Interesting court martial on the horizon, General in the dock.

Will it though. Its not a large amount as far as frauds go. I take it he has no previous convictions. Was of good standing, served his country. Not likely to re-offend. I would be suprised if he got a custodial sentence in a civilian jail. He will keep his pension. He might lose his present job, but I am sure old boy network will see him fine.
Conviction for fraud is one of the few ways an employer can confiscate an employees pension. Although only to the amount needed to cover the losses they suffered
 
Will it though. Its not a large amount as far as frauds go. I take it he has no previous convictions. Was of good standing, served his country. Not likely to re-offend. I would be suprised if he got a custodial sentence in a civilian jail. He will keep his pension. He might lose his present job, but I am sure old boy network will see him fine.
Sentencing guidlines for civvy courts

Are CMs free to ignore them or are their hands tied the same as Judge's?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
The notion of making someone parade in their No2s with an overnight bag before they can go sick is utterly childish, and patronising in the extreme. I don’t know what it says about the Army: it’s a childish/patronising organisation by default; it holds its soldiers in poor regard and is happy to piss them about; or its soldiers are so shit and untrustworthy that they deserve to be pissed about. Whichever, it’s not good.
I totally agree with your first sentence. The rest is bollocks though. RAF = good, Army = bad is not much of an argument as I know you know.
 
Sentencing guidlines for civvy courts

Are CMs free to ignore them or are their hands tied the same as Judge's?

have s read...

Sentencing Council Guidelines

2.15
The Act requires the court to “have regard to” any guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council [SC] that are relevant to the offender’s case [s 259(1)]. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s 125(1), which requires a court to “follow” any relevant sentencing guidelines, does not apply to the Court Martial. The Armed Forces Act 2006 permits the court to depart from those guidelines if in its opinion the departure is justified by any features of Service life or of the Service disciplinary system that are relevant to the case [s 259(2)]. The SC Guidelines do not take into account the different range of sentencing options available to the Court Martial. This Sentencing Guide supplements the SC guidelines in relation to criminal conduct offences and provides examples of such features and differences. When explaining the court’s reasons for sentence, the judge should explain whether there is any departure from the SC guidelines and state what features of Service life or of the Service disciplinary system justifies any departure. There are no SC guidelines in relation to Service disciplinary offences; this guide, and the Manual of Service Law Chapter 14 for summary hearings, provides the only available guidance.
 
Last edited:
And then the CO wondering why the PVR rate (or the more modern 7 clicks to freedom) for his unit was so high and questions were being asked from above, with all the hierachy stood there scratching their heads.
And the RMO (The Unicorn) was never available to sign the final box.
Breath-taking arrogance from some of those in the chain of command, and a total lack of knowledge of those under their command.
 
And the RMO (The Unicorn) was never available to sign the final box.
Breath-taking arrogance from some of those in the chain of command, and a total lack of knowledge of those under their command.

Quite a few of them post on here, either they were completely unaware that its ever happened, that it was the only the WOs enforcing a bone rule or claim that people dont sign of for X reason.
 
I think this and the raft of similar cases in the past really justifies a root and branch examination of the Allowance. CEA is making criminals out of otherwise honest people and causing a breakdown of trust as who can trust a comrade/leader who is involved in dishonest behavior, being prepared to lie and cheat to achieve their aim? This is not directed at Nick Welch by the way just the circumstances CEA creates. Either Private Education is a perquesit of the job and all should be entitled with the MoD picking up the tab, or the Allowance should be done away with.
 
CEA is making criminals out of otherwise honest people
No it isn't. They wilfully choose to breach the rules (which they sign and agree to - and most likely read about others breaching) and therefore are choosing to defraud the Army.

That's like saying Kitchen knives are making violent thugs out of otherwise peaceful people.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
I think this and the raft of similar cases in the past really justifies a root and branch examination of the Allowance. CEA is making criminals out of otherwise honest people and causing a breakdown of trust as who can trust a comrade/leader who is involved in dishonest behavior, being prepared to lie and cheat to achieve their aim? This is not directed at Nick Welch by the way just the circumstances CEA creates. Either Private Education is a perquesit of the job and all should be entitled with the MoD picking up the tab, or the Allowance should be done away with.
Something in that. The General's not being done for an act of utter dishonesty, he's being done, pour encourager les autres, for failing to tick all the boxes while gaming a complex system. Had he or his lady wife done some things differently, they'd have been fine and could have continued sending their spawn to fee-paying schools with a completely clear conscience.

This isn't unlike the Parliamentary expenses scandal a few years ago, when MPs were gaming the system furiously and a few suffered damage when it emerged that their gaming wasn't - quite- good enough.

I have no idea how the system could be reformed. If things like CEA became an entitlement, granted freely to all ranks under all circumstances, just imagine the HMRC howls of glee as they descended upon the benefits in kind.
 
I think this and the raft of similar cases in the past really justifies a root and branch examination of the Allowance. CEA is making criminals out of otherwise honest people and causing a breakdown of trust as who can trust a comrade/leader who is involved in dishonest behavior, being prepared to lie and cheat to achieve their aim? This is not directed at Nick Welch by the way just the circumstances CEA creates. Either Private Education is a perquesit of the job and all should be entitled with the MoD picking up the tab, or the Allowance should be done away with.
Good post; I’ve been thinking similar, not least because two of the current cases I know personally. The Hamilton case in particular highlights the stupidity of the rules.

I suspect the Welch case could be a the beginning of the end for CEA. It’s darned hard to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for boarding school for someone with a home in Dorset and a job in London.
 
