Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
A person who ceases to be subject to Military Law may be tried and punished for offences committed while subject to Military Law provided the trial takes place within three months of the person ceasing to be subject to Military Law.
________ BUY AIR ONE VAPORIZER
what are the other 8 charges?
why are they being done one at a time, has this something to do with the system.
what was going on when this man had over a 100 complaints in, as reported in the newspaper.
What class system are you talking about? This is Ireland, not the UK ffs.
After 18 months in the Cadet School you get to know the family backgrounds of all your classmates very well. Added to that you get to know other officers really well in certain units and overseas. What 'class' are you and that muppet Clifford talking about?
Ridiculous comment. Even more pathetic than the clowns that posted here about too many officers being the sons or daughters of other officers. Absolutely no facts to support the statement, the facts (commissioning programs with bios) prove the contrary. But then again, Clifford writes opinion pieces, he doesn't deal in facts. My opinion is that he's fond of animals....................no facts to prove it though!
Just to reiterate I AM NOT ANTI OFFICER.Officers are a vital part of the machine that we call the Defence Forces and always will be.Do we have too many for the size of our organisation.Yes.Price waterhouse recognised this going back as far as 1993 FFS!
As for the class system.Well after 14 years doing this job i have seen numerous examples of the mythical class system in action.Privates being used as waiters at Officers mess functions instead of the mess hiring proper waiters then said privates getting ate by 2 pippers for not clearing the plate from the correct side when they were never trained to do so.Show me where it is in the job description of a soldier to do this? White tableclothes and cup and saucers being laid out in tents on hillsides for senior officers observing shoots.White tablecloths on the ground FFS! That shite went out with the Ark in most modern Armies.And those are just two small examples.Alot of the way senior officers are treated goes back to old school BA teachings and customs which we inherited and dont seem to have died out.Thankfully most of the new breed coming up dont go in for this crap.But as they aren't in a position to influence it yet they have to think of their careers and not piss off the CO.
Jessup,i dont expect you as an Officer to agree with any of my comments.You have a totally different perspective on this.I am loooking at it from the floor up and over the years i have seen alot to reinforce mine and others opinions of this.
BTW just because you express and opinion here that conincides with someone elses it doesnt make you their Acolyte.
Prime example would be my agreeing with Hedgehog on his points here.We have had MANY differences of opinion here down through the years and will probably have many more.But if someone is right in what they are saying and you back them up despite personal grievances or personality clashes thats called maturity.Not brown nosing.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
Just to reiterate I AM NOT .Privates being used as waiters at Officers mess functions instead of the mess hiring proper waiters then said privates getting ate by 2 pippers for not clearing the plate from the correct side when they were never trained to do so.
Some of my fellow recruits had to serve during such a dinner - one of them got chewed out for not serving the dinner on the gilt-edged plates (never mind it was the chef who dished it up in the first place).
An absolute disgrace that this sort of thing is still happening all right.
"Attack your attic with a Steyr....as seen on the Late Late Show..."
Privates being used as waiters at Officers mess functions instead of the mess hiring proper waiters then said privates getting ate by 2 pippers for not clearing the plate from the correct side when they were never trained to do so.Show me where it is in the job description of a soldier to do this?
Lawful orders.... it would be normal in the BA, it would be one of roles of mess staff I presume?
Lawfull orders are not in dispute.They must be and always will be obeyed.Mess staff do act as waiters as required.What i have a problem with is Ptes off the lines being detailed to carry out what is, to alot of people a fairly demeaning role.One that a line soldier is not trained for.The BA actively recruits people into that role.We dont.If The Pte's and NCO's messes can both hire waiters as required for big functions.Why doesnt the officers mess?Cheap labour.Thats why.Just one example of how some Officers(NOT ALL!) view the troops.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
In 1963 there was a case called Deaton v AG which established that the act of sentencing was an integral part of the administration of Justice therefore -It was held that therefore sentencing must comply with the Constitutional requirements of Justice - fairness and independence.
In the State (Healy) v Donoghue (1976) Henchy J held that these Constituional imperatives also included the fact that an accused should receive a sentence appropiate to the degree of guilt and relevant circumstances-
and thats why we dont keel haul a sailor for texting his girlfreind- nor do we fine a female Soldier ten million euro for absences.
In 1994 in the case of the People (DPP) v WC- Flood J held that
Quote:
the selection of the particular punishment to be imposed on an individual offender is subject to the Constitutional principle of proportionality- the puishment must strike a balance
Keep the word Proportionality in the back of your head-
a sentence has to be proportionate- you cant send a man to prison for life for not having a TV licence
nor should you imprison a man for 3 months ad dismiss him from his job for texting his girlfreind
or imprison a messer for messing .
No matter how high a standard WE set ourselves
all sanctions must be proportionate to the act complained off.
Thing is Hedgehog these cases are irrelevant. The case in question is an employment law matter. Essentially what happened was what you legal types call "gross misconduct", and legally you can dismiss for a first offence in cases of gross misconduct. The most relevant and recent case in Irish law is emma mc kiernan v A wear back in 2007 at the EAT.
From a legal perspective I would have said that the circumstances in which the alleged abuse was delivered, at a formal and private staff appraisal between senior managers is the key. Ms Mc kiernan got sacked from A wear because she posted that her manager was a c**t on her bebo page, after she had tried to ring in sick, couldn't get through, and then had been contacted by her manager at home. While the EAT found that sacking her for that was excessive, they did accept that she contributed towards her dismissal, and that her actions deserved serious sanction.
