Any thoughts

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by The_grand_dad, Sep 10, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. [Any thoughts????]

    AN Army pensions scandal revealed by the Daily Mirror yesterday should be investigated MPs have demanded.

    The MoD's secretive Manning Control policy has seen up to £1billion of benefits and wages "stolen" from soldiers.

    Troops were tricked or bullied into signing themselves out of the Army early so they wouldn't qualify for the pension, losing up to £235,000, they claim.

    Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch yesterday called for an inquiry.

    He said: "From their testimonies, British people who were prepared to die for their country appear to have been treated abominably."

    So far 205 ex-soldiers are suing the Government.

    The MoD, which has suspended the cost-cutting scheme, said any bullying would be investigated. :oops:

    [/b]
     
  2. The MOD said what? They knew all along what was going on. It would have had to have been them who instigated it, so any investigation will be tainted. Just look at how many of them are currently running for cover in respect of the Kelly enquiry. Who will conduct the investigation? The MOD perhaps? If Hoon gets the sack over the Gulf/Kelly issues, then they'll quickly pin the blame on him.

    This is a Labour Government..........run with the pack, or be hunted by it.

    As for the MOD itself, I personally have no faith or trust in that organisation and never will have. Not as long as there is a large number of 'Yes' men and civil servants employed therein.

    We can whine about this treatment all we like, but it isn't going to change a thing. Don't think Joe Civvy gives a shit either. As far as he's concerned, the less you get, the more that's available to him.

    Labour ? Vote the F*CKERS out next time around.
     
  3. well thats a thought Ma :D
     
  4. This has been appearing in the news on and off for a couple of years now and the silence from MoD has been deafening. But let's go a bit further. Who exactly "bullied" these soldiers into signing up to the S-type (I think it was called)?

    Step forward the Chain of Command. What sort of Officer gets his boys to sign away pension rights.

    Don't say "we didn't know" because that is even worse-getting them to sign for something that is unknown.
     
  5. Well said flash,the thing is its time the MOD came clean with everything its covering up.

    Theres no-more hiding places in Whitehall anymore,the MOD just cant get away with there dirty tricks.
    And as with the chain of comand there just Whitehall Muppets
     
  6. All the previous governments have done it as well! I left in '88, services no longer required.. nice term isn't it? I was just short of the 15 year point, so got the 12 year gratuity! ( nreason to old to retrade!) couple of months later a few of my mates got given redundancy and 10 times the payout i got..and their pension.
    There will always be ways and means of discarding those that are not wanted..,

    I have no facts to back this up so just my POV.. how many civil servants working for the MOD have as much to fear of their pension?
     
  7. Hoons going to take the blame???? i guess
     
  8. Looks like the heat is being turned up on this subject again, just found these on the parlim web site today. Typical though looks the last two will be a way for the likes of Hoon & co to pass the buck :roll:

    70
    Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many soldiers subject to Manning Control review have been (a) discharged and (b) re-engaged in the last 12 months.
    (130003)

    71
    Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether soldiers in Army units are being warned that they could be subject to Manning Control review after (a) nine and (b) 12 years.
    (130004)

    72
    Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans there are to allow soldiers who were subject to Manning Control and then changed to S/Type contract, to sign back onto the open engagement.
    (130005)

    73
    Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many soldiers who were subject to Manning Control and were discharged or signed on to the S/Type contract and subsequently discharged since 1994 have been called up for service in UK operational deployments in the last seven years.
    (130006)

    74
    Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many soldiers since 1997 who were subject to Manning Control (a) submitted a redress to the army board and were still dismissed and (b) had their redress rejected by the board, but were retained.
    (130007)

    75
    Mr Paul Keetch (Hereford): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many soldiers subject to Manning Control have made official complaints of harrassment and bullying of them or their family during the MCP process in the last six years; and what steps are used to punish individuals who are proven to have bullied or harassed soldiers.
     
  9. It's not often I can say this, but I am in genuinely new territory here. I am actually impressed by a politician.

    Not only has Mr Keetch shown concern for current and former soldiers, his questions would seem to leave Sec Def and MOD with no space to manouvere, assuming of course that they even bother to a - answer and b - use answers involving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I feel this is extremely unlikely, given the MOD's previous on this sort of thing and the current governments well documented behaviour re integrity etc.

    It is to be hoped Mr Keetch is successful in nailing a lot of senior civil servant hides to the mast with this one. If I was a CO who had been a part of this though, I would be very worried.....I can see fingers in MOD pointing to such CO's and saying 'it wasn't me guv, it woz 'im wot did it!' Don't say I didn't warn you!
     
