Innapropiate Relationship

[Talk Wrench]

Cheers for the replies peeps

Basically the junior rank has gone to P1 to complain against my mate who is his Cpl.

The junior rank left his wife in january although the marriage was over in October. He had an affair and moved in with another lass but now is startin to take offence at his ex-wife havin a close male friend (even though nothing is going on). His ex-wife is in fact dating another junior rank but that doesn't appear to bother him. He is just going 'after' his Cpl cos he finds his friendship offensive.

P1 are accusing him of an innapropiate relationship with the junior rank's ex-wife and deriliction of duty as a JNCO.

Beyond me I'm afraid, but it seems that too many people are trying to complicate something that is in itself too complicated to comment upon,


TW

 

[wgaf]

Cheers for the replies peeps

Basically the junior rank has gone to P1 to complain against my mate who is his Cpl.

The junior rank left his wife in january although the marriage was over in October. He had an affair and moved in with another lass but now is startin to take offence at his ex-wife havin a close male friend (even though nothing is going on). His ex-wife is in fact dating another junior rank but that doesn't appear to bother him. He is just going 'after' his Cpl cos he finds his friendship offensive.

P1 are accusing him of an innapropiate relationship with the junior rank's ex-wife and deriliction of duty as a JNCO.

Don't know what you're doing here fa but it sounds like you're fishing for something. Basically from what you've said above you're speaking sh1te, the air force will not get involved in this sort of situation, with the implementation of the human rights act it is not within the RAFs remit to become involved in anything of a personal nature. Sorry to the scribblies out there who think otherwise but the human rights act 1998 states quite clearly that an employer cannot involve itself in an employees private life.
I get the feeling you are looking for answers for a situation you have put yourself in.

 

[flounder_al]

Don't know what you're doing here fa but it sounds like you're fishing for something. Basically from what you've said above you're speaking sh1te, the air force will not get involved in this sort of situation, with the implementation of the human rights act it is not within the RAFs remit to become involved in anything of a personal nature. Sorry to the scribblies out there who think otherwise but the human rights act 1998 states quite clearly that an employer cannot involve itself in an employees private life.
I get the feeling you are looking for answers for a situation you have put yourself in.

I wish i was speaking 'sh1te' as you so politely put it. They are indeed getting 'involved' and are actioning him with said allegations.

Since when has the Human Rights Act ever stopped the RAF using QR's to get around them?

 

[auchtermuchty]

this isnt something I find myself wanting to say, but........

I'm with GEM!!!!

(on this subject and nothing more)

 

[Talk Wrench]

I wish i was speaking 'sh1te' as you so politely put it. They are indeed getting 'involved' and are actioning him with said allegations.

Since when has the Human Rights Act ever stopped the RAF using QR's to get around them?

RAF Played it their way back in 2000 for me.

But,

If a bloke comes onto my missus now, i just laugh. If bloke tries too much, bloke gets punch and sh!ts teeth the next day,

Simple.

TW

 

[True Blue Jack]

Sorry to the scribblies out there who think otherwise but the human rights act 1998 states quite clearly that an employer cannot involve itself in an employees private life.

There are occasions when we can. In TW's case we should have but didn't. In flounder's friend's case there is no reason to (both assertions based on the anecdotal evidence on this thread). I'm not a P1 specialist so I don't have all the right terminology but essentially if the relationship is impacting on the operational effectiveness of the unit, e.g., one guy cannot concentrate on his job because his boss is nobbing his missus, then we can get the offender posted.

Just out of interest the Army still behave as we did 10 years ago. Only a few months ago I witnessed a married Sgt get posted sharpish-like because it was rumoured (falsely, it turned out) that he was a bit too friendly with a single (female) Major. It is easier for an infantry battalion to play the "operational imperative" card.

 

[wgaf]

There are occasions when we can. In TW's case we should have but didn't. In flounder's friend's case there is no reason to (both assertions based on the anecdotal evidence on this thread). I'm not a P1 specialist so I don't have all the right terminology but essentially if the relationship is impacting on the operational effectiveness of the unit, e.g., one guy cannot concentrate on his job because his boss is nobbing his missus, then we can get the offender posted.

