Para sues army for £1m

#1
Sorry could not get the full story its not on the web site. but looks like Channel 4 news are doing the full story on this. on another subject, the RHQ Forum had a post about an up and coming court case involving Senior Officers, could this be the topic the poster was posing?

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=223610#223610

BADLAD
A
good pal (an Officer) has told me he could be in the brown stuff at work. he has been found out to have back dated an Official form. This form is not a claim form and has nothing to do with getting any money out of the system. However the form was sent on request as evidence for an investigation into a separate but very serious matter. He has now been told to stand by for a chat on the subject and Sect 62 has been raised on a number of occasions.
what are the implications for him if this is true? as this case is going to the civil courts very soon.

By TOM NEWTON DUNN
Defence Editor

PARA Paul Biddiss is suing top brass for £1million over his stricken son — in a case which could rock the Army.

His lawyers claim his family fell victim to a bullying campaign aimed at saving a fortune in pension payments.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005100140,00.html
 
#2
Let's hope the facts come out. It's a disgrace that the MoD has been misusing MCP to meet Treasury demands instead of looking after its own. Duty of care? Yeah, right. :twisted:
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
#5
Yes it would be.

Hello C4 News people :D
 
#6
Slightly melodramatic, but you sell your soul went you sign up, and give all you’ve got and the MoD still shit all over you. Bit unsure what they want/expect from our soldiers, to serve you country then **** off and die?
 
#7
Damn! What frustration. Now we know the full SP re the long running 62 post and doubtless moderators will chop us off at the legs if we go too far here. First thing is, best of luck to the lad and his missis. Even if one goes along with the Ch 4 report, he was badly treated. Nice to see that the brass have another of their mess ante-room enquiries and confirmed that none of their friends has done anything wrong. We should form a Bn of officers - they close up in the face of attack and support each other perfectly.
 
#8
Damn! What frustration
your telling me :roll:
good program
so was Bad lad this Brigadier? was this investigation during the 62 thread. and was his only defence, as ORC posted, i cant remember. what's more strange, why was there a separate investigation if the original redress investigation/Army Board found no wrong doing?

It took 4 days getting back from the province? very fishy
 
#9
Mistook, mistook, mistook. Bit of a problem. Seem to remember the Ch 4 show had a document date of Feb 2004 on a document purporting to have been signed in Nov 2004,
Maybe try fcukedup, fcukdup, fcukedup?
 
#10
I thaught that the Annex was dated Feb 2000 and signature and date block below was Nov 1999.

How do you make fcuk up like that....... unless you are really rushing the job as the investigating team are having tea and busicuits with the CO? :twisted: :oops:

Anyway the MOD need to answer two key questions:

Is manning control legal in terms of Employment Law?

Do they are have peer review or legal oversight of these 'potentailly flawed' investigations, so that these rather embarssing situtations are spotted early and killed so that they are not dragged out later for public scrutiny?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top