When ARE we subject to Military Discipline?

Consideration does not have to be "pay". And we do get paid.
I was referring only to the circumstance previously described, of someone not 'signed in', who would not be claiming MTDs and would therefore not be paid in that particular instance. Therefore not a casual worker engaged and 'under control' of the MoD.

In short, these are all the really tricky issues that the government has to overcome through proper legislative changes, that cut through the uncertainty and unreasonableness of the relationship. TA - 'casual worker', not employee as defined in 96 Act cited by Duke, and not even 'contracted' on a zero hours contract, because no 'statement of particulars' exists. AR 'future' - to be part time employees with TACOS scaled down but aligned to Reg TACOS (including pension rigts) to facilitate commitment as an employee on flexible terms. Will we ever get there?
 
See Idrach's reference above to s374.
Yes I saw that, which is why I didn't pick s12, but I suspect if reported to RMP they would still consider throwing s11 At them and clobber them with s19, because it is the 'catch all' and doesn't require delineation of the TA bod being on duty or subject to AFA06.
 

Disco Dave

Old-Salt
Riddickulouse makes a good point. If someone is only casual labour then you've no legal claim over what they do in their unpaid time.

I'm not sure many reservists would like to be Part-Time employees. The option to come and go as you please is very important to many. I'm not sure people would stay in if they had to miss key social occasions due to Army Reserve activity. I know annual leave etc could be granted, but all it takes is for the CO to be a bit of a cock and you're missing your best mate's wedding or your daughters 16th birthday etc. Probably why the regular army get the extra X Factor payment.
 
I thought the TA werent subject to military law unless they are getting paid though?

I'll note I was making the assumption that your soldiers were reg or on-duty reserves. And if they aren't, wtf are they doing in uniform?
 
I'll note I was making the assumption that your soldiers were reg or on-duty reserves. And if they aren't, wtf are they doing in uniform?
The soldiers are regs. My point being the reserve officer wasnt getting paid so he has no law to back him up.
 

Disco Dave

Old-Salt
The soldiers are regs. My point being the reserve officer wasnt getting paid so he has no law to back him up.

Seems that way, call him a STAB and tell him to fcuk off.
 
The soldiers are regs. My point being the reserve officer wasnt getting paid so he has no law to back him up.


I'd have said a polite word along the line " you look a right shower, don't get caught by someone who will bounce you" would have been the correct approach, a style I've used in the past, mostly as I dislike seeing lads bounced around in public by a throbber....
 
Either I'm missing something glaringly obvious or my sarcasm detector is set to unsubtle. Is being a member of parliament not taking an active role in politics?

Nothing gets past you. I would imagine that he has some form of dispensation from BTP, just like MP's who are in The Reserves. Your average copper is not allowed to take any active part in politics.


Wets.
 
Riddickulouse makes a good point. If someone is only casual labour then you've no legal claim over what they do in their unpaid time.

I'm not sure many reservists would like to be Part-Time employees. The option to come and go as you please is very important to many. I'm not sure people would stay in if they had to miss key social occasions due to Army Reserve activity. I know annual leave etc could be granted, but all it takes is for the CO to be a bit of a cock and you're missing your best mate's wedding or your daughters 16th birthday etc. Probably why the regular army get the extra X Factor payment.
Quite so, which is one of the main factors raised in the 'Reservists numbers' thread. As History Man remarked on there its about only wanting you by 'their' rules and no pfaffing!
 
I was referring only to the circumstance previously described, of someone not 'signed in', who would not be claiming MTDs and would therefore not be paid in that particular instance. Therefore not a casual worker engaged and 'under control' of the MoD.

In short, these are all the really tricky issues that the government has to overcome through proper legislative changes, that cut through the uncertainty and unreasonableness of the relationship. TA - 'casual worker', not employee as defined in 96 Act cited by Duke, and not even 'contracted' on a zero hours contract, because no 'statement of particulars' exists. AR 'future' - to be part time employees with TACOS scaled down but aligned to Reg TACOS (including pension rigts) to facilitate commitment as an employee on flexible terms. Will we ever get there?

