Armys internal Complaints policy in the Dock

#2
Very shabby article I must say :? this was not from the Scum??? any links? However, service Redress in the press again no shock here :roll:

How bullying is perceived by one could be perceived different by another, and there are times when Timmy will play the System, just to get out when he feels he dose not want to play soldiers anymore. However, there are a number of disturbing cases that are coming to the attention of the courts lately, and it's not doing the forces Reputation any favours

Internal disciplinary proceedings such as those held by self-regulating organisations or professions will be held to fall within the scope of proceedings governed by art 6 of the H.R.A, where they affect the rights of the individual) for example when a redress has been on going for over 18 months. If this happens MOD legal don't have a leg to stand on.

Remember ALS, and civ solicitors are there to get the best deal for there client, so I would not be shocked when soldiers come up against a brick wall at times if allegations are against the Chain Of Command, Promotion or TOS. The system will not allow you to Question to much, so Soldiers have to get a solicitor to knock the "wall" down for them. Can prove to be very Expensive

From my experience Appeals Wing are very good at asking only choice questions and try to leave out the important or damming one's
what the Board don't see, they will not ask.(Blinkers)
This way the Army Board can only reach a decision based on the evidence that Appeals Wing allow and the choice questions asked.
one other common point, when the brief is disclosed to the soldier and comments are made from the soldier/solicitor, the norm for Glasgow is to only show his comments but not to conduct further investigations if possible, even when new evidence submitted smacks them in the face and contradicts their own brief or evidence from other parties. remember to have got to Glasgow the Redress would have been investigated by at the very least to levels. at these first levels, the complainant dose not get disclosure, so has no idea if false allegations are being made towards him/her. The Anderson principles that was made reference to in the article was about the need for full disclosure and both parties being on a level playing field. Sadly after that ruling the way the anderson case was open to interpretation by the MOD is another thing and will quite rightly be scrutinised by the courts

The process should be open and not behind closed doors, there are not to many oral hearings at Glasgow and only the board can allow for it to happen. I think there needs to be a change.
 
#3
One of the things that always annoys me about such cases is the mixture of ignorance and arrogance that characterises those trying to defend the status quo. Like it or lump it the law of the land applies to the MoD and services and if the MoD wished to avoid losing in the courts it needs to ensure that its internal procedures comply with the law and that they are followed.

If current law is not compatible with military efficency then someone very senior in the MoD has got it wrong during the consultation phase and not asked for an exemption for the military to be put in the legislation - as defence is usually the only excuse accepted for such exemptions. There is no excuse for procedures not to comply with the law - civvy companies keep up to date as they know if they don't they'll get taken to the cleaners in court. So why is the MoD uniquely incompetent in this area ? And then we have the failure to comply - again, why don't people's careers get affected by this sort of thing ?

The problem is that measures put in place after such high-profile mistakes tend to over-correct, and some scrotes get away with murder in the wake.
 
#4
One of the main problems as alluded to by my learned friend is that justice delayed is justice denied. It seems that too much takes too long (not only legal look at medals, as someone said the police can issue me my own personalised speeding ticket within a week!) and this puts the MOD in an unwinnable position.
 
#5
"One of the most senior woman Sikh soldier in the Army"

Uhm, head above parapet, bet there arn't six Sikh women soldiers, very few Male Sikh soldiers, in fact never saw one in my 23 years.
Strange how so many of these case's seem to have sum sort of race angle. The Army never was an easy life but know sum folk seem to have found a way to make it a profitable life.
john
 
#6
Correct extrader. And this is were the MOD continually fails to understand or even bothers correct. The days of dragging out a Redress in the hope the complaint will fall by the way side have long gone. There are at least 18 cases of redress that i have heard of that have taken 3 to 4 years before the Army Board viewed them. That is unacceptable and if every case was to go before a Judicial Review most just on the merit of Time delay by AAW will win, even if the complaint being redressed in the first place, was found wanting. If the system was more transparent and fair we would not have half of the problems that we have today
 
#7
jonwilly said:
"One of the most senior woman Sikh soldier in the Army"

Uhm, head above parapet, bet there arn't six Sikh women soldiers, very few Male Sikh soldiers, in fact never saw one in my 23 years.
Strange how so many of these case's seem to have sum sort of race angle. The Army never was an easy life but know sum folk seem to have found a way to make it a profitable life.
john
Not all are based on race Jonwilly, however if the redress was more open and up front, there would not be as much scope for a profitable life.
 
