ex Members of Armed Forces entitled to these Pensions who transferred to Civil Service employment.
We respectfully suggest The Prime Minister should be petitioned to order an immediate urgent Public Independent Department or Committee to supervise and liaise as necessary with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Treasury, The Civil Service and Ministry of Defence Departments for the implementation and payments of these Pension entitlements as a matter of urgency. We respectfully suggest The Prime Minister should also be petitioned to appoint an Independent Chairman as necessary.
Your letter dated 2nd Aug 2016 quite correctly reflects some of the reasons, among many others, regarding the just causes of our claims to these Pension Entitlements required by the Government in 1958. For example the decision in the Hudson v’s MOD and Treasury vital evidence was withheld by the Plaintiff and Defendants. We therefore consider the decision in this case should be struck out. Following Sir James Grigg’s enquiry it is quite obvious and apparent the Government at that time was fully committed to requiring that the Armed Forces Pension Rights should be given parity and equality with both Public and Private Occupational Pension Schemes and the Civil Service Pension scheme in particular. This was also the case when the future proposed Management changes and regulations were to be introduced by the Social Security Act 1973 and the subsequent Social Security and Pensions Act 1975 later. These were required preservation rights which were to be introduced. Please note there is nothing in the Preambles to these Acts or the Contents which debars them from application to the Armed Forces Occupational Pension Scheme pre 1975 either.
Both the Civil Service and Armed Forces Pension Scheme pre 1975 were non Contributory. However the differences in financial terms and benefits between the two Schemes are quite different and considerable when considered side by side.
Every year of a Civil Servants career counted towards an Occupational pension and Gratuity on Retirement. A serviceman or woman was required to serve in the “Other Ranks” for at least Twenty Two years before they qualified for any pension or Gratuity at all! The only other financial assistance available to Service Personnel was a small resettlement grant if they left the service before having served for Twenty Two years! No wonder the 1958 Government decided to provide equality for the Armed Forces in terms of Occupational Pensions and Gratuities for their services.
For your information there are two copies of the Federation’s Review of the Pre 1975 Pensions situation held in the House of Commons Library you should be aware of entitled –
Now the Armed Forces expect every English Government to do its duty.”
Further copies can be obtained from myself if required.
A spurious claim was made by Ministers that our Pensions were no different from those of other Public departments and they were simply legacy matters. The Government has been unable to name them when requested to do so because from our Research we know there are none! We wish to know under who’s authority this claim was made?
We can demonstrate that Armed Forces Pre 1975 pay levels were subject to Actuary adjustments during Service. Hence Lord Callaghan’s comments when as Secretary of State for Defence in the early 1960’s when asked publicly why Armed Forces pay levels were so low compared with Civilian Pay levels stated.
Armed Forces Pay levels had to be considered in relation to the Pensions they receive!”
This means the Armed Forces were being required to subscribe indirectly to Pensions which later Governments had no intention of paying, unless of course they had already served for at least twenty two years! The number of schemes Governments devised Pre 1975 to ensure most service Men and Women were unable to serve for at least Twenty Two years are legend!
Now, Since many of our Federation Members are in their dotage we find our Pension entitlements are, and have been, for many years now, misappropriated by Governments and Politicians as a matter of economic convenience. This at a time when we are trying to find the money for Adjustable beds, Chairlifts and Mobility Scooters etc etc, in order to spend our last days in our own homes in dignity!
Our final comments for now are that if Doctor Reginald Bennett MP Conservative MP for Gosport and Fareham in the 1950’s had not been pre occupied as being Commodore of the House of Commons Sailing Club, and Sir Peter Viggers MP Conservative MP for Gosport in the 1970’s had not been pre occupied with personal property development, it should not have been necessary now after some Twenty Five years, for our Federation to seek an Honourable conclusion and receipts of our Pensions entitlements
We shall look forward to your comments on our response in relation to progress on these matters.
Thanking you for your kind attention.