Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Times - MPs call for new ombudsman to stop Armed Forces abuse

Lorax

Clanker
And I could provide many more examples that do not grab the headlines, sometimes more subtle examples but ones that are equally damaging to those concerned. And others that are very, very serious but will never be dealt with because those concerned are now occupied with the day to day problem of surviving, and who want, who need, to put the past behind them. These people are damaged and have been conveniently forgotten largely because they have no voice to speak out. They deserve our support, but more than that, they deserve rights.
 
And I could provide many more examples that do not grab the headlines, sometimes more subtle examples but ones that are equally damaging to those concerned. And others that are very, very serious but will never be dealt with because those concerned are now occupied with the day to day problem of surviving, and who want, who need, to put the past behind them. These people are damaged and have been conveniently forgotten largely because they have no voice to speak out. They deserve our support, but more than that, they deserve rights.

more examples ? you haven't posted one example so far
 
How odd that the same posters advocating the external employment tribunal, which is entirely civilian and has nothing whatever to do with the military, have such a problem with a service complaints commissioner or an ombudsman specifically appointed and exercising powers specifically designed by Parliament and MOD to work with service personnel and the armed forces chain of command.

Having said that, the claims that access to the employment tribunal was removed or restricted in order to accommodate the service complaints commissioner were completely and utterly without foundation. I do hope that has finally been accepted.
 
How odd that the same posters advocating the external employment tribunal, which is entirely civilian and has nothing whatever to do with the military, have such a problem with a service complaints commissioner or an ombudsman specifically appointed and exercising powers specifically designed by Parliament and MOD to work with service personnel and the armed forces chain of command.

what's even odder is that overt proclamations of a desire to institute communist ideals within the forces is permitted by serving personnel, but that's progress for you, no longer being locked away without a key for perceived crimes against the business of the crown....
Having said that, the claims that access to the employment tribunal was removed or restricted in order to accommodate the service complaints commissioner were completely and utterly without foundation. I do hope that has finally been accepted.
so this doesn't prove that the changes were made? I must be dreaming when I read through it for the 15th time and got the same indications that it was indeed modified
(2)The provisions of this Act which have effect by virtue of section 191 in relation to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown are—
(a)Part I,
[F1(aa)in Part V, [F2sections [F343M,] 45A, 47C and 47D,] and sections 48 and 49 so far as relating to [F4those sections] ,]
[F5(ab)section 47C,]
(b)in Part VI, sections [F655 to 57B],
(c)Parts VII and VIII,
(d)in Part IX, sections 92 and 93,
(e)Part X, apart from sections [F798B(2) and (3),]F7 100 to 103 [F8, 104C]F8 and 134, and
(f)this Part and Parts XIV and XV.
(3)Her Majesty may by Order in Council—
(a)amend subsection (2) by making additions to, or omissions from, the provisions for the time being specified in that subsection, and
(b)make any provision for the time being so specified apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the Order in Council,
but no provision contained in Part II may be added to the provisions for the time being specified in subsection (2).
(4)Modifications made by an Order in Council under subsection (3) may include provision precluding the making of a complaint or reference to any [F9employment tribunal] unless [F10—
(a)the person aggrieved has made [F11a service complaint] ; and
(b)the Defence Council have made a determination with respect to the [F12service complaint] .]
[F13(5)Where modifications made by an Order in Council under subsection (3) include provision such as is mentioned in subsection (4), the Order in Council shall also include provision—
(a)enabling a complaint or reference to be made to an [F9employment tribunal] in such circumstances as may be specified in the Order, notwithstanding that provision such as is mentioned in subsection (4) would otherwise preclude the making of the complaint or reference; and
(b)where a complaint or reference is made to an [F9employment tribunal] by virtue of provision such as is mentioned in paragraph (a), enabling the [F14the service complaint procedures] to continue after the complaint or reference is made.]
[F15(6A)In subsections (4) and (5)—
“service complaint” means a complaint under section 334 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;
“the service complaint procedures” means the procedures prescribed by regulations under that section.]
F15(7)No provision shall be made by virtue of subsection (4) which has the effect of substituting a period longer than six months for any period specified as the normal period for a complaint or reference.
(8)In subsection (7) “the normal period for a complaint or reference”, in relation to any matter within the jurisdiction of an [F9employment tribunal], means the period specified in the relevant enactment as the period within which the complaint or reference must be made (disregarding any provision permitting an extension of that period at the discretion of the tribunal).
Annotations: Help about AnnotationCloseAnnotations are used to give authority for changes and other effects on the legislation you are viewing and to convey editorial information. They appear at the foot of the relevant provision or under the associated heading. Annotations are categorised by annotation type, such as F-notes for textual amendments and I-notes for commencement information (a full list can be found in the Editorial Practice Guide). Each annotation is identified by a sequential reference number. For F-notes, M-notes and X-notes, the number also appears in bold superscript at the relevant location in the text. All annotations contain links to the affecting legislation.
Amendments (Textual)

