Frontal Assault: The Silent War Waged Within His Majesty’s Armed Forces

Trigger Warning: This piece discusses military sexual assault, trauma, and moral injury. If you are a survivor, please take care while reading. There is a kind of violence that doesn’t end when the bruises fade. A war that doesn’t stop with demobilisation. A wound that uniforms can’t protect against and medals can’t heal. It’s the Frontal Assault, the one that happens behind the wire, within barracks, within trusted ranks. It’s the assault that shatters more than bodies: it devastates identities, destroys lives, and leaves entire families in the blast radius. This is the hidden war waged through Military Sexual Assault (MSA), the enduring pain of Military Sexual Trauma (MST), and the moral wreckage left behind, Moral Injury. And when the system that swore to serve and shield becomes the very hand that harms, we’re not just dealing with abuse, we are confronting institutional betrayal. Military Sexual Assault in His Majesty’s Armed Forces is not just a regrettable statistic, it’s a betrayal of sacred trust. It is a violation in an environment where absolute loyalty and obedience are demanded, making it uniquely devastating. Assault in the military context isn’t just an attack on the body, it’s an invasion into the very meaning of service. Perpetrators can be colleagues, supervisors, instructors, sometimes even decorated leaders. And the victims? They span ranks and genders. Men. Women. Non-binary personnel. No one is immune, though some are silenced more than others. For male survivors, the code of silence is wrapped in toxic masculinity: “Man up.” For women, it’s discredited through doubt: “She wanted it.” For all survivors, it’s the fear of retaliation, career suicide, and worse: being ignored. Military Sexual Trauma (MST) is not a moment. It’s a lifetime. It follows the survivor like a shadow, through civilian life, relationships, work, and even parenting. PTSD, anxiety, substance use, insomnia, hypervigilance, these are the daily drills that trauma demands. Then comes the invisible war at home. Marriages crumble under the weight of untreated pain. Parents lose the ability to connect with their children. Veterans spiral into homelessness, self-harm, or suicide, not because they failed the military, but because the military failed them. Too many end up silenced in their suffering. Not because they didn’t speak, but because no one listened. What happens when the chain of command becomes the chain of denial? Survivors often face more trauma in reporting the assault than in enduring it. Disbelief. Victim-blaming. Reprisals. Lost promotions. Forced discharges. Whispers in the mess hall. And in some cases, complete erasure of the complaint.This is institutional betrayal, and it’s soul-destroying. It tells victims: “You are less important than the reputation of the institution.” It is the antithesis of honour. It is betrayal dressed in regalia. Moral Injury isn’t just a buzzword. It is the internal implosion that occurs when soldiers are forced to live with broken codes:

• “I swore to protect, and I was preyed upon.”

• “I was told to trust, and they turned their backs on me.”

• “I gave everything to the military and it took everything from me.”

This isn’t post-traumatic stress, it’s post-betrayal collapse. For many, the military isn’t just an employer; it’s an identity. When that identity becomes the source of trauma, it fractures something deep. Something sacred. The impact doesn’t end with the uniformed individual. It spills into every relationship, every living room, every moment of civilian reintegration. Spouses describe living with a ghost: a partner haunted by rage, numbness, fear. Children grow up with emotionally absent parents or worse, parents who implode under the weight of untreated trauma. Entire family systems collapse under a burden they never chose to carry. We talk about "supporting our troops." But who supports the families carrying the aftermath of an internal war no one talks about? The time for damage control is over. Survivors don’t need sympathy, not that they get it, they need systemic change:

• Mandatory trauma-informed leadership training

• Independent investigation bodies for all reports of sexual assault

• Lifetime psychological care for survivors and their families

• Gender-inclusive frameworks that validate all survivors

• A military culture that prizes courage, not cover-ups

Most of all, they need what the military demands in every other sphere: accountability.

Let this be said clearly: Surviving sexual violence in the military is not weakness, it’s a different kind of war. One that demands courage without weapons, endurance without armour, and strength in the face of profound betrayal.To the survivors: You are not broken. You are not alone. Your pain is not inconvenient, it is evidence. You are the truth-tellers in a system that has too long silenced what it didn’t want to see. To the system: Your silence is complicity. Your reforms must be radical. And your first act of courage must be to believe the people you swore to protect.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Older Combat Veterans in the UK Are Often Overlooked by Mainstream Support Services

Many older veterans experience Late-onset Stress Symptomatology (LOSS), where trauma-related symptoms emerge decades after their service. Mainstream services tend to focus on those with immediate or early-onset psychological issues, overlooking those whose symptoms develop much later. As a result, the mental health needs of older veterans are often not recognised or prioritised. Veterans who have lived for many years without displaying clear signs of mental health issues are often assumed to have successfully "moved on." Their coping mechanisms, such as maintaining employment or family life, may mask underlying issues. Support services may incorrectly assume these veterans are less vulnerable compared to younger or recently deployed servicemen and women. Many support services target younger veterans or those who have recently left the armed forces. Older veterans, especially those who served in conflicts like WWII, the Falklands, or the Gulf War, may not be aware of available services or may feel disconnected from them. Additionally, older veterans may not actively seek help due to stigma or the belief that their issues are not serious enough to warrant intervention. Support systems for veterans can be fragmented, with services tailored more towards recent conflicts and younger veterans. Older veterans often fall through the cracks of this system, as they might require a different set of services, including care for age-related health issues that compound trauma-related stress. As veterans age, mainstream services often focus on their physical health concerns, like mobility or chronic diseases, while overlooking the mental health aspects. This imbalance in healthcare provision leads to under-diagnosis and insufficient treatment of psychological conditions like PTSD or LOSS in older veterans. Older veterans may come from a generation that did not emphasise or accept mental health treatment. They might be less likely to self-identify as needing psychological support, contributing to their invisibility in mainstream service provision. The combination of these factors contributes to the marginalisation of older veterans in the UK's mainstream support services. Addressing these gaps requires targeted outreach, increased awareness, and tailored mental health services to ensure older veterans receive the care they need.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Broken Promises and Invisible Wounds: Disabled Veterans, Moral Injury, and the Consequences of Benefit Cuts

In a month punctuated by political posturing and fiscal tightening, the recent announcements from Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and the Labour Party regarding proposed cuts to disability benefits have ignited both concern and outrage, especially among one of the UK’s most vulnerable and honourable communities: disabled veterans.

At the heart of the backlash is a chilling contradiction: on one hand, Reeves frames her proposals as part of a broader economic strategy aimed at “restoring responsibility” to the nation’s finances. On the other, the government continues to champion its commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant, a solemn pledge that those who serve, and particularly those injured in service, should never be disadvantaged by their sacrifice.

Yet if these disability benefit cuts proceed as outlined, many veterans may soon find that promise as hollow as an empty medal case.

The language surrounding these reforms is familiar; phrases like “tackling long-term economic inactivity” and “reforming welfare dependency” have become the go-to soundbites for fiscal hardliners across the political spectrum. But stripped of spin, the reality for many disabled veterans is far grimmer. Veterans who are already living with PTSD, limb loss, traumatic brain injuries, or other service-connected impairments rely heavily on disability benefits, not as a handout, but as a lifeline. For them, these cuts won’t just mean tighter budgets or skipped meals; they could mean losing access to essential mental health support, assistive technology, adapted housing, or carers. These are not passive recipients of public support, they are individuals who wore the uniform, risked life and limb, and now face a new, insidious threat: being financially punished for their service.

Perhaps the most corrosive effect of these proposed cuts isn’t economic at all, it’s moral. In military terms, moral injury describes the psychic wound inflicted when one’s core beliefs are violated, especially by institutions or leaders once trusted. For veterans, the notion that a grateful nation would support them in peacetime is sacrosanct. To see that social contract broken, by the very political class that invokes their heroism during election cycles, is an injury of a different kind. It’s the kind of betrayal that doesn’t just wound, it disenfranchises those that put themselves in harms way.

The sense of abandonment that may result from these policies has deep psychological consequences. Veterans, particularly those already wrestling with mental health challenges, are at elevated risk of suicidal ideation. Undermining their financial stability, removing the scaffolding that helps them function in civilian life, could push many toward crisis.

The Armed Forces Covenant is not just a token of appreciation, it’s a moral and, in many respects, legal obligation. It explicitly promises that “those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.” What, then, does it mean when benefit reforms disproportionately harm those who have served? Any party, Labour included, that supports such measures without a nuanced exemption for disabled veterans risks eroding the very trust upon which civil-military relations depend. The financial savings may be modest, but the cost to national honour and the psychological wellbeing of thousands may be irreparable. It is therefore imperative that Labour must clarify how these cuts will impact disabled veterans specifically. If the Armed Forces Covenant is to mean anything, protections must be carved out, clearly and publicly, for those injured in the line of duty. Policies that impact veterans should never be drafted without their direct input. Veteran charities, mental health professionals, and advocacy groups must be at the table, not after decisions are made, but before. The country’s covenant with its servicemen and women cannot be reduced to a line in a budget. If we ask individuals to sacrifice for the nation, we must honour that sacrifice, especially when their scars are lifelong.

