Poll: Poll: Single Mother Soldier Suing the MoD

[Sharkie668]

Hey guys, this is my first forum thread so if I've made a mistake then let me know kindly please

I was delivering the newspapers this morning, as I do every morning, and I saw this headline and read the article and found myself thinking that the mother shouldn't have won the legal battle, because she joined the Army first, and THEN became a single mother a few years later which was her own choice and has sued the MoD for not providing childcare. As far as I'm aware many other jobs don't provide childcare either, and the MoD did say that she (the single mother in question) could have accepted an alternative posting.

When she had her child, arrangements were made so that she had fewer working hours and didn't work weekends so that she could arrange childcare, but she failed to do so.

So my question to you guys is, do you think that she was right in suing the MoD?

The link to the article is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265446/Single-mother-soldier-wins-discrimination-case-Army-failed-provide-adequate-childcare.html

 

[HuntrRose]

She was a silly *****. They provided every opportunity for her to get it sorted, she failed. The fact that she won in court is just a sign of epic fail somewhere in the system.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Well i didn't know "change baby's diapers" was on the army's to do list in between fighting major wars to keep their country safe from enemy attack. Can you imagine the radio chatter there?

Soldier: Sir we have incoming enemy fire from all directions

Sargent: Sorry Private i'm changing diapers and captain rogers is feeding the others while corporal stevens reads a bedtime story.

 

[The_Healer]

Don't blame her, she was just an innocent bystander.

It was the Lawyer, clever bastard.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

No. She was not right. God, don't they have a group or something that determines whether or not a lawsuit has any validity before it goes to court?

 

[TheSquirrelisKing]

Seriously, maybe I should join the army. Then I can sue them later to make them solve all my problems. Ya, sounds like paradise...No but seriously, that woman needs to grow up.

 

[foodmaniac]

Seriously, maybe I should join the army. Then I can sue them later to make them solve all my problems.

*gasp* You stole my idea!

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

truthfully its dispicable. though her hearts in the right place, she should have thought it through and worked harder to get the perfect posting to take care of her child, even then, she was wrong to have the child in the first place, knowing that she would be a single parent, in the friggen army! Good for her i say, she needs everything she can get, but its her own damn fault that she is in the mess that she is now in.

I do not mean to be sexist, i'll rant about men too, they are stupid more often lol xD

 

[faselei]

I consider myself pretty liberal and generally moderate, but something ain't quite right here. You have to wonder. Wtf was she doing in the army in the first place. Could they not bar here from entry becuase of equalities laws, or were they trying to tick their boxes?

Why would you ever put a mother of a young child in the regular army? I know she was a technician, but still. Think thats harsh? And i read the guardian ffs, you should see the comments on the Daily Mail site!

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

Hey guys, this is my first forum thread so if I've made a mistake then let me know kindly please

I was delivering the newspapers this morning, as I do every morning, and I saw this headline and read the article and found myself thinking that the mother shouldn't have won the legal battle, because she joined the Army first, and THEN became a single mother a few years later which was her own choice and has sued the MoD for not providing childcare. As far as I'm aware many other jobs don't provide childcare either, and the MoD did say that she (the single mother in question) could have accepted an alternative posting.

When she had her child, arrangements were made so that she had fewer working hours and didn't work weekends so that she could arrange childcare, but she failed to do so.

So my question to you guys is, do you think that she was right in suing the MoD?

The link to the article is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265446/Single-mother-soldier-wins-discrimination-case-Army-failed-provide-adequate-childcare.html

I have to say its 50/50. Almost all legal procedures were taken to help here, flexible work schedule, reassignement (that she refused), appropriate housing. The reason why Army is also to blame is this:

She was given two-bedroom family accommodation at Chelsea Barracks and wanted her half-sister to become a live-in carer.
British soldiers who become single parents are encouraged to ask relatives to live with them to help.
But Army chiefs told Miss DeBique that immigration rules meant any relative of hers could enter the country only as a visitor and stay no longer than six months.

