View Full Version : Armed forces above the law?
With regard to today's ruling concerning the woman soldier who won 6 of her suits for discrimination and several pending actions both within the civil courts and the courts martial is n't it about time the armed forces moved into the present century?
Whilst appreciating that discipline and obedience to orders has to be of paramount inportance cannot this be achieved without demeaning the individual whether a raw recruit or a serving member?
Surely the personnel should be treated with the same regard to law and liberties that any member of society has the right to expect.
Sorry "Chaps" but the day when the "Cherrybums" could be ordered to charge with no regard for life or limb have long past or have they?
Got a link?
No-one is forced to serve in the military - yet. So the fact that these service personnel bleat about their rights for this or that, then take the MOD to court is a bit rich.
There are soldiers who have fought in conflicts who are being treated shabbily by the Government over disability pensions and some female sues for discrimination because she gets pregnant and can't or won't do the job.....:mad:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4877190.stm The case from yesterday.
Now today evidence that may be in the national press tomorrow of a training officer who rode his bicyle over the head of a recruit that he considered to be overweight.
My point is that if these offences were committed by civilians they would not be tolerated and would be subject to investigation and prosecution through the courts, not swept under the carpet as appears to be the case with the military.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4877190.stm The case from yesterday.
Now today evidence that may be in the national press tomorrow of a training officer who rode his bicyle over the head of a recruit that he considered to be overweight.
My point is that if these offences were committed by civilians they would not be tolerated and would be subject to investigation and prosecution through the courts, not swept under the carpet as appears to be the case with the military.
Having served for a time in HM Forces, I'm afraid I'm with the Military.
WE were rough handled in training - but not humiliated.
When we were told jump - we jumped - and we all jumped together. WE relied on each other to watch our backs, and we were trained as a team, and wo betide you if you let the team down. It could cost somebody his life.
These days some of the active service zones are quite nasty - as were ours - but I don't think I could rely on the modern service personel as I did my comrades in arms. They might sue me for burning the beans, or hurting their vehicle when I recover it.
As a civilian you are bound by civilian law - as a member of HM Forces you are bound by Civil Law - and by Queens Regulation for which ever branch of the service you are serving with.
The Majority of HM Forces are good service personel - and they should not be classed with those that should not have been there in the first place.
There will always be people in all walks of life who become "Pissed with power".
Look at some of our politicians, councillors, foremen and women and others who know who they are.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4877190.stm The case from yesterday.
Now today evidence that may be in the national press tomorrow of a training officer who rode his bicyle over the head of a recruit that he considered to be overweight.
My point is that if these offences were committed by civilians they would not be tolerated and would be subject to investigation and prosecution through the courts, not swept under the carpet as appears to be the case with the military.
I'm glad that her claim for over half a million pounds was rejected - that is absolutely outrageous. See my remark earlier about service personnel not getting due compensation.
These "offences" are committed on a daily basis in industry and business - look how many tribunals have happened for harassment and bullying in the workplace!
Garage mechanics aren't allowed to have Pirelli calendars on the walls anymore, just in case someone complains of sexual harassment.
I was amazed to hear that prior to starting their recruits course, new entrants to the services are sent their boots to get them worn in so they don't get blisters!!! And the real reason? The feet of today's youths are never out of trainers. A few route marches and their feet will toughen up, but oh no, we can't have that can we?
Yes, there have been cases of actions by some twisted individuals which are deplorable, and picking on the weak and vulnerable is to be condemned.
But unfortunately, the "cherrybums" are still expected to charge to their deaths if expected - that is why they are soldiers. And part of the toughening process may seem cruel and tantamount to bullying, but when you are expected to live and even die under extreme conditions, being a "wet girls blouse" is not going to help you......
I'm glad that her claim for over half a million pounds was rejected - that is absolutely outrageous. See my remark earlier about service personnel not getting due compensation.
These "offences" are committed on a daily basis in industry and business - look how many tribunals have happened for harassment and bullying in the workplace!
Garage mechanics aren't allowed to have Pirelli calendars on the walls anymore, just in case someone complains of sexual harassment.
I was amazed to hear that prior to starting their recruits course, new entrants to the services are sent their boots to get them worn in so they don't get blisters!!! And the real reason? The feet of today's youths are never out of trainers. A few route marches and their feet will toughen up, but oh no, we can't have that can we?
Yes, there have been cases of actions by some twisted individuals which are deplorable, and picking on the weak and vulnerable is to be condemned.
But unfortunately, the "cherrybums" are still expected to charge to their deaths if expected - that is why they are soldiers. And part of the toughening process may seem cruel and tantamount to bullying, but when you are expected to live and even die under extreme conditions, being a "wet girls blouse" is not going to help you......
You are right about that - but I have seen some of those "wet blouses" excel undern fire.
Thank you for pointing that out JimH but what are the differences between the two? ( Civil law and Queen's Regulations)
I am not denegrating those who serve their country and would never do so, they have a hard task often in the most dangerous areas and usually do it extremely well.
My question is about attitudes and whilst political correctness is an anathema to me, I will call a spade a spade and not an implement for the purpose of lifting soil, it does concern me that the basic rights of the individual to be respected are being floughted.Bullying only makes for bullies, bigotry breeds on itself,racism is a curse on the planet and lack of understanding of one's fellow human is perhaps the worst trangression of the lot.
Thank you for pointing that out JimH but what are the differences between the two? ( Civil law and Queen's Regulations)
I am not denegrating those who serve their country and would never do so, they have a hard task often in the most dangerous areas and usually do it extremely well.
