Army`s scare Tactics to slash number of troops

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by kennys-go-nad, Nov 21, 2004.

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. This was just posted on the expara web page. MoD dont seen to know whats happaning on this subject. the artical got somethings wrong. it over 1400 in the class action not 600 :wink:

    Army`s scare Tactics to slash number of troops

    Exclusive by Tim Shipman

    Defence Editor

    THE size of the Army is being slashed by “frightening” soldiers into quitting.

    Ministers have admitted that every unit , including the the Black Watch, which is on the front line in Iraq, has been sent lists of soldiers who could be forced out.

    Army insiders have revealed that the tactics aimed to scare personnel into jumping before they are pushed

    Plans to cut the size of the Army were announced by Defence secretary Geoff Hoon in the summer, but he said reductions would come through “natural Wastage” .

    Defence minister Ivor Caplin has now admitted that every Commanding Officer of every regiment has received a hit list of those eligible for the axe on up to 10 occasions in the past 18 months. That means some units have received hit lists every six weeks.

    The Ministry Of Defence has been under fire for several years for using a device called Manning Control to force soldiers out of the Army after six, nine or 12 years of service.

    Those dubbed “unfit for a full Army career”, but critics have always thought the device was a money-saving measure, since those dismissed do not received full pensions.

    Those who leave at 12 years save the Treasury on average, £200,000 each. Last year, the then Defence Minister Lewis Moonie said that manning control had been suspended. Successor Mr Caplin told parliament last week “There will be no discharges … in the next 12 months”.

    However, he went on to admit in a Parliamentary answer: “Individual units may have received lists of names for manning control point reviews on up to 10 occasions in the last 18 months.”

    According to those under threat, the revelation that lists of those who might be sacked are still circulating makes clear that underhand tactics are being used by senior officers to frighten soldiers into leaving.

    A serving soldier disclosed on the website set up to help those who face being forced out: “Because of the stigma attached to being sacked, many soldiers elect to jump before they are pushed after they are pushed after they have been warned.” Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch said: “This dosen`t add up. Why are Army units still receiving lists for a practice that the MoD claims to have abandoned?

    “The Army should come clean What exactly are these lists being used for? Are soldiers being unfairly pressurised to leave?

    “In the currant climate of under-manning and overstretch, it is training, retention and morale that deserve attention, not discharge procedures.”

    More that 600 soldiers are preparing a class action suit against the MoD because they allege they were tricked or bullied into leaving the Army or into signing short-term contracts.

    An MoD spokesman said: “Lists of soldiers are routinely sent to COs for information, There is no need for them to act unless they think some-one is eligible for manning control.

    “The MoD has no intention to use it but we reserve the right to do so if necessary.”
  2. Which paper is this from?

    Presumably Caplin has said he is leaving at the election because he feels so ashamed! :roll: Lying Cnut!

    It is up to all involved to fight this. Everyone needs to be aware of their rights and the methods of redress they have, whether within QRs, within UK or EU law, or outwith the legal process such as (careful) "unauthorised" contact with the media! Also it is an election year next year (probably) so no-one with an interest in the military should vote Liabour and all in uniform should encourage their friends and relatives to vote the liars out! :twisted:
  3. Its in the Sunday Express


    you are joking on that one Mr PVR, most people I know who attempted to redress this policy were found to have their redress Whitewashed by the Army Board then knowledge of the Complaint denied by ministers when asked. Now why would a Minister deny such a thing :roll:
  4. It was the bit after I menat to emphasise - letter to MP, initiate redress to take action at employment tribunal, "class action" as you mention. If enough people redress as a matter of course when MCP'd, then this buries a statistical blip to be dug up later by a well-aimed parliamentary question, such as by the excellent interrogator Paul Keetch.
  5. he did ask one, and they were not very forthcomming with the truth on the subject of Army Redress

    here are just some of them

    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to manning control in the last 10 years submitted a redress to the Army Board against being discharged; and how many were (a) discharged and (b) retained after the redress. [92699]

    Dr. Moonie: Central records for those who have submitted a Redress of Complaint to the Army Board have only been maintained since 1997.

    Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement

    Manning Control Review

    Mr. Keetch: 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]

    Mr. Caplin: None.

    Manning Control Review

    Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers subject to Manning Control have made official complaints of harassment 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. [130008]

    6 Oct 2003 : Column 1170W

    Mr. Caplin: The data requested are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    The Ministry of Defence has a policy of zero tolerance towards all forms of bullying and harassment. Appropriate disciplinary or administrative action will be taken against any individual(s) found guilty of practising or condoning such behaviour.
  6. It appears at first sight that redress may work under certain circumstances. I am sure that it is not that simple, particularly if the MCP actions arise from centralised direction (ie. to force through discharges to avoid redundancies) and with the pressure (amounting to bullying) that may be applied at unit level.

    Data on bullying not centrally held? My ARRSE!! Disproportionate cost? Matching one list up to another list and cross referencing service numbers appearing on one list to those on another list!

    One thought - how will FoI 05 apply? Perhaps those "in the know" could prompt interested parties to make the appropriate requests! :twisted:
  7. what would putting in a redress do to a brown letter result? its the army board who make a decision on the outcome of a redress and its the army board or at least some of its members who decide to use manning control in the first place and their not going to find against themselves?
    why send lists if you dont intend to use it? its like giving a chick the pill when she is allready up the duff :lol:
    I know about these lists as my name with others have been given the Gipsy's on it. very unnerving knowing you could be stabbed in the back at any time.