Base law question

#1
Wonder if anyone here can help me with this.

Is it against the law for wives/partners to stay in the room on base?

Thanks :eek:





MOD Edit, I had to move this to the NAAFI, it was just too good for 'The Other Half' to keep. FF.
 
#2
quite a few questions in that question.

What does German law have to do with British Army Bases in Germany as to who can and cant stay at the Barracks? It all down to military law and standing orders.
Where does it say that a cousin/sibling can?
As far as I know, nobody is allowed to have anyone stay in their accommodation, apart from anything its an insurance matter, some barracks have family rooms or surplus quarters that can be hired if vistors are coming.

If you elaborate a bit then we could possibly give you an answer.
 
#3
Hi Filbert,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered that, it does sound unlikely, but I thought I'd check it out for my friend.
 
#4
it certainly does sound like ham based bullshite.

It would be in Unit Standing Orders that soldiers cannot have overnight visitors in their accommodation, if he's is caught with her in his room it wont matter whether she's his girlfriend, his wife, his cousin, his mother or a random chick that he's pulled, he'll get bounced and she will be escorted from the Barracks.
 
#5
So Maat's B/F is due to have his arse kicked soon? LOLOL!
 
#6
maat said:
Hi Filbert,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered that, it does sound unlikely, but my friend has a boyfriend based there. He apparently gave her a pass to enter and leave the camp, and told her if asked she must say she is his cousin. He told her it is German law that a girlfriend or wife cannot stay in their room with them but a cousin or brother/sister can. Thought I'd check it out for her.

Thinking he may be either misled himself, or telling porkies...
Yup, there's nothing quite like being caught in bed with your cousin :oops:
 
#7
maat said:
Hi Filbert,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered that, it does sound unlikely, but my friend has a boyfriend based there. He apparently gave her a pass to enter and leave the camp, and told her if asked she must say she is his cousin. He told her it is German law that a girlfriend or wife cannot stay in their room with them but a cousin or brother/sister can. Thought I'd check it out for her.

Thinking he may be either misled himself, or telling porkies...
Sounds like quite some mystery you got there maat :? :? :?

Has your 'friend' thought of using some sort of detective agency like this one: http://www.maat-investigations.co.uk/

Or shall we do your background work for you :? :? :?
 

B_AND_T

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
4-8-Alfa said:
maat said:
Hi Filbert,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered that, it does sound unlikely, but my friend has a boyfriend based there. He apparently gave her a pass to enter and leave the camp, and told her if asked she must say she is his cousin. He told her it is German law that a girlfriend or wife cannot stay in their room with them but a cousin or brother/sister can. Thought I'd check it out for her.

Thinking he may be either misled himself, or telling porkies...
Yup, there's nothing quite like being caught in bed with your cousin :oops:
Thus speaks the voice of experience!!
 
#9
Yup,

maybe that nice Ms. Alexander will help out.... How lazy was that?

And to think that some poor sod is getting charged £40 per hour for Karen spending her time on the interweb....
 
#10
B_AND_T said:
4-8-Alfa said:
maat said:
Hi Filbert,

Thanks for your reply. I wondered that, it does sound unlikely, but my friend has a boyfriend based there. He apparently gave her a pass to enter and leave the camp, and told her if asked she must say she is his cousin. He told her it is German law that a girlfriend or wife cannot stay in their room with them but a cousin or brother/sister can. Thought I'd check it out for her.

Thinking he may be either misled himself, or telling porkies...
Yup, there's nothing quite like being caught in bed with your cousin :oops:
Thus speaks the voice of experience!!
I was 14, she was 18 and one learns from experience.
 
#11
Jurisdiction lies with the British Military Authorities under the Status of Forces Agreement which governs the activities of serving personnel and their dependants.

Where it becomes complicated is the status of 'dependent' and the issue of 'nationality'.

For example, in Germany, English dependents are subject to the coercive jurisdiction of the standing civilian court. However, a German National married to a serving UK soldier is not within the jurisdiction of the UK Courts (a standing civilian court being a component part of the English Legal system abroad) since the Germans do not consider the UK authority competent to try German nationals on German soil.

I know this has little to do with the facts in issue but it illustrates some of the jurisdictional difficulties involved where, for example, you have a UK National who is not possessed of 'dependant' status.

Who has jurisdiction in respect of non-dependants? They fall within the jurisdiction of the German courts just as any tourist would if visiting the country on holiday and in so doing, submit himself to the law of the country in which he or she happens to be in at the time.

We then get into a situation of potential liabilty for death or injury of non-dependants on Military establishments abroad. Military establishments are potentially dangerous places for civilians, since contained within their perimeters are armed guards, heavy tracked vehicles, ranges and so on.

You will therefore find that for the purpose of avoiding, or more accurately, limiting to as small an indentifiable group as possible, the potential for liability in tort for death or injury, there is a presumption against permission being granted for those of non-dependant status for being allowed on service premises for anything other than brief visits.