F1S. 192(2)(aa) inserted (1.10.1998) by S.I. 1998/1833, reg. 31(4)

F2Words in s. 192(2)(aa) substituted (1.9.2002 for certain purposes, otherwise prosp.) by Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21), s. 27, Sch. 1 para. 1(5)(a); S.I. 2002/1727, art. 2

F3Words in s. 192(2)(aa) inserted (6.4.2005) by Employment Relations Act 2004 (c. 24), ss. 57(1), 59(2)-(4), Sch. 1 para. 35(a); S.I. 2005/872, arts. 4, 5, Sch. (subject to arts. 6-12)

F4Words in s. 192(2)(aa) substituted (1.9.2002 for certain purposes, otherwise prosp.) by Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21), s. 27, Sch. 1 para. 1(5)(b); S.I. 2002/1727, art. 2

F5S. 192(2)(ab) inserted (15.12.1999) by 1999 c. 26, s. 9, Sch. 4 Pt. III para. 31(a); S.I. 1999/2830, art. 2(2), Sch. 1 Pt. II (with Sch. 3 paras. 10, 11)

F6Words in s. 192(2)(b) substituted (15.12.1999) by 1999 c. 26, s. 9 Sch. 4 Pt. III para. 31(b); S.I. 1999/2830, art. 2(2), Sch. 1 Pt. II (with Sch. 3 paras. 10, 11)

F7Words in s. 192(2)(e) inserted (6.4.2005) by Employment Relations Act 2004 (c. 24), ss. 57(1), 59(2)-(4), Sch. 1 para. 35(b); S.I. 2005/872, arts. 4, 5, Sch. (subject to arts. 6-12)

F8Words in s. 192(2)(e) inserted (6.4.2003) by Employment Act 2002 (c. 22), s. 53, Sch. 7 para. 42; S.I. 2002/2866, art. 2(3), Sch. 1 Pt. 3

F9Words in s. 192(4)(5)(a)(b)(8) substituted (1.8.1998) by 1998 c. 8, s. 1(2)(a) (with s. 16(2)); S.I. 1998/1658, art. 2(1), Sch. 1

F10Paras. (a)(b) substituted for words in s. 192(4) (1.10.1997) by 1996 c. 46, s. 26(2); S.I. 1997/2164, art. 2

F11Words in s. 192(4)(a) substituted (1.1.2008) by Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52), ss. 378, 383, Sch. 16 para. 136(a)(i); S.I. 2007/2913, art. 3

F12Words in s. 192(4)(b) substituted (1.1.2008) by Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52), ss. 378, 383, Sch. 16 para. 136(a)(ii);; S.I. 2007/2913, art. 3

F13S. 192(5) substituted (1.10.1997) by 1996 c. 46, s. 26(3); S.I. 1997/2164, art. 2

F14Words in s. 192(5)(b) substituted (1.1.2008) by Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52), ss. 378, 383, Sch. 16 para. 136(b); S.I. 2007/2913, art. 3

F15S. 192(6A) substituted (1.1.2008) for s. 192(6) by Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52), ss. 378, 383, Sch. 16 para. 136(c); S.I. 2007/2913, art. 3

yep there's been no modification to say you must have completed a service complaint in order to apply for a hearing at an employment tribunal, it wasn't done as part of the framework which created the office of SCC and it clearly didn't get amended in 2008 as part of that whole process!
 
what's even odder is that overt proclamations of a desire to institute communist ideals within the forces is permitted by serving personnel, but that's progress for you, no longer being locked away without a key for perceived crimes against the business of the crown....

Accusations of treason now? Possible first on ARRSE? ("It's only banter!")

so this doesn't prove that the changes were made? I must be dreaming when I read through it for the 15th time and got the same indications that it was indeed modified

yep there's been no modification to say you must have completed a service complaint in order to apply for a hearing at an employment tribunal, it wasn't done as part of the framework which created the office of SCC and it clearly didn't get amended in 2008 as part of that whole process! [insert lengthy irrelevant quote here]

You've been shown enormous patience and courtesy. You're still magnificently wrong.

As random examples, kindly check out the following regulations, both readily available on the internet and both predating the SCC by many years, and show again:

(1) The Sex Discrimination (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997
(2) Equal Pay (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998
 
Accusations of treason now? Possible first on ARRSE? ("It's only banter!")
no it was me pondering about why the change of policy to allow forms of communism which were explicitly forbidden as crimes within service contexts and legislature were allowed not me trying to infer treason against anyone specifically and certainly not at you although on reflection it was poorly worded, my intent was to deflect your conjecture with another


You've been shown enormous patience and courtesy. You're still magnificently wrong.

As random examples, kindly check out the following regulations, both readily available on the internet and both predating the SCC by many years, and show again:

(1) The Sex Discrimination (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997
(2) Equal Pay (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998
which both have nothing to do with the employment rights act of 96 which was amended as posted in section 192, I even quoted the entire of section 192 complete with the amendment acts and what legislation those amendments related to (which doesn't quite mirror the things with what danger mouse posted) and as I said before discrimination has been an option throughout, dismissal was the part I was disputing but if we've been arguing the same point and one of us not realising this then that would probably account for at least part of the frustration caused
 
no it was me pondering about why the change of policy to allow forms of communism which were explicitly forbidden as crimes within service contexts and legislature were allowed not me trying to infer treason against anyone specifically and certainly not at you although on reflection it was poorly worded, my intent was to deflect your conjecture with another

Thanks - and thank you also for your PM - much appreciated.

which both have nothing to do with the employment rights act of 96 which was amended as posted in section 192, I even quoted the entire of section 192 complete with the amendment acts and what legislation those amendments related to (which doesn't quite mirror the things with what danger mouse posted) and as I said before discrimination has been an option throughout, dismissal was the part I was disputing but if we've been arguing the same point and one of us not realising this then that would probably account for at least part of the frustration caused

Yess...

...the claims that access to the employment tribunal was removed or restricted in order to accommodate the service complaints commissioner were completely and utterly without foundation. I do hope that has finally been accepted.

Has that been finally accepted, or has it not? You would earn more respect by a simple straightforward acknowledgement if it has.
 
D

Davetheclown

Guest
Please may we have a organisation separate from MoD, has NO former officers or senior ranks employed, restricted on seeking advice from the MoD direct (without a recorded hearing). To have the power to prosecute the MoD on failure to administer complaints. A offence of Cartel, Rank Closing, and administrative bullying of complainant to be established and vigorously prosecuted.

Administration of complainant, pay, posting, course loading, deployment handled by a specialised external unit. Handover of docs, and administration to be done immediately on receipt of complaint. AGS to have a liason officer to assist. On reformation of complaint and sanction, unit to adopt the administration with audit oversight for minimum of two years.

RMP to investigate any allegation and to leave the case open till 3 years post the complainant leaves the army.

Complainant to be removed from post if it becomes apparent that the host unit is not complying.

CO to be charged with perverting the course of justice if it is found that soldiers under his command are intimidating, abusing complainant and fails to act within 24 hrs of reciept of notice.


Thought long and hard about this, sure to get flamed but think that some of the pertinent suggestions could work.
 
Has that been finally accepted, or has it not? You would earn more respect by a simple straightforward acknowledgement if it has.

my answer is in two parts and I'll try to keep them both simple.

1) with respect to discrimination there was and never has been a restriction bound together with the office of the SCC's creation! ( and i didn't mean to imply there was but i got confused about who and what i was referring)

2)with respect to unfair dismissal, my assertions about the limits being imposed by the creation of the office of SCC as they were created by afa06 which was the framework for creating the SCC office were not wholly correct, limitations on access to ET for unfair dismissal were created in 05 and partially reversed in 09
 
Please may we have a organisation separate from MoD, has NO former officers or senior ranks employed, restricted on seeking advice from the MoD direct (without a recorded hearing). To have the power to prosecute the MoD on failure to administer complaints. A offence of Cartel, Rank Closing, and administrative bullying of complainant to be established and vigorously prosecuted.

Administration of complainant, pay, posting, course loading, deployment handled by a specialised external unit. Handover of docs, and administration to be done immediately on receipt of complaint. AGS to have a liason officer to assist. On reformation of complaint and sanction, unit to adopt the administration with audit oversight for minimum of two years.

RMP to investigate any allegation and to leave the case open till 3 years post the complainant leaves the army.

Complainant to be removed from post if it becomes apparent that the host unit is not complying.

CO to be charged with perverting the course of justice if it is found that soldiers under his command are intimidating, abusing complainant and fails to act within 24 hrs of reciept of notice.


Thought long and hard about this, sure to get flamed but think that some of the pertinent suggestions could work.

Are you English?
 
my answer is in two parts and I'll try to keep them both simple.

1) with respect to discrimination there was and never has been a restriction bound together with the office of the SCC's creation! ( and i didn't mean to imply there was but i got confused about who and what i was referring)

Thank you.

2)with respect to unfair dismissal, my assertions about the limits being imposed by the creation of the office of SCC as they were created by afa06 which was the framework for creating the SCC office were not wholly correct, limitations on access to ET for unfair dismissal were created in 05 and partially reversed in 09

Thank you, but in fact the exclusion of the armed forces from unfair dismissal and breach of contract is considerably older than 2005.

Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 191-192:
191 Crown employment

(1) Subject to sections 192 and 193, the provisions of this Act to which this section applies have effect in relation to Crown employment and persons in Crown employment as they have effect in relation to other employment and other employees or workers.

(2) This section applies to–
… (e) Part X, apart from section 101

192 Armed forces
(1) Section 191–
(a) does not apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown …

I suspect you would find similar provisions in earlier legislation when the tribunals were "Industrial Tribunals", but more than enough time has already been wasted on this.

The basic fact remains: The establishment of the service complaints commissioner's office did NOT lead to additional restrictions on access by armed forces personnel to Employment Tribunals.

I'd be really grateful if there is no attempt to cap this clear statement with more confusion.
 

Lorax

Clanker
Not wishing to digress and spoil the wonderful repartee...but I this is going to lead us down the track to TACOS - there are none as recognised the Employment Rights Act 1996. Isn't about time there was? Time to begin another thread?
 
Not wishing to digress and spoil the wonderful repartee...but I this is going to lead us down the track to TACOS - there are none as recognised the Employment Rights Act 1996. Isn't about time there was? Time to begin another thread?

I'm sure that makes sense to someone but could you word it so it makes sense to the rest of us ?
 
That's a bit rich! :)

its called hypocritical,

and unless its been deleted there has been TACOS available from a lot of places for a long ass time,

it was also refered to indirectly by the era96
 

Lorax

Clanker
ERA96 requires that certain terms and conditions must be laid out in a single document which can be a written "contract of employment" of written "statement of the main terms and conditions of employment".

Now, CBO and Nanotm, don't get your knickers in a twist, its only a question!!

And Cloudbuster - I've been told you like to be teased.....!
 
C

cloudbuster

Guest
And Cloudbuster - I've been told you like to be teased.....!
To be fair, I would like to encourage CBO to take a greater part in the debate. I am quite convinced that he has much to offer, rather than merely sniping from the long grass.

To natotm I would like to return to an earlier point; please don't confuse the concept of 'communism' with 'social justice advocacy'.
 

Latest Threads

Top