• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Do Redress's work

#1
Has anyone here, ever submited a redress only to find the rules  abused by the Chain of command, to stop it going high?

what is the most serious redress the anyone know about and how long did it take and what was the outcome?

One more, if for example part of your redress involved say a brigader, how far would the powers that be allow it to go on

Just thinking about submitting one but would like some INT first, dont want to waste my time if the army will not find against it self ;)
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#2
I know this has been debated before,  Artic_Socks raises a valid point about the absence of perceived fairness in the whole system of redresses of grievance. When I was serving, nobody believed that a redress was worth the effort because the system would never rule against itself. So what was the point? Soldiers need somewhere they can get unbiased advice on problems from eg people who understand there way of life and who have the know how and financial muscle to challenge the system. Don't get me wrong, I loved my time in the army and I still think it's a great way of life for young folk. But the system is far from perfect. Squaddies need some sort of independent representation to look after them and to monitor their terms of service. The modern army should look out, there's a freight train on the line.   :-X
 
#3
One more, if for example part of your redress involved say a brigader, how far would the powers that be allow it to go on
If you are absolutely certain that you are in the right, and you have been disadvantaged, then I suggest go for it. I would take confidential advice first, and there is plenty of that around from ringing up your local DALS rep, MCM Div rep or even reading QRs yourself depending what the subject is.

nobody believed that a redress was worth the effort because the system would never rule against itself
I accept this was the case a few years ago but there is no doubt that the system is getting better. Advice is often taken from DALS and there is now the employment tribunal which the system has to take account of when responding. Having been involved in a few of these;if there is any doubt the decision is normally made in favour of the person making the redress.

In summary, ensure you are correct in your understanding of the rules and regulations, take confidential advice and all correspondence should be writing. Before doing this though, I would make sure the chain of command are aware of your intentions as most complaints can be sorted out a local level before elevating things. The Brigadier will be well aware of this !
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#4
Fat chance in the army.  what about redressis of grievance that get binned because top brass don't like to upset the way things have always been done? The squaddy is always going to get the rough end when he comes up against system. They are not independent and they don't care about the squaddy, only uphodling the CO. Who is there for the soldier to get advice from in these cases. No one unless he shells out loads of cash for a civvy brief. But access to justice never was a strong point for the military was it, only perpetuation of the system?
 
#5
In the limited experience I have, I've seen two redresses in recent years, it is that the Chain is relatively scrupulous in its treatment and fairness...so long as the individual knows what he/she is redressing etc (detail is all important).  There are things that you Redress and things which do not amount to a Redress and which legally speaking are a Representation (quite different in outcome).  

Suggest anyone who believes they need to redress an individual, seeks clarification from an impartial officer/sorce on what he/she can do safely without it becoming a 'cake and arse party".
 
#7
Top Totty is quite correct - you cannot redress opinion, only fact. And a redress cannot be general ("I was treated unfairly", that sort of thing). It must mention specific points of fact or actions that are being redressed.

Also, and this is where a lot of people trip up, it must ask for a specific response or action. Again, saying "such and such was incorrect/wrong/unfair" is useless.  The redress must say "This is what I want done"

Examples may include:

1.  Such and such a sentance in my CR is factually incorrect. I want it removed from the pen picture.

2.   The grade does not match the pen picture. I want the grade increased to reflect what was written.

3.   I believe that it is extremely unfair to post me to X with 2 weeks notice, when I have letters from MCM Div dated 3 months ago agreeing that I will be posted to Y. My children have started school in Y and my wife has just started a new job in Y. I want MCM Div to reconsider my posting in the light of these facts.

If I remember rightly (its been a while since I've looked at the regulations) a redress must be processed in a timely manner, with no unreasonable delays, but I don' t think that there's a specific time limit. The further up the chain it has to go, the longer it will take. You should be kept informed of it's progress/whereabouts though. If it's been a long time, you should formally ask where the Redress has reached in the chain.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#8
I know of one Para Reg Officer, who signed off.
He was a desk officer at Army Appeals Wing, Glasgow.
He told me that he was disgusted at the way leagal would pick or disregard evidence from the soldier seeking redress. and would only make note of evidance in the brief that favoured the army. The case was a bullying one and it involved Officers and it would of been very unpalitble to admit liability.

However the evidance used is based on the balance of probabilities at the very least there must be evidence to show that it was more likely than not that the incident or event which led to the complaint actully occurred.

Not that of criminal law, some desk officers sometimes forget that and it can look very embarrassing at a high court after the Army Board has made there decision.
 
#9
I reckon we should have a mouthpiece or forum similar to the Police Federation - what does anyone else think?
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#10
I think there needs to be a new system, the old one is to out dated and easy to cover up as its all behind closed doors.
 
