General Chat

i DON,T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK BUT THE 1. 1 MILLION CONTESTED BY tILERN DE bIQUE , IS THIS NOT DISGUSTING OR WHAT , WHEN PARAPLEGIC SOLDIERS ARE OFFERED A QURTER OF THAT.
DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL PROUD OF OUR JURIDICIAL SYSTEM .
mY SON IS CURRENTLY IN aFGHANISTAN AND BECAUSE OF PERSONAL PROBLEMS WHICH I HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DIVULGING ON HERE (SORRY) WE TAKE CARE OF OUR GORGEOUS GRANDAUGHTER.
aRE WE A SOCIETY OF f**K PUBLIC OPINION LET ME SCREW EVERYBODY FOR WHAT I CAN GET.

i think our boys and girls are to be given the utmost respect.but sadly our country never make things right for them .
in the 1919 war i had one grt uncle fought for the cannucks .when he got killed in action canada took care financially of his family.his brother who fought this end got killed and got nothing but a medal.speaks volumes and nothings changed from then.xx

personally I think mothers of young children,should NOT be in the military.....unless the child IS properly cared for elsewhere.....

I think her case should have been thrown out.....BUT we only get to read what the media wants us to read....

Bob

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7598803/Single-mother-wins-just-1pc-of-Army-discrimination-claim.html

She has been awarded £17,000 - quite a drop from what she was claiming.

Elisabeth

~The deletion above was me trying to edit what I had posted and hit the wrong button! Sorry!

Why have children if you want a career like that?

I guess someone should ask all the hundreds of thousands of fathers who have been and still are in the military ...

She actually got pregnant in Germany about 4 years after she joined up. She joined the army I believe in 2001. But, she had her baby then when she was 3 months old the baby went home to live with her sister. Her sister brought her here when she was 2 or 3 and stayed to look after her until her visa ran out, then her brother came over and looked after her until his visa ran out. Then she left the army despite being offered a 5 year post in Dorset. She didn't have a leg to stand on with claiming loss of earnings. still don't think she should have got anything though.

i think women are just as important in our army .and should be given the same respect as men.seems she has a good supportive family.

I agree with Janey.

Why is it okay for a father to risk depriving his child/ren of him?

Sorry to those who disagree (tough lol) , but it is irrelevant whether she is in the army or works at boots the chemist...if you have a child it is YOUR responsibility to sort out child care not your employers.

Does anyone really believe that an occupation like that is suitable for anyone who does NOT have a good support network of family, friends OR proper nanny ? lots of people can't afford a full time nanny...why should the fact she chose to be in the army make it any different?

In ANY job, if you can't meet your commitments to it , for whatever reason, ( and especially since it is evident the army bent over backwards to try and keep her) then you have to sort it or go !

Just to clarify, I wasn't commenting on the merits of the case, just on the notion that a *woman* with children should limit her career choices.

The fact remains that men with children never have to give a thought to childcare if they want to join the military: they have wives whom the military has traditionally considered, and still does consider, to be basically spare parts that come with the man.

Very few men are single parents with custody of children.

Many women are single parents with custody of children, very often not by choice (i.e. they had the children while married or otherwise with the father, but are now rearing the children alone). Many would have very good reasons for not wanting to assign custody to the children's fathers as a childcare arrangement.

Those are facts of life. If the miltary wants women to sign up, the military has to take into account that many women have childcare needs that men don't have.

The only reason that men in the military who have children don't have childcare needs is that their wives are supposed to be there to take on all family responsibilities when the men are gone. Maybe efforts to accommodate single mothers in the military would have some beneficial side effects for all military families.

At the heart of this debate is the fact that anyone signing up for a military career swears an oath to protect Queen and Country. They, male or female, have to be ready to work, deploy, or move locations 24/7. If the government or a senior officer says 'jump', they have to just ask 'how high?'. No questions asked. That is just the way it is and should be.

If this young soldier wasn't able to do the job, there is no argument. I don't understand how she could claim sexual or race discrimination.

I wonder where the father of the child comes into this equation.