But, without being sarcastic, there is a world of difference between working for A wear as a shop assistant and being a commandant in the Air corps, which is after all a uniformed and disclipined service. In the circumstances the abuse was delivered, a formal staff appraisal, it is gross misconduct and any employer is able to dismiss for gross misconduct, as long as the processes were fair.
Thing is Hedgehog these cases are irrelevant. The case in question is an employment law matter. Essentially what happened was what you legal types call "gross misconduct", and legally you can dismiss for a first offence in cases of gross misconduct
Thing is Paul
this was not an employment law matter-
This was a matter of Military Law pure and simple- Military Courts have no inherent Jurisdiction
to deal in employment law matters.
And when your mentioning the matter of Ms McKeirnan- your actually strengthing my argument
In the case of Emma Kiernan v A Wear Limited [UD643/2007], an employee posted negative and derogatory comments about her manager on the BEBO website and was subsequently dismissed from her employment for this reason. The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) held that the employer acted disproportionately in dismissing the claimant and that while the employer's disciplinary procedures were fair, the sanction imposed was not.
The EAT also held that while the Claimant's comments deserved strong censure and possible disciplinary action, they did not constitute gross misconduct in the circumstances. However, the Tribunal found that the comments made by the claimant concerning her supervisor were disrespectful, inappropriate and damaging to the employment relationship and to that extent the claimant's contribution to her dismissal was not insignificant. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded the claimant €4,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts
No body has come on here and said that the Defence Forces shouldnt have a discplinary system in place- If you go through the records there are a lot of 117's with my name on them.
However all that I said was that any sanctions have to be proportionate-
12 months and loss of job for calling your boss a prick is not proportionate.
The case of Graham v Portroe Stevedores [UD 574/2006],
may have some bearing as well.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
A person who ceases to be subject to Military Law may be tried and punished for offences committed while subject to Military Law provided the trial takes place within three months of the person ceasing to be subject to Military Law.
Smithy, can you provide a reference to back that up ?
e.g; Section X of the Defence Act ?
"Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"
Some of my fellow recruits had to serve during such a dinner - one of them got chewed out for not serving the dinner on the gilt-edged plates
A Sgt worth his salt would have sorted that one out fairly sharply....
"Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"
As for the class system.Well after 14 years doing this job i have seen numerous examples of the mythical class system in action.Privates being used as waiters at Officers mess functions instead of the mess hiring proper waiters then said privates getting ate by 2 pippers for not clearing the plate from the correct side when they were never trained to do so.Show me where it is in the job description of a soldier to do this? White tableclothes and cup and saucers being laid out in tents on hillsides for senior officers observing shoots.White tablecloths on the ground FFS!
At least you've offered a reason for your opinion which is something Michael Clifford didn't bother to do.
Ptes are detailed to work at functions in the NCOs Mess as well and that's no evidence that the NCO rank 'is divided among class lines' as Clifford put it. It evidence of an organisation 'divided among rank lines' perhaps. You can only be detailed for official functions in either mess and it happens a handful of times a year. As for trained soldiers working full time in ANY mess I've articulated my opinions on that here before. Truth be told it suits many of those that are there as it's a lot cushier than being back in a unit where they all should be and let messes pay for DFCB staff.
Ptes get detailed to wash dishes in the dining hall, sweep leaves, clean toilets (other than their own), etc. etc. all of which are dirty details for which there is no training. It's not evidence of class system.
As for the white table cloths; I did just over 14 years myself and never saw that once. I heard about it in the context of the 'good old days' on arty shoots. Again that's no evidence of officers coming from the one class (whatever the hell that means). Many regimental practices have been discontinued and they have nothing to do with a class system. Again it's one example of a what I and you agree is a silly regimental tradition. There are other examples that we would agree on but I disagree that they have anything to do with class. Is having to salute and officer and address them as sir/ma'am evidence of a class system? Is having a Ptes Mess and NCOs mess evidence of a class system?
Every military force allocates some privilege commensurate with rank. That's not the same thing as privilege being a pathway to rank. It's another area where the DF is one of the best in world and Cliffords throwaway comment denigrates that. Contrast 'the division among class lines' between officers and men in the DF to those we've worked overseas with; The BA, The French, The Yanks, The Swedes even the extremes like the Indians, Ghanaians and Nepalese?
Clifford refers to 'relatively charmed lives'. If we agree that this so called charmed life is afforded by privilege of rank then there has to be price for that privilege. Although I do agree that the punishment seems OTT it appears that this principle was lost on the Comdt in this case.
PS in relation to the PWC report and the first EAG the number of officers AND NCOs was reduced afterwards; The abolishment of the old Command and Brigade HQs, merging of Fld and Grn units etc. Be careful what you wish for. If the number of officers is reduced a lot of Sgt, CQ and CS appointments will go too. Every Grn unit gone meant one Comdt, one Captain and few Lts etc. However it also meant the loss of one CS, one CQ, four or five Sgts, ten Cpls etc.
However all that I said was that any sanctions have to be proportionate- 12 months and loss of job for calling your boss a prick is not proportionate.
I remember that A Wear case now that you mention it. Are you enjoying your retirement in Blackhall or Kings Inn Hedgehog? If I ever went back to college again and it was not work related I think it would be law or history. Anyway, your post about the EAT and the girl in A Wear. She was awarded €4k but what about the dismissal? Did she get reinstated or did the dismissal stand?
Also, does anyone know if this will affect this guys pension if the appeal is unsuccessful? That would be OTT x 2 if it does.
Also, does anyone know if this will affect this guys pension if the appeal is unsuccessful?
Don't know, but the guy may well have to get alternative employment for another
almost 20 more years, to tide him over until retirement...
"Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"
"Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment