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

[stacker1]

Don’t I know it.

Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!

I think the last time I looked it up, there were around 4000 claimant's, 60% were officers and more than 80% of CEA was for those based in the UK.

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

I think the last time I looked it up, there were around 4000 claimant's, 60% were officers and more than 80% of CEA was for those based in the UK.

Interesting - I didn’t think the rank divide would be that close tbh. I wonder how many started the CEA when overseas and subsequently moved back to UK?

 

[Paymaster]

Did yours? It’s Dotheboys Hall

It was a pun doh

 

[twentyfirstoffoot]

Interesting - I didn’t think the rank divide would be that close tbh. I wonder how many started the CEA when overseas and subsequently moved back to UK?

Some good, if dated stats here:

Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.

questions-statements.parliament.uk

 

[Paymaster]

Interesting - I didn’t think the rank divide would be that close tbh. I wonder how many started the CEA when overseas and subsequently moved back to UK?

The UK can be just as destabilising, a move from an English school to one in Scotland during an exam period could be disastrous, the systems are totally different. Then there is North Wales and Welsh Language teaching. Even in England different authorities use different exam boards.

 

[Bodenplatte]

CEA, as it is now called, or BSA (Boarding School Allowance) as was, going back to, say, the 80s used to be fairly straightforward to claim, and the relative locations of parents and children were not a factor. There were caps on the amounts refundable, but no obligation to self-fund a certain percentage - if you could find an inexpensive school, then the allowance might cover all costs. The only frequent bone of contention was in regards to extras charged by schools, and which could/could not be claimed for. Withdrawal of children, or changes of school caused occasional individual problems with the idea of continuity, but such cases were "staffed up" and treated with considerable tolerance.

The real attraction of claiming the allowance was that it provided for a private education. By way of comparison, the alternative Day School Allowance (does that still exist?) had no element to cover tuition fees - it was simply a subsistence/accommodation contributory allowance available to parents who could find somewhere for their offspring to live (say with relatives) whilst getting continuity of education at a State (i.e. free) school. It was very rarely claimed.

Then in the late 80s private school fees exploded - I have seen figures of 550% increases between 1990 and 2015 and BSA/CEA became a colossally expensive item causing friction between MOD and the Treasury. "Continuity of Education" Allowance as a name replaced "BSA" as a means of emphasising what the payment was meant to be for, and more restrictive rules were introduced.
The three services were able to advance powerful and weighty opposition to further threats to the allowance because those who were amongst the most likely to claim it were in senior and influential appointments.

The SCEA (Service Children's Education Authority) ran weekly boarding schools in Germany. These were for older children who were staying in full time education past the minimum school leaving age, possibly for A Levels. The smallish number of kids going on to this level did not justify the provision of facilities at each of the multiplicity of BFES schools dotted around northern Germany.
A small charge was raised against parents for subsistence costs.

Following on from this precedent, there is no valid reason why accommodation facilities for service children could not be arranged, linked to selected state schools in UK so that continuity of education might be achieved without incurring the huge fees now charged by private schools.

 

[stacker1]

Following on from this precedent, there is no valid reason why accommodation facilities for service children could not be arranged, linked to selected state schools in UK so that continuity of education might be achieved without incurring the huge fees now charged by private schools.

Believe me, you will see all manner of excuses on here why this can't possibly happen.

 

[Bodenplatte]

Believe me, you will see all manner of excuses on here why this can't possibly happen.

I expect no less.

Another little game that was played was in the area of special needs, for which an enhanced allowance was (is?) payable. Pay a specialist speech therapist to declare that the child is dyslexic, and bingo! Lots more cash.

 

[Caecilius]

Believe me, you will see all manner of excuses on here why this can't possibly happen.

I think it would be relatively easy, but once you worked out the actual cost to the taxpayer per child I'd be surprised if it didn't work out more expensive than CEA.

 

[stacker1]

I think it would be relatively easy, but once you worked out the actual cost to the taxpayer per child I'd be surprised if it didn't work out more expensive than CEA.

Thats one of the excuses.

 

[Caecilius]

Thats one of the excuses.

Why am I not surprised that your issues with CEA have nothing to do with saving money?

 

[stacker1]

Why am I not surprised that your issues with CEA have nothing to do with saving money?

Someone used this **** excuse before, I went to effort of looking up the cost, the MOD could build 5 boarding schools for pads brats and save a fortune in a short period of time, but of course we know its not about saying money, its about little Tarquin going to the right sort of school

 

[Caecilius]

Someone used this **** excuse before

It's not an excuse. It's either true or it's not. If it would be cheaper to create a government boarding system then we should do it, I'd just be surprised if it really were cheaper.

I went to effort of looking up the cost, the MOD could build 5 boarding schools for pads brats and save a fortune in a short period of time,

What do you mean by looking up the cost? The budget for running a school, especially if you include investment in new buildings, isn't a simple calculation.

but of course we know its not about saying money, its about little Tarquin going to the right sort of school

Not for me it isn't. I don't have kids and don't intend to.

 

[stacker1]

It's not an excuse. It's either true or it's not. If it would be cheaper to create a government boarding system then we should do it, I'd just be surprised if it really were cheaper.



What do you mean by looking up the cost? The budget for running a school, especially if you include investment in new buildings, isn't a simple calculation.



Not for me it isn't. I don't have kids and don't intend to.

I'll see if find the thread, but I think you could build the schools and run them using the fee system of state boarding schools and the MOD would say a fortune.
The CEA cost between state and private boarding schools can be over 10k per kid a year, I'm pretty sure that saving alone is enough to build new schools.
If it wasn't profitable, private schools wouldn't be in business.


I was referring to all those who come up with the **** excuses.

Such as
What would happen to the state system if CEA was abolished and it suddenly got 8000 new pupils?
Well, not a lot seeing as Germany closed down with thousands of pads kids going to uk state schools. Also its nowhere near 8000.

It's actually saving the state money.
Bollocks, if it was, the state would be pushing for alot more pads brats to go private.

The school needs to be near friends/relatives of the family.
No it doesn't, CEA is to provide continuity, nothing more.

Probably a few more shit ones will appear.

I seem to remember Duke of York (I think) being either fee free or near fee free for pads, but there were loads of excuse why people couldn't send their kids there as well.

 

[Albertous]

I’m potting up some herbs this afternoon so I don’t have the time for the research....

The term is "potting on" you plebeian .

Gentlemen gardeners "pot on", nouveau freak trying to help the environment by growing my own "pot up"!

 

[jrwlynch]

I think it would be relatively easy, but once you worked out the actual cost to the taxpayer per child I'd be surprised if it didn't work out more expensive than CEA.

For the Treasury to sign off on it, it's got to end up more expensive, more embuggerance, and less effective, otherwise they'll block it...

 

[9.414]

The term is "potting on" you plebeian .

Gentlemen gardeners "pot on", nouveau freak trying to help the environment by growing my own "pot up"!

You need to remember he was probably being careful in giving away too much info

I had no difficulty in working out his new lockdown habits when he started to refer to "pot" and "herb"

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

The term is "potting on" you plebeian .

Gentlemen gardeners "pot on", nouveau freak trying to help the environment by growing my own "pot up"!

There’s no gentlemen in the RHS then! I honestly didn’t think there was a difference.

 

[stacker1]

@Caecilius

I cant find the other thread but I said this earlier in this thread

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/interesting-court-martial-on-the-horizon-general-in-the-dock.300837/page-14#post-10140720

 

[Filthy_contract]

This. And when there is a genuine and exceptional reason why your spouse needs to be absent, there is a process through CEAS and JPAC to apply for dispensation. Because the quarter is a bit crap or the spouse has a better job elsewhere are not valid reasons.

However, once the defence team pulls threads at the prosecution case and statistics (including the minimum of 6 weeks for CPAC to respond to case work), there may be sufficient doubt amongst the Board not to convict him.

That's the point: the defence team has only to engender doubt in the prosecution's case; they don't have to prove he is innocent.