  10. What do people think of this ?

    The Para who refused to toe the line
    (Filed: 23/06/2003)


    Cpl Paul Biddiss, 34, a paratrooper from Brize Norton, Oxon, was told in November 1999 that he would be manning controlled, but refused to sign off his old contract and is still a serving soldier.

    His unit was due to go to Northern Ireland. He was to be allowed to stay at home because his wife was going through a difficult pregnancy. But when he refused to sign the manning control forms he was ordered to go.

    His wife Deborah gave birth to their son Chandler two months prematurely and the child was very weak. She found it hard to cope with a sick baby while taking her other children to school.

    While Cpl Biddiss was away, Chandler contracted pneumococcal meningitis and septicaemia, but his CO refused to allow him to go home unless he agreed to be manning controlled.

    By the time he was allowed home, his son had cerebral palsy and epilepsy and was blind. Chandler, three, faces operations and will always be severely disabled.
     
  11. Manning Control Review

    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to Manning Control review have been (a) discharged and (b) re-engaged in the last 12 months. [130003]

    Mr. Caplin: No individuals have been discharged under Queens Regulations for the Army paragraph 9.413, 'Not required for a full Army career', in the last 12 months.

    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether soldiers in Army units are being warned that they could be subject to Manning Control review after (a) nine and (b) 12 years. [130004]

    Mr. Caplin: Each potential soldier, and the parent or guardian of a recruit under the age of 18, is given a copy of the Notice Paper, a statutory document which gives details of the soldier's Terms of Service. Within this paper it states that a soldier's future employability will be reviewed after six, nine and 12 years' Colour service and he or she may be discharged if their service is no longer required.

    Additionally, soldiers being considered for discharge by Manning Control points are sent a letter up to 18 months beforehand. They are asked to sign a certificate to agree that they have been warned about this.

    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to allow soldiers who were subject to Manning Control and then changed to S/Type contract, to sign back onto the open engagement. [130005]

    Mr. Caplin: There are no plans to allow soldiers who were subject to Manning Control Point discharge, and subsequently employed on a Short Service Type S Engagement, to be engaged on the Open Engagement.


    16 Sept 2003 : Column 708W


    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who were subject to Manning Control and were discharged or signed on to the S/Type contract and subsequently discharged since 1994 have been called up for service in UK operational deployments in the last seven years. [130006]

    Mr. Caplin: Twelve individuals who had been subject to Manning Control since 1994 and then were discharged under Queen's Regulations for the Army 1975 Paragraph 9.413—'Not required for a full Army Career' or were signed on to an 'S'-Type engagement and subsequently discharged, have been called out for, and accepted into, military service in the last seven years.

    Ha Buffoon pack your bags someone needs to get there story right

    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to (a) suspend and (b) terminate the use of manning control points; and if he will make a statement; [116147]


    (2) how many soldiers (a) returning from Iraq and (b) currently serving in Iraq will face manning control points in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [116146]

    Dr. Moonie: A wide-ranging review of soldiers' career structures and terms of service is presently underway. This will include consideration of the continued utility of manning control point reviews as a structural control mechanism. In the meantime, against the background of current Army manning shortfalls, there are no plans to conduct any manning control point reviews in the next 12 months.

    5 Jun 2003 : Column 508W


    I would say that this system was abused and thay got found out.
    Now thay are useing it for what it was put in place for and so far no one has been Discharged.......what a suprise. :lol:
     
