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

Yes, I get that. You were posting about seniors assaulting junior personnel.
Please pick out the assault cases where “a drunken assault on a subordinate” was not important to the Service Justice System.
You have just ignored the one about the woman headbutting a bloke.
You can see by the court martial results which although doesnt show the victim rank, it does show most violence isnt as serious as theft.

Edited to add, even officers are known to smack subordinates.

 
Last edited:
CEA only amounts to enough to fund the same standard of education that anyone else would get.

Which is why it survives.

Anything over the allowance comes from the parents own pockets. In reality what it means is that to get any sort of educational stability in a career where the individual is bounced from place to place (less of an issue now, but still part of the T&C) the parents are obliged to pay large amounts of money.

Hardly an "incredible handout"
Im going to take a wild guess here and suggest most of those getting CEA on average are going to be getting a better standard of education than those who dont go to bordering school.

It survives because officers fight like **** to retain it.
 
Yes, I get that. You were posting about seniors assaulting junior personnel.
Please pick out the assault cases where “a drunken assault on a subordinate” was not important to the Service Justice System.
£2000 fine for the female Sgt drunkenly assaulting an OR seem fairly light - whats that a months salary

Archie
 
You have just ignored the one about the woman headbutting a bloke.
You can see by the court martial results which although doesnt show the victim rank, it does show most violence isnt as serious as theft.
Yes, I know. The CM can, and will, deal with offences within their jurisdiction. The judges are also on the civilian circuit and must publish their reasons for sentencing, just like any other judge - that is the basis of common law.
The simple fact that the trial is in a military courtroom, rather than another courtroom bearing the Coat of Arms doesn’t mean a thing. The important bit is the charge/indictment/summons says ‘R v xxxx’.
A trial before the law of the land. HHJ Jeff Blackett described is as thus. A trial the military can hold in the field, sea or wherever, if the expediences of the service, but justice must be done.
 
>>Slight drift for a bit of background<<

It was the behaviour of this guy, Gordon Foxley, that brought in that policy plus the separation of financial and contractual authority when it came to letting contracts. While he was feathering his nest, he held both so he was in a position to decide what was being spent and with whom.
I remember it painfully well. Of course, Foxley was handling ammo contracts - incredibly important, but terribly dull and "non-sexy" - the attitude in Main Building was "a shell is a shell, a fuse is a fuse." So far less scrutiny than, say, the tanks, guns, small arms, helos, etc, etc. At the time, all the attention was on CR1, CR2, Apache, MLRS, defending the SA80 decision, DROPS (the Reynolds Boughton debacle), M3 amphibs, even TULs / TUMs (because of political arguments about whether slavishly sticking to Land Rover was actually a good idea). So when suddenly the whole ammo procurement process crashed into a rock over industrial scale corruption...
 
difference being, less for a handful of people at Milton Keynes, the overwhelming majority of UK based FCO pax work out of KCS. Same can't be said for MOD.
The scale of the FCO is completely different though - much smaller than MOD and with a teeny budget. Every bloody NEO planning meeting I ever went to in MOD ended with a plea for MOD funding from them to support the penniless diplomats...
 
Im going to take a wild guess here and suggest most of those getting CEA on average are going to be getting a better standard of education than those who dont go to bordering school.


It survives because officers fight like **** to retain it.
Interesting - do you have any evidence for that? In my experience a lot of soldiers’ children go to CEA funded boarding schools too so I’m sure they’re fighting like **** for it too.

I have no skin in the game - I paid for my boys’ education out of my own pocket without CEA.
 
You have just ignored the one about the woman headbutting a bloke.
You can see by the court martial results which although doesnt show the victim rank, it does show most violence isnt as serious as theft.

Edited to add, even officers are known to smack subordinates.

Have you picked out all assault cases. If so, then I take my hat off. It was interesting (if you like this sort of thing; I no longer care) how many cases of this nature came to court.
I always thought that offering violence to a superior was thought recordable, but ill-treating a subordinate was not under AF06.
 
Interesting - do you have any evidence for that? In my experience a lot of soldiers’ children go to CEA funded boarding schools too so I’m sure they’re fighting like **** for it too.

I have no skin in the game - I paid for my boys’ education out of my own pocket without CEA.
There is a far higher percentage of officers who get CEA than ORs.
As loads of other allowances have been shit canned despite the objections of ORs it's a safe bet their complaints aren't really being heard.
 
Have you picked out all assault cases. If so, then I take my hat off. It was interesting (if you like this sort of thing; I no longer care) how many cases of this nature came to court.
I always thought that offering violence to a superior was thought recordable, but ill-treating a subordinate was not under AF06.
I always thought head butting a work colleague while you were pissed up or punching a work colleague in the face while you were pissed up would result in the loss of employment. Clearly not in the Army.
 
Yes, I know. The CM can, and will, deal with offences within their jurisdiction. The judges are also on the civilian circuit and must publish their reasons for sentencing, just like any other judge - that is the basis of common law.
The simple fact that the trial is in a military courtroom, rather than another courtroom bearing the Coat of Arms doesn’t mean a thing. The important bit is the charge/indictment/summons says ‘R v xxxx’.
A trial before the law of the land. HHJ Jeff Blackett described is as thus. A trial the military can hold in the field, sea or wherever, if the expediences of the service, but justice must be done.
How much justice did Gavin William's family get?
 
There is a far higher percentage of officers who get CEA than ORs.
As loads of other allowances have been shit canned despite the objections of ORs it's a safe bet their complaints aren't really being heard.
Can you supply some evidence for this? In my meagre experience, lots of applications are from senior ranks.
 
I always thought head butting a work colleague while you were pissed up or punching a work colleague in the face while you were pissed up would result in the loss of employment. Clearly not in the Army.
A conviction is one thing. Binning them is another. That is between the regiment and APC - as usual stacker1, you are pushing against an open door.
 
Can you supply some evidence for this? In my meagre experience, lots of applications are from senior ranks.
Is your google broke you lazy git?

From last year

Last year, 2,720 children of officers received the allowance - compared to 1,765 children of those serving in the ranks
 
A conviction is one thing. Binning them is another. That is between the regiment and APC - as usual stacker1, you are pushing against an open door.
I dont really give a shit who its between, it should be standard for all assaults on juniors. If you look at the court martial link I put, you'll see people are booted when it suits.
 
I always thought head butting a work colleague while you were pissed up or punching a work colleague in the face while you were pissed up would result in the loss of employment. Clearly not in the Army.
I remember arresting two young Airmen at Heathrow Terminal 5 for importation of offensive weapons and they both had extensive rap sheets for service offences which count as criminal convictions. The RAFP SIB wanted them handed over, but the NCA weren't having any of it given their previous. They were both prosecuted and sent down. Their previous records were such that they would have been dismissed from the CS long before but despite service detention the RAF chose to keep them both.
 
Is your google broke you lazy git?

From last year

Last year, 2,720 children of officers received the allowance - compared to 1,765 children of those serving in the ranks
Great. I do not see a positive link here to support any argument.
To support a conclusion, may we have some supporting arguments?
 

Latest Threads

Top