Poll: Poll: Single Mother Soldier Suing the MoD
- Thread starter Sharkie668
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Its not that uncommon and I've met people who joined the US Army so they could become US citizens. It seems like an actual issue the British army needs to address though, it won't be the last time this happens.Vitor Goncalves said: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:Sharkie668 said: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
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).
it's really hard to say. most jobs don't provide childcare, and she wasn't a single mother before she got the job. In many ways she should be responsible for taking care of her child, and so should the former spouse (assuming he isn't dead). At the same time, she does need fewer working hours to be with her child. It's a tough call. Is there any circumstances I am not aware of that prevents her from doing it all herself?
My feelings to this is two fold.
1) I'm going to criticize the entire entire UK (though not limited to UK, this criticism is for most countries) military system by saying that childcare for soldiers should be something that no soldier would have to worry about. Just like the article says; the army is a war-fighting machine, and soldiers can be called upon at any time to go anywhere. Therefore, it makes no sense for the kids of soldiers to be left out to dry like that. People like to chant "support the troops". Well, it doesn't sound like there was a whole lot of support coming from the government (and by extension, the people).
2) That woman is a bit of a *****. Yes, she was slightly mistreated about her childcare problem. However, the military did provide her with some kind of solution, which she decided not to accept. My morals suggest that she took advantage of some regulation issues within the military and exploited it for her personal gain, but that's just life. The military is at as much fault for this as she is, so fair is fair. With that said, I don't mind her suing or winning the case, but a 100,000 pound payout is insane. What is there to justify this kind of payout?
1) I'm going to criticize the entire entire UK (though not limited to UK, this criticism is for most countries) military system by saying that childcare for soldiers should be something that no soldier would have to worry about. Just like the article says; the army is a war-fighting machine, and soldiers can be called upon at any time to go anywhere. Therefore, it makes no sense for the kids of soldiers to be left out to dry like that. People like to chant "support the troops". Well, it doesn't sound like there was a whole lot of support coming from the government (and by extension, the people).
2) That woman is a bit of a *****. Yes, she was slightly mistreated about her childcare problem. However, the military did provide her with some kind of solution, which she decided not to accept. My morals suggest that she took advantage of some regulation issues within the military and exploited it for her personal gain, but that's just life. The military is at as much fault for this as she is, so fair is fair. With that said, I don't mind her suing or winning the case, but a 100,000 pound payout is insane. What is there to justify this kind of payout?
Her working hours were actually reduced so that she could take care of the child.xXAsherahXx said:
"It was initially arranged that she would work from 8.30am to 4.30pm and only on weekdays, so she could arrange childcare."
US parents (both single and together) MUST have a family care plan. This plan basically is just a 'oh ****' list. Have to work late? The paperwork says the babysitter/childcare place will hold her. Going overseas? My moms going to take care of the kid for a while. Its all in that document.Wardog13 said:
Actually, a few months ago the (US) army was in the process of taking a single mother and chewing her into paste because she didn't have a family care plan, and told her unit a month before they were going to Iraq that she basically couldn't go. They told her tough noggies, you had forever and a half to figure this out, get on the plan. She never showed, and now she's being crushed.
As for the British lady, well... childcare probably isn't as expensive as you'd expect (I'm taking a wild guess and saying that somewhere on the post she's working at, their childcare that's offset by government contract. I know the US has this, among other programs). She has a ridiculous claim.