Army pays out for anti-Muslim bias

#1
#2
Yet again someone has seen fit to use their religion for advancement or financial gain instead of working for it.

Perhaps the forces should promote all those of minority status to Lt Col and form minority Battalions where they all hold Lt Col rank. Each Company within the Battalion could cater for one particular minority.

Fall in the 1st Battalion the Disloyal Whingers Regiment.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#4
Scabster_Mooch said:
And you know this how?

The MOD seems to have chickened out, maybe because it knows that it has unclean hands.
Not necessarily; fighting the case may cost more money than settling, even though they may have a very good case; standard practice in other Govt. areas - NHS, Councils &c.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
She, being a lawyer, was able to use race discrimination to get something out of this. Others could not, and did not, but still went walkies anyway.

I hope the MOD is going to look long and hard at why she went, and perhaps deal with the issue at source if necessary.

As for the payout - no, she didn't lose any limbs, but at least she didn't have RSI . . . .
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#7
Scabster_Mooch said:
Or fighting the case, and losing, allows the possibility of opening the floodgates to loads of similar claims.

We'll never know which but in that case, the claimant here shouldn't be demonised.
Oh I agree, but it would be a fine thing if the beancounters grew a pair, and pigs flew and peace and happiness broke out everywhere
 
#8
Let's not forget that Major Siddique did go into the situation and put herself on the line - her QCVS is proof enough, regardless of whether it should or should not have been a higher award.
 
#9
Biped said:
She, being a lawyer, was able to use race discrimination to get something out of this. Others could not, and did not, but still went walkies anyway.

I hope the MOD is going to look long and hard at why she went, and perhaps deal with the issue at source if necessary.

As for the payout - no, she didn't lose any limbs, but at least she didn't have RSI . . . .
And you know all this how? To claim Race discrimination at Tribunal is not as simple as 'The boss called me bad names" there is a burden of proof to be decided , and it's not just "Well it's obvious, it's cos I is tinted, innit".

She went to tribunal because she felt there was a case. There have been some fantastic sums of money banded about, the maximum payout at tribunal, with all complaints satisfied is £58k. The plaintiff can then take that judgement on to the High Court if they so wish, at which point we're in to 6 figure + land.

I certainly know of at least one case where race discrimination was not claimed , in spite of there being overwhelming and damning evidence that there was ,and the plaintiff was offered a settlement of £5k on the steps of the tribunal not to proceed.

Sometimes, the public fall out from such a case, where there is even a taint of less than straightforward employment practice, to put it politely , is potentially far more damaging, with huge ramifications than giving someone a 5 figure sum to walk away.

And as Cuddles says, she got the QCVS and in my opinion , DID put herself in grave danger subsequent to the meeting, and for the duration of her tour.

Or do we think the IPS like being slapped down by upitty Persian women and will just take it on the chin?
 
#10
She being a lawyer obviously knew how to manipulate the system.

Oh well, she's out of the army now which is good.

She can **** off and go back to being a greedy blood sucking lawyer.
 
#11
king_of_cheese said:
She being a lawyer obviously knew how to manipulate the system.

Oh well, she's out of the army now which is good.

She can * off and go back to being a greedy blood sucking lawyer.

So Soldiers who aren't lawyers, shouldn't go to them to get redress? Shall we sack everyone in ALS?

The Army has appeared to lose a decorated Female Soldier, Lawyer and a linguist, who also seems to be a cool hand under duress.

I would be more concerned if I were the MoD if the good lady Major opens her own practice now specialising in tribunal work for soldiers seeking redress.

Seeing as how she knows how to 'manipulate the system' and all :roll:
 
#12
PartTimePongo said:
king_of_cheese said:
She being a lawyer obviously knew how to manipulate the system.

Oh well, she's out of the army now which is good.

She can * off and go back to being a greedy blood sucking lawyer.

So Soldiers who aren't lawyers, shouldn't go to them to get redress? Shall we sack everyone in ALS?

The Army has appeared to lose a decorated Female Soldier, Lawyer and a linguist, who also seems to be a cool hand under duress.

I would be more concerned if I were the MoD if the good lady Major opens her own practice now specialising in tribunal work for soldiers seeking redress.

Seeing as how she knows how to 'manipulate the system' and all :roll:
Well excuse me but i'm just rather sceptical thats all.

What annoys me is that she tried to sue for so much.
She very well may earn that amount as a lawyer on civvy street.
 
