Just because it can be done doesnt mean it should be done, the army made a mistake recruiting such a person and then instead of dealing with it made it even worse.
It does have a track record of similar cock ups, sigs being admin discharged as their children are severely disabled but Majors not even appearing on the radar for the same issue!

Originally Posted by cupoftea

The key word is discretionary Stacker, all officials of a certain level have these powers. It means they can make their own minds up on cases outside of normal rules or framework.

Dear Immigration Official,

It is my duty under the provision allowing all serving personnel blah blah blah right to have immediate family provide care blah blah to write in support of Miss Carertobe's application. Miss Carertobe is the sister of Miss DeBique. Notwithstanding all the other factors in your consideration, if Miss Carertobe is granted leave to stay as a carer it would allow Miss DeBique and her unit to maintain proper operational effectiveness.

If despite this you ultimately find that it is not possible to grant ILR to Miss Carertobe I am afraid that I shall have to begin the process of discharging Miss DeBique for she cannot carry out her duties satisfactorily without adequate arrangement for care.

Yours faithfully,

OC

Or something like that.

Ya see?

Or even

Dear Immigration official

Some bird who could be anything from a drug dealer to a porn queen, who I have never met or spoke to wants to come into the UK to look after her half sister's brat. I cannot give you any guarantee that she will have any employment once she's in the country as we have no control over who her half sister hires. I also cannot even guarantee her child minding skills.

If you decide you are not going to let in some random person into the country on this very flimsy excuse Miss DeBique might have to get of her considerably fat arse and sort out child care arrangments like lots of other single parents (or married personel where both parents have jobs)who don't rely on their extended family.

Yours faithfully

OC.

Can wait to see the welfare officers faces once they have been told they are now going to have to write to immigration officals every time a commonwealth soldier with kids wants a relative to come into the country.

Originally Posted by stacker1

Originally Posted by cupoftea

The key word is discretionary Stacker, all officials of a certain level have these powers. It means they can make their own minds up on cases outside of normal rules or framework.

Dear Immigration Official,

It is my duty under the provision allowing all serving personnel blah blah blah right to have immediate family provide care blah blah to write in support of Miss Carertobe's application. Miss Carertobe is the sister of Miss DeBique. Notwithstanding all the other factors in your consideration, if Miss Carertobe is granted leave to stay as a carer it would allow Miss DeBique and her unit to maintain proper operational effectiveness.

If despite this you ultimately find that it is not possible to grant ILR to Miss Carertobe I am afraid that I shall have to begin the process of discharging Miss DeBique for she cannot carry out her duties satisfactorily without adequate arrangement for care.

Yours faithfully,

OC

Or something like that.

Ya see?

Or even

Dear Immigration official

Some bird who could be anything from a drug dealer to a porn queen, who I have never met or spoke to wants to come into the UK to look after her half sister's brat. I cannot give you any guarantee that she will have any employment once she's in the country as we have no control over who her half sister hires. I also cannot even guarantee her child minding skills.

If you decide you are not going to let in some random person into the country on this very flimsy excuse Miss DeBique might have to get of her considerably fat arse and sort out child care arrangments like lots of other single parents (or married personel where both parents have jobs)who don't rely on their extended family.

Yours faithfully

OC.

Can wait to see the welfare officers faces once they have been told they are now going to have to write to immigration officals every time a commonwealth soldier with kids wants a relative to come into the country.

Which is more or less what the original text said, but in bureauspeak. It shouldn't be beyond the ken of the welfare officer to write a nudge nudge wink wink letter whilst covering himself (and the army) properly. Piece of piss in fact.

That it got this far shows that the formation's admin guard dogs were fast asleep.

Originally Posted by hackle

I think the MOD did argue at the Tribunal that refusal of leave to remain for the half-sister was not an action of the employer, but the Tribunal took the view that ultimately the employer and the Home Office/Immigration Directorate were one and the same, as coming under the Crown.

In which case I hope these other departments pay a share of any compensation payout so it doesn't all come from the MoD budget.

[/quote]
100% agree, we had a LCpl whose wife left him and their child and ran off with a friend in the UDR, he was given a stores job in camp unil it was sorted. That bladder in a cam net however is the reason we shouldnt be recruiting single parents with commitments.In fact there was a time that married men were frowned upon as recruits. I only recall one in the 1980's and he admitted that trg coy and first posting was extreemly difficult due to seperation!
The army then couldnt cope well with marrying whilst serving so why the rush to have single parents?[/quote]

My bold. She wasn't a single parent when she was recruited; she became one 3 years in.

On a lighter note, she is curerntly living in penury with "a friend" as she couldn't afford to keep up her £80 a week rent in civvy street! Lets hope the compensation takes as long to hit her account as my substitution pay did. :D

Originally Posted by ugly

Originally Posted by Zapped

Personally, I had to pay for my own childcare, I had to marry her and it cost me the earth!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...childcare.html

100% agree, we had a LCpl whose wife left him and their child and ran off with a friend in the UDR, he was given a stores job in camp unil it was sorted. That bladder in a cam net however is the reason we shouldnt be recruiting single parents with commitments.
In fact there was a time that married men were frowned upon as recruits. I only recall one in the 1980's and he admitted that trg coy and first posting was extreemly difficult due to seperation!
The army then couldnt cope well with marrying whilst serving so why the rush to have single parents?

