U.K army investigates why e-mail used to fire troops - Polidicks

[release]LONDON (AP) — Britain's military apologized Tuesday for using emails to tell several dozen long-serving soldiers, including one fighting in Afghanistan, that they were being laid off. The army said an "administrative error" meant the servicemen were not told in person that their contracts would be ended because of cutbacks. As government opponents leapt on the episode as an example of the government's heartless attitude to spending cuts, ministers rushed to condemn the blunder. Prime Minister David Cameron felt that "the way this has been handled is completely unacceptable," said a Downing Street spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government rules. Defense Secretary Liam Fox said has was "furious" at the error. "This is no way to treat our armed forces personnel," he said. "I want to know how this was allowed to happen and what measures will be put in place to prevent this from happening again." Facing cries of "Resign!" from Labour backbenchers in the House of Commons, Fox later told lawmakers the army is investigating the breach in procedure and apologized on behalf of the army and Ministry of Defense. News of the email blunder comes as the armed forces face deep cuts imposed by the government in a bid to cut the country's large deficit. The soldiers were 38 warrant officers, each with more than 20 years' service, who are on rolling short-term contracts. A Ministry of Defense spokesman confirmed one of the officers was serving in Afghanistan when the emails were sent out in mid-January. The 38 soldiers each received an impersonal message saying their contracts would be terminated in 12 months and advising them to "start planning your resettlement." The army apologized for the distress caused and said the soldiers had since been spoken to by their commanding officers. The move was criticized in a country proud of its military, especially troops serving overseas. Soldiers on these short-term contracts, of which Britain has roughly 600, expect to be contacted annually in January to discuss the renewal of their jobs. "Normally, such emails are sent to the command instead of directly to the soldiers," a Ministry of Defense spokesman said, on condition of anonymity in line with government policy. "Regrettably the emails were sent directly to 38 soldiers." Jim Murphy, defense spokesman for the opposition Labour Party, said they had been treated in a "callous, cold-hearted, soulless" way. "Sacking anybody by email is wrong, but sacking our armed forces in this way is absolutely unforgivable," he said. "We can't halt every redundancy in the armed forces, but this is no way to treat men and women who have served their country fearlessly for so many years." The incident comes just a day after reports in British media that a quarter of the Royal Air Force trainee pilots will be fired due to spending cuts — reports which Fox dismissed as full of "inaccurate details." The British army is shrinking by some 17,000 troops and the military is scrