MOD to pay for soldier being late on parade

[Saint Mikey]

If it wasn't for the Army you would be a German...

 

I love this quote. We are ALL pretty much German. Have a look and see where the Angles and Saxons came from...

[sunrise]

IF it is true that's she after a sum up to £1.1 million and she does get it, then that would truly extract the urine. It would be a total insult to our boys who have served on the front line and have suffered severe injures as a result, which have be compensated peanuts in comparison.

 

If there was any common sense then she wouldn't get a single penny, she knew exactly what she signed up for.

[ottery st mary]

Duncan Bannatyne was a stroppy little sailor in the RN and certainly couldn't and wouldn't take orders......Ended up striking/pushing an Officer overboard.. Served time in Colchester glasshouse...

 

Last I heard he was messing about with ice cream vans, old peeps homes and fitness centres....

 

Then he started poncing around with other dragons in the Den.....Not two pennies to rub together..

 

 

IF only he had some sort of discipline...could have gone a long way.....

[Wilko]

Duncan Bannatyne was a stroppy little sailor in the RN and certainly couldn't and wouldn't take orders......Ended up striking/pushing an Officer overboard.. Served time in Colchester glasshouse...

 

Last I heard he was messing about with ice cream vans, old peeps homes and fitness centres....

 

Then he started poncing around with other dragons in the Den.....Not two pennies to rub together..

 

 

IF only he had some sort of discipline...could have gone a long way.....

 

Indeed. I wish for his sake that he knew how to be a drone who blindly follows orders.

[Justin C]

not for anyone else..?

 

Not so much so. Many people in the Navy and RAF (plus some army) will never go outside the wire. Lets be honest the basic infantry soldier is not that switched on ( I know some are very clever), so my point is in order to get some people to learn, the best way to teach them is not to shout and kick them. Today's average recruit is more swithed on than 15 yrs ago. So in order to teach them what they need there are many methods to teach sailors, soldiers and airman what they need to survive during war. I agree that during Ops and exercises then you speak to people in any way to get the job done. But people who say the good old days are best are far from the truth as the world has changed. You cant just bully people today even if they have signed up. I very much agree that you have to go where you are sent. But hey I am sure in 20 yrs time I will say my way is best when they have moved on.

[Thedelldays]

I know it is the mail...but ffs

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266069/Now-single-mother-sort-childcare-demands-1-1m--seven-times-Army-offered-hero-lost-legs.html

on another note...looking at her, I wonder if she ever passed a fitness test...the heffer

[miserableoldgit]

Indeed. I wish for his sake that he knew how to be a drone who blindly follows orders.

I do hope that this remark is tic.

[Thedelldays]

Indeed. I wish for his sake that he knew how to be a drone who blindly follows orders.

why do you think people in the forces are beneath you..?

 

you have had a few pops on here about the forces

 

please, tell us of your experience serving..

thanks

[Micky]

Not so much so. Many people in the Navy and RAF (plus some army) will never go outside the wire. Lets be honest the basic infantry soldier is not that switched on ( I know some are very clever), so my point is in order to get some people to learn, the best way to teach them is not to shout and kick them. Today's average recruit is more swithed on than 15 yrs ago. So in order to teach them what they need there are many methods to teach sailors, soldiers and airman what they need to survive during war. I agree that during Ops and exercises then you speak to people in any way to get the job done. But people who say the good old days are best are far from the truth as the world has changed. You cant just bully people today even if they have signed up. I very much agree that you have to go where you are sent. But hey I am sure in 20 yrs time I will say my way is best when they have moved on.

 

Sorry Justin - but I just disagree. I understand what you are saying about differing intelligence levels, however, this is to do with basic military discipline. I take your point about the infantry as well, they will be 'outside the wire' whilst this lady would probably not. However, she has to support those guys outside the wire - that is her job.

 

I actually served in the same corps as the lady in question, I still work with them today, and yes they are a technical based corps. But our job is to make sure that those guys on the ground have the means to talk. Sounds basic, but it's not - generally speaking those infantry guys will be asking for ammo resupply, air support, casualty evacuation, bomb disposal; all manner of things - therefore the services that we provide have to work.

 

When they don't work, we call for a Royal Signals technician to fix the problem, which is the trade that this woman was - unfortunately she was unable to do this because she was at home with the baby.

 

As others on here have stated (Stu in particular), phase 1 training (basic) is there to teach somebody how to be a soldier, how to accept discipline without question, how to survive in the sh yte pit. Every single soldier needs to understand how this fits in with their role in HM Forces.

 

Phase 2 training (which I think you are alluding to) is where she has a chance to demonstrate her technical competence in a more relaxed, but ultimately a military, environment, and where different levels of intellect are needed dependant on the job role.

 

They are 2 distinct areas of military training, and yes they do differ widley. However, at the end of the day both of these training phases are designed for one purpose, to train soldiers for their war role.

 

If this woman gets any compensation at all it sets a very dangerous precedent for all single soldiers with dependants in the Army.

Edited 16 April, 2010 by Micky

[benjii]

If this woman gets any compensation at all it sets a very dangerous precedent for all single soldiers with dependants in the Army.

 

Well actually it doesn't at all as Employment Tribunals are not binding on each other.

 

The Employment Appeals Tribunal is binding though so it would be interesting to see if this is appealed.

[Viking Warrior]

Sorry to correct you Benjii

 

Well actually it doesn't at all as Employment Tribunals are not binding on each other.

 

The Employment Appeals Tribunal is binding though so it would be interesting to see if this is appealed.

 

People can appeal to the EAT if they feel or can prove the ET has erred in law. If they have the normally a case will be referred back to an ET to redo the case and to consider their rulings.

 

The EAT can allow the defendent or plaintiff to appeal to the Courts of Appeal. Now thats where judgement can be changed but I suspect the COA will allow an appeal to the supreme court (Formely House of Lords.) and then if necessay to European Court of Justice and they normal find in favour of the alledged victimSo basically benjii the EAT ruling is not binding only if the ET has erred inlaw and then it is remitted back to them

[Micky]

Well actually it doesn't at all as Employment Tribunals are not binding on each other.

 

The Employment Appeals Tribunal is binding though so it would be interesting to see if this is appealed.

 

Yeah, I understand Benjii, but the point that I was trying to make is that it opens the way for all such soldiers to challenge the MOD as she has done, and thus effectively take advantage of the militarys (somewhat robust and unswerving) system.

[Gingeletiss]

She got £17.000, even that is to much, she should get nothing:mad:

[Micky]

£17k, given what she asked for I guess that this is some kind of result for the 'common sense party' at last, but it is still £17k too much given the circumstances.

[Wilko]

I do hope that this remark is tic.

 

I'm merely stimulating debate. Many people think that to question the actions of the armed forces and those who serve in them is unacceptable, I disagree.

 

Is it not the case that those serving are asked to follow orders, without question, by those positioned above them in the strict hierarchy? Perhaps the choice of the phrase 'drone' was unfortunate and I apologise for any offence that has caused. However, sometimes it is easier to use extremes to prove a point and I'm sure most people on here have been guilty of it at some point.

 

I'm sure that the point about following orders is true in most jobs, to some extent. But to an outsider, it seems that in the services the consequences for both following them and disobeying them are far graver.

 

why do you think people in the forces are beneath you..?

 

This is not the case. A close friend of mine serves in the marines. He recently returned from Iraq, his first tour. I regard him as highly as I do the rest of my friends.

 

you have had a few pops on here about the forces

 

I don't remember having 'pops'. I remember asking questions of the likes of you and Stu, when you make postings about the services. Your answers have usually been pretty good, and informative. The one about the scale of the navy's role in protecting trade was particularly illuminating.