Britain’s disabled veterans already carry burdens most of us can’t imagine. They should not have to bear the weight of broken promises, moral injury, and bureaucratic betrayal on top of that. The cuts may be justified by spreadsheets, but the consequences will be counted in shattered trust, deepened trauma, and, tragically, lives lost. If we truly value their service, we must do more than speak in solemn tones on Remembrance Day. We must remember them in policy, in practice, and in how we treat them when they come home broken—but still proud.

Because a nation that forgets its wounded warriors has already lost far more than money. It has lost its moral compass.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Courage to Create: Why the Service Charity Sector Must Champion Its Innovators

In every sector, there are two kinds of people: those who follow the map, and those who draw it. In the service charity world, where lives, not profits, hang in the balance, the mapmakers are not just important, they’re vital.They are the innovators, the ones who dare to ask uncomfortable questions, challenge outdated systems, and design programmes not because they’re popular, but because they’re necessary. They’re the first to notice the silent suffering, the unseen communities, and the systemic blind spots that traditional service delivery often overlooks. They build bridges where others build silos. They trade safety for significance. Yet, paradoxically, these pioneers are often the least supported. Why? Because innovation, by its nature, is messy. It doesn’t come in polished proposals or safe metrics. It disrupts, questions, tests boundaries. But here's the twist: when innovation succeeds when a radical new idea proves its worth, it doesn't just change lives. It changes the entire sector. Here’s where the imitators come in. Once a bold new intervention is shown to work, be it a trauma-informed programme for veterans with Military Sexual Trauma, a peer-led therapeutic retreat, or a social enterprise that empowers through cooking or mutual support groups, others replicate it. And they should. Scaling impact is part of progress. But it’s the original thinkers, the doers who dare, who shoulder the initial risk, who navigate the resistance, and who light the path for others. Yet,we forget this at our peril. In today’s service charity sector, where funding streams are tight and results must be immediate, there is a dangerous drift toward safety. Organisations chase “good ideas,” but too few ask “who made it work in the first place?” The pioneers, ironically, are often left behind, outpaced in visibility by larger charities who adopt their models but never credit the source. This isn’t just unjust. It’s unsustainable. Without sustained support, encouragement, and recognition, our innovators eventually move onto other opportunities. Their ideas, their programmes, and their deeply personal missions wither on the vine, just as others begin to harvest the fruit. The cost? Stagnation. Repetition. A sector too busy replicating yesterday’s successes to meet tomorrow’s challenges. If we want to see real change; effective, adaptive, human-centred service delivery we must nurture the ones who dare to go first. We must fund the bold ideas before the data is perfect. We must listen to the outliers, the rule-breakers, the voices from the margins. We must honour the value of lived experience and the power of people who don’t just serve communities, but come from them. To support innovation is to invest in the future of the service charity sector. It’s to admit that while not every experiment will succeed, no progress happens without experimentation. It’s to build an ecosystem where the first follower is as important as the first leader,but never more so.than during an time of austerity. So here’s the call: if you're a funder, support the ones who haven’t yet made the headlines. If you're a policymaker, give the innovators a seat at the table. And if you're an imitator,borrow wisely, build respectfully, and credit always. Innovation isn’t just the lifeblood of progress. In the charity sector, it’s often the difference between surviving and truly living. Let’s stop celebrating impact without acknowledging the courage it took to imagine it.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Officer Advantage: Why UK Military Charities Favour Leadership from the Top Ranks

Military charities in the UK exist to serve those who have served. Whether offering mental health support, financial aid, or reintegration programmes, these charities are vital lifelines for veterans and their families. But beneath the surface of their noble missions lies a stark reality: military charities seem to favour CEOs who are former officers rather than those who come from the enlisted ranks.

This phenomenon isn’t just a coincidence; it’s a reflection of deep-rooted hierarchies that extend beyond the armed forces and into the civilian sector. Former officers, particularly from the higher echelons of command, appear to have a distinct advantage when it comes to securing leadership positions within military charities. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel, those who have often faced the hardest struggles post-service rarely find themselves at the helm of these organisations. So, why does this happen? And more importantly, what does it say about the broader culture of military charity governance in the UK?

One of the most obvious reasons for this officer bias is the persistence of the Old Boys’ Network, a powerful and often unspoken system of connections that exists within elite institutions. Many former officers, especially those from Sandhurst or other prestigious military academies, maintain strong relationships with influential figures in business, government, and the non-profit sector.

These connections provide them with fundraising advantages, media visibility, and access to wealthy donors, all of which are critical for running a successful charity. When it comes to selecting a CEO, trustees (who are often former officers themselves) naturally gravitate towards familiar faces, reinforcing the cycle of officer-led leadership. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel, despite often having first-hand experience of the struggles that charities aim to address, are less likely to have these high-level connections. Their networks may be rich in camaraderie and ground-level support but lack the financial and institutional pull needed to rise to the top of these organisations.

Another factor at play is the perception of leadership ability. Officers are trained from the beginning of their careers to be decision-makers, strategists, and public-facing representatives. Their roles often involve high-level planning, diplomacy, and commanding large units, which can be seen as transferable skills for running a charity. Enlisted personnel, on the other hand, are frequently viewed (sometimes unfairly) as "implementers" rather than "visionaries." Despite their operational expertise, resilience, and problem-solving abilities, they are often overlooked for executive positions because they don’t fit the traditional profile of a corporate, style leader. This bias is evident not just in charities but across many sectors, where former officers transition seamlessly into high-paying executive roles, while enlisted veterans struggle to get past middle management.

In the charity sector, perception is everything; especially when it comes to fundraising. A former Brigadier or Colonel at the helm of a military charity instantly adds credibility in the eyes of high-net-worth donors, corporate sponsors, and even government officials.

This is partly because officers are trained in public speaking, strategic networking, and institutional diplomacy. They’re used to dealing with politicians, journalists, and corporate leaders, which makes them more effective at securing funding. Conversely, an enlisted veteran, no matter how competent, may lack the same polish or access to influential circles. The reality is, charities are businesses in their own right, and those who can bring in the most money often rise to the top.

This officer-dominated leadership structure raises an important question: do these charities truly represent the people they claim to serve? Most military charities exist to support those who are struggling the most post-service, and in many cases, this means enlisted veterans rather than former officers. Enlisted personnel make up the majority of the armed forces, and they are disproportionately affected by issues like PTSD, homelessness, and unemployment when military service ends.

Yet, when the leadership of these charities is overwhelmingly composed of former officers, there’s a risk that decision-making becomes detached from the realities of those most in need. While many former officers are deeply committed to supporting veterans, lived experience matters, and enlisted veterans often have a closer understanding of the struggles that frontline personnel face after leaving the military. Without diverse representation at the leadership level, military charities run the risk of prioritising what looks good on paper over what actually works in practice. To create a more equitable system where enlisted veterans have the same opportunities as their officer counterparts, several changes need to happen. Charity boards should actively recruit from diverse military backgrounds rather than relying on the same officer heavy networks. This means recognising that leadership skills come in many forms, not just those associated with officer training.

Many enlisted veterans have the potential to be exceptional CEOs, but they often lack access to the same career development resources as officers. Charities should invest in mentorship programs, executive training, and leadership development initiatives aimed specifically at enlisted personnel transitioning to the non-profit sector. Funders, donors, and policymakers need to challenge the notion that only officers can run successful military charities. Stories of enlisted veterans leading impactful initiatives should be amplified to reshape public attitudes. Military charities should be more transparent about their hiring and leadership selection processes. Publishing diversity reports that highlight the backgrounds of their leadership teams can help drive awareness and accountability.

In summary, the preference for officer-led leadership in UK military charities isn’t just an accident, it’s a reflection of institutional biases, old networks, and entrenched perceptions of leadership. While former officers undoubtedly bring valuable skills to the table, it’s time to recognise that leadership is not the sole domain of the commissioned ranks. For military charities to truly serve their mission, they must break free from the rigid structures of the armed forces and embrace a more inclusive, representative approach to leadership. Until then, enlisted veterans, the very people these charities exist to support, will continue to find themselves overlooked at the highest levels. It’s time for a change.

 Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist 

The Weight of War: How Generations Have Carried Collective Trauma

History is not just a series of dates and battles; it is imprinted on the minds and bodies of those who live through it. For those of us born in the decades following World War II, the scars of the past have been woven into the fabric of our existence, often in ways we may not fully realise. The sheer magnitude of loss, destruction, and disruption from the early 20th century onward created a world where emotional repression was not just common, it was necessary for survival. Between the end of World War I on November 11, 1918, and the beginning of World War II on September 1, 1939, the world had less than 21 years to recover from what was then called "the war to end all wars." But no true healing took place. Instead, the wounds of World War I festered, economically, politically, and emotionally, only to be torn open again by an even more devastating conflict. For Example; World War I (1914-1918) Over 20 million lives lost, with millions more wounded or permanently disabled. The 1918 Influenza Pandemic. As if war wasn’t enough, the world was immediately struck by a deadly flu pandemic that killed an estimated 50 million people, more than the war itself. The Great Depression (1929-late 1930s). Economic collapse led to mass unemployment, hunger, and despair, particularly in the UK, the US, and Europe. World War II (1939-1945). A war of total destruction, genocide, and nuclear devastation, leaving over 70 million dead. For our grandparents, there was no real chance to grieve. How could there be? With survival at stake, emotions had to be buried. Any sign of psychological struggle was often dismissed as weakness, especially among men who had returned from war. For our parents, growing up in the shadow of World War II meant being raised by people who had survived not one but multiple collective traumas. They had seen entire cities bombed to rubble, lost loved ones, and endured rationing, displacement, and the anxiety of war. Yet, they rarely spoke about their pain. This emotional suppression was not unique to individual families, it became a societal norm. "Keep calm and carry on" was more than a slogan; it was an emotional survival strategy. Our parents inherited this stoicism, learning not to dwell on hardship but to push forward, often at the expense of their own emotional well-being. Even after the physical destruction ended, the UK and much of the world never truly had a "peace day." Since 1945, Britain has been involved in conflicts across the globe, whether in direct wars like Korea (1950-1953) and the Falklands (1982), or prolonged military operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The weight of conflict has never lifted, and neither has the psychological toll. As children of the post-war world, we grew up in an environment where emotional expression was often discouraged. Our parents and grandparents had learned to suppress their feelings to endure the horrors of war, and they passed that mindset down to us. This manifests in several ways, for example; The “Stiff Upper Lip” mentality, a cultural expectation to endure hardship without complaint. Generational Detachment, difficulty expressing emotions, leading to strained parent-child relationships. Unspoken Grief, a reluctance to discuss past traumas, leaving younger generations to piece together family histories on their own. Chronic Anxiety and Depression, unprocessed trauma often leads to mental health struggles that are never properly addressed. The irony is that while emotional repression may have been necessary for survival in the short term, it has long-term consequences. When pain is buried instead of processed, it doesn’t disappear, it is passed down. The concept of intergenerational trauma, where trauma is inherited by subsequent generations, is now well-documented. Studies on Holocaust survivors and their descendants have shown that trauma can be transmitted through behaviours, parenting styles, and even biological changes in stress response. For those of us born in the decades after World War II, this means we may carry the psychological burdens of wars we never fought. We grew up with parents who were emotionally distant, who struggled to express love or vulnerability, because they had been taught that survival required emotional detachment. Even today, echoes of this trauma linger. Consider the anxiety and hyper-vigilance many people feel about global conflicts, even if they’ve never personally experienced war. The persistent sense of insecurity that pervades our societies, leading to political and social instability. The widespread struggles with mental health that can be traced back to generations of unspoken pain. Acknowledging societal trauma is the first step toward healing. While previous generations had no choice but to suppress their emotions, we live in an era where mental health is finally being recognised as essential. But breaking free from the patterns of the past requires active effort. In order to process trauma and heal we need to understand that much of what we struggle with today, whether anxiety, detachment, or difficulty expressing emotions, has roots in historical trauma. Unlike our ancestors, we have the freedom to talk about our pain, seek therapy, and cultivate emotional intelligence. Learning about the personal and collective stories of our families and societies can provide clarity and a sense of closure. Societies must acknowledge past traumas through education, memorials, and public discourse, rather than sweeping them under the rug. Governments and institutions must recognise mental health as a public health priority, especially for veterans, and all those affected by war.History has shown that true peace is not just the absence of war, it is the presence of healing. Since the end of World War II, the world has been in a constant state of conflict, whether through military engagement, political turmoil, or economic instability. While we may not be able to change the past, we have the power to shape the future. By acknowledging the weight of collective trauma and making space for healing, we can break the cycle of repression and create a world where survival does not come at the cost of emotional well-being. The greatest lesson we can learn from our grandparents and parents is not just how to endure hardship,but how to heal from it. Because only when we truly face our past can we build a future that is not defined by its wounds.

 Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Failing to Adequately Equip Service Personnel for Civilian Life Can Be Problematic

The transition from military to civilian life is one of the most significant challenges faced by UK Armed Forces personnel. While soldiers, sailors, and airmen receive extensive training in combat readiness, discipline, and operational effectiveness, their preparation for reintegration into civilian society is often inadequate. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has long been criticised for failing to equip service members with the necessary emotional resilience, problem-solving skills, and emotional vocabulary required to navigate post-military life successfully. Many veterans struggle with being emotionally unavailable, suffer from PTSD or moral injury, and face significant barriers to employment and social reintegration. Problem-solving in the military is rigid and hierarchical, often relying on standard operating procedures, direct orders, and predefined structures. Soldiers are trained to follow commands and execute plans under extreme pressure. However, the civilian world operates differently, requiring adaptive problem-solving, independent thinking, and flexibility in decision-making skills that military personnel may not be adequately trained. While military personnel excel at tactical and strategic problem-solving in combat scenarios, these skills do not always translate into everyday civilian challenges, such as career development, financial planning, or navigating bureaucratic systems. In civilian workplaces, ambiguity is common, and success often depends on negotiation, emotional intelligence, and the ability to self-direct. All areas where military training falls short. Many veterans struggle to adjust to environments where leadership is not clearly defined, and problem-solving requires persuasion rather than command. The MoD does little to bridge this gap, leaving many veterans ill-equipped to handle the complexities of civilian employment and personal life. Emotional resilience is often misunderstood in military training. In the Armed Forces, resilience is equated with toughness, endurance, and the ability to suppress emotions to complete a mission. While these traits are essential in combat, they are counterproductive in civilian life, where emotional awareness, adaptability, and open communication are vital for success. I would argue that the MoD does not adequately prepare personnel for the emotional challenges they will face upon leaving the military. Many veterans experience culture shock when transitioning to civilian workplaces, where teamwork is based on collaboration rather than hierarchy and where individuals are expected to express emotions constructively rather than suppress them. The inability to process emotions effectively can lead to frustration, withdrawal, or even aggression in professional and personal settings. Furthermore, without emotional resilience training tailored to civilian challenges; such as dealing with rejection in job applications, handling relationship breakdowns, or coping with financial instability. Sadly, because of this many veterans will struggle to maintain stability after service. The military’s emphasis on emotional suppression can make it difficult for former service personnel to seek help when they need it may lead to long-term mental health issues and social isolation. In my opinion, one of the most overlooked aspects of military transition difficulties is the lack of an emotional vocabulary among service personnel. The military environment often discourages emotional expression, fostering a culture where vulnerability is seen as weakness. This results in many personnel being unable to articulate their feelings or recognise the emotional states of others. In civilian life, success in relationships, whether professional, familial, or romantic, depends on the ability to communicate emotions effectively. Veterans who lack this skill often struggle with interpersonal relationships, leading to difficulties in maintaining employment, friendships, and family connections. Many report feeling misunderstood, frustrated, or isolated because they cannot express their struggles in a way that resonates with civilians. Without a strong emotional vocabulary, veterans are also less likely to seek mental health support. If they cannot describe what they are experiencing—whether it be anxiety, depression, or PTSD, they are unlikely to receive appropriate help. The MoD does little to address this issue, failing to provide structured emotional intelligence training that would enable veterans to navigate civilian interactions more effectively. A significant number of military personnel leave service emotionally unavailable, a direct result of years spent suppressing emotions in high-stress environments. Emotional unavailability can manifest in difficulty forming meaningful relationships, an inability to express vulnerability, or a tendency to detach from emotional situations altogether. This issue is particularly damaging for veterans attempting to reconnect with family and friends after years of service. Many military families report that their loved ones return home emotionally distant, unable to engage in deep conversations or express affection. This often leads to strained marriages, broken relationships, and difficulty reintegrating into family life. In civilian workplaces, emotional unavailability can create barriers to career progression. Leadership roles in the civilian world require emotional intelligence, and the ability to connect with colleagues, inspire teams, and demonstrate empathy. Veterans who struggle with this aspect often find themselves unable to adapt to leadership positions outside the military, limiting their career opportunities. Despite the well-documented impact of emotional unavailability, the MoD provides little in terms of structured emotional reintegration programmes. Veterans are often left to navigate this issue alone, with many unaware that their difficulties stem from ingrained military conditioning rather than personal failure. As someone once said… “ I wouldnt be like this if I knew how to not be like this!”

Military Sexual Trauma (MST), Moral injury and PTSD are among the most severe consequences of military service, yet the MoD’s preparation for these challenges is insufficient. Military Sexual Trauma can destry lives, during and after military service. Moral injury occurs when service personnel are involved in, witness, or fail to prevent actions that violate their ethical beliefs. This can lead to deep psychological distress, guilt, and a loss of trust in themselves and society. Many veterans experience moral injury after leaving the military, particularly if they struggle to reconcile their peacetime and wartime actions with civilian values. Yet, the MoD does not adequately address this issue, often treating it as a subset of PTSD rather than a distinct psychological condition that requires specific treatment and support. PTSD, a well-documented consequence of military service, affects a significant proportion of veterans including MST survivors, yet, many receive little to no support upon discharge. While there are mental health services available, stigma and a lack of awareness prevent many from seeking help. Additionally, the structured, purpose-driven environment of military life contrasts sharply with the unstructured nature of civilian life, exacerbating feelings of anxiety, depression, and detachment. Despite the known prevalence of PTSD and moral injury among veterans, the MoD’s transition programs focus primarily on employment and financial stability, often neglecting the psychological impact of leaving the forces. Without comprehensive mental health preparation, many veterans struggle to function in civilian society, leading to unemployment, homelessness, and even suicide. In summary, the UK Ministry of Defence continues to fall short in preparing service personnel for the realities of civilian life. While military training equips individuals with discipline, teamwork, and operational skills, it does not provide the emotional resilience, problem-solving abilities, or emotional intelligence necessary for a successful transition. Veterans often struggle with emotional unavailability, lack the vocabulary to express their challenges, and face severe psychological issues such as MST, PTSD and moral injury. To improve outcomes for veterans, the MoD must implement comprehensive transition programmes that enable veterans how to focus not just on employment, but also on emotional intelligence, resilience training, and mental health support. By addressing these gaps, the government can help service personnel reintegrate more successfully into civilian life, reducing homelessness, unemployment, and mental health crises among former military members. Until these changes are made, thousands of veterans will continue to suffer in silence, unprepared for the very world they risked their lives to protect.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Consequences of Speaking Out: The Harmful Impact of Negative Reactions on Survivors

Survivors of military sexual violence often face immense challenges when speaking out about their experiences. While breaking the silence can be an empowering step toward healing and justice, the response from others, particularly the chain of command and from other service commissioned support providers, can sometimes be deeply damaging. Negative reactions from professionals, law enforcement, healthcare providers, and other community personnel can exacerbate survivors’ trauma, leaving them feeling unheard, disbelieved, and unsupported. These responses not only harm survivors on an individual level but can also contribute to a broader culture of silence that discourages others from speaking out. The consequences of negative reactions toward survivors, particularly from the military hierachy is a cause for concern. When authority figures doubt survivors, blame them for the assault, or refuse to provide support, they send a dangerous message about the ineffectiveness of formal military support systems. This can lead to feelings of powerlessness, self-blame, and a reluctance to seek further help. In many cases, these negative responses serve to silence survivors, reinforcing a societal pattern in which victims are discouraged from reporting sexual violence. When survivors seek help, they often turn to professionals who are expected to offer support, validation, and practical assistance. However, research within this charity has shown that negative reactions from peers, the miltary police, medical professionals, therapists, and crisis counsellors are all too common. These negative responses can take many forms, including disbelief, victim-blaming, minimisation of the assault, or outright refusal to provide help. For example, survivors who report their in- service sexual assault assaults to the military police may encounter skepticism or even hostility. Some Military Police officers may question the survivor’s credibility, implying that they are exaggerating, misremembering, or fabricating their experience. Others may ask inappropriate or leading questions that shift responsibility onto the survivor, such as “Why were you drinking?” or “Why didn’t you fight back?” These kinds of responses can make survivors feel as though they are on trial, forcing them to defend their own actions rather than receiving the support they need. Similarly, medical professionals and mental health providers may also respond in ways that harm rather than help. A doctor who dismisses a survivor’s injuries or fails to offer compassionate care during a forensic exam can deepen the emotional toll of the assault. Likewise, a therapist who invalidates a survivor’s experience or pressures them to “move on” too quickly may cause additional psychological harm. These interactions can leave survivors feeling abandoned by the very people who are supposed to help them heal. Negative responses from professionals can have profound psychological and emotional consequences for survivors. Many survivors already struggle with feelings of shame, self-blame, and fear, and when they encounter disbelief or blame from those they seek help from, these feelings can become even more intense. Being met with skepticism or indifference can reinforce the harmful internalised belief that they are at fault for their own victimisation. Survivors who are blamed or doubted may also experience a worsening of post-traumatic stress symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Research has shown that survivors who face negative social reactions are more likely to struggle with long-term mental health challenges than those who receive positive and supportive responses. The added trauma of being dismissed or mistreated by professionals can compound the original trauma of the assault, making recovery even more difficult. In addition to emotional harm, negative reactions can lead survivors to question the effectiveness of seeking help at all. If a survivor’s first experience with an in-service support provider is a negative one, they may be far less likely to reach out for assistance in the future. This reluctance can prevent survivors from accessing crucial resources, further isolating them in their suffering. One of the most insidious consequences of negative reactions is that they serve to silence survivors. When a survivor speaks out and is met with doubt, blame, or rejection, they may feel as though their voice does not matter. They may internalise the idea that talking about the assault only leads to more pain, leading them to withdraw from seeking further support or justice. Survivors who initially break the silence may quickly reconsider their decision if they are met with dismissive or harmful reactions. Some may even be explicitly told to stop speaking about the assault whether by legal professionals who believe the case is not worth pursuing or by family members who fear stigma. These messages can make survivors feel as though they have no choice but to remain silent, effectively shutting down their ability to advocate for themselves or seek justice. The silencing effect of negative reactions extends beyond individual survivors; it also affects the broader societal discourse on sexual violence. When survivors witness others being doubted, blamed, or ignored, they may decide that speaking out is not worth the risk. This contributes to a culture in which sexual violence is underreported, perpetrators go unpunished, and survivors are left to navigate their trauma alone. The failure of formal support systems to adequately respond to survivors also has serious implications for justice. When survivors report their assaults, they often hope to see their perpetrators held accountable. However, negative responses from law enforcement and legal professionals frequently create barriers to justice. For instance, those in positions of authority may discourage survivors from pursuing charges, suggesting that their case is unlikely to succeed or that going through the legal process will be too difficult. The legal profession may be reluctant to take on cases they perceive as “weak,” particularly if the survivor was drinking, knew the perpetrator, or lacks physical evidence. These responses can make survivors feel as though the system is stacked against them, leading many to abandon legal action altogether. This kind of institutional betrayal, where the very systems meant to protect survivors instead contribute to their harm, can have lasting effects on trust in both legal and support structures. If survivors feel that the criminal justice system does not take their experiences seriously, they may be less likely to report future incidents or advocate for policy changes. This, in turn, allows perpetrators to continue committing acts of sexual violence with impunity. To mitigate the harmful effects of negative reactions, it is crucial to improve the way the military responds to survivors. Professionals who interact with survivors must be trained to offer trauma-informed care, which prioritises validation, empathy, and survivor autonomy. Trauma-informed approaches recognise the profound impact of sexual violence and seek to minimise further harm by providing a supportive and nonjudgmental response. For veteran surviviors, Police officers, medical personnel, therapists, and other professionals should receive comprehensive training on how to interact with military sexual trauma survivors in a way that promotes healing rather than additional trauma. This includes believing survivors, avoiding victim-blaming language, and providing clear and supportive pathways for accessing justice and care. Additionally, systemic reforms are needed to ensure that survivors have access to legal and medical assistance without fear of being dismissed or mistreated. Policies that hold professionals accountable for harmful responses, as well as initiatives that prioritise survivor-centered approaches to justice, can help create an environment where survivors feel safe speaking out. While speaking out about sexual violence can be a crucial step toward healing and justice, negative reactions from formal support services can create significant barriers for survivors. When professionals doubt, blame, or dismiss survivors, they not only cause additional trauma but also contribute to a culture of silence that discourages others from seeking help. These responses can have lasting psychological effects, undermine trust in support systems, and create obstacles to justice. To break this cycle, it is essential to foster a culture in which survivors are believed, supported, and empowered. By addressing the harmful impact of negative reactions and implementing trauma-informed practices, we can help ensure that survivors receive the care and validation they deserve. Only by changing the way the military and service charities respond to sexual violence can we begin to dismantle the barriers that keep survivors silent and powerless.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Impact of Bullying, Harassment, and Sexual Assault in the Military: A Pathway to In-Service Suicides and Broader Institutional Implications

The profound effects of bullying, harassment, and sexual assault within military environments, can contribute to in-service suicides among both male and female personnel. A quick google search highlight the tragedies at Deepcut Barracks and the deaths of individuals such as Jaysley Beck, Robert Fleeting, Olivia Perks, Jayne Elizabeth Hill, and Anne-Marie Ellement to name but a few. Yet all point to systemic failures that perpetuate abuse and hinder effective victim focussed interventions.

For example, between 1995 and 2002, Deepcut Barracks in Surrey, England, was the site of the mysterious deaths of four young soldiers: Privates Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray, and James Collinson. Investigations into these deaths revealed a culture rife with bullying, harassment, and abuse. Reports highlighted instances of sexual assaults and a pervasive environment of fear and intimidation. Despite multiple inquiries, the exact circumstances surrounding these deaths remain contentious, underscoring the military's challenges in addressing internal misconduct effectively.

The military, as a cornerstone of national defence, is expected to uphold the highest standards of discipline, integrity, and respect. However, numerous reports and investigations have unveiled a distressing prevalence of bullying, harassment, and sexual assault within its ranks. These toxic behaviours not only undermine the morale and cohesion essential to military effectiveness but also have devastating personal consequences, including mental health deterioration and, in extreme cases, suicide. There is always the potential for these behaviours to infiltrate civilian sectors, thereby perpetuating cycles of abuse.