Just out of interest the Army still behave as we did 10 years ago. Only a few months ago I witnessed a married Sgt get posted sharpish-like because it was rumoured (falsely, it turned out) that he was a bit too friendly with a single (female) Major. It is easier for an infantry battalion to play the "operational imperative" card.

Agree with you TBJ, but the HRA over rides military law in every situation except a war zone,wether we like it or not it's fact, basically QRs are subject to civil law whilst you are serving in a normal enviroment. I don't like it and I don't agree with it, but these are the times we live in.

 

[flounder_al]

e.g., one guy cannot concentrate on his job because his boss is nobbing his missus, then we can get the offender posted.

That's just the thing. He aint nobbing her. She's been seeing a new guy since January apparently.

Interesting read that the HRA overrides QR's unless in a war zone though.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Interesting read that the HRA overrides QR's unless in a war zone though.

Again, I am not a P1 specialist, but I do not believe that is strictly true. Undoubtedly anyone who faced disciplinary and/or administrative action as a result of a personal relationship would hire a solicitor who would then fight the case from a human rights perspective. We would then need to prove that the Service Test had been met. But you do not have to be in a war zone to impact on operational effectiveness.

 

[ForgottenName]

The Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act

"20 Feb 06

Secretary of State for Defence John Reid has called for a greater understanding of the challenges faced by UK military personnel, and less uninformed criticism.

Finally, our Forces perceive that they are increasingly constrained on the battlefield by human rights legislation, European and International law. We must reassure them that they operate under British law and British law only."
​

The above is extracted from the Defence Internet website and shows that the HRA is also taken into consideration on the battlefield.

The next is another extract from the same site which, although talking about the Court Martial and disciplinary system, reflects equally on the "Service Test" process.

Why do the armed forces need a separate system of law?

Service personnel do jobs that are often dangerous and involve the use of force, sometimes using the most intense military violence involving great bravery and sacrifice. They often serve outside the United Kingdom; outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Few civilian jobs require a commitment that compares with these extraordinary demands. In addition, high standards of discipline are essential to support operational effectiveness. These are standards which are distinctive to the armed forces and which penalise certain conduct such as absence without leave or disobeying a lawful command, which would not be appropriate in civilian employment.

To maintain discipline, to enable service personnel to do their jobs effectively and to comply with our international legal obligations, we have to retain a separate internal military justice system.
Whilst serving in the UK service personnel are dealt with under civilian law like any other British citizen if they comment an offence. The Armed Forces are regularly required to operate overseas and in such cases they can no longer be dealt with under domestic law if they commit an offence. The military justice system ensures that they are dealt with fairly and consistently wherever they are serving in the world.

​

These are the difficult areas that P1 Sections and Chf Clk's face when someone makes a complaint about someone else's behaviour. Remember, TG17 are not the morale police trawling bars and SFQs looking for inappropriate behaviour, they only react to complaints.

Therefore, I believe that TBJ is right in that the HRA does not only apply to operational areas.

 

[wgaf]

I should have made myself clearer, the HRA concerning individuals private lives will overide QRs in any other situation other than an operational situation. Basically in this sort of case, if the individual took it to civil court, which in the event of the RAF taking disciplinary action he/she is entitled to, the RAF would have to prove that it would effect the operational effectivness of the RAF. It's not going to happen.
The service test has no basis in civil law, TBJ go ask a civilian lawyer they'll tell you. It is purely a means for the forces to decide if there may be a case to answer for their own disciplinary codes, which can now be challenged in civil law.
It's wrong, I hate the fact that we are subject to laws and regulations made by civilians who have little or no understanding of the intimacy and strict structure system that by necessity we have to live our lives. But hey thats another arguement.

 

[ForgottenName]

I should have made myself clearer, the HRA concerning individuals private lives will overide QRs in any other situation other than an operational situation. Basically in this sort of case, if the individual took it to civil court, which in the event of the RAF taking disciplinary action he/she is entitled to, the RAF would have to prove that it would effect the operational effectivness of the RAF. It's not going to happen.
The service test has no basis in civil law, TBJ go ask a civilian lawyer they'll tell you. It is purely a means for the forces to decide if there may be a case to answer for their own disciplinary codes, which can now be challenged in civil law.
It's wrong, I hate the fact that we are subject to laws and regulations made by civilians who have little or no understanding of the intimacy and strict structure system that by necessity we have to live our lives. But hey thats another arguement.

