Civilian Vs Army civil rights

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by crayonic, Jun 22, 2006.

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. Hiya all, hope you're all well

    There's meant to be around 2000 civil rights for civilians - Stuff that I'm assuming are like rights to a private life, rights to a fair trial etc. Apparently this gets reduced to just over 500 when you sign on the line. Or so the C.Sgt told me the other day.

    Any idea which rights we lose? Or probably more importantly, which rights we're going to miss?

    Go forth and discuss 8)

  2. The answer to that question can be shortly stated.

    The rights lost to the soldier extend only so far and those he is pursuaded he does not have, by the arbitrary abuse of power from those who find it inconvenient to be bound by the obligations they have toward the soldier whom they seek to pursuade of his lack of them.

    The road to the House of Lords and Strasburg is littered with the broken bones of fiction generated by the official abuse of authority!
  3. Thats an interesting topic. It is about time someone brought it up. I have a question about this, why in the Army we have to give 1 years notice before we are allowed to leave? When in civy street the notice you give to leave your job depends how you are paid. What i mean by that is if you are paid weekly then you give a weeks notice and monthly then a months notice. Is there anyway around the Army system to get out faster than this year notice (legally or without getting a type of discharge that you dont deserve like admin or medical, thats if you dont deserve it)
  4. The job, be it military or civilian is governed by contract. In civil life, contracts of employment arise both formally by express terms mutually agreed upon between employer and employee and informally, that is to say, they arise by the demonstrable reality of the terms of work, including the method by which a person is paid which will be implied, ie, deemed to exist by the court as a matter of evidence as well as deemed to exist as a matter of law under Stautory Provisions such as the Employment Rights Act.

    Thus, for example, in civil employment which is governed by implied contract in the absence of an express contract, if a person is paid weekly, it will generally implied that he will be required to furnish one week's notice of his intention to terminate his employment. Similarly, where he is paid monthly, it will be an implied contractual term that he is required to furnish a month's notice and so on!

    The military differs in the sense that they have no implied contractual terms. Their terms of service are governed wholly by Regulations made pursuant to the Army Act with the express terms mutually agreed on at the ACIO as well as periodically during his service.

    Therefore, although a soldier is paid a daily rate of pay, there is no scope for an implied term that he is simply required to furnish 24 hours notice since the period of notice he is required to furnish has already been made the subject of an express contractual term.

    I hope this helps
  5. Civvy firms main effort is making money, therefore civvy PVR'ing generally involves them invoking financial penalties. The army throws money away hand over fist, their main effort is simply keeping the head count up another trained soldier for as long as possible. Plus since you're presumably slime types, I imagine protected trades come into play - the army needs to see something to show for all that training...
  6. If you do not have the answer for yourself..... then don't try gaining the knowledge here..... it's pat midnight and the mess turfed me out...
  7. n bee. I though of all the cap badges, I could get the answer from int! Finger to the pulse and all that malarky. Hope you had a good night out.

    So it seems a fair few of our civil rights are employee-related. I image most work conditions don't entail digging sharp bits of metal out of you after a long day's work, and... good point... there's the contractual notice periods. I know the European bill of whatever [src: Wiki] has articles regarding toture and punishment without crime, and the rights to representation during trial. I've yet to find out if these still apply :roll:

    I image this covers a lot of our lost 'rights' and Iolis puts forward a good point with:

    but I reckon there's some civvy rights to a private life amongst other things, that we sign away - after all 1,500 less civil rights is quite a lot methinks. Perhaps someone in HR/Admin can shed some more light?

  8. I think the phrase you are looking for is 'Selfless Commitment'. If you don't understand it or don't want to buy into then you may wish to leave the Army.
  9. Selfless commitment, and indeed, the idea of 'Service' is, or at least was, the ethos of the British Army that sustained it and allowed it to fulfil the function for which it existence may be said to be justified until it was diluted and trivialised by the importation of values that were inconsistent with that ethos which began with the 'civilianisation' of the Army which began with the formation of the MOD and the gradual 'civilianisation and 'contracting out' of functions within it that were once performed by soldiers, even down to the most minor unit level.

    In many respects, the Army, it was said, in some quarters, was fast becoming another branch of the Civil Service.

    As a corollorary to this, legislation which had traditionally allowed various exceptions, exemptions, provisos and qualifications in it's application to the military had, during the mid 1980s begun to encroach to an ever increasing degree upon Servicemen.

    One, example, among many which I mention by way of illustration was the Child Support Act 1991 which impacted directly upon those in the military exacerbated by stresses and strains caused by overstretch leading to a greater degree of separation and divorce, another was the Poll Tax legislation introduced in the 1980s under Thatcher, which made individual soldiers responsible for paying taxes to the Local Authority within which they were stationed enacted without any thought whatsoever as to whether and to what extent the military would be responsible for deducting it at source, or whether to leave it to the individual soldier to meet his statutory obligations in paying it. The chain of command chose the latter course with the most horrendous consequences to the individual soldier for whom the chain of command was responsible.

    One Local Authority waited until a unit in it's area was ready to deploy on OP BANNER then issued summonses to attend court to a large number of of defaulters within that unit with the real possibility that the soldiers, key personnel within that unit would be sent to prison thus making the unit operationally unfit for deployment.!