Yet, there are no publicly available studies or reports that specifically indicate how any UK military veterans were not found guilty of sexual violence or harassment by Military Police while serving. However, there have been cases of UK military veterans being convicted of serious crimes and sexual offences post-service and it could be argued that perhaps a misogynistic military cultures permeated civilian uniformed institutions like the police and/or Fire Service as veterans transitioned to civilian occupations. Military veterans with a track record of perpetrating in-service sexual assault and/or harassment, even if not found guilty, may prove a risk of harm to others in civilian life when in positions of authority. For example, Wayne Couzens and others.

Studies and reports have consistently highlighted the alarming rates of bullying and sexual misconduct in military settings. A recent revelation from over 1,000 female officers and soldiers (some with 22 years of service) detailed experiences of sexual abuse, prompting the head of the army, General Sir Roly Walker, to condemn the "appalling and shameful behaviour" Such incidents range from inappropriate comments and propositions to severe cases of assault and rape, often perpetrated by superiors, creating an environment where victims feel powerless, unsupported and suicidal.

Yet, despite the implementation of policies aimed at eradicating such behaviours, systemic failures persist. Investigations have uncovered instances where complaints were inadequately addressed by the Military Police or dismissed altogether. This indicates a broader cultural issue where misconduct is normalised, and accountability is lacking.

Nineteen-year-old Gunner Jaysley Beck was found dead at Larkhill Camp in Wiltshire in December 2021. Prior to her death, Beck endured severe harassment from her superior, Bombardier Ryan Mason, who sent her thousands of unsolicited messages and exhibited controlling behaviour. Additionally, she was reportedly pinned down and forcibly kissed by another officer, Battery Sergeant Major Michael Webber. Despite reporting these incidents, the responses were inadequate, and the perpetrators received minimal sanctions, Beck's tragic death highlights the dire consequences of a culture that fails to protect its members from internal threats.

The case of Robert Fleeting has long been a source of deep grief and controversy for his family, and it continues to fuel their fight for justice. Robert, a 24‐year‐old RAF firefighter stationed at RAF Benson, died on September 4, 2011, under circumstances that have left his family questioning the official verdict. Although an inquest returned a verdict of suicide, the Fleeting family has persistently argued that there are serious unresolved questions regarding the events leading up to his death.

Olivia Perks, an officer cadet at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, whose death in 2019 was preceded by concerns about her welfare and the support systems in place for young recruits. Jayne Elizabeth Hill, a soldier whose death brought attention to the mental health challenges faced by military personnel and the potential impact of bullying and internal unit dynamics. Anne-Marie Ellement, a Royal Military Police officer who died by suicide in 2011 after alleging she was raped by colleagues. Her case underscored the military's inadequate response to sexual assault allegations and the profound impact on victims and their family’s mental health.

The hierarchical and insular nature of military institutions often deters victims from reporting incidents of abuse. Fear of retaliation, damage to one's career, and a pervasive fear of being ostracised, contribute to underreporting. Moreover, investigations are frequently conducted internally, leading to potential conflicts of interest and a lack of impartiality.

The stories of all of the above, remain deeply emotive and a contentious chapter in the narrative of military service in the United Kingdom. For some of the families their ongoing battles for justice reflect their unwavering belief that the official investigation into their deaths was inadequate and that critical questions remain unanswered. Many continue to fight for a complete and transparent inquiry, and their individual cases stand as a poignant reminder of the challenges faced by service personnel and the potential consequences of institutional failures.

In summary, General Sir Roly Walker has reportedly penned a letter to the British Army chain of command implying they are complicit in the "appalling and shameful" abuse being reported online. I personally agree with him and I will continue to write lived experience research reports to highlight this issue. The question is, will the UK Military accept that they do not have the expertise or indeed experience to address this issue on their own, and will eventually have to reach out to professional, but untrusted civilian experts. Time will tell, but the bubble has burst. To not do so… is indefensible.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Military Misogyny

Military misogyny has long been a pervasive issue, deeply influencing toxic sexism within uniformed services. The rigid hierarchical structure, traditionally male-dominated culture, and emphasis on hyper-masculinity contribute to systemic discrimination against women and gender minorities in the military. The military emphasises aggression, dominance, and toughness,traits often associated with masculinity. Traits associated with femininity, such as empathy and collaboration, are often devalued, leading to hostility toward women in the ranks. Military sexual trauma (MST) is a widespread issue, with many cases of harassment and assault underreported due to fear of retaliation. Victims often face blame, dismissal, or career repercussions, discouraging others from coming forward. Sexist attitudes from senior leadership trickle down, reinforcing the belief that women are "outsiders" or burdens. Women who challenge misogyny or report misconduct frequently experience professional and social ostracisation. Many are labeled as "troublemakers," affecting their promotions and assignments. Gendered dress codes often emphasise traditional femininity, reinforcing outdated norms about women's roles. Differences in physical fitness standards sometimes lead to resentment, further alienating women. Mental health concerns related to sexism and assault are often ignored or minimised. Female soldiers and officers frequently have to “toughen up” to be taken seriously, reinforcing toxic environments. Women in uniform face disproportionate challenges balancing service with motherhood. Policies that do not adequately support parental leave or childcare further push women out of the military. The influence of military misogyny on toxic sexism in uniformed services is deep-rooted but not unchangeable. Reforms in leadership, policy, and culture, such as enforcing zero-tolerance policies on harassment, ensuring gender-equal career opportunities, adequate safeguarding practices need to be developed along with confidential victim focussed practices. Breaking down hyper-masculine traditions are critical to making military institutions more inclusive.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Jaysley Beck Inquest: A Tsunami of MST Anonymous Disclosures.

The past week has seen the British military under intense scrutiny due to alarming reports of sexual assault and harassment within its ranks. The tragic case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, a 19-year-old soldier found dead in her barracks in 2021, has brought these issues to the forefront. An inquest into her death revealed a pervasive culture of misogyny, with female soldiers enduring severe sexual harassment and abusive comments.

There has been an outpouring of online support and disclosures of sexual assault and harassment in response to this tragedy.  Testimonies highlighted incidents where young female soldiers have been propositioned by superiors and ignored in their complaint and suffrage, creating an environment rife with fear and mistrust.  These revelations are not isolated.

A Defence Committee report unveiled systemic failings within the military justice system, noting that servicewomen often feel compelled to "put up and shut up" when faced with sexual assault and rape. The report emphasised that victims frequently perceive a choice between seeking justice and preserving their careers, while perpetrators often evade accountability.  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has implemented policies to address unacceptable behaviour, including confidential helplines and whistleblowing channels. However, the effectiveness of these measures is questionable, as many service personnel remain reluctant to report incidents due to fear of retaliation or damaging their careers.

Addressing this deeply rooted issue requires a multifaceted approach. Implementing trauma-informed principles is crucial to creating an environment where victims feel safe to report incidents. This involves understanding the profound impact of trauma and ensuring that responses to disclosures are compassionate and supportive.  Furthermore, adopting uniform definitions of sexual harassment and assault across military operations can provide clarity and consistency in handling such cases. This standardisation is vital for fostering a culture of zero tolerance towards sexual misconduct and Forward Assist have been campaigning to the MOD Office for Veterans Affairs representative Alistair Cairns to accept the definition of Military Sexual Trauma (MST).

Military Sexual Trauma (MST) is a term used by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to describe experiences of sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment that a veteran experienced during their military service. This includes any sexual activity performed against one's will, such as being pressured into sexual activities through threats or promises, unable to consent due to intoxication, or being physically forced into sexual acts. It also encompasses unwanted sexual touching, grabbing, threatening, or offensive remarks about a person's body or sexual activities, and unwelcome sexual advances. 

Forward Assist, a UK-based charity, has been instrumental in addressing the pervasive issue of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) within the British Armed Forces. Recognising the unique challenges faced by male survivors, a group often overlooked in discussions about military sexual violence, Forward Assist has dedicated significant resources to shed light on their experiences. Their comprehensive research delves into the profound impact of MST on male and female veterans, the impact of alcohol misuse and better understanding of experience amongst BAME & LGBTQ+ groups.

These publications not only highlight the psychological and emotional toll of such trauma but also emphasise the systemic barriers survivors encounter when seeking support. Through advocacy and the promotion of trauma-informed care, Forward Assist strives to foster a more inclusive and supportive environment for all MST survivors within the military community.

The recent disclosures underscore the urgent need for cultural transformation within the British military. While policies and procedures are in place, their implementation and the overarching military culture must evolve to support and protect all service members. Only through genuine commitment to change can the military hope to rebuild trust and ensure the safety and dignity of its personnel.

 Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Devastating Impact of the British Armed Forces’ Policy of ‘Closing Ranks’: Military Sexual Trauma, Institutional Abuse, and Systemic Failure

When individuals join the British Armed Forces, they do so with the expectation of serving their country with honour and receiving protection, respect, and equality from the institution they pledge to defend. Yet, for many service members, this experience is marred by an insidious culture of bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual assault, and violence. What is more disturbing than these incidents themselves is the institutional response—or lack thereof. When victims come forward to report abuse, they are often met with the infamous "closing of ranks," where the system prioritises its reputation over justice and welfare.