Elisabeth
x

But the army did take her child care problem seriously, they offered her a five year posting to Blandford in Dorset where there was child care available, the tribunal said she had in fact been positively discriminated for. And when she turned down the posting she was applying for lucrative jobs in Afghanistan. Who was going to look after the child then I wonder?
There are many women with children in the army who do their job and find child care.

there is no father on the birth certificate Elisabeth.

Janey,

As I understand, from the press coverage, the military did everything they could to find a suitable job for this young lady, but she declined the posting.

Elisabeth

I am just sad that there was any award in this case.

Thanks, Ann, for the clarity on the child's father.

Elisabeth
x

Once again, I said I was *not* commenting on the merits of this case.

They had offered her a job that accommodated her needs, she turned it down, she put the nail in the coffin of her own case. Just so.

The point is that "male" simply is not the gold standard for all things human.

The fact that men look for and find women who are willing to take on 100% responsibility for child rearing, sacrificing their own employment and career opportunities, so the men are available 24/7 for work, does *not* mean that this should be a *qualification* for employment in the military -- that a person should either not have children or have a spare part prepared to take 100% responsibility for any children if the man is called away.

Women might want spouses like that, who are willing to sacrifice their own interests and wishes to take 100% responsibility for child-rearing -- but the fact is, the few who might exist just aren't enough to go around.

A public employer just can't design its employment conditions to fit one sex (or race, or religion, etc.) only.

Sorry Janey, wmsl, I know you are at least partly right.... but it has made me laugh as well, lolol..... I was a very professional spare part, lolol... and of course, in the bad old days we were often referred to as *spare baggage* as well.

I was one of those who spent 34 years (well, a goodly chunk of them!) being main carer etc etc etc... but there were some very positive benefits to that, as well as frustrations.

The main issue for me is that all soldiers, male or female, are entitled to a home life... and it has been my experience (my hubby's corps has a lot of female soldiers) that the military has bent over backwards to accommodate soldier mums... some of our friends have both been soldiers, with children... so then one would be deployed, the other would stay at home... sort of like shift work only longer... but the stay at home partner still had military training and responsibilities.... They were responsible then for ensuring their child or children were appropriately cared for, BUT the Army also did their level best to facilitate it..... I also know of more than one soldier (female) who happened to have male *nannies* living in their Quarter and looking after the child when they went away, lol.... a blind eye was turned to the fact that the *nannie* was the partner, and often the father, of the child. I believe that it is now acceptable, but it was against the rules years ago!!

The thing is, it is still very difficult for women to break the habit of centuries, and be the one who sacrifices all, so to speak. Men who will do so at the expense of their own careers are few and far between.

I happen to be very cynical about the motives of this young woman. My feeling, possibly wrong, is that there was an ulterior one... and it has backfired on her. She still doesn't have a job..... and as has been said, who would look after her child if she took night work at a hospital or care home for instance? She'd still have to find childcare!

Love

Daff.... still giggling at being a spare part, lolol xxxxx

Hard cases make bad law, they do say. She does sound like maybe a bit of a hard case. ;)

Situations like this are why, if there is a widespread problem that affects many people, organizations that work to defend rights will look for a "test case" that doesn't involve problems like this one. One where the issue is very clear and the merits of the case aren't clouded by the person being less than sympathetic, if not downright dumb.

If her case had gone to court, it just might have spoiled things for women who really weren't getting equitable treatment (if that were the case, I hasten to add).

I too,am disgusted that this woman had the gaul to claim for her"rights".

It got me thinking,if everyone who is a member of Genes,contributed a piffling £1 each,every time a soldier is seriously wounded,it would surely make up for the stingy amounts that the Government awards them.

I dont know the inns and outs of organising charity payments,but someone must.

Can we get the ball rolling,to show our young warriers how much we appreciate their efforts.

Annina,

There is already a wonderful charity, which I am sure many of us have or do contribute to. It is Help for Heroes. There are many events organised and it is possible to make regular payments to it. In my area there is also a new local charity which helps the injured soldiers and their families.

Elisabeth