#9
jonwilly said:
Agree not ALL but will you conceed many ?
Race an area where the Law is Strong and Very PC and PROFITABLE.
john
Coming from a civvy background I'd say that's only true if the organisation concerned drops the ball. If your procedures are up to date, fair and they're followed then it's highly unlikely that you'll get into trouble. If you dig into the details of the cases that tend to hit the papers then you'll usually find some mistakes by the organisation concerned are at the root of it. That doesn't make it fair or sensible of course. Taking years over a redress is a truly stupid thing to do. It's manifestly unfair and regardless of the merits of a case will give the advantage to the soldier.
 
#10
The trouble with all these cases is that they are one of the many responsibilities of commanders and G1 staffs at all levels. We very often simply don't have the staff, or the staff don't have the expertise to deal with them. We have not reviewed establishments at various levels for years - does an Adjt deal with the same workload now as 10 years ago, or more? To answer this simply ask an Adjt when someone from a higher HQ last told him that such and such a return was no longer required, or that some other piece of his workload was being removed. Multiply that by 5 Adjts all saying the same thing in the last 10 years in a post - you get the picture. The same is true at bde level where there is one SO3 and the DCOS dealing with everything under the sun. There is only so much time in the day - do we wonder that we get it wrong? We do not have lawyers and expert HR departments at every level that can ensure that all complaints, many of which are completely spurious, are dealt with.

That said, I have rarely come across a complaint / redress that could not have been avoided by some more careful leadership. Sometimes an embarassing apology and climb down from a position taken out of pride can avoid some hefty fallout. That and the need to do things formally as soon as something looks like it may get painful.
 
#11
I can't wait for the day when the Redress procedure is taken from the Army and given to an independant body.

This has to be the thing we do worst - with sometimes devastating results.


Bring on the Independant Commission.


.
 
#12
"Coming from a civvy background I'd say that's only true if the organisation concerned drops the ball"

"manifestly unfair"

Yes the Army is manifestly unfair. As the man said we kill people.
john
 
#13
fooboy said:
A colleague of mine had the misfortune to try for redress.

Although he had been blatantly f*cked over, because the offender was a pot tiffy, and he way down in the feeding chain, the result was he got an even blacker mark against his name and his claim never made it out of the regiment as he dropped it after running the guntlet of the CO and RSM

Maybe some sort of external agency ie "internal affairs" type would be better for dealing with redress issues? Having to fight an obviously biased chain of command is normally not worth the hassle: result = guys get shafted just because a total c*ck outranks them.
I notice that the need for some external agency has been put forward in a few threads in recent months.

Some nations have a "Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces". Created and controlled by statute, but answerable to Parliament rather than to the Government of the day. Can include seconded military personnel in the Commissioner's staff.

Redress will be one of the areas to look out for in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill.
 
#15
jonwilly said:
"Coming from a civvy background I'd say that's only true if the organisation concerned drops the ball"

"manifestly unfair"

Yes the Army is manifestly unfair. As the man said we kill people.
john
I don't think that's relevant to be honest. Three things:

Current employment law applies to the Army. We may argue whether it should, but it does (objective conditions and all that). Consequently if you don't stick to the law you will lose when cases go to court. Would you rather spend the defence budget on losing court cases or something else ?

Soldiers who present invalid cases may well win where they shouldn't because the system mismanages the process. Is that really what we want ? (Note that I'm not making any judgements on cases that have been mentioned so don't think I'm having a dig at anyone)

One of the things that sets the Army apart from the rest of the society is that we aspire to deal with each other fairly and honestly. Get rid of that - as the mishandling of redress cases does - and we become a bunch of civvies who dress up in DPM. Not a good idea.
 
#16
Ah Strange one
It's relevent, very relevent.
The Army (Armed forces) are a special organisation for they exsist to KILL Her Majestys Enemies.
They are a disiplined force and live their lives under very special circumstances which most of the population will not live by if given the chance.
What was that Centurion said ? I say to a man cum and he cumeth I say go and he goeth.
All this what is nice for civilians would be good for Poor Tom but for the simple fact that cum tomorrow or in few seconds Tom can be fighting for his life and his mates lives.
Current Employment Laws cum on just read that out and then explain how it helps Poor Tom when he's doing the biz up the sharpe end.
Yes the law is there if Tom comes back to present his case but Their Needs to Be Military Law and it must have precedence over normal civil law where The Serving Soldier is concerned.
All this Cr ap about equality, garbage, people aren't equal, people are different in so many respects. You now have women who are deemed to be equal to male soldiers, yes they are until they want to play the female card which the do automatically, it's built into their 'jeans'.
The armed forces are unfair to their troops. Thats been normal in every army since year dot. Wheren't you told on your JNCO's course you will give orders which result in your mens deaths. Never Happened for me but a fact of life for many.
The system is manifestly unfair but the men are soldiers and will do what succesfull soldiers have always done, Fair or not.
john
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#17
Bomb_Doctor said:
I can't wait for the day when the Redress procedure is taken from the Army and given to an independant body.