  12. SOLDIERS SACKED IN COST CUTTING EXERCISE GET CALL UP TO FIGHT AGAIN BY DESPERATE MOD
    Soldiers who were sacked when their expert services were no longer required but before they could claim a full pension have been called up to fight again because the Army is shot of staff.
    The specialists dragged back into the frontline are understood to include bomb disposal experts, whose services are desperately needed in Iraq.
    The men were sacked under a controversial policy called manning Control, which critics say is being used to cut costs at the expense of the military.
    In further evidence of shortages, the Ministry of Defence has also admitted that 13 Royal Navy ships are at sea without their full crew complement. In a parliamentary answer; Defence Minister Ivor Caplin said the Army has called up 12 soldiers whom it had sacked and a further 1,917 remain on the reserve list.
    Soldiers who have been dismissed are planning launch legal action. They claim that the MoD has been abusing the system to push out older troops rather than foot the bill for the more expensive option of a medical discharge.
    Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch, who uncovered details of the call ups says he has seen documents showing that cost was a factor in discharging at least one soldier thought Manning Control instead of on medical grounds.
    Mr Keetch told the Sunday Express: “It is ridiculous that soldiers are being sacked and then called up again . the Army has been undermanned since Labour came to power. “Something has been going seriously wrong inside the MoD if perfectly good soldiers have been sacked. “This is no way to treat soldiers and no way to encourage more recruits.
    “There is mounting evidence that the Manning Control system has been abused, with perfectly capable soldiers losing their jobs at great cost to themselves and their families.
    “It would be better for the MoD if it launched an inquiry now, rather waiting until large numbers of soldiers sue for unfair dismissal.”
    Soldiers face careers reviews at seven, nine and 12 years service. If there is a large number of similar aged soldiers blocking the promotion of younger candidates, some could find themselves dismissed under Queen’s Regulations 9.413: Not required for a full Army Career”.
    Soldiers are supposed to be warned 12 to 18 months before being dismissed that they are being submitted for review.
    Solicitor Tom Reah, who has gathered more than 200 soldiers who are considering launching a class action law suit, told the Sunday express: “Its incredibly stupid”
    “Its nonsensical because some of those people who have been called up have been out for so long and they haven’t kept up their fitness. Many only do a few hours a year on the reserve list.
    “I will be meeting with people over the next two to three weeks to decide how to proceed”.
    One soldier he is representing, Corporal Paul Biddis, was selected for SAS training just weeks before he was told he was no longer needed. He claims he was bullied into signing up for Manning Control and told he could not visit his son, who was in hospital with meningitis unless he signed. His son suffered brain damage and his wife has been treated for depression. Earlier this year, Defence Minister Lewis Moonie said that manning Control had been suspended.
    However; an MoD spokeswoman said: “ I can confirm that the Army has not suspended Manning Control points.
    “In the last four years approximately 200 people have been discharged under the mechanism but we do not hold the data centrally on who exactly has been called back”.
    The Army is not alone in straining to cope with over stretched resources.
    Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has also admitted that naval deployments have been effected by shortages of staff.
    The destroyer Manchester, frigates Cornwall, Kent, Lancaster, Norfolk, Portland and Sutherland, mine counter measure ships Quorn, Atherstone, Penzance and Cottesmore, the survey ship Scott and the parole vessel Leeds Castle are all at sea without full crew compliments.
    The MoD admits that the need to provide cover during the strike by fire-fighters has forced some sailors to miss out on key training.
    REPRODUCED IN FULL…FROM THE SUNDAY EXPRESS SUNDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2003-09-21 ARTICLE BY TIM SHIPMAN (DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR)
     
  13. It’s about time the MOD realized they can’t f**k its soldiers around any longer, they have got away with it before, and it’s got to stop.

    The proof is in the pudding; look at the cases with Deepcut, the David Kelly Affair and the Manning Control Procedure.

    All these high profile cases that have came to the fore front in the last eighteen months.

    They all have one thing in common, they all stench of lies, corruption and deceit by the MOD, Would a civilian employer get away with it?
     
  14. HA

    Sir - The charge against the Ministry of Defence is not, as Ivor Caplin seems to think (letter, July 3), that Manning Control Points have been used legitimately to create space in the ranks for promotion, but rather that soldiers with exemplary service records have reported being threatened with MCPs and bullied into releasing themselves or signing up to new short-term contracts.

    In these cases, the MoD certainly saves itself significant pension liabilities. Personnel actually discharged under MCP might be only 209 in the past four years, but it is clear that many more have been forced to jump. Some soldiers will be testing Mr Caplin's version of events in the courts.

    Mr Caplin claims there has been no suspension of MCPs, and nor are there any plans to do so. Why, then, did Louis Moonie MP, Mr Caplin's predecessor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, tell Parliament on June 5: "A wide-ranging review of soldiers' career structures and terms of service is presently underway. This will include consideration of the continued utility of Manning Control Point reviews as a structural control mechanism. In the meantime, against the background of current Army manning shortfalls, there are no plans to conduct any MCP reviews in the next 12 months."

    So: a 12-month suspension of the policy and a review of its utility. Is Mr Caplin suggesting that Mr Moonie misled Parliament? Or has Mr Caplin suddenly changed the policy?

    From:
    Paul Keetch MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, London SW1A


    :wink: