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

Thats how they fiddle it.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the spouse is supposed to stay in married quarters for the soldier to qualify for CEA.

The spouse doesnt, they normally move into the family home and so it becomes fraud, however if the spouse and soldier, keep their grids shut and the spouse turns up for the occasional function and weekend at the pads quarters they would have to be very unlucky to be caught.

Which is why they do it.
In sum, to remain eligible for CEA, basically the spouse should 'Follow the Flag' and live above the shop.
 
Last edited:
In sum, the spouse should 'Follow the Flag' and live above the shop.

Only if they want to claim CEA, nothing stops them living in their own house and sending their kids to the local school or paying the fees for private school themselves.
 
Someone mentioned the parliamentary expenses thing. It's worth remembering how that started out - they thought it looked bad politically to have a pay rise, put it off several times, the money started to fall dramatically behind comparable private sector or indeed civil service jobs, and the political parties and the parly administration gave them a nod-and-a-wink to make it up on the exes.

Of course - of course! - some of them took this as a green light to drink the pub dry.

Most importantly, it was the kind of mates' rates arrangement that always looks terrible in the light of outside scrutiny. Whatever fuss there would have been in the papers about a straightforward pay rise, it would have been nothing compared to the wholesale clusterfuck that broke out.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Someone mentioned the parliamentary expenses thing. It's worth remembering how that started out - they thought it looked bad politically to have a pay rise, put it off several times, the money started to fall dramatically behind comparable private sector or indeed civil service jobs, and the political parties and the parly administration gave them a nod-and-a-wink to make it up on the exes.

Of course - of course! - some of them took this as a green light to drink the pub dry.

Most importantly, it was the kind of mates' rates arrangement that always looks terrible in the light of outside scrutiny. Whatever fuss there would have been in the papers about a straightforward pay rise, it would have been nothing compared to the wholesale clusterfuck that broke out.
That was more or less the point I was making. There's only really one offence which attracts zero sympathy in the UK and that's taking the piss. It's hard to define but easy to recognise when you see it - and the parliamentary expenses scandal had the latter in spades.
 
That was more or less the point I was making. There's only really one offence which attracts zero sympathy in the UK and that's taking the piss. It's hard to define but easy to recognise when you see it - and the parliamentary expenses scandal had the latter in spades.

Thats still not the same as committing fraud, which is what Mr Welch is accused of.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer

9.414

War Hero
In all honestly even in civvie street its very hard to monitor similar schemes. Either they dont care where the wife is (The perk of CEA equivalent is based on the worker having kids and nothing else) or they ignore it because they cant trace where the wife lives.
At my place, for non host nations, their kids can either go to the international school or a boarding school in their own country with 90% of fees covered. I dont know of anyone checking on the spouses status.
This particular allowance could be much better monitored. If it is so important to retaining the allowance that the spouse spends sufficient time in the SFA to qualify then they should be required to tick a daily attendance box which would concentrate the minds much quicker and be easier to pick up anomalies. There would be an easy route to detection and the claimant would be forced to certify more regularly.

When you are claiming home to duty allowances this would a system familiar to many, but using the manual claim rather than auto.
 
Because you're happily making moral judgements about people you don't know and this isn't the NAAFI Bar.
Listen sonny, you atempted to drag this into a personal sniping match, I have made no comments about you so I fail to see what your issue is.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Listen sonny, you atempted to drag this into a personal sniping match, I have made no comments about you so I fail to see what your issue is.
Wow. Scary.

Funny too.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
This particular allowance could be much better monitored. If it is so important to retaining the allowance that the spouse spends sufficient time in the SFA to qualify then they should be required to tick a daily attendance box which would concentrate the minds much quicker and be easier to pick up anomalies. There would be an easy route to detection and the claimant would be forced to certify more regularly.

When you are claiming home to duty allowances this would a system familiar to many, but using the manual claim rather than auto.
If you are going to commit fraud you are going to tick a daily attendance sheet.
Also probably wouldnt work for leave, courses, weekends and JPA being knackered.

Hefty jail time is the answer.
 
Top