She's neither been married or was recruited with a child.

According to the media:

1991/2000 - Recruited in St Vincent
2001 - Joins 10 Sig Regt
2006 ? - Child was born (Reported as being 4 yrs old)
2006 Sep - Child brought to the UK
2007 Jan - Disciplinary proceedings begin
2008 - Leaves British Army

Just worth bringing some clarity regarding her and the childs status.

It seems the old way was the best when will it end

The Army does provide child care.

AFC Harrogate.


(ducks)

Seriously though, both Mrs Roadki11 and myself have very good jobs (me private sector/her nhs) and we have to sort out our own childcare.


Unless it is part of your contract of employment, YOUR EMPLOYER DOESN'T OWE YOU A DAMN THING!

Originally Posted by Fat_Cav

She's neither been married or was recruited with a child.

According to the media:

1991/2000 - Recruited in St Vincent
2001 - Joins 10 Sig Regt
2006 ? - Child was born (Reported as being 4 yrs old)
2006 Sep - Child brought to the UK
2007 Jan - Disciplinary proceedings begin
2008 - Leaves British Army

Just worth bringing some clarity regarding her and the childs status.

This is something that has been bugging me. She had been in for several years before having the sprog, so surely she would have realised what commitments Army life entails? Exercises, courses etc.

With also the 'new' evidence coming to light that, even though she initially claimed she had no help form the Army, she was offered a posting to Blandford with childcare facilities that would have enabled her to carry on her duties as normal and she chose not to take it and sign off instead. The fact that she claimed that she couldn't arrange childcare for her kid yet applied for several jobs in Afghan which would have meant many months away from home and due to the fact that she was excused all weekend duties and evenings, sure the Tribunal should take one look at this fat waste of skin and tell her to wind her neck in, sort her life out and get a job because the taxpayer isn't giving you fuck all compo!

Originally Posted by Gym-Princess

Originally Posted by Fat_Cav

She's neither been married or was recruited with a child.

According to the media:

1991/2000 - Recruited in St Vincent
2001 - Joins 10 Sig Regt
2006 ? - Child was born (Reported as being 4 yrs old)
2006 Sep - Child brought to the UK
2007 Jan - Disciplinary proceedings begin
2008 - Leaves British Army

Just worth bringing some clarity regarding her and the childs status.

This is something that has been bugging me. She had been in for several years before having the sprog, so surely she would have realised what commitments Army life entails? Exercises, courses etc.

With also the 'new' evidence coming to light that, even though she initially claimed she had no help form the Army, she was offered a posting to Blandford with childcare facilities that would have enabled her to carry on her duties as normal and she chose not to take it and sign off instead. The fact that she claimed that she couldn't arrange childcare for her kid yet applied for several jobs in Afghan which would have meant many months away from home and due to the fact that she was excused all weekend duties and evenings, sure the Tribunal should take one look at this fat waste of skin and tell her to wind her neck in, sort her life out and get a job because the taxpayer isn't giving you fuck all compo!

Point is, as much as ARRSEr's, the general public and probably the Tribunal think she was given several opportunities to sort her self out and offer her treatment preferential to her predicament; she won because she (or her solicitors) found a loophole in the laws in which they exploited. It's not right, it's just life.

Thompsons Solicitors (not mentioned as representing her but probably did) offer this about the case: Source

Tribunal decision

The tribunal said that the MOD had applied a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that required her to be available for duty 24/7. Taking all male and female soldiers in the British Army as the effective pool, it said that women were particularly disadvantaged because they were more likely than men to be single parents with primary childcare responsibility. This constituted indirect discrimination under the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act.

Viewed in isolation, however, it said that the 24/7 PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Given that the army needed to be in a state of readiness at all times, this PCP was necessary to ensure combat effectiveness.

It then went on to say that viewing the 24/7 PCP in isolation failed to reflect Ms Debique’s “particular disadvantage” which also included indirect discrimination under the 1976 Race Relations Act. This was because of the “immigration PCP” (which could have been relaxed) barring foreign and commonwealth soldiers from taking advantage of a policy that allowed relations to live with them to help with childcare. This put soldiers of Vincentian national origin at a particular disadvantage when compared with those of British national origin.

Taking the two PCPs together, the tribunal concluded that Ms Debique had been put at a particular disadvantage because she was a 24/7 female soldier with a child; and a woman of Vincentian national origin, for whom childcare assistance from a live-in Vincentian relative was not permitted. If either of the PCPs had been relaxed, the disadvantage would have disappeared, but taken together it did not.

EAT decision

The EAT agreed with the tribunal. It said that although the immigration rules emanated from another Government department, the RRA applied to any acts done under the Crown. For this purpose, the Home Office and the MOD constituted the same legal entity, and as a serving soldier, Ms Debique was in the service of the Crown, by whom the PCP was applied. She just had to show that the Army (i.e. the Crown) had committed an act of discrimination against her, which she had done.

It also agreed that the tribunal had been entitled to consider the combined effects of the PCPs on Ms Debique, not least because discrimination is a “multi-faceted experience” that “cannot always be sensibly compartmentalised into discrete categories”.

When it comes to the law, it's very much an either-or scenario.