Good post; I’ve been thinking similar, not least because two of the current cases I know personally. The Hamilton case in particular highlights the stupidity of the rules.

I suspect the Welch case could be a the beginning of the end for CEA. It’s darned hard to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for boarding school for someone with a home in Dorset and a job in London.

This.
 
That's like saying Kitchen knives are making violent thugs out of otherwise peaceful people.
Not at all, if someone picks up a kitchen knife with the intent of hurting someone it is at that point they become a criminal. If someone legitimately claims CEA for a number of years and then due to a change in circumstances loses their entitlement and falsifies the paperwork, it is at that point they become a criminal.
 
Had he or his lady wife done some things differently, they'd have been fine and could have continued sending their spawn to fee-paying schools with a completely clear conscience.
Done things differently...like lived in the places they said they were living?

The rules, especially in the manner in which they appear to be continually broken, are not that complex - and any Major General should certainly be able to understand them, or I would have concerns over their ability to understand other defence matters.
 
Not at all, if someone picks up a kitchen knife with the intent of hurting someone it is at that point they become a criminal. If someone legitimately claims CEA for a number of years and then due to a change in circumstances loses their entitlement and falsifies the paperwork, it is at that point they become a criminal.
So when they decide to falsify paperwork, they (if caught & found guilty) become a criminal.

It's not 'making criminals out of people'. Their circumstances have changed and they choose to falsify (NB - that's not usually considered a good thing to do) paperwork. They could equally choose not to do that, and not be a criminal.

If a 2* officer can't understand that falsifying stuff is bad, or that when situations change you may have to reassess some stuff, then that doesn't look particularly good. If they don't understand or don't care about the rules that doesn't bode well for their professional competence or eye for detail.

Edit: What crime does someone commit if they pick up a kitchen knife with the intent to hurt someone? If they act on that intent - sure; attempted assault - but not before they act.
 
Last edited:
I think this and the raft of similar cases in the past really justifies a root and branch examination of the Allowance. CEA is making criminals out of otherwise honest people and causing a breakdown of trust as who can trust a comrade/leader who is involved in dishonest behavior, being prepared to lie and cheat to achieve their aim? This is not directed at Nick Welch by the way just the circumstances CEA creates. Either Private Education is a perquesit of the job and all should be entitled with the MoD picking up the tab, or the Allowance should be done away with.

Anyone who is ripping off CEA is doing so because they are a thieving ****, CEA doesn't make them commit fraud anymore than the PlayStations in the V&A store makes suppliers thieves.
Plenty of people resist the temptation. Although its not much of an excuse at least those that divorce/seperate can say they did it for the sake of their childs education, those who do it because they want their spouse to live in the family home cant claim the same. They arent being forced to give up CEA (like those who separate), they are willingly stealing from the military.
 
Anyone who is ripping off CEA is doing so because they are a thieving ****, CEA doesn't make them commit fraud anymore than the PlayStations in the V&A store makes suppliers thieves.
Plenty of people resist the temptation. Although its not much of an excuse at least those that divorce/seperate can say they did it for the sake of their childs education, those who do it because they want their spouse to live in the family home cant claim the same. They arent being forced to give up CEA (like those who separate), they are willingly stealing from the military.
I wonder if they would apply the same thought process to JPA claims - we should let the Junior Ranks get away with anything they put into JPA.

After all, it's not their fault that it's a complicated (defunct/cr*ppy/old) system with complicated claims rules (all the JSPs). That system is making criminals out of them, I tell you.
 
Something in that. The General's not being done for an act of utter dishonesty, he's being done, pour encourager les autres, for failing to tick all the boxes while gaming a complex system. Had he or his lady wife done some things differently, they'd have been fine and could have continued sending their spawn to fee-paying schools with a completely clear conscience.

This isn't unlike the Parliamentary expenses scandal a few years ago, when MPs were gaming the system furiously and a few suffered damage when it emerged that their gaming wasn't - quite- good enough.

I have no idea how the system could be reformed. If things like CEA became an entitlement, granted freely to all ranks under all circumstances, just imagine the HMRC howls of glee as they descended upon the benefits in kind.

Its very unlike the parliamentary expenses, most of what the politicians did was legally correct, very few actually committed a crime.

People whose spouse lives away from them while claiming CEA, are not "gaming a complex system", they are thieving cnuts who know full well they are committing fraud.

So Welch is indeed being accused of utter dishonesty, dont make excuses for him.
 
Good post; I’ve been thinking similar, not least because two of the current cases I know personally. The Hamilton case in particular highlights the stupidity of the rules.

I suspect the Welch case could be a the beginning of the end for CEA. It’s darned hard to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for boarding school for someone with a home in Dorset and a job in London.

Taxpayers arent supposed to foot the bill boarding school for someone with a home in Dorset and a job in London.
That's why Mr Welch is in court.
 
I wonder if they would apply the same thought process to JPA claims - we should let the Junior Ranks get away with anything they put into JPA.

After all, it's not their fault that it's a complicated (defunct/cr*ppy/old) system with complicated claims rules (all the JSPs). That system is making criminals out of them, I tell you.

Thats different, y'see. Juniors (Who generally don't have their own work stations) should know every obscure section of the JSPs, that why they should be flogged for claiming a bottle of water when they are not entitled

Where as a poor old Major General cant possibly be expected to know that a very important part of claiming CEA is to have your spouse live with you, despite re-signing the CEA paperwork every year.
Its very complex apparently. Even when several people have been charged and found guilty for CEA fraud, you cant expect a Major General to think about the legal aspects, thats for the plebs to worry about.
 

Latest Threads

Top