Poll: Poll: Single Mother Soldier Suing the MoD
- Thread starter Sharkie668
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I suspect that having your feelings hurt whilst being in the Army is one of the lesser injuries you can suffer, all things considered.mad825 said:
Also remember that the drive to recruit from the Commonwealth countries is due to low recruiting numbers at home. I suspect that there was a political element here, an attempt to make sure that the costly recruiting campaign wasn't for naught. Making sure they take care of a Commonwealth recruit is a way to ensure that the MoD looks like an acceptable choice for hard-luck third-worlders.
I hate to hear about sue'ings like this, its so retarded. and also being in the armed forces she would have been aware of the stretched budget, therefore why would she sue for £100,000 especially considering she said it was her "dream" job, i mean what kind of person does that.
Ah the legal system. Always dispensing proper justice.
sarcasm for those of you who can't tell.
But really, how many cases does the legal system get right compared to cases like these? As far as i know they get a LOT more right. Hey it's better than nothing.
sarcasm for those of you who can't tell.
But really, how many cases does the legal system get right compared to cases like these? As far as i know they get a LOT more right. Hey it's better than nothing.
O_O. We gotta stop this bastard!dududf said:No... he stole it from an orphanage, and used the woman as a scape goat! Yeah!TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
No, not at all. I am not sure how the UK handles these sort of things, but in the US I am quite sure that those with dependents must sign something saying that they know they must have arrangements made that can go into effect at any time. It is not the Army's fault she could not comply.
A single mother, who does not have anyone else to care for their child has no place in such an organisation where working hours are subject to change. She willingly put herself in a situation that would make her unfit to fulfil her obligation, she deserves no compensation at all, especially when that money could go towards people who were actually made redundant through no fault of their own.
Also, as pointed out by someone else, the amount of compensation being demanded is higher than some of the payout to people who have been seriously injured in combat.
EDIT: Look at all the sexist and racist comments on the daily mail website, they aren't exactly being subtle about their right wing tendencies.
Also, as pointed out by someone else, the amount of compensation being demanded is higher than some of the payout to people who have been seriously injured in combat.
EDIT: Look at all the sexist and racist comments on the daily mail website, they aren't exactly being subtle about their right wing tendencies.
Totally... Man!TheGreatCoolEnergy said:O_O. We gotta stop this bastard!dududf said:No... he stole it from an orphanage, and used the woman as a scape goat! Yeah!TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
Lets Sue him!...
But who's gonna be our lawyer? The guy we're suing is a good lawyer... *ding (idea bell)*
Lets hire him to sue himself! I see nothing wrong with this plan.
At least she's older than me
That way, it's almost garunteed that if I live a healthy lifestyle, One day she'll be dead and gone and I'll still be here
That sounds horrible, but it's how I deal with these f*ck-stupid stories of idiots getting away with murder
That way, it's almost garunteed that if I live a healthy lifestyle, One day she'll be dead and gone and I'll still be here
That sounds horrible, but it's how I deal with these f*ck-stupid stories of idiots getting away with murder
If this was just a case of sexism I might be leaning towards a unsure answer, a 'I don't know' answer given how I don't have enough information to know the details behind the ruling. From what others have put forth here, that there are many internal and external child care centres catering to the military, makes me ask why she didn't utilise them. Who knows though, maybe she wasn't capable of applying because of some stupid policy or another... though I agree this is likely not the case. That she repeatability refused any consideration the military was trying to give her because it wasn't exactly getting her own way, the whole way, is clear and I can't fathom why the court would rule against the only party trying to sort out this whole mess.
Having added a racial charge though makes me lean towards against, given how she was demanding a foreign national be given access to the country outside of standard permits and agreements! This would be a clear violation of immigration, yet the court ruled that the government would have to allow foreign nationals a way around immigration policy if their sister has a child in country....
I can only hope, at this point, the government shuts it's door on all foreign nationals operating in government hold positions. Given how they would have to breach immigration laws, or open themselves up to further civil violations, I don't see how they would be given any other choice. This rulings mean they would have to revive the immigration laws to forbid government positions being offered to foreign nationals.
Anything else would mean a easy way for criminal elements to get around current laws, being able to sue if they don't get a visa they didn't deserve.
Having added a racial charge though makes me lean towards against, given how she was demanding a foreign national be given access to the country outside of standard permits and agreements! This would be a clear violation of immigration, yet the court ruled that the government would have to allow foreign nationals a way around immigration policy if their sister has a child in country....
I can only hope, at this point, the government shuts it's door on all foreign nationals operating in government hold positions. Given how they would have to breach immigration laws, or open themselves up to further civil violations, I don't see how they would be given any other choice. This rulings mean they would have to revive the immigration laws to forbid government positions being offered to foreign nationals.
Anything else would mean a easy way for criminal elements to get around current laws, being able to sue if they don't get a visa they didn't deserve.
She definately should not have won. She claims discrimination when they wouldn't let her sister in to stay with her to look after her kid, telling her that her sister could only stay for 6 months.
Question: who here tried to get a one way ticket to the UK? It's flat out borderline impossible, unless your job demands you to be there, or unless you have a job already lined up that you will be taking once you arrive. That is not the military's fault, that is the rules of the country. WHY should the army be responsible for making childcare agreements? If they were required to do that for everyone (or just every woman) do you know how expensive that would be year round? Not to mention, she CHOSE to bring her kid with her to the UK in the first place.
She was in no way forced to leave, as it was her choice, and I'm glad someone like that is gone.
Question: who here tried to get a one way ticket to the UK? It's flat out borderline impossible, unless your job demands you to be there, or unless you have a job already lined up that you will be taking once you arrive. That is not the military's fault, that is the rules of the country. WHY should the army be responsible for making childcare agreements? If they were required to do that for everyone (or just every woman) do you know how expensive that would be year round? Not to mention, she CHOSE to bring her kid with her to the UK in the first place.
She was in no way forced to leave, as it was her choice, and I'm glad someone like that is gone.