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

[Queensman]

My prediction* on the outcome (T&Cs apply):
The hearing will continue for its set four weeks. By week 3 it will start to resemble a show trial. However, General Nick will be then found Not Guilty and the Army/MoD will be able to claim that they’ve shown that they’re not afraid to prosecute this sort of thing. Following the case there will be root & branch (and frankly, long overdue) changes to the CEA system.
Hopefully someone will then submit a FOA request to discover the total cost of the hearing to the taxpayer. Probably considerably more than the proceeds of the alleged fraud.

(*subject to daily review!)

 

[stacker1]

I suspect rules that limit an employee’s spouse’s freedom of movement and employment are highly open to challenge.

How have you worked that out? The spouse can do whatever they like, no one is stopping them having a job or living where they want. However if they want taxpayers money then they have to obey the rules.

 

[Danny_Dravot]

I suspect rules that limit an employee’s spouse’s freedom of movement and employment are highly open to challenge.

I can’t imagine a guilty verdict will be the end of this.

I agree, but it's not a restriction on freedom of movement. It's a rule that the family has to serve together. I suspect in this enlightened era of spousal employment and mobility, that a case could be build relatively easily to justify a spouse working away from home. My recollection is that the balance of judgment is about maintaining another home. Eg, I suspect a spouse working on a contract or a course that requires temporary accom in a hotel or work provided (and paid for) flat, is fundamentally different from continuing to live in your own family home.

Bottom line, if in doubt, speak to CEAS/JPAC.

 

[stacker1]

Following the case there will be root & branch (and frankly, long overdue) changes to the CEA system.

I'm sure they say this everytime there is yet another officer spanking the CEA.

There is nothing wrong with the rule that he is alleged to have broken. You live with your spouse, unless you have permission to do otherwise. Its not hard, even junior ranks manage to understand the certificate that they sign for CEA.

 

[Archibald]

I suspect rules that limit an employee’s spouse’s freedom of movement and employment are highly open to challenge.

I can’t imagine a guilty verdict will be the end of this.

But the employer is not limiting the spouses freedom of movement or employment, they are saying if you are in a situation where the spouses freedom of movement or employment is restricted you can claim CEA to compensate giving your children stability in education, if you choses otherwise then you are not entitled to CEA

Guilty as charged

If he is not guilty others will be able to do the same with regard to claiming CEA, I suspect that is he is found not guilty then CEA in the format it is today will disappear.

There have been 2 other guilty cases in as many weeks, I expect that MoD is sending an very overt message regarding compliance with the CEA rules, thereby demonstrating to the Treasury they are on the case

Archie

 

[9.414]

He's hasn't got a no win no fee lawyer?

That is called a "Conditional Fee Arrangement" and only applies to civil claims eg accident compo, and not to criminal cases.

In criminal matters you either get Legal Aid or pay privately - and a 4 week trial with a QC will be expensive.

 

[stacker1]

That is called a "Conditional Fee Arrangement" and only applies to civil claims eg accident compo, and not to criminal cases.

In criminal matters you either get Legal Aid or pay privately - and a 4 week trial with a QC will be expensive.

He can afford it, he saved 48k on school fees.

 

[9.414]

The spouse can even work away for over 90 days, the important thing is that they should not have set up a principal residence elsewhere and that they return to the "home" which is the RWA with the SP.

Examples given in various guidance are flight attendants (remember those?) who may work away for many days at a time and live in hotels provided by their employer when away but return to the RWA as their home between duties. Similar with offshore workers etc.

 

[Tappet]

I suspect rules that limit an employee’s spouse’s freedom of movement and employment are highly open to challenge.

I can’t imagine a guilty verdict will be the end of this.

They're not limiting them; just complying with their spouse's employer T&C for a benefit - a number of employers do this.

For example, my wife cannot (well, without getting me in the brown sticky stuff) buy/sell shares without my employer giving the go ahead first.

 

[twentyfirstoffoot]

I suspect rules that limit an employee’s spouse’s freedom of movement and employment are highly open to challenge.