This pervasive culture of cover-ups and silencing has devastating consequences. The refusal to address abuse adequately not only retraumatises victims but also allows perpetrators to operate with impunity, perpetuating a cycle of harm. Central to this crisis is the experience of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and institutional abuse, which remain grossly underreported and poorly addressed, leaving countless victims without justice.

The term "closing ranks" refers to the practice of individuals within an institution banding together to protect one another and the organisation’s image, often at the expense of transparency, justice, and accountability. In the British Armed Forces, this culture has taken deep root, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of abuse.

Victims who report incidents of sexual assault, bullying, or harassment frequently find themselves isolated, disbelieved, or even punished for speaking out. The institutional response is often one of minimisation and denial, where senior officers close ranks to protect colleagues and shield the organisation from scandal. This practice mirrors the systemic failures seen in other large institutions, such as the police or the Catholic Church, where abuse is covered up to preserve institutional reputation.

Military Sexual Trauma (MST) a term that refers to sexual assault or harassment experienced during military service—exemplifies this crisis. While MST is an acknowledged issue within armed forces around the world, its prevalence and impact within the British military remain under-recognised. The institutional response to such allegations frequently compounds the trauma of survivors, creating an environment where victims are left powerless and silenced. Survivors of MST and institutional abuse in the military often face severe psychological, emotional, and professional consequences. Beyond the initial trauma of the abuse itself, the aftermath can be equally devastating. Many victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges. Feelings of betrayal, helplessness, and isolation are common, particularly when the very institution they relied upon for protection turns against them.

The professional consequences are just as dire. Whistleblowers and survivors are often ostracised, passed over for promotions, or pushed out of the military altogether. Careers are destroyed, and the reputational damage inflicted on survivors by false narratives, victim blaming or institutional smear campaigns can be impossible to recover from affecting both survivors and significant others. In some cases, survivors face direct retaliation, including threats, disciplinary action, and even dismissal from the service. Such reprisals serve as a powerful deterrent to others who might consider coming forward, ensuring the cycle of abuse remains hidden in the shadows.

Institutional abuse occurs when a system or organisation allows or perpetuates harm, either through direct action or through negligence. In the context of the British Armed Forces, this abuse is systemic. Policies and procedures that should protect victims are either nonexistent, ignored, or actively manipulated to serve the interests of those in power. Instead of acting as impartial investigators, senior officers and those in positions of authority often prioritise damage control. Internal investigations lack transparency and impartiality, with a focus on protecting the institution rather than delivering justice for victims.For instance, cases of sexual assault are frequently dealt with through internal military procedures rather than being referred to civilian police and judicial systems. This internal handling not only undermines the chances of justice but also raises serious questions about impartiality and competence. Reports of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and sham investigations are disturbingly common.

The lack of external oversight further compounds the issue. Unlike in civilian life, where victims of serious crimes have access to independent investigative bodies and legal avenues, military personnel are often trapped within a closed system where those in power act as judge, jury, and executioner. The culture of silence within the British Armed Forces is not just maintained by institutional policies but also by deeply ingrained stigma. Many service members are reluctant to report abuse because of fear—fear of being labeled weak, of career repercussions, or of not being believed. For women in the military, these fears are magnified.

While the British Armed Forces have made strides in recent years to promote gender equality and inclusivity, the reality for many female service members is that they remain in a male-dominated, hyper-masculine environment that often trivialises or dismisses their experiences. Survivors are frequently subjected to victim-blaming, with questions about their behaviour, clothing, or alcohol consumption taking precedence over the actions of their abusers. LGBTQ+ service members face additional layers of discrimination and stigma. For them, reporting abuse may mean confronting not only the assault or harassment itself but also deeply entrenched homophobia or transphobia within the military ranks. Change must come from the top. Leadership within the British Armed Forces has a critical role to play in dismantling the toxic culture of closing ranks and replacing it with a system rooted in accountability, transparency, safeguarding and support for victims. While some leaders have publicly acknowledged the need for reform, meaningful change has been slow and inconsistent.

In summary, the devastating impact of the British Armed Forces’ policy of closing ranks in response to allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, and sexual assault cannot be overstated. For too long, victims have been silenced, their trauma compounded by an institution that prioritises self-preservation over justice. The time for meaningful reform is long overdue. The British Armed Forces must break free from its culture of institutional abuse and take bold, decisive steps to support survivors and hold perpetrators accountable. Anything less is a betrayal—not only of the individuals who have suffered but also of the very values the military claims to uphold. Until then, the silent crisis will continue, leaving countless lives shattered in its wake.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

In-Service Rape and Sexual Assault: A Form of Social Death for UK Service Personnel

In-service rape and sexual assault within the UK Armed Forces have long been a serious and under-reported issue, often compounded by a culture of silence and institutional failure to address the problem adequately. Victims of sexual violence in the military experience not only physical and psychological trauma but also a profound erosion of their social identity and status within the military community. This phenomenon can be likened to what scholars describe as "social death," where an individual is stripped of their social value, identity, and belonging. For UK service personnel, in-service rape and sexual assault represent a form of social death that manifests through isolation, ostracism, institutional betrayal, and the destruction of professional and personal lives.

Social death is a sociological concept often associated with situations in which an individual is denied participation in social life and stripped of their identity, autonomy, and social connections. It is a state of exclusion, where the individual is treated as if they no longer exist in a meaningful social capacity. In the military context, social death occurs when victims of sexual violence are silenced, marginalised, and isolated by their peers, superiors, and the wider institutional structure that is supposed to protect them. This exclusion can have devastating consequences for mental health, career prospects, and the victim’s sense of belonging.

The military is a highly hierarchical and insular institution with a unique culture that emphasises loyalty, discipline, and cohesion. For many service personnel, their identity is deeply intertwined with their role within the armed forces. Military life fosters strong bonds among members, creating a close-knit community that values solidarity and shared experience. However, this environment can also create fertile ground for abuse and can discourage victims from coming forward.

The prevalence of in-service rape and sexual assault is deeply troubling. According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), reports of sexual offenses within the armed forces have risen in recent years, reflecting both an increase in incidents and a growing willingness to report them. However, the true scale of the problem is likely far greater, as many victims remain silent due to fear of reprisal, shame, or mistrust in the system’s ability to deliver justice. The closed nature of military life means that victims often have to continue working and living in close proximity to their perpetrators, heightening their vulnerability and reinforcing the conditions of social death.

One of the most profound aspects of social death in the military is the ostracism faced by victims of sexual violence. When a victim reports an assault, they often find themselves shunned or treated with suspicion by their peers and superiors. Instead of being supported, victims are frequently labeled as troublemakers or seen as threats to unit cohesion. This response serves to further isolate them from their community, leaving them with few allies and no safe spaces. The loss of camaraderie, which is a cornerstone of military life, is deeply damaging and can leave victims feeling as though they no longer belong.

In some cases, the victim’s experience of ostracism is compounded by retaliation from within the ranks. Reports of career sabotage, unfair treatment, and intimidation are not uncommon, and these actions send a clear message to other potential victims that reporting sexual violence is both dangerous and futile. The fear of becoming a social outcast is a powerful deterrent that perpetuates the cycle of abuse.

Institutional betrayal is another key factor that contributes to the social death of victims. Many victims who report sexual violence do so with the expectation that they will receive protection, support, and justice. However, the reality is often starkly different. Investigations into sexual offenses within the military are frequently mishandled or subject to long delays, and the outcomes rarely favor the victim. According to a 2021 report by the House of Commons Defence Committee, the military justice system is ill-equipped to deal with cases of sexual assault, and the conviction rate is alarmingly low.

When victims feel betrayed by the very institution they have sworn to serve, the impact on their mental health and sense of identity can be catastrophic. The failure of the system to acknowledge and address their suffering reinforces their social exclusion and deepens their experience of social death. This betrayal also sends a broader message to the military community, eroding trust in the chain of command and creating an environment where abusers can act with impunity.

The psychological consequences of in-service rape and sexual assault are severe and often long-lasting. Victims frequently suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. The experience of social death exacerbates these conditions, as the isolation and loss of social support leave victims with limited coping mechanisms. Many are forced to leave the military, either because their mental health deteriorates to the point where they can no longer function or because they are actively pushed out by the institution. For those who remain, the stigma and trauma can linger for years, affecting their ability to reintegrate into civilian life after service.

In addition to the psychological toll, in-service rape and sexual assault often lead to the premature termination of military careers. Victims who speak out are frequently passed over for promotions, denied opportunities, or subjected to unjust disciplinary actions. The loss of a military career represents more than just the end of a job; it is the destruction of a carefully cultivated identity and life plan. The loss of rank, reputation, and professional standing can leave victims feeling humiliated and powerless, compounding the sense of social death.