My question is about attitudes and whilst political correctness is an anathema to me, I will call a spade a spade and not an implement for the purpose of lifting soil, it does concern me that the basic rights of the individual to be respected are being floughted.Bullying only makes for bullies, bigotry breeds on itself,racism is a curse on the planet and lack of understanding of one's fellow human is perhaps the worst trangression of the lot.
Queens Regulations is purely for Service Personel, and punishment Starts at Jankers (CB) right up to The firing Squad.
Civil Law is for All citizens including Military personel.
THe bully is usually the guy cowering in the sanger under fire.
Got a link?
No-one is forced to serve in the military - yet. So the fact that these service personnel bleat about their rights for this or that, then take the MOD to court is a bit rich.
There are soldiers who have fought in conflicts who are being treated shabbily by the Government over disability pensions and some female sues for discrimination because she gets pregnant and can't or won't do the job.....:mad:
Some females do sue because of constant hazing, sexual references and inferences on their ability to do the job when they had always come top of the class.They might take it for as long as they can, but everyone has a breaking point.
In this specific case the "female" in question was on ACTIVE duty in Kosovo. Her "collegue" in arms in the next camp bed simulated an act of a sexual nature whilst groaning her name and in front of her and other "collegues". All in jest, I am sure you are thinking. What I am thinking is how this "female" felt having to work in an active situation along side people who belittled her in this way ( This was not the only situation....this was one of many situations)
Now, if this jest had been perpertrated by a man on a man, it would be unthinkable in the armed forces. Most people would also understand if the subject of the "joke" punched the jokers lights out. Yet the female is expected to take it. Double standards here.
Ju,
I asked for the link so I could read the item, which I did. But thanks for the summary.
"She made 43 allegations, spanning her 10-year service career beginning in September 1995.
An Employment Tribunal ruled she had proved 12 allegations and awarded compensation for six. The Ministry of Defence had contested the claims."
She put up with this behaviour for ten years, making 43 allegations? Out of the 43 the tribunal found in her favour over 12? One of which was involving clingfilm on a toilet? Schoolboy prank?
And before I get blasted, I am not defending the idiots who thought it funny to mock/belittle her - but to endure this for ten years? Good management from her superiors there....
And sharing a tent with seven male soldiers? Whose bright idea was that? But then females fight for equality and want 'front line jobs' but dislike the conditions that go with it.
I will stand by my remark that I'm glad she failed to get the half million plus.
I was brought up in a Mill Town when the cotton mills were going strong. Sexual harrassment was rife, ask any young lad straight out of school what would happen if he forgot his manners with the weavers.
With regard to the 'tent incident', had she had the slightest bit of gumption about her, a suitable scathing remark about habout his prowess would have put a stop to that immediately. Whilst the incident should not have occurred after ten years in the army I am amazed that she was unable to make that particular squaddy the laughing stock of the group.
I could understand her shock and distress had she been a shy young lass but after ten years in a mainly male environment I would have thought she would be well beyond that stage.
Clingfilm on the toilet? That's been done many times before without people resorting to Industrial Tribunals. It always strikes me that people, male or female, who go running to tribunals demanding 'telephone numbers' are not looking for fairness and justice but are just after a 'free ride' for the rest of their lives.
Does nobody know how to extract revenge any longer or have we become a Nation of thin-skinned cry-babies and sneaks?
Seems to me some of you are condoning sexual harrassment (and not just in the armed forces) just because it's always happened/a fact of life etc.
If she were to react to her 'colleagues' as some of you suggest, then she would be just as bad as them.
Good on her for sticking to the job for so long and having to put up with the neanderthals.
I don't think anyone condones harassment/bullying/discrimination - just that some of the cases in the past have made folk suspicious of the motives of the 'victim'.
I just find these awards for 'mental or emotional injuries' a disgrace when servicemen and women from the first Gulf War are fighting to get the Gulf War Syndrome acknowledged and proper compensation paid for their illnesses and the wrecking of their lives.
I think the restrictions now put on staff at training centres to mollycoddle recruits ("Sorry you're not allowed to shout at them anymore Sarge....") does not produce the best from the recruits. It affects their ability to go beyond their own limits under stressful situations. It might be seen by some as bullying, but it could also be seen as character building.
A recent example was the TV series "Lad's Army" and "Bad Lad's Army" where some of todays youths/young offenders were subjected to 4 weeks of 1950's National Service recruit training. No holds were barred, and the participants were 'beasted' in good old fashioned army ways. At the end, I think that 99% of those who took part felt it had made them better people, some even deciding to sign up for the real thing.
Some females do sue because of constant hazing, sexual references and inferences on their ability to do the job when they had always come top of the class.They might take it for as long as they can, but everyone has a breaking point.
In this specific case the "female" in question was on ACTIVE duty in Kosovo. Her "collegue" in arms in the next camp bed simulated an act of a sexual nature whilst groaning her name and in front of her and other "collegues". All in jest, I am sure you are thinking. What I am thinking is how this "female" felt having to work in an active situation along side people who belittled her in this way ( This was not the only situation....this was one of many situations)
Now, if this jest had been perpertrated by a man on a man, it would be unthinkable in the armed forces. Most people would also understand if the subject of the "joke" punched the jokers lights out. Yet the female is expected to take it. Double standards here.
I'm sorry - I still think that there is no place on the front line for Girls. If I was still in the forces (Thankfully I'm not) I'd be forever worrying about the girls getting hurt. That then becomes more dangerous for me. But that is the way the male of the species was originally programmed to act.
These days - I have'nt a clue. Have our values dropped so much?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.