Should the army have to pay out up to £100k for a soldier who couldn't turn out because there was no-one to look after her child ?
Story HERE
Chat Forum
[closed]
Is this sexual and racial discrimination ?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I may be out of order here but I think not.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am guessing the Employment Tribunal may be better able to decide than anyone on here, not least having heard factual evidence etc...
Posted 2 years ago # -
To discipline her for not turning up to work is fine; to make a reference to the reason being because she is a single mother is not.
RachelPosted 2 years ago # -
is it not a fact that she's a single mother?
Posted 2 years ago # -
What the hell is this country coming too.!!
What next, sorry I can't go to war coz I'm having my hair done
or it's the wrong time of the month and I'm riding the cotton pony!Posted 2 years ago # -
I am guessing the Employment Tribunal may be better able to decide than anyone on here, not least having heard factual evidence etc...
Should be end of thread...
Posted 2 years ago # -
If only grum, if only...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Dino - it was funny when Gene Hunt said it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
No it wasn't.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Is there not a possibility that she may get as much as that, not for not turning up to work because her childcare didn't work but because of what happened after that. Seeing as we have no idea what happened after that (but someone thinks it is important enough for a tribunal) maybe we should just let them get on with it? Then get annoyed or approve of something that has actually happened, if we actually know anything about it...
EDIT- but to answer your question, no they shouldn't have to pay £100,000 for someone who didn't turn up for work, not sure if that was your point though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
no you two we need more insightful comments from
neanderthalinformed individuals like dino.
Heard it on radio and we [uk govt]also refused to let a relative of hers enter the country who would have been able to provide childcare.OP sex and race has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
Posted 2 years ago # -
OP sex and race has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
It was a case against the army brought on the grounds of sexual and racial discrimination. Are you stupid ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
As always the full story is unknown.
If it was a simple as
Person gets job, person continuously late for work due to personal issues - then yes that person should be told to sort themselves out else quit.
Immigration, sex, race or parental status should not come into it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Not even slightly racial or sexual. There are single dads in the army. It's a sad relection of our society that she won on these grounds.
Getting charged isn't at all uncommon even for some fairly moderate misdemeanors so £100K is completely disproportionate.
Personally I don't blame her for not leaving her child alone but no way should she get even a penny let alone £100K.Posted 2 years ago # -
The corporal missed work when her child was ill, and was late for parade, resulting in disciplinary action.
Seems fair enough, I'd expect that in my job.
Her commanding officer told Cpl Debique she was expected to be available for duty at any time.
Surely that is to be expected - "Sorry, we can't defend the country as the toddlers group doesn't start till 9am"
The MoD said Cpl Debique was offered an alternative job, but left.
So they tried to fit her in somewhere else where looking after her kid would be easier, which was quite good practice. (A child which she abandoned with relatives THEN decided when she was ALREADY in the Army to have her back - surely anyone would have checked childcare arrangements before doing this, or am I a bit dim?)
The tribunal criticised the Army for not helping to make childcare arrangements. The MoD says serving personnel who are parents are responsible for childcare arrangements so that they can fulfil all their Army duties.
Err, like any other job in the world!!
I know I'm only taking the short report from the BBC to see what happened but to me it sounds like she didn't really want to be in the army, and left when she thought she might get a big payout, milking it for every penny. I've seen it before in a manager who used to be in another job I had, and she openly admitted that's what she did.
Posted 2 years ago # -
OP sex and race has absolutely nothing to do with the story
You'd best phone the Tribunal members - it's clearly a mis-trial!
Posted 2 years ago # -
The MoD says serving personnel who are parents are responsible for childcare arrangements so that they can fulfil all their Army duties
so they feed, clothe and house them but if they have kids they're on their own ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
so they feed, clothe and house them but if they have kids they're on their own ?
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
There in the army, not working for local council!
Posted 2 years ago # -
SFB, where do you stop though? Parents, kids, grandparents, cousins - "Oh they all live with me so you have to sort them out too". The Army feed them (are you sure they pay for all food?, I don't know, sorry), clothe them (only the uniforms mind you) and house them (they have to be near/on a base and can move often so it makes sense) but why should they be responsible for the wider family?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know I'm only taking the short report from the BBC to see what happened but to me it sounds like she didn't really want to be in the army, and left when she thought she might get a big payout, milking it for every penny.
Lol. I imagine she also skins cats for fun, and loves Gary Glitter and has pet spiders - that's the impression I got from the article.
Posted 2 years ago # -
that's the impression I got from the article.
I think a more correct assessment would be 'that's what I read into the article' !
Posted 2 years ago # -
Woody - Member
that's the impression I got from the article.
I think a more correct assessment would be 'that's what I read into the article' !
More like "these are what my deep-seated beliefs are, which I will read into whatever I like."Posted 2 years ago # -
Woody - Member
OP sex and race has absolutely nothing to do with the story.
It was a case against the army brought on the grounds of sexual and racial discrimination. Are you stupid?
Apparently on this issue I very much am.
I never heard that bit mentioned on the raido and have just read the link. I assumed it was just an unfair dismisal claim
Posted 2 years ago # -
SFB, where do you stop though?
give it up as a bad job - why do we need an army ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Junkyard, it is easy to miss when you read the link, it is tucked away in the first paragraph, the one in bold type
EDIT- don't worry though, there is an awful lot of assuming going on, this is the internet!Posted 2 years ago # -
Assumption is always a problem without a full report. The fact that she won the case would indicate there is a great deal more than the BBC were able to report in a few paragraphs.
Disregarding the final payout amount (£100k is much more emotive from a journalistic viewpoint than what may be the final figure), some areas on which the payout amount will be based are interesting eg. injury to feelings and aggravated damages. I would love to know how that is assessed as she is already getting compensation for loss of earnings, presumably past and? future.
Posted 2 years ago # -
In a nut shell: If you're a soldier you should be deployable. Whenever, wherever, however - thats the nature of the job. If you cant do it then you are in the wrong line of work.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oi RepacK! - you can't go around making statements like that and using common sense. The army is clearly remiss in not having creche facilities in all operational areas.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm sure Political correctness will come before common sense.
Remember the case of the RAF worker with RSI who 'won' £400,000?
Posted 2 years ago # -
so they feed, clothe and house them but if they have kids they're on their own ?
Erm, slightly odd conclusion to draw there. It's more like they're feeding, clothing and housing them and they're fine with them having children providing it doesn't interfere with what they are paid to do. Sounds pretty fair to me. If they're discriminating because she's a single parent, it's not ideal, but if they're punishing because single parent proved incapable of juggling work and life then they're perfectly justified.
Posted 2 years ago # -
hora - Member
I'm sure Political correctness will come before common sense.What, a bit like your opinions?
why do we need an army ?
I'd say for national defence, protect our own borders from the hordes of foreign invaders just waiting to come and rape and pillage, and to be a back-up if the Fire Brigade go on strike.
Can't see a great deal of point in having much more than that, though, I must say...
Posted 2 years ago # -
bit odd this one, as a bleeding heart liberal, married to a grumpy feminist, I think this is neither sexual nor racial discrimination. The army have been a bit harsh, but to be fair, thats the army for you! If the Army lifestyle does not fit your needs and desires, then the army is not for you. If childcare is an issue, then solve it yourself or leave. certainly don't see how this is racism, and as for sexism, does the fact she's a woman make a difference? If a man had caring responsibilities that he could not meet because of his job, he would have to choose which of those responsibilities was the most important to him. Given that her child was cared for in a different country and she mannaged to serve this one addequately, clearly she chose her job. Now that hasn't worked out, I'm sorry, but its a hard life.
My colleagues pay a fortune to childminders and baby sitters, so that they can work the weekends and nights required by my job. that is a sacrifice they chose to make.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So no more humanitarian missions? No help for those in the shit/suffering persecution/being murdered and having their arms chopped off? (Bosnia, Sierra Leone etc etc etc).
Can we cut the UK aid to abroad as well then?Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd say for national defence, protect our own borders from the hordes of foreign invaders just waiting to come and rape and pillage
unless you're talking about Scottish people I'd just like to point out we're protected by a large moat...
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
