@spanner1718 - I do not knock the intentions with which the charity was created. It's despicable that injured soldiers lack the support they need. However, as with any charity there is a line between pragmatism, doing what is currently needed, and perpetuating the conditions which require the charity and the charity's own existence.
Labeling soldiers heroes certainly helps the government defend their foreign policy decisions whilst at the same time Help for Heroes funds projects which the MOD should be paying for, but instead the MOD can spend more money on killing people.
If Help for Heroes wanted to do something good, it could firstly stop paying for new rehabilitation centers which the MOD should be funding and instead fund treatment where there are current shortages. Most importantly it should be lobbying the government to properly look after it's soldiers and let them know that voluntarism or charity is not there to pick up the pieces for a problem they have created. On top of this rather than blindly supporting all foreign policy by labeling soldiers Heroes, it could open up serious public debate on why we are sending soldiers abroad to get killed and injured.
Instead of this Help for Heroes is best pals with senior MOD and Army officials, as it saves them lots of money. Whilst at the same time perpetuating a distasteful British Imperialist "Keep calm and carry on", we used to rule the world through military might, with our glorious royal family myth. They will, however, continue to exist for a long time for many reasons: they appeal to fools, as they are a charity and they support injured soldiers (whilst ensuring there is a never ending supply of injured soldiers to help), they save the government lots of money, they have the support of the royals, they invoke blind patriotism, support of foreign policy and on top of all of this provide a great excuse for celebs to look good doing something for charity.