In-service rape and sexual assault are not merely criminal acts; they are profoundly dehumanising experiences that strip victims of their identity, dignity, and social standing. For UK service personnel, the impact of these violations extends far beyond the immediate trauma, resulting in a form of social death that leaves lasting scars. Addressing this crisis requires a fundamental shift in military culture and the creation of a support system that prioritises the well-being of victims over institutional reputation. Until such changes are made, the cycle of silence, isolation, and betrayal will continue, and the human cost will remain unacceptably high.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Why Grassroots Research and Lived Experience Really Matter When Designing Services.

Grassroots research refers to knowledge creation driven by individuals or communities outside traditional academic institutions. It is often motivated by practical needs, curiosity, or a desire to address issues overlooked by mainstream research. Similarly , it is more often than not, conducted by citizens, pracademics, or small organisations, often with limited funding or institutional backing.

Grassroots research focuses on solving local problems or addressing specific concerns that may lack institutional support. Yet, on the upside it is often free from the constraints of academic norms, allowing for creative approaches and rapid experimentation. Grassroots research tackles real-world problems that academic research may overlook or deem unworthy of funding. Grassroots researchers welcome contributors from diverse backgrounds, often incorporating indigenous knowledge or non-traditional perspectives. It has the power to respond rapidly to emerging needs without the bureaucratic delays of academic funding and peer-review processes. However, limited funding, access to technology, and formal training can hinder progress.

Without rigorous peer review, findings may struggle to gain acceptance or withstand scrutiny and in the worst case scenario may lack the infrastructure or visibility to influence policy or global discourse. Academia is often criticised for its insularity, elitism, and detachment from the practical concerns of everyday life. This "arrogance" is perceived as an obstacle to collaboration and inclusivity in research and academic credentials, journal paywalls, and institutional affiliations create barriers to entry for outsiders. Research may prioritise theoretical elegance over practical application, alienating non-academic audiences. Slow processes, resistance to unconventional ideas, and a rigid focus on metrics like citations and rankings stifle innovation.

Dominance of Western academic paradigms often disregards alternative epistemologies. While grassroots research and academia are often framed as opposites, they have complementary strengths. The key is not choosing one over the other but fostering collaboration and mutual respect. Grassroots research can identify problems and generate data that academia can validate and scale. Institutions can provide resources, tools, and expertise to amplify grassroots efforts. Citizen science initiatives (e.g., environmental monitoring or public health studies) demonstrate how grassroots researchers and academics can collaborate effectively. To address the tension between grassroots research and academia.

Its very important to recognise the value of local knowledge and grassroots contributions and the importance of actively seeking partnerships outside traditional academic circles.We believe that a shift from a top-down model to one that includes public input and collaboration in setting research agendas wuld be a quantum leap forward. We would be delighted to partner with institutions to gain access to resources, training, and validation for our work but our time and expertise must be financially factored into any research undertaken. We all need to do more to develop collaborative networks to connect grassroots researchers with academics and mechanisms need to be created to credit and compensate non-traditional contributors equitably.

The future of knowledge creation lies in breaking down barriers between grassroots research and academia. By leveraging the strengths of both—academia’s rigor and resources, and grassroots innovation and inclusivity—we can build a more equitable, impactful, and dynamic research ecosystem. Rather than opposing forces, these two approaches should be seen as essential partners in the pursuit of truth and progress.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Academia ... At an (AI) Crossroads or Dead in The Water?

The question of whether academia is "dead" is provocative and requires unpacking several interconnected themes, especially in light of the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). Academia has historically been the bedrock of intellectual discovery, peer-reviewed research, and teaching. While its traditional structures may seem rigid or outdated to some, its purpose remains vital: to expand human understanding and ensure rigorous validation of knowledge. Academia is increasingly criticised for excessive red tape, which stifles creativity. The pressure to publish frequently undermines the quality and originality of research. Research is often locked behind paywalls, making it less impactful outside academic circles. However, is AI both a tool and a disruptor in the realm of academia? AI can analyse vast datasets faster and more accurately than humans, allowing researchers to focus on interpretation and hypothesis building.Writing literature reviews, formatting papers, or conducting meta-analyses can be streamlined. AI-powered platforms enable interdisciplinary collaboration, transcending geographical and institutional boundaries. Roles such as research assistants or entry-level analysts may become obsolete.While academia as a money making institution is not "dead," it must adapt to remain relevant. The integration of AI presents both existential threats and transformative possibilities. Over-reliance on AI could devalue the role of critical thinking and creativity unique to humans. The big question is. if AI can generate papers and perform research, what becomes of human academics? For academia to thrive in the AI era, it needs structural reforms and a forward-looking ethos. This will necessitate a shift from individual prestige to collective problem-solving. Academia is at a crossroads. AI represents both a challenge to its traditional structures and a catalyst for its evolution. By embracing AI while staying true to its core values of critical inquiry and rigorous validation, academia can reinvent itself for the 21st century and beyond. The future of research holds immense promise if navigated wisely. Time will tell.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

The Cost of Being the Boss: Balancing Leadership and Family Life

Being the boss comes with undeniable prestige and responsibility. Leadership positions often demand immense time, effort, and dedication to ensure the success of an organisation or business. While this pursuit of excellence is commendable, it can sometimes come at a heavy cost—your personal and family life. As we approach another year where the boundary between work and home life continues to blur, it’s essential to reflect on the dangers of working incessantly and missing out on precious moments with loved ones. Leadership roles are inherently demanding. The pressure to deliver results, make critical decisions, and manage a team often means long hours, sleepless nights, and a never-ending to-do list. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking, If I don’t do this, everything will fall apart. But the relentless pursuit of professional success can create an unhealthy work-life imbalance. Studies have shown that excessive work hours can lead to burnout, health issues, and strained relationships with family and friends. Success at work means little if it comes at the expense of personal happiness and the well-being of those you hold dear.When you spend most of your time at work, it’s easy to overlook the subtle, yet profound, effects on your family.For example,children grow up quickly, and so much can happen in the blink of an eye. By prioritising work over family, you might miss out on significant milestones like your child’s first steps, school plays, or birthdays. These moments are irreplaceable. Quality time is the foundation of strong relationships. Without it, even the closest family bonds can fray. Constant absence or distraction can lead to feelings of neglect and disconnection among your loved ones. Working all the time isn’t just emotionally taxing—it’s physically harmful. Stress, lack of sleep, and an overburdened schedule can take a toll on your body, leaving you less able to enjoy the life you’re working so hard to build. For many leaders, there’s a belief that relentless work is the price of success. However, true success isn’t just about achieving career milestones—it’s about living a fulfilled life, which includes nurturing meaningful relationships. A thriving career shouldn’t mean sacrificing your presence in your family’s life. Achieving work-life balance as a leader is no easy feat, but it’s far from impossible. So from today, create clear boundaries between work and family time. Designate specific hours to unplug from emails and calls, and be fully present with your loved ones during those moments.Being the boss doesn’t mean you have to do everything yourself. Trust your team and delegate tasks effectively. Empowering others not only lightens your workload but also fosters team growth.Take time to reflect on what truly matters to you. If family is a priority, schedule time with them just as you would an important meeting. Treat family commitments with the same respect you give to work deadlines and don’t neglect your own well-being. Regular exercise, adequate sleep, and mindfulness practices can help you recharge and stay present for both work and family.
Not every opportunity is worth the time it takes away from your family. It’s okay to decline commitments that don’t align with your priorities. At the end of the day, your legacy isn’t measured by the deals you closed or the accolades you earned at work. It’s reflected in the memories you’ve created, the love you’ve shared, and the lives you’ve touched—starting with your family. Remember, there’s always more work to be done, but time with your loved ones is finite. Being a great boss and a great family member isn’t mutually exclusive. With intentionality and balance, you can lead a fulfilling life at work and at home. As you move forward in your leadership journey, don’t forget to look back and cherish the people who stand by you every step of the way. Success is sweeter when shared with those who matter most.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Why We Need a COBSEO Member Cluster Group for Small Military Charities

The absence of a small charity cluster group within COBSEO could indeed be considered an oversight for several reasons, as it risks missing out on critical opportunities to strengthen the military charity sector. Without a cluster group, COBSEO risks assuming that the needs of all members are similar, potentially sidelining the distinct priorities of smaller organisations.The collective expertise, innovation, and grassroots knowledge of small charities might remain untapped without a platform for collaboration.Small charities often work on the front lines and have critical insights into the needs of veterans and their families. Failing to gather and amplify their voices risks losing valuable input in shaping policies.By not setting up a small charity cluster group, COBSEO risks alienating a significant portion of its membership and failing to fully harness the potential of smaller organisations. Establishing this group is not only a matter of fairness and inclusion but also a strategic necessity for building a robust, resilient, and collaborative military charity ecosystem. Establishing a cluster group for small UK military charities within COBSEO (The Confederation of Service Charities) would provide significant benefits to the military charity sector, particularly given the challenges faced by smaller organisations. Smaller charities often struggle to have their voices heard in policymaking or among larger organizations. A cluster group would enable these charities to present a united front and influence decisions that impact their sector. It ensures small charities' specific concerns are represented within COBSEO and to external stakeholders, including government and funders. Small charities often operate with limited budgets and resources. A cluster group can facilitate sharing of expertise, best practices, and tools, reducing operational costs and duplication of effort.Larger or more experienced members can mentor smaller organizations in areas such as fundraising, governance, and compliance. A cluster group can apply for funding as a collective, increasing the chances of securing larger grants that are inaccessible to individual small charities. By working together, small charities can receive advice on grant applications and pool resources for joint campaigns. A cluster group can foster collaborations among smaller charities, allowing them to work together on joint projects, events, or initiatives, achieving greater impact. Regular meetings and events can help smaller charities connect with larger organisations, opening doors for partnerships and sponsorships. Small charities often have unique challenges, such as limited staffing or local focus. A dedicated group can ensure COBSEO provides specific programs and services to address these needs. Smaller organizations are often more agile and innovative but may lack the platform to share their ideas. A cluster group can amplify and support these innovative approaches. By working within a cluster group, small charities can align their missions with COBSEO’s broader objectives while maintaining their individuality. Coordinating activities within the group can help prevent overlap in services, ensuring that resources are used efficiently and beneficiaries are served more effectively. In challenging times (e.g., during economic downturns or crises like COVID-19), a cluster group can provide mutual support, enabling small charities to survive and thrive. Members can exchange insights and strategies to navigate common challenges, such as volunteer recruitment or regulatory compliance. A cluster group aligns with COBSEO’s mission to strengthen the military charity sector through collaboration and coordination. Small charities may feel more involved and valued within COBSEO through targeted support and opportunities for active participation. I would suggest we start by mapping COBSEO's existing small charity members and understanding their needs. Then, nominate a small charity representative to chair or co-chair the group to ensure their perspectives are front and centre. The group could then define clear goals , such as resource-sharing platforms, joint advocacy campaigns, or training programs. The use of virtual and digital tools to encourage collaboration, such as online forums, regular virtual meetings, or newsletters would help engagement and help drive forward the agenda. By creating a cluster group for small military charities, COBSEO would foster a more inclusive, resourceful, and resilient ecosystem, empowering smaller organizations to deliver critical services to veterans and their families effectively. This move would not only benefit individual charities but also enhance the overall impact of the military charity sector in the UK.

Christmas… Can Be A Trauma Anniversary

Trauma anniversaries can evoke a wide range of emotions, which may vary greatly from person to person. These emotional responses often stem from the body's and mind's memory of the traumatic event. Common feelings or experiences can manifest themselves as a sense of mourning for what was lost or the pain endured during the trauma. For many the date or time of year may trigger heightened vigilance, nervousness, or unease, even if there is no immediate danger. Feelings of frustration or anger, sometimes directed inward or outward, as the memory of the trauma resurfaces.These can include fatigue, headaches, muscle tension, or other signs of stress. Some people may avoid certain places, people, or activities that remind them of the event and sights, sounds, smells, or other sensory cues associated with the trauma may feel more vivid or intense. Unwanted memories or vivid reliving of the trauma might occur, making it feel as if the event is happening again, this is normal. Especially if the trauma involved complex dynamics and survivors might grapple with feelings of self-blame. On the other hand, some individuals use trauma anniversaries as a moment for personal reflection, healing, and recognising their growth since the event. Recognising that the anniversary is approaching and understanding its potential impact on you and significant others can help reduce the element of surprise. We always recommend that veterans engage in activities that soothe and nourish the mind and body. Limit exposure to triggers or people who may not be supportive during this time. Use grounding exercises, breathing techniques, or other coping mechanisms to get by and remember it's important to be kind to yourself during this time and seek professional support if the emotions feel overwhelming. Trauma anniversaries are a reminder of the impact of past experiences, but they can also be an opportunity for continued healing and self-compassion.

Dates associated with traumatic events, especially those tied to significant occasions like holidays, can carry an even heavier emotional weight. When a traumatic event coincides with a culturally or personally significant day—such as Christmas—it can amplify the emotional impact because holidays often come with societal or cultural expectations of joy, togetherness, and celebration. Experiencing grief or distress during these times can feel isolating or incongruent with the surrounding atmosphere. Each year, the date serves as a stark reminder of the loss or trauma, potentially reopening emotional wounds. For events tied to loved ones' deaths, there may be a dual grief—missing the person and mourning the joyful associations of the holiday. Holiday-specific sights, sounds, smells, or traditions may act as triggers, bringing back memories of the event or person.The desire to honour the memory of the person or cope with the trauma may conflict with the need to engage in new, joyful activities. It’s okay to feel sadness, anger, or grief during a time when others may be celebrating. Talking with someone you trust about your feelings can help you process them. It can be helpful to openly acknowledge that the person is missed, either privately or with close family and friends. If certain traditions feel too painful, consider adjusting or replacing them with new ones that are more comfortable. Limit interactions with people or events that feel draining, and give yourself permission to say no. While grief may dominate, reflecting on moments of gratitude or the legacy of the loved one can provide solace. Stay present by practicing mindfulness techniques or grounding exercises to reduce anxiety. While the pain may not completely go away, over time, you may find a way to navigate the trauma in a way that feels meaningful and manageable. Remember, healing is not linear, and it’s okay to seek help or adjust your coping mechanisms as needed.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

Impending Doom and Societal Mental Health.

Recent statements by UK defence officials have raised public concerns about national security and the potential for nuclear conflict. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff, noted that Britain is entering a "third nuclear age," characterised by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and emerging technologies, necessitating national unity and preparation for potential conflicts by 2027. Veterans Minister Alistair Carns highlighted that in a large-scale conflict, the British Army could be depleted within months, emphasising the importance of rapidly mobilising reserve forces despite current challenges with outdated records and insufficient numbers. These assessments have understandably led to public anxiety regarding the UK's defence capabilities. Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace resigned from his position on August 31, 2023, after serving four years in the role. In his resignation letter, Wallace emphasised the importance of continued investment in defence, warning against viewing it as a "discretionary spend" and highlighting the increasing instability in global security. All this talk of nuclear war can have a profound and far-reaching impact on the mental health of individuals and societies. The psychological effects stem from the fear of mass destruction, the unpredictability of such events, and the perceived helplessness in the face of existential threats. Discussions about nuclear war can trigger widespread anxiety, especially when accompanied by media coverage of escalating tensions or potential scenarios. The catastrophic nature of nuclear war, combined with its unpredictability, amplifies fear. This is particularly impactful on younger generations who feel uncertain about their future. The perceived inability to influence global nuclear policies or prevent war can lead to feelings of despair and hopelessness. Individuals may question the point of planning for a future they feel might be obliterated, leading to a decline in motivation and long-term planning. Graphic descriptions of nuclear consequences can lead to vicarious trauma, even among those who haven't directly experienced such events. Fear-driven discussions can lead to polarisation, with differing opinions on how to handle such threats causing societal rifts. Persistent worry about global instability can also strain personal relationships and family dynamics. Young people, especially those exposed to discussions about climate change and global instability, may find the topic of nuclear war overwhelming. Fear of global calamities can lead to distractions in schools and reduced academic performance. Anxiety about existential threats can impact workplace productivity and economic activity. Mental health systems may face greater strain as more people seek support for anxiety, depression, and related disorders. It would be good to see the media report on visible, active diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions and mitigate the likelihood of conflict. Addressing public anxiety about nuclear war requires not only clear communication about diplomatic measures but also robust mental health initiatives to build societal resilience in the face of global uncertainties.

Tony Wright CEO Forward Assist

A Brief Guide To The Stages of Grief

The process of bereavement is commonly understood through several stages, though it’s important to note that grief is highly individual, and people may not experience these stages in a linear or predictable way. The stages often referenced are based on the Kübler-Ross model and other psychological frameworks. Stage One. Denial: Numbness, disbelief, or denial about the loss. It may feel surreal, and the grieving person might struggle to accept the reality of what has happened. This stage helps the individual protect themselves from the immediate emotional impact and begin to process the loss gradually. Stage Two. Anger: Feelings of frustration, helplessness, and anger. This anger may be directed at the deceased, oneself, others, or even at higher powers or fate. Expressing anger is a natural way to release pent-up emotions and begin confronting the pain of the loss. Stage Three. Bargaining: Attempting to make deals or "bargains" to reverse or lessen the impact of the loss. This might involve "what if" thoughts or guilt over what might have been done differently. Bargaining can represent a way to regain a sense of control in a situation where one feels powerless. Stage Four. Depression: Deep sadness, withdrawal, hopelessness, and a profound sense of loss. This is often the most challenging stage, marked by emotional and sometimes physical symptoms of grief.This stage allows the person to fully confront and process the depth of the loss, which is a necessary step toward healing. Stage Five. Acceptance: Coming to terms with the loss and finding a way to move forward. Acceptance does not mean "getting over it" but rather integrating the loss into life in a way that allows for continued living and growth. This stage represents emotional adjustment and the beginning of a new chapter while still honoring the memory of the deceased. Grief is not a straightforward process. People may revisit earlier stages or experience several stages simultaneously. Different cultures, religious beliefs, and personal experiences influence how individuals experience and express grief. Understanding these stages can help in providing support to those in mourning or navigating one's own bereavement journey.