    Rapid Acquittance Roll payments were negotiated and accepted by the Local Authority who withdrew their originating summons! It was only the real possibility of soldiers being sent to prison, with the consequential publicity that such a result would have brought about, which forced the Chain of Command to become involved and consider direct recovery

    Subsequent legislation such as Health and Safety Legislation has also impacted greatly in which the rights and obligations of the soldier whose life is affected by such legislative bureaucracy exposes him to a much greater degree of personal liability than has hitherto been the case when traditionally, his only worry was whether he, by his conduct had breached a specific code of the Army Act 1955 rather, than as now, some obscure paragraph in the Paper Clips and Staplers (Amendment) (No2) Bill!

    We also have the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 to come to terms with.

    Of course, this has resulted in a greater degree of involvement of the legal profession who have become engaged in seeking to protect the rights of soldiers and prevent the official abuse of authority who would seek to evade liability.

    In other words, we have, by a gradual process of accretion, a civilianisation of the Military and, as a natural and foreseeable consequence, a process of osmosis has allowed the importation of a civilian ethos which has, as a consequence led to a greater degree of legislative application than had been the case hitherto.

    Thus, the question raised about the nature and extent of rights, as well as obligations is therefore an important one, as this post seeks to illustrate. The chain of command is, of itself, inadequately equipped or indeed funded to address the issues raised.

    The danger is, that as the Army is called upon to deploy with a greater degree of frequency, the greater is the degree of tension that exists between effectuating it's statutory obligations, and actually engaging in the business of it's primary military function and in such a case, the human temptation is simply to use rank and seniority to take the easiest option to effect the fastest and most expedient outcome expressed in the terms that all soldiers know so well:

    "Pay the bloody thing or go to jail/take extra duties/miss out on promotion/ take an adverse annual report/ no you are not entitled now sod off'!

    One reason perhaps why a federation has become so important and why resistance to it is both short-sighted and narrow-minded!
  10. Iolis,

    Simple soul, I. Which of the following apply:

    1. Selfless commitment is outmoded;
    2. Selfless commitment is impossible;
    3. Selfless commitment is irrelevant?

    Selfless commitment is a two-way obligation to first subordinate your interests to the interests of the team and second to discharge your responsibilities toward your subordinates.

    Are you suggesting by demonstrating selfless commitment you are contributing to the situation you outline:

    I think you have something else to say and I would like to hear it. Please use shorter sentences.
  11. Hi Solon_of_Athens,

    Thank you for your comments.

    In my submission, selfless commitment is neither outmoded, impossible nor irrelevant. However, it is in danger of being subsumed beneath bureaucratic callousness and indifference!

    If my contention is inaccurate than the call for a federation would have no meaning or relevance.

    That which I have to say is articulated in the rather lengthy sentences I have posted above!

    The length of the sentences may well have to increase beyond your attention span if I consider that which I have to say both relevant and appropriate.

    Have a nice day

    Regards and best wishes
  12. We have a contract. You all signed it.

    It's called the Military Covenant.

    If you do not wish to be bound by the rules of a contract, or find it unacceptable, you have the absolute right to terminate said contract.

    Your UAO holds the appropriate forms.
  13. Dear roseandpose,

    Thank you for your comments.

    You conflate the distinction that exists between a covenant and a contract.

    The principal characteristic of a contract is it's mutuality!

    Contracts by their very nature are enforceable. The party in default of it's terms risks being sued upon it and being ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction to either perform it's terms or paying damages in default.

    The Military covenant is not a contract. A covenant is no more than a solemn undertaking and in the military context, it lacks legal force. It binds morally rather than legally.

    'You've got a contract you've signed it, if you don't like it....etc'

    I have heard that so many times during a long military career!

    In my experience, the people who utter it throughout their career to those in subordinate positions are generally the first ones who appear with an application for legal aid at a solicitor's office asking for representation against the MOD for putting into practice that which they, victim has preached!
  14. May I ever so gently direct the various participants in this conversation also to the long-running BAFF thread in News & Current Affairs, as well as referring them to

    Thank you.
  15. Iolis,

    I haven't quite figured you out, and almost certainly never will, but it would help an awful lot of people if you actually wrote English, rather than the (extraordinarily) bizarre legalese which you appear so keen on.

    I think and hope you're trying to be helpful, but Yoda has a more comprehensive understanding of syntax than you. This is not a court, you are not addressing the jury and many of us would appreciate it if you could cut down on the subordinate clauses a bit.

    May I also respectfully suggest that 'importation' is a bollocky made-up word which 'import' has happily covered for several centuries, your use of 'that which I have to say' can be replaced with 'what I said', and 'hitherto' is now commonly abbreviated as 'before' or 'previously'.

    You know your stuff, that's clear, and we all appreciate your specialist input. But this is a forum where accuracy, brevity and a concise use of language are hugely appreciated.

    I'm genuinely not trying to be antagonistic, your knowledge is well beyond mine and, I'm confident, many of us. It's just that it's taking me 10 minutes to decode every sentence.