#11
I think there needs to be a new system, the old one is to out dated and easy to cover up as its all behind closed doors
It is not easy to cover up these days I assure you. Everything is open to scrutiny but it takes a solicitor to do it. There is no crown immunity either. Redresses are considered, and the reasons why a particular decision was taken are recorded as well. In other words, there is accountability.

I have no problems with a federation in principle except that it will cost money which could be better used for all our benefits rather than fat lawyers, and it will add another tier in the whole system which will delay matters further. There are timelines now by which redresses should be dealt. Furthermore, redresses are probably more successful now I suggest, then if a third party is involved. Food for thought !
 
#12
Ram - I hear what you're saying, but sometimes a soldier won't report a problem because he is of the (mistaken?) assumption that it will be kept in house and swept under the carpet.  A seperate agency (federation?) would at least give the illusion of neutrality.
 
#13
he is of the (mistaken?) assumption that it will be kept in house and swept under the carpet.  A seperate agency (federation?) would at least give the illusion of neutrality.
Yes - you are right and there is no getting away from this. It would provide a degree of perceived independance that would reassure. The police have one and I am sure it is just a question of time before we do.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#14
But why would we need one?
is the system that bad. and if so why have the redress system?
 
#15
Have dealt with the paper-work on the odd redress or two (dozens actually).  My experience, they do work provided they are based on properly presented facts, which can be supported by evidence.  Too often they fail because the only evidence put forward is “such and such is a to**er ask anyone.”  Not good enough I’m afraid either in a redress, a court or Industrial Tribunal.  

My only real complaint was the excessively long time they could take to sort out causing stress for all involved.
 
#16
Exactly my point, a redress (or representation) is fine if you have been f*cked over and have the evidence to prove it.  But what do you do and who do you go to if there's a "personality clash".  Invariably the highest rank wins.  I'm not saying we need to be a touchy, feely Army but sometimes an aggrieved soldier would be happier if he felt, at least, that he could speak to someone outside the chain and that he would be listened to.  We all know that soldiers like to whinge and maybe, just maybe, all they need is to feel like they're being heard.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#17
very True Soldier why. As most of the posts have pointed out. there is no faith in the redress system IF an officer is involved.
A soldier can redress against remarks, comments or career fouling, or even bullying, however the Chain of command have been known to abuse the system. do not tell me that is untrue.
As Retractr commented
 My experience, they do work provided they are based on properly presented facts, which can be supported by evidence.  Too often they fail because the only evidence put forward is “such and such is a to**er ask anyone.”  Not good enough I’m afraid either in a redress, a court or Industrial Tribunal.
However i know, if an officer makes a comment in a statment  about a soldier, who has submitted a redress aginst the Chain Of Command and that officer  has no documentury evidance I.E. MYA/Note books, to back his comments up,   thay are still allowed in the brief but the soldiers proof or witnesses are not. and labaled irrelivent.
WHY???
 
#18
However i know, if an officer makes a comment in a statment  about a soldier, who has submitted a redress aginst the Chain Of Command and that officer  has no documentury evidance I.E. MYA/Note books, to back his comments up,   thay are still allowed in the brief but the soldiers proof or witnesses are not. and labaled irrelivent.
You've just nailed the flaw in the system, the soldier will be perceived as the guilty party trying to squirm whilst the poor, innocent officer will be believed at every turn.

How many of us have been turned away with legitimate complaints because we either can't put the case across eloquently enough or we're just labelled as having a "bad attitude".
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#19
correct, ;)
I feel one of the main problems is that the case officers,  mostly have little or no Leagal training.
and are more intrested in upholding the good name of the army and that of officers "if" thay are involved and not that of natural justice I,E, attempting to water down the compaint. and drag the prosses out, some as long as 3 years. ::)
which is one reason why many a redress do not get to the Army Board as the appelant looses faith in the system and drops the redress,  when he/she then attempts to bring civil procedings  the case will not get to court as the redress was not brought to its conclusion, which is sometimes is a requirement if you have a redress system, and Glasgow knows it.
As John sullivan commented
" there's a freight train on the line"
 
#20
I feel one of the main problems is that the case officers,  mostly have little or no Leagal training.
Has as already been said, there is no need for legal training provided the evidence is presented it will speak for itself. Others better qulaified (ie the ALS) will address the law for you.

The crux to me seems to me that the soldiers must have confidence in the system in that justice must be transparent and seen to be done. If redresses fail, then explanations must be given as to the reason why.

This is normally done though the recipient normally does not agree, and that is where misunderstanding occurs. The solution - get a friend/SNCO or officer involved in the process and who can advise you.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top