The rules don't limit a spouses freedom of movement they only limit the entitlement of the Service person to claim if the wife is domicile elsewhere.

Though I agree, this ain't going anywhere near guilty but not due to burden of proof and evidence and all that legal nonsense

That quarters patch in Putney seems like a total bitch festival.

on another point, I wonder what their living arrangements were when he was in Gloucester?

 

[History_Man]

I seem to remember that was against the rules. Certainly was if you were on an MOD AA card.

It is with GPCs. However, I don't see how use of a personal credit card in the absence of a GPC facility could result in further action.

 

[stacker1]

I seem to remember that was against the rules. Certainly was if you were on an MOD AA card.

Its only against the rules if you get caught, lots of bonus schemes either don't show up on the receipts or they appear at the very bottom and can be cut off (Costco receipts for example).

 

[stacker1]

That quarters patch in Putney seems like a total bitch festival.

Its possible someone really did have the moral courage to report fraud.

 

[twentyfirstoffoot]

Its possible someone really did have the moral courage to report fraud.

Agreed, but looking at the accounts reported it seems the grievance was the allocation of quarters it comes across as more like a blend of Eastenders and Real Housewives.

"He had the big house and we were all vewwy angry!"

@Stonker all you RRF types grasses?

 

[stacker1]

Agreed, but looking at the accounts reported it seems the grievance was the allocation of quarters it comes across as more like a blend of Eastenders and Real Housewives.

"He had the big house and we were all vewwy angry!"

@Stonker all you RRF types grasses?

Maybe thats what the defence would like people to think. Nothing to see here except jealously.

I'm not sure if by his appointment he would get a big house anyway (Like single COs and RSMs) but the only people who would benefit from him giving up his pad, would be other officers with 3 kids.

 

[Kroneit44]

It is with GPCs. However, I don't see how use of a personal credit card in the absence of a GPC facility could result in further action.

My assumption is that it's a stone they don't want to turn over. Can you imagine the amount of platinum lounge cards there are per capita within FCO?

 

[Whiskybreath]

Major general accused of swindling £50k 'was reported by Colonel'

Major General Nick Welch, 54, allegedly claimed his wife Charlotte was living at the new London residence he got upon staring a job at the Ministry of Defence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Not really following this, but I'm a little puzzled about the evidence being given in this report; someone 'was never seen' (as grassed by some Colonel) surely doesn't carry the same weight as 'someone was constantly seen' somewhere else. Unless there are witnesses who can state credibly that the Mrs was in permanent residence (or within the time bounds) at one or the other houses, I'd have thought that there's no real case to answer, and that it boils down to the honesty and integrity of the good General. Given that he has plead Not Guilty, he clearly thinks that he can win. Or is that me being naive?

 

[stacker1]

Major general accused of swindling £50k 'was reported by Colonel'

Major General Nick Welch, 54, allegedly claimed his wife Charlotte was living at the new London residence he got upon staring a job at the Ministry of Defence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Not really following this, but I'm a little puzzled about the evidence being given in this report; someone 'was never seen' (as grassed by some Colonel) surely doesn't carry the same weight as 'someone was constantly seen' somewhere else. Unless there are witnesses who can state credibly that the Mrs was in permanent residence (or within the time bounds) at one or the other houses, I'd have thought that there's no real case to answer, and that it boils down to the honesty and integrity of the good General. Given that he has plead Not Guilty, he clearly thinks that he can win. Or is that me being naive?

You mean like tracking her phone, using her diary or reading texts showing that they were trying to cover it up?

 

[Whiskybreath]

You mean like tracking her phone, using her diary or reading texts showing that they were trying to cover it up?

I reckon.

 

[Sexton Blake]

Its only against the rules if you get caught, lots of bonus schemes either don't show up on the receipts or they appear at the very bottom and can be cut off (Costco receipts for example).

And the bottom of a Sainsbury’s petrol receipt that shows the nectar points when one fills up a hire car.

Erm, apparently.