#13
Deleted to reconsider
 
#14
two points,
1, any muslim in either the Forces or Police must have guts, because they are treated differently, and this is very wrong.
2, Old English proverb... Sticks and Stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, How Much!!!!!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
PartTimePongo said:
Biped said:
She, being a lawyer, was able to use race discrimination to get something out of this. Others could not, and did not, but still went walkies anyway.

I hope the MOD is going to look long and hard at why she went, and perhaps deal with the issue at source if necessary.

As for the payout - no, she didn't lose any limbs, but at least she didn't have RSI . . . .
And you know all this how? To claim Race discrimination at Tribunal is not as simple as 'The boss called me bad names" there is a burden of proof to be decided , and it's not just "Well it's obvious, it's cos I is tinted, innit".

She went to tribunal because she felt there was a case. There have been some fantastic sums of money banded about, the maximum payout at tribunal, with all complaints satisfied is £58k. The plaintiff can then take that judgement on to the High Court if they so wish, at which point we're in to 6 figure + land.

I certainly know of at least one case where race discrimination was not claimed , in spite of there being overwhelming and damning evidence that there was ,and the plaintiff was offered a settlement of £5k on the steps of the tribunal not to proceed.

Sometimes, the public fall out from such a case, where there is even a taint of less than straightforward employment practice, to put it politely , is potentially far more damaging, with huge ramifications than giving someone a 5 figure sum to walk away.

And as Cuddles says, she got the QCVS and in my opinion , DID put herself in grave danger subsequent to the meeting, and for the duration of her tour.

Or do we think the IPS like being slapped down by upitty Persian women and will just take it on the chin?
My Bold

Well, she sued on the following basis according to press reports:

An Army lawyer seeking £685,000 compensation for alleged discrimination against her as a Muslim has settled with the MoD.
Now, it matters not what the MOD settled with, as it was an out-of-court settlement in which they got a 'no blame' clause.

My first para states that 'others went walkies, but did not claim' - this being that, the information I have suggests that it was not specifically a race problem, but a problem of another type that caused others to walk also - others who have no such basis on which to make a financial claim - partly 'cos they aint lawyers, and partly because they are not a minority.

I'll not go into further details, but can PM details of someone to speak with.
 
#16
She did, however, go to an Employment Tribunal, an option that is generally only open to the AF if one has been discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order)

The Working Time Regulations 1998, the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 provide that a complaint cannot be presented by a member of the armed forces to an employment tribunal under those Regulations unless a complaint under service complaint procedures has been made about the same matter and not withdrawn. Consequent upon the Armed Forces Act 2006 this Order amends those Regulations so that they refer to service complaints brought under that Act.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110817491_en_1

In other words, any member of the Armed Forces, Male or Female, Black, White or Polka Dot, Christian, Muslim or Jedi can bring a case before employment tribunal IF the complaint has previously been submitted under service complaint procedures and not withdrawn.

From a historical perspective http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040713/text/40713w09.htm

Employment Tribunals
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases against his Department, the agencies for which it is responsible and its predecessor organisations have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to (a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race discrimination, (d) disability discrimination and (e) unfair dismissal; how many cost awards were made against (i) respondents and (ii) applicants; and how much has been spent (A) settling and (B) contesting claims. [181474]

Mr. Caplin: The information, relating to applications made to employment tribunals, by current and former service personnel is set out as follows. Information relating to applications made by civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost


New cases
Received Settled Paid (£)
Equal pay
1997–98 17 6 51,000
1998–99 4 0 —
1999–2000 4 0 —
2000–01 10 0 —
2001–02 30 0 —
2002–03 9 0 —
2003–04 1 0 —

Sex discrimination/harassment
1997–98 138 21 444,614
1998–99 31 19 569,000
1999–2000 28 5 60,640
2000–01 21 10 78,500
2001–02 32 6 118,500
2002–03 24 11 182,478
2003–04 29 15 308,871
Race discrimination/harassment
1997–98 14 0 —
1998–99 16 2 6,000
1999–2000 15 3 96,141
2000–01 12 7 97,500
2001–02 7 3 28,500
2002–03 10 5 104,500
2003–04 5 1 32,500

Unfair dismissal
1997–98 0 0 —
1998–99 6 0 —
1999–2000 24 0 —
2000–01 19 0 —
2001–02 28 0 —
2002–03 12 1 12,500
2003–04 12 1 80,000

Legal costs
1997–98 n/a n/a n/a
1998–99 n/a n/a n/a
1999–2000 — — 316,890
2000–01 — — 206,295
2001–02 — — 549,265
2002–03 n/a n/a n/a
2003–04 — — 792,865




