Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whiffler, May 17, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
So, what is it to include?.
A clause to prevent serving/ex/future soldiers from using Arrse ?
More move toward unification. At least of Sp services at first.
Single system =
"March them in "
Verdict = Guilty
"March them out"
Not a lot of change there
C'mon pure speculation guys..................Brussels hasn't written it yet
How about a radical new Armed forces law which makes it mandatory to think of the consequences for manning, recruitment and retention and the financial costs before jumping into a(nother) new operational commitment?
Currently the penalty for that is three terms as PM followed by a seat in the House of Lords...
MoD sets out the arguments for creating a Tri-Service Armed Forces Act in its Memorandum as follows:
A single system of Service law would be more appropriate for Services that are increasingly deployed on joint operations and for which they train together. Within joint commands and units the basic principle should be that Service personnel should be subject to the same systems and the same rights and penalties, except where a special rule applying only to the member of one Service is essential.
As the attachment regulations do not apply to fully joint units, the commanders of such units do not have disciplinary powers over all those under their command.
In joint units with a single Service lead, there is a reluctance to use existing attachment regulations which, to an extent, enable all personnel to be subject to the lead SDA. A principal difficulty is the difference in COs' powers under the individual SDAs. The effect is that personnel tend to be returned to their own Service for disciplinary action
Although many of the disciplinary provisions in the individual SDAs are essentially the same, the existence of the separate Acts makes the use, interpretation and amendment of the legislation more complicated and perpetuates different interpretations on a single Service basis.
First Hearing of the Tri-Service Armed Forces Bill
The case for a Tri-Service Armed Forces Act
Why don't they just call it the UCMJ and be done with it? That's where we are heading anyway isn't it? Or am I being just a tad too cynical?
surely they're just revamping the manuals (QRs and MML) so that there's a tri-service variant to supersede the three single service ones.
If you ever bang your pr*ck in a door, then you will come to realise that purple isn't always better than red!!
If that line isn't copyrighted, can I have permission to borrow it, Cud?
Separate names with a comma.