I must admit to being pessimistic - or realistic, take your pick.

First, you need to convince Parliament that we need compulsion in peacetime for peacetime Ops and exercises. The laws already on the books allow compulsory mobilisation en masse for TTW, war and so on. We only have a problem as the Army couldn't deploy 1 in 10 on peacetime standing tasks without the TA then AR. Said tasks are now politically terminally toxic, so why do we need changes ? It is perceived that the Army will be either at home on NTMs of various lengths or deployed on something which is actually helping to protect the UK for which there will be massive popular support. (Save of course ELLAMY style dets of the usual suspects)

Reality may differ of course, so the task the Army face is to convince government that change is actually needed. So again, how are you going to persuade politicians that they should spend political capital, brass off employers, cost firms money - all in the middle of a bloody recession FFS ! - to support future massively unpopular campaigns of choice.

Then we have the fact that if you're looking at the task of defending UK PLC then we need a larger RN. We do not need 82k regular soldiers. Given the economy there is no money; so cutting the Army again to pay for the RN is the least worst option. So why do we need the AR on a hair trigger again ?

And finally, the Army has told Parliament that FR2020 will work under current legislation. Either the Army as a body is untrustworthy and incompetent or no changes are needed.
 
I'm sure there was someone on here (whose name I'll probably remember in about 4 days) who says he's grips soldiers (as a reserve office) if he thinks they look scruffy. As he wouldn't be getting paid is it safe for the soldiers to tell him to go **** himself as he has no authority?
Was it jim30? I seem to remember some thread he started a while ago ref squaddies using mobiles in uniform.
 
Was it jim30? I seem to remember some thread he started a while ago ref squaddies using mobiles in uniform.

That's the one, apparently his moral courage only applies when its not senior officers.
 
You would think so wouldn't you? But no, he got off because strictly speaking he was not 'on duty' as he had not 'signed on'. This goes against the whole Army subject to CDT thing, so for the TA it is only if you are officially on duty having signed in.

Worth knowing I think

Was the issue that he was exempt the drugs policy, or just the CDT was unlawful as he wasn't at work when tested? Surely the latter, or nothing could be established by CDT'ing stabs.
 

Been pondering this one - A contract must exist if there's an exchange, i.e. pay for work - so a written statement of what particulars? Clearly the particulars of the contract. I can only assume the term "contract" isn't used to avoid any misconception that there isn't one until it's put in writing.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
Been pondering this one - A contract must exist if there's an exchange, i.e. pay for work - so a written statement of what particulars? Clearly the particulars of the contract. I can only assume the term "contract" isn't used to avoid any misconception that there isn't one until it's put in writing.

That is pretty much it.

I could employ you to work for me. We talk about it in the pub, agree the terms, shake hands and off you go. One month later the job is done, you are paid, no written contract is ever in existence. All perfectly above board, and there was a contract in place. In theory, I still owe you a statement of particulars even if you leave my employment before the 2 month deadline, but how many actually do that?

The contract exists from the minute we agree terms, whereas a contract that must be evidenced in writing must have the written contract in place at inception.
 
Last edited:

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
There have been several reference above to 'signing pay sheets' etc. The RFA says reservists are subject to service law when they are 'On training and other duties'. Many of us have 'Individual Attendance Registers' which we don't fill in until the end of the month. I'm frequently on duty without signing in.

Reservists can also be on duty and not be getting paid. Some AT and some other activity does not attract pay or may not get paid for everyday 'on duty'.

The RFA also says: 'Whilst TA personnel and officers of the Cadet Forces are not subject to Service Law at all times, they are subject to Army Values and Standards and Administrative Action at all times.'

Any reservist who failed a CDT or for who there was other evidence of drug taking could be subject to administrative action including discharge. The example above may have been before RFA came into effect.

I recall an incident in the past where a TA soldier hit an officer at a non-duty unit BBQ. He wasn't on duty so no military charges could be brought. He was done for assault and the magistrate took the circumstances into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Under RFA it could be dealt with as an admin action as well.
 

Latest Threads

Top