Notes:
1. The figures relating to the number of settlements and compensation paid includes cases settled at employment tribunals and prior to such hearings. Claims relating to disability discrimination are not recorded separately.
2. The expenditure on sex discrimination/harassment cases excludes payments made to those service personnel dismissed from the armed forces on the grounds of their homosexuality and who brought claims at the employment tribunal and/or the European Court of Human Rights.
3. We cannot provide figures for the Department's legal costs in handling employment tribunal applications for 1997–98 and 1998–99. Likewise due to changes in internal accounting procedures it is not possible to separate legal costs in relation to employment tribunal cases from the overall legal costs incurred by MOD during financial year 2002–03.
4. Costs awards in employment tribunal are not common. Normally each party bears its own costs. However, where in the opinion of the tribunal, a party has in bringing the proceedings, or a party or a party's representatives has in conducting the proceedings, acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or the bringing or conducting of the proceedings by a party has been misconceived, the tribunal may make an order in respect of all or part of the other party's costs.
Well, she sued on the following basis according to press reports:
But yesterday, although the exact figure she was paid was not known, Maj Rabia Siddique was said to have accepted 'considerably less' because she had resumed her career as a civilian lawyer.
Considerably less is what the Tribunal would have awarded too, as she was back in F/T employment.




According to Press reports....... The maximum award at Tribunal is now £63,000
The tribunal can order your employer to pay compensation, which is unlimited for discrimination or dismissal on health and safety grounds.

For unfair dismissal claims the award is made up of:

the basic award (calculated based on your on age and length of service), and
a compensatory award, which has a maximum limit of £63,000 (although the maximum is rarely awarded)For wrongful dismissal or other breaches of contract, up to £25,000 can be awarded.

Compensation is intended to replace lost earnings - there's no payment for hurt feelings (apart from in discrimination cases). You have to try to reduce your loss (for example, by getting another job or claiming benefit).

The tribunal can order your employer to give you your job back if you win a dismissal case, if you want it.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DG_10028122

My first para states that 'others went walkies, but did not claim' - this being that, the information I have suggests that it was not specifically a race problem, but a problem of another type that caused others to walk also - others who have no such basis on which to make a financial claim - partly 'cos they aint lawyers, and partly because they are not a minority.
Yes it does, and I believe there may have been others who walked. That they had no recourse to Service complaints or in extremis Employment Tribunal I have shown, is not true.

Being a lawyer or 'minority' does not get you easier access to a tribunal.

The tribunal needs to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that you have exhausted your employer's redress procedures before proceeding.

Why did they walk? On a previously killed thread, at least one other person who worked in that HQ stated some reasons.


Maj Siddique, from Salisbury in Wiltshire, claimed it was in Basra that her career stalled after she complained about the local Army commander.
Was she the only one that did? Or was she the only one that not only complained but said "Fcuk it, I am not standing for this"?

A letter from chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, was given to her as part of the deal.

In it, he paid tribute to the 'courageous role' the major played in Basra, Iraq, in September 2005 when she helped resolve the kidnapping of two British soldiers, who were held at the Jamiat police station before being rescued.

Sir Richard said: 'The Army will consider carefully your perception of the way that you were treated in the period that followed the Jamiat incident with a view to ensuring that appropriate lessons are learnt.'
The very fact that a letter from CGS was so important to her accepting the deal , tells me this was not all about money.
 
#17
There should be a cap of £15000 for all civilian claims from the MOD for injury, discrimination etc, and sums for wounded soldiers should be paid from a separate Injuries Fund which would have a much higher limit (if any limit at all; how can you put a value on a leg, an arm, an eye or the loss of a career? At the end of the day, every penny given to whinging civvies reduces the money spent on equipment; the MOD won't become any less wasteful (art, endless refurbishments etc) because there's less money in the pot this year.
 
#18
Bravo_Zulu said:
There should be a cap of £15000 for all civilian claims from the MOD for injury, discrimination etc, and sums for wounded soldiers should be paid from a separate Injuries Fund which would have a much higher limit (if any limit at all; how can you put a value on a leg, an arm, an eye or the loss of a career? At the end of the day, every penny given to whinging civvies reduces the money spent on equipment; the MOD won't become any less wasteful (art, endless refurbishments etc) because there's less money in the pot this year.
Maj Siddique is not yet a civilian, and she holds the QCVS.
 
#19
Scabster_Mooch said:
Or fighting the case, and losing, allows the possibility of opening the floodgates to loads of similar claims.

We'll never know which but in that case, the claimant here shouldn't be demonised.

wot he said
 
#20
An unusually brief comment from me: Seconded
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top