As the article writer follows questioning, I question the same, whoever is a parent knows the most important thing on childcare is having a carer for your children, and specially one you can trust. She choose her half-sister. But if she couldn't bring her half-sister to care because of immigration laws, why was she with same nationality recruited to the army (puzzles me for a start that a coutry recruits non-national people for its own armed forces, unless for inteligence/counter-inteligence purposes, in other words, traitors ).

 

[Plinglebob]

(puzzles me for a start that a coutry recruits non-national people for its own armed forces, unless for inteligence/counter-inteligence purposes, in other words, traitors ).

She comes from a country that is part of the British Commonwealth, which is essentially a group of countries we used to rule, and so is free to join our Armed Services.

I heard this on the news this morning and if I hadn't been driving, I would have /faceplam'd. I daren't say much as I'll end up on a fairly sexist rant, but I don't think that it should be the MOD's job to provide childcare when other jobs don't have too. This case has set would could end up being a dangerous precedent.

 

[Milney]

As the article writer follows questioning, I question the same, whoever is a parent knows the most important thing on childcare is having a carer for your children, and specially one you can trust. She choose her half-sister. But if she couldn't bring her half-sister to care because of immigration laws, why was she with same nationality recruited to the army (puzzles me for a start that a coutry recruits non-national people for its own armed forces, unless for inteligence/counter-inteligence purposes, in other words, traitors ).

Simply because Britain has the Commonwealth. As a country we have a long history of recruiting and training "foreign" nationals from the Commonwealth in our Military. Even non-Commonwealth countries have regiments within the British Army (i.e. Ghurka's). The two main reasons for this in the modern world are;

1) British Protectorates: Many of the smaller former British Colonies are still under the protection of Britain, i.e. Britain's armed forces are legally obliged to defend them in case of attack. As such the amred forces recruit from these nations.

2) Training: Mainly applying to Officers (so not in this case), as Sandhurst [in particular, though Cranwell and BRNC aswell] has a strong history and good training system that many non-Commonwealth countries pay the British Military to train thier Officers so that they can return to thier countries and pass on some of the training to thier own troops.

Why the Red Herring? Well, because despite these legals obligations between the countries, it is no longer an Empire - obviously. As such immigration applies between these countries to limit economic refugees and exploitation between each nation. You can't simply waive these protections between two soveriegn nations (no matter how close they are).

The reason these woman gets no sympathy from me is that the issue isn't that she wasn't given adequate support for childcare, but rather that she demanded a foreign national be given access to the country to fill a role that any of many current services could have provided (there are many creches within and external to the armed forces). There is no reason why her sister should have been given a visa, so I'm puzzled why she would demand it (other than, of course, emmigrating to the UK).

Justice system gone mad really.

 

[Erana]

Society today fails hard at making it possible for women to be mothers while maintaining any sort of career. I don't think this woman went about this the right way, but is it really so bad to expect that a place of employment could provide childcare?

 

[WolfThomas]

While I reckon she really doesn't have a case, the Military might benefit from some sort of childcare system in place for Public Relations and morale reasons.

captain rogers is feeding the others

Is it bad I immediately thought of Captain America?

 

[Plurralbles]

normal people make arrangements BEFORE they get a job and it's in their contract or whatever what the company gives or doesn't. How the hell does some army ***** get away with not doing that and winning?

 

[Plurralbles]

Society today fails hard at making it possible for women to be mothers while maintaining any sort of career. I don't think this woman went about this the right way, but is it really so bad to expect that a place of employment could provide childcare?

I dont' know, is it too much to expect someone to come up with asking for the arrangement before they start working for the army? You know, like NORMAL people in civilian jobs?

edit: Agreements are made before the person is hired. It does't matter if things change, she can't fucking sue. This is retarded.

 

[ShatteredBlack]

A flat-out no.

My answer would be different if the Armed forces had employed her knowing she had a child and then refused to care for it.

However, they employed her and one of the requirements of her employment was that she be avaliable for duty at any time. That she then (willingly?) fell pregnant, rendering her unable to fulfill that clause, constitues, in my mind anyway, a breach of contract.

- [Army employs person] + [Person breaches contract] = [Person fired from Army]

That she then successfully sues her employer for her choice to breach her contract is preposterous.

Her race and gender have nothing to do with it - You cannot sues someone else for a choice you made.