This has to be the thing we do worst - with sometimes devastating results.


Bring on the Independant Commission.


.
Because the system has inherently sought to protect the officer being redressed and some of these people are so lost in time that they actually think they can get away with it. Even when the redress is won, no action is taken against the offending officer. The soldier gets what he/she was after and we all move on. It takes in some instances years to reach that level, by which time the soldiers career has passed him by and the costs of teh matter has risen substantially. The cost is met by the tax payer. No lessons are learned at all, apart from not to f*ck that Tom about again as he'll go all the way with you.

The system may have 'changed' over the last few years, but it not as transparant as the management would like you to believe and that's because half of the managemnt don't understand it or ignore it and they will never speak out against a brother officer unless they absolutely positively have to or when there is a personal gain to be had from doing so.

There is an argument that if the matter was handed over to a civilian authority to deal with then they would merely apply 'civilian standards' to it and therefore we should keep it in house. It has reached the stage where it is at today by the Army's insistence that it be kept in house. The Army cannot be trusted to deal with it's own problems whether the intention to do so is honourable or not as there have ben so many instances of abuse of the system by officers at all levels.

It is now time to hand it over to an independant and unbiased tribunal.
 
#18
jonwilly said:
Ah Strange one
It's relevent, very relevent.
The Army (Armed forces) are a special organisation for they exsist to KILL Her Majestys Enemies.
They are a disiplined force and live their lives under very special circumstances which most of the population will not live by if given the chance.
What was that Centurion said ? I say to a man cum and he cumeth I say go and he goeth.
All this what is nice for civilians would be good for Poor Tom but for the simple fact that cum tomorrow or in few seconds Tom can be fighting for his life and his mates lives.
Current Employment Laws cum on just read that out and then explain how it helps Poor Tom when he's doing the biz up the sharpe end.
Yes the law is there if Tom comes back to present his case but Their Needs to Be Military Law and it must have precedence over normal civil law where The Serving Soldier is concerned.
All this Cr ap about equality, garbage, people aren't equal, people are different in so many respects. You now have women who are deemed to be equal to male soldiers, yes they are until they want to play the female card which the do automatically, it's built into their 'jeans'.
The armed forces are unfair to their troops. Thats been normal in every army since year dot. Wheren't you told on your JNCO's course you will give orders which result in your mens deaths. Never Happened for me but a fact of life for many.
The system is manifestly unfair but the men are soldiers and will do what succesfull soldiers have always done, Fair or not.
john
Soldiering - The Military Covenant
(Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5)
Introduction and Contents
Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action


Yep i would agree with that. However,
In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service
.

As OldRedCap pointed out
Has all this come from one Para NCO? Well done if so - my reading is that he was shafted
plus his family well and truly from my understanding. If, this is the case that the article is reporting about.

As Biscuits_AB righly pointed out,
the system has inherently sought to protect the officer being redressed and some of these people are so lost in time that they actually think they can get away with it
That is the problem, and why so many cases are having to be sounded in the courts and in the Press, and this alone, amounts to more unnecessary bad press for the Armed Forces. Because policies that could and should work without legal challenge, where abused by people who should know better.
 
#19
Spot-on quote k-g-n about the Military Covenant.

I have looked a bit further into the question of reform of the redress process. MoD have been working on a set of proposals including the establishment of a Tri-Service Redress of Complaints Panel. It rather looks as if these redress proposals will not be included in the forthcoming (Tri-Service) Armed Forces Bill, although the Bill will contain the right of redress as of now.

I will try to keep an eye on this.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#20
Biscuits_AB said:
Because the system has inherently sought to protect the officer being redressed and some of these people are so lost in time that they actually think they can get away with it. Even when the redress is won, no action is taken against the offending officer. The soldier gets what he/she was after and we all move on. It takes in some instances years to reach that level, by which time the soldiers career has passed him by and the costs of teh matter has risen substantially. The cost is met by the tax payer. No lessons are learned at all, apart from not to f*ck that Tom about again as he'll go all the way with you.
While I agree that that is true, part of the problem also stems from the sheer length of time it takes to run a redress through the system, which means that the likelihood is that either one or both parties will have moved on from the situation which is being redressed, normally leaving the senior somewhere 'indispensible' and the redressor demoralised and shunted out into the long-grass somewhere, by the time it's resolved. The consequence of this seems to be that the redressee seems to get away with it, while the redressor is still battling against a buggered career.
 

Similar threads

Top