However, the way that the Armed Forces would get out of that situation would be by declaring that the Service Test may result in administrative action - rather than disciplinary action. We are not contracted to work at a particular unit and if, administratively, the Service decided to post an individual that is not classed as disciplinary action.

 

[tommo9999]

However, the way that the Armed Forces would get out of that situation would be by declaring that the Service Test may result in administrative action - rather than disciplinary action. We are not contracted to work at a particular unit and if, administratively, the Service decided to post an individual that is not classed as disciplinary action.

But could such a posting not be challenged under Employment Tribunal legislation?

 

[ForgottenName]

But could such a posting not be challenged under Employment Tribunal legislation?

Anything can be challenged, however, whether the respondents win their case is another question. I understand that the number of cases raised has increased significantly, however, the number of respondents winning their case has not.

 

[Humble Scribe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this lad is getting p!ssed off because his JNCO (your mate) is friendly with his (the lads) ex-wife who is actually seeing somebody else. Your mate's wife is OK with it but P1 have received a complaint.

My initial reaction (apart from totally agreeing with Gem) is to tell the lad to get a grip FFS however this is obviously upsetting him and affecting his work. Take it the Flt Cdr has had a word with both and asked Chf Clk for advice. My impression is that it's a Flt Cdr's problem as your mate is not doing anything morally wrong and why the feck P1 have got involved god only knows. If the Flt Cdr can move one of the individuals between sections then that could alleviate the problem. If that's not an option the lad needs to be told to live with it as it's unlikley to pass the service test based on the information you have provided.

I am sceptical though. There's always two sides to every story and this lad is p!ssed off for a reason; whether it's because he needs to grow up & get a grip or there's more to this than you've told us who knows but on the face of it, I don't see this being a Chf Clk/P1 (or anyone elses) issue!

 

[ForgottenName]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this lad is getting p!ssed off because his JNCO (your mate) is friendly with his (the lads) ex-wife who is actually seeing somebody else. Your mate's wife is OK with it but P1 have received a complaint.

My initial reaction (apart from totally agreeing with Gem) is to tell the lad to get a grip FFS however this is obviously upsetting him and affecting his work. Take it the Flt Cdr has had a word with both and asked Chf Clk for advice. My impression is that it's a Flt Cdr's problem as your mate is not doing anything morally wrong and why the feck P1 have got involved god only knows. If the Flt Cdr can move one of the individuals between sections then that could alleviate the problem. If that's not an option the lad needs to be told to live with it as it's unlikley to pass the service test based on the information you have provided.

I am sceptical though. There's always two sides to every story and this lad is p!ssed off for a reason; whether it's because he needs to grow up & get a grip or there's more to this than you've told us who knows but on the face of it, I don't see this being a Chf Clk/P1 (or anyone elses) issue!

Always the same HS, when the engineers get pi**ed off with each other, they come to TG17 to try and sort the problem.

 

[wgaf]

Always the same HS, when the engineers get pi**ed off with each other, they come to TG17 to try and sort the problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of your job solving disciplinary procedures?

 

[Humble Scribe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of your job solving disciplinary procedures?

Not a disciplinary problem wgaf a welfare issue which the Flt cdr should be able to deal with.

 

[wgaf]

Not a disciplinary problem wgaf a welfare issue which the Flt cdr should be able to deal with.

Obviously not in this case which makes me wonder if there's not more to it than flounder al is saying.DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[ForgottenName]

Originally Posted by wgaf
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of your job solving disciplinary procedures?



As HS says, disciplinary cases yes - although it still comes down to the Flt Cdr to hear the charge, etc. However, with the reduced number of TG17 personnel, we now look to you guys to try and sort the problem out yourselves in the first instance -although TG17 will always try and provide advice on the best way forward.