As has been mentioned above, Theatre, formation, Garrison and Unit Standing Orders reflect, or should reflect, the rules relating to visits and the duriation of visits by non-dependants.
 
#13
From Ma'at's Code of Ethics:

We pledge to perform all professional duties in accordance with the highest moral principles and never to be guilty of conduct that will bring reproach upon our profession.
I hope that maat's friend is actually that and not a client otherwise that's a moral principle kicked into touch.


And if anyone's in doubt about maat's origins, check her e-mail address in her profile.



I wonder if she gives Forces discount to members of Rear Party? :twisted:
 
#14
More importantly, someone reading this will know the bloke in Germany who told his bit on the side 'if anyone asks, you're my cousin, right, it's German law, I'm not married or anything'

Come on, who is it :? :? :? because she's rumbled you mate, she's got an international network of professional spies onto you :D :D :D
 
#15
putteesinmyhands said:
From Ma'at's Code of Ethics:

We pledge to perform all professional duties in accordance with the highest moral principles and never to be guilty of conduct that will bring reproach upon our profession.
I hope that maat's friend is actually that and not a client otherwise that's a moral principle kicked into touch.


And if anyone's in doubt about maat's origins, check her e-mail address in her profile.

I wonder if she gives Forces discount to members of Rear Party? :twisted:
Gets even better if you Google her e mail address

http://www.maat-investigations.co.uk/

Ma'at Investigations is UK based, run by Karen Alexander Dip. API, A.M. Inst F.P, offering professional Private Investigation services in the East Anglia region, nationally, and internationally via a network of highly skilled and experienced agents.
Specialities:
• Matrimonial Enquiries/Fidelity Checks
• Undercover Operations
• Physical Surveillance
• Peace of Mind Reports
• Test Purchasing/Mystery Shopping
• House Detective/Neighbourhood Checks
• Missing Persons/Tracing
• Genealogy/Family Tree
• Background Checks
• Specialist Research
• Locus Reports
• Process Serving
• De-bugging

Professional Polygraph (Lie Detector) Testing
 
#16
putteesinmyhands said:
From Ma'at's Code of Ethics:

We pledge to perform all professional duties in accordance with the highest moral principles and never to be guilty of conduct that will bring reproach upon our profession.
I hope that maat's friend is actually that and not a client otherwise that's a moral principle kicked into touch.


And if anyone's in doubt about maat's origins, check her e-mail address in her profile.
Oh absolutely well spotted!
 
#17
May one giggle, M'lud?

Covert operations ... with a forking great flashing blue light on her head and a fluorescent jacket saying I'm a Private Dick"

Who's next? The CIA? 8)
 
#18
Ooh, it's all gone a bit Veronica Mars - and the anonymous avatar is almost appropriate.

Any Mod able to alter Maat's profile to reflect her 'special' status? Or charge her a membership 'donation', on behalf of the 'network of trusted and qualified Arrsers' doing her work for her?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
#19
This is an absolutely classic post.

Well done for pinging and busting her so quickly.

I have used this site for 'research' but I tend to be a bit more open about why and for whom I'm asking.
 
#20
If the girl is under sixteen and the soldier is over 18, then under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, we are looking at potentially, a term not exceeding 14 years imprisonment. Some offences carry life imprisonment.

If, however, the girl is above the age of consent, then we are looking at an entirely different ball game.

Private investigators now need to tread extremely carefully and should warn their clients accordingly of the the potential effect of section 125 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to be brought into effect by statutory instrument.

This provision inserts a new section 1(1A) into The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It provides that a person must not pursue a course of conduct which (a) involves harassment of two or more persons and (b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons and (c) which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not those mentioned above) (i) not to do some he is entitled or required to do, or (ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

Whereas prior to this amendment, such a course of conduct was required 'on two or more occasions', section 125(7) of the SOCPA amendment inserts and amends section 7(3) of the 1997 Act in relation to offences under section 1(1A)(as amended) by requiring such conduct to occur on one or more occasion!

The test of what amounts to harassment remains the same as under the 1997 Act.

The effect of this impending amendment to the 1997 Act is potentially very wide indeed. If an aggrieved parent or parents take it upon themselves to prevent a son or daughter or full age and capacity engaging upon a course of conduct which is perfectly lawful, and the conduct engaged upon amounts to harassment, on at least one or more occasion, a right in action may well accrue to either the offspring or her partner or both entitling them to apply for injunctive relief and/or damages under the 1997 Act. Moreover, the parents may well incur criminal liability under the same Act.

Everybody of full age and capacity is entitled to go their own way, make their own choices, enjoy a right to a private life and to attempt to find a little happiness without interference if, what they either engage in or aspire to is not unlawful.

Let us hope that the young man is guilty of nothing more serious than a breach of Standing Orders; that his CO shows a little bit of human compassion and hears both sides of the story.

(Edited to add hyperlinks to MoJ SLD)
 

Latest Threads

Top