Originally Posted by bigbird67

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Originally Posted by bigbird67

I'm sorry, but if they'd pulled strings to get her sister into the country, it sets a precedence for everyone else to do it! What if she'd got her over here and left the army anyway??

There's no need to 'pull strings' - there's merely a need to facilitate the legal process through the Immigration Service. That would, perhaps, have been sufficient to demonstrate sufficient 'duty of care'.

So why could she not pay for childcare like every other single working mother has to??

She probably could - and should.

The ET is saying, however, that she was entitled to be treated as a non-F & C soldier - ie to be given the opportunity to have her family provide the childcare. Once/if this had been ruled out, by the Immigration Service (or similar), then the ball would have been firmly back in this soldier's court. If she was subsequently unable/unwilling to fund/seek care elsewhere, then an admin discharge would have been appropriate - with limited chances of success at a subsequent ET.

It seems increasingly that the welfare state in its entirety is impinging on the Army's raison d'etre.

Originally Posted by CAARPS

A soldier should be deployable or f*ck Off

Does that include all soldiers?

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Originally Posted by CAARPS

A soldier should be deployable or f*ck Off

Does that include all soldiers?

I would say, those fit enough, ie grade one, yes, those injured or disabled by war, no.

But then you are just clutching at shite to try and prove a non point arent you?

Do we know what her actual job role is yet?


Also, define "soldier"

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Originally Posted by CAARPS

A soldier should be deployable or f*ck Off

Does that include all soldiers?

Yep

Those medical non-deployable attributable to military service should be given an appropriate pension and resettlement package.

Those medical non-deployable non-attributable to military service should be given an appropriate amount of time to get fit or be discharged with an appropriate resettlement package.

Not rocket science we are a deployable organisation not a welfare service

Oh and those who decide they can’t deploy due to welfare circumstances should be reminded of their Terms and Conditions of service, if they still refuse to deploy they should be given the appropriate resettlement package and f*ck Off

I think this could do with a bit more fuel

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext...soldier-on.htm

My boss is allowed to bring a labrador into work, so why can't I bring my son in? He's toilet trained and everything.

Originally Posted by PoisonDwarf

My boss is allowed to bring a labrador into work, so why can't I bring my son in? He's toilet trained and everything.

Can he "fetch"? If not you need to train your son a bit more (those beers aint gonna fetch themselves from the fridge you know).

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

The ET is saying, however, that she was entitled to be treated as a non-F & C soldier - ie to be given the opportunity to have her family provide the childcare. Once/if this had been ruled out, by the Immigration Service (or similar), then the ball would have been firmly back in this soldier's court. If she was subsequently unable/unwilling to fund/seek care elsewhere, then an admin discharge would have been appropriate - with limited chances of success at a subsequent ET.

Are British single parent soldiers given extra help to bring a foriegner into the country to look after their brats? Just another rip off merchant playing a number of discrimination cards.