 

please, tell us of your experience serving..

thanks

 

None.

[Micky]

Wilko, I would tend to disagree about the 'graveness of punishment'. To an outsider I can appreciate that the military justice system may seem old, antiquated and behind the times, however - you have to remember it's purpose.

 

What you should also be aware of as well is that formal disciplinary measures are not normally taken for minor, first and sometime second offences - it is repeat offences that are dealt with. Some punishments are there almost for effect, to preserve history even. Being double marched off the square and locked away for the day for a shoddy turnout is really just a stark reminder of the standards that have to be maintained. Nothing further comes of it.

 

I would suggest that in the case of this particular young lady there was 'history', and people were losing patience.

 

What you should remember though is that many of the 'crimes' that are dealt with by the seniors in the unit would probably be dealt with in civilian companies by sacking the person concerned. Lose your job and be on the dole or do 5 days nick, or 3 days ROP's or fined £250 quid and carry on - actually now looking at it, it appears a much better system than that in civilian street.

 

The military system is not perfect, people do abuse it, bullying happens - but when it is implemented sensibly it, I believe, is fair.

[Micky]

Sorry to drag this one back up again, but was watching this last night:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rqfx0/Girls_on_the_Frontline/

 

For anybody who doubted the value of having women working alongside men on operations, you can clearly see that there is a place for it. The woman featured show just how professional they are in conducting their job role in some of the most hostile conditions many of us will ever see, let alone witness.

 

These women (and men) are the reason why Tilern DeBique should have recieved nothing - this is the environment in which she was trained, and paid, to do her job - she didn't.

 

Good documentary all the same - well done to all of the men and women featured - true heroes.

[Viking Warrior]

The following was written by a female makes interesting reading

 

Instead of throwing out this allegation, an employment tribunal ruled in her favour. Ms DeBique is in line for a payout of at least £ 100,000 (while aiming for £ 500,000) for loss of earnings, aggravated damages and hurt feelings.

 

As a former major in the Royal Signals, I am outraged. The case makes a mockery of the essential concepts of duty and self- sacrifice, which our Armed Forces depend on.

 

FRANKLY, the members of the tribunal are trying to apply the trendy, ultra-feminised values of a place like Islington Council to the unique environment of the British Army.

 

Such an absurd approach can only damage our fighting capability. I do not write that as someone opposed to the progress of women in the Armed Forces. Having been in the Royal Signals for two decades and being the first woman to command a virtually all-male regular field force unit, I am delighted at the advances made by my sex.

 

When I first joined at the age of 19, no mother was allowed to serve and any woman who fell pregnant had to leave within three months. I was only able to start a family myself once I had left the Army.

 

After completing the 20 years of service that entitled me to an Army pension, I had enough security to embark on a pregnancy and end my military career.

 

Throughout my time in the services, I fought battles against traditionalist prejudice. On one occasion, I was barred from taking a language course, as my commanders said it would be a waste of money, as I would probably soon want to have children and leave.

 

But, by giving a firm commitment to remain in the Army for at least five years, I persuaded them to change their minds.

 

So, I like to see myself as one of the trailblazers for women in the armed services. No doubt that is how the politically correct brigade would see Ms DeBique’s case, but the opposite is true.

 

The tribunal decision has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with special treatment. It implies the Army should accommodate every mother, no matter how expensive or unreasonable the demands.

 

In this case, the Royal Signals was even expected to arrange for Ms DeBique’s half-sister to be brought halfway across the world to provide childcare.

 

The real tragedy of all this, however, is that this woman’s claims damaged the standing of many decent women soldiers, who know that in military circumstances duty to country and regiment must take precedence over individual rights.

 

Any payout for Ms DeBique will cause Army recruiters to hesitate before taking on more young women, precisely because they could be seen as a potential cause of trouble and unable to do their jobs properly.

 

I am in favour of fair treatment for women in the military, but the drive for absolute equality is hopelessly ill-conceived.