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

Whilst all major units have recovered to UK, there are a considerable number of overseas appointments primarily at OF4-OF6: DA, NATO, wider DE, training, LOs plus a whole load of 12 month OCE appts. You'd be astonished where we have people and in what numbers. Eg, there are something like 200 OF3+ posts in USA, Saudi has 50+, Oman (exceptionally) is headed up by a 2* etc. Whilst our army has shrunk, our influence is being maintained of sorts. We even have an OF5 in S Korea (not incl the DA).
Jobs for the boys
 
That's not the case at all. We couldn't send a SNCO, WO or even a Major to be our defence rep in say the UN DPKO...3 yr tour in Manhattan. Its a shit job but someones got to do it!

Im pretty certain 200 OF3 in the USA wont be doing much defence repping. Nice little jolly though.
 
... your usual accuracy? He is a she ...

I only point it out because being a bit careless with claims etc can get you into a lot of trouble! Just ask the General ...

Did you just assume someones gender?
 
I should assume so, why wouldnt it be allowed?
Had a father committed an offence against their child, I could understand the child being asked to make a statement, but where is the offence against the child in this case?

Makes for a pleasant atmosphere in that household.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Im pretty certain 200 OF3 in the USA wont be doing much defence repping. Nice little jolly though.
200 OF3+, not x200 OF3s.
From the top of my head, DA is a 2*, SBMA CENTCOM is a 2*. Each has a pretty punchy outer office. There is DComd 1 ID; Senior LOs at Southcom, Northcom, ACDS Log Ops, DI etc. Plus NATO appts in USA, plus exchange appts in various units.

DA Caribbean used to be an OF5, recently de-enriched to an OF4 - based in Jamaica...sounds a jolly, absolutely key appt and a mistake not keeping it as OF5.
 
Had a father committed an offence against their child, I could understand the child being asked to make a statement, but where is the offence against the child in this case?

Makes for a pleasant atmosphere in that household.

Would would an offence against the child be needed to make a statement, hes a witness like anyone else.

It wouldnt be the kids fault if he didnt know his proper address, it would be the parents.
 
200 OF3+, not x200 OF3s.
From the top of my head, DA is a 2*, SBMA CENTCOM is a 2*. Each has a pretty punchy outer office. There is DComd 1 ID; Senior LOs at Southcom, Northcom, ACDS Log Ops, DI etc. Plus NATO appts in USA, plus exchange appts in various units.

DA Caribbean used to be an OF5, recently de-enriched to an OF4 - based in Jamaica...sounds a jolly, absolutely key appt and a mistake not keeping it as OF5.

What does he do out there when not necking red stripe?
 
200 OF3+, not x200 OF3s.
From the top of my head, DA is a 2*, SBMA CENTCOM is a 2*. Each has a pretty punchy outer office. There is DComd 1 ID; Senior LOs at Southcom, Northcom, ACDS Log Ops, DI etc. Plus NATO appts in USA, plus exchange appts in various units.

DA Caribbean used to be an OF5, recently de-enriched to an OF4 - based in Jamaica...sounds a jolly, absolutely key appt and a mistake not keeping it as OF5.
DA Caribbean is the reincarnation of SNOWI Senior Naval Officer West Indies that was? can he still hang pirates?
 
We even have an OF5 in S Korea (not incl the DA).
Thats probably because the UK has a position as Deputy to the US commander on the UN Armistice committee at Panamunjon in the DMZ. They used to meet with the North Korean and PLA represenatives once a month to denouce each other. They also used to meet if there had been a border incident.

A leftover from when the Armistice was signed in 1953. The British Rep rarely says anything but just sits behind the American General who is also the Commander of all US and ROK forces in South Korea.

Back in the eighties it was a local Brigadier/substansive Colonel post. He also had a Major as his deputy. They were double hatted as DA and Deputy DA at the British Embassy.
 
Does that statement mean the investigators interviewed a child in order to get a statement against their father? Is that allowed? Just asking cos I'm not a legal beagle.
Its hard to see how it can be used as evidence in court. Its not a child protection case, and to get a statement from a person under 17 you have to have the permission of an appropriate adult which is normally a parent. I can't see them using one of the defendant's children to give evidence against him in court, and if they did he/she would be classed as a hostile witness (hostile to the prosecution's case)

I would think that it is likely that they spoke to someone at the defendant's child's school, which would seem to be hearsay evidence. I am suprised it has been used in court in that case.
 
Bit more evidence presented today

Prosecutor Sarah Clarke QC read to the court a series of messages from Mrs Welch to her friends, in which she suggests her husband's rank 'daunted' the anonymous complainer.

In one, she said: 'The saddest thing is that one of my London neighbours reported us.

'I have been away a lot recently so I have not been doing the coffee mornings and showing my face.

'I'm trying to put my feet in their shoes to understand why they have done it.

'Perhaps they are daunted by Nick's rank, all of their husbands are two or three ranks below.'

Another said: 'Nick has just been told about the small print in the latest Army regulations which say I can only be away from the house for 90 days so I have just had to dash back up here.'

She also said: 'I always thought that if Nick was not at home I didn't have to be there. I thought that spending weekends in Dorset was allowed.'

Maj Gen Welch (pictured) denies one count of fraud


+3
Maj Gen Welch (pictured) denies one count of fraud

Ms Clarke said the anonymous complaint had been filed to Army housing workers, questioning why the four-bedroom property was often empty 'at a time of housing austerity'.
If all they have got is phone transcipts from Nicks wife to prove the prosecution's case it seems a bit thin. They have obviously seized both their phones as evidence when Nick was nicked. The info from the anonymous complainant is hearsay. The prosecution haven't identified this complainant, taken a statement from he/she and produced them as a prosecution witnesses or it would have been mentioned in the prosecution's outline of their case.

Mr and Mrs Nick have not been under surveillance which would have to have been authorised by a judge under RIPA. The only evidence they seem to have of her movements are her phone records. The Prosecution have to prove the allegation of fraud beyond reasonable doubt. The Defence do not have to prove anything.

It could be the Defence case that the only thing that Nick is guilty of is gameplaying the system, not fraud. Filthy Contract has said that Nick was abroad a lot on meetings. In that case why shouldn't his wife go back to her second home to be nearer her children rather than be stuck in a house on her own in a strange place. It would be natural.

Another said: 'Nick has just been told about the small print in the latest Army regulations which say I can only be away from the house for 90 days so I have just had to dash back up here.'

She also said: 'I always thought that if Nick was not at home I didn't have to be there. I thought that spending weekends in Dorset was allowed
.'

The above two emails seem to undermine the prosecutions case. They seem to suggest confusion about an arcane ever changing system and an attempt to keep up with gameplaying the system as opposed to proving
fraud.


The defence could make out the reason for them gameplaying the system was because they had moved numerous times in the army which required them to put their children in a boarding school for thier education and they wanted to stay at school for Nick's final two years in the army but she wanted to be near him when he wasn't away abroad.

The case seems to be similar to the MP expenses scandal with MP's charging for their second homes. Very few if any got charged with fraud for that, they just repayed the money.

The cases of fraud where the defendant ends up in jail are usually those where the they are in a position of trust. Examples are of finance managers of big companies who are diverting funds into their own private bank accounts and using them to buy houses, expensive cars, whores and luxury holidays.

Far be it for me to defend a senior officer. Just thinking how the case might go unless the prosecution produce something more substantial.
 
Whilst all major units have recovered to UK, there are a considerable number of overseas appointments primarily at OF4-OF6: DA, NATO, wider DE, training, LOs plus a whole load of 12 month OCE appts. You'd be astonished where we have people and in what numbers. Eg, there are something like 200 OF3+ posts in USA, Saudi has 50+, Oman (exceptionally) is headed up by a 2* etc. Whilst our army has shrunk, our influence is being maintained of sorts. We even have an OF5 in S Korea (not incl the DA).

And those are the posts for which CEA should be reserved, not for moves in the Larkhill/Bulford/Tidworth, Andover and Shrivenham triangle.
 
If all they have got is phone transcipts from Nicks wife to prove the prosecution's case it seems a bit thin. They have obviously seized both their phones as evidence when Nick was nicked. The info from the anonymous complainant is hearsay. The prosecution haven't identified this complainant, taken a statement from he/she and produced them as a prosecution witnesses or it would have been mentioned in the prosecution's outline of their case.

Mr and Mrs Nick have not been under surveillance which would have to have been authorised by a judge under RIPA. The only evidence they seem to have of her movements are her phone records. The Prosecution have to prove the allegation of fraud beyond reasonable doubt. The Defence do not have to prove anything.

It could be the Defence case that the only thing that Nick is guilty of is gameplaying the system, not fraud. Filthy Contract has said that Nick was abroad a lot on meetings. In that case why shouldn't his wife go back to her second home to be nearer her children rather than be stuck in a house on her own in a strange place. It would be natural.

Another said: 'Nick has just been told about the small print in the latest Army regulations which say I can only be away from the house for 90 days so I have just had to dash back up here.'

She also said: 'I always thought that if Nick was not at home I didn't have to be there. I thought that spending weekends in Dorset was allowed
.'

The above two emails seem to undermine the prosecutions case. They seem to suggest confusion about an arcane ever changing system and an attempt to keep up with gameplaying the system as opposed to proving
fraud.


The defence could make out the reason for them gameplaying the system was because they had moved numerous times in the army which required them to put their children in a boarding school for thier education and they wanted to stay at school for Nick's final two years in the army but she wanted to be near him when he wasn't away abroad.

The case seems to be similar to the MP expenses scandal with MP's charging for their second homes. Very few if any got charged with fraud for that, they just repayed the money.

The cases of fraud where the defendant ends up in jail are usually those where the they are in a position of trust. Examples are of finance managers of big companies who are diverting funds into their own private bank accounts and using them to buy houses, expensive cars, whores and luxury holidays.

Far be it for me to defend a senior officer. Just thinking how the case might go unless the prosecution produce something more substantial.
She's not the one on trial, so it doesn't matter what she says about not knowing about the 90 day rule, its not in the small print and it's not new, the system isn't arcane and it wasn't ever changing. Mr Welch would have known about it.

Also I think I read earlier it was much more than weekends.

The politicians (mainly) didn't commit fraud, claiming CEA while the wife doesn't live with you is fraud. Two very different situations.

Edited to add

She said an investigation showed Mrs Welch, who did freelance work in London on occasion, spent less than 10 per cent of Fridays over the 15 month period in London and zero Saturdays.

The longest period she spent in London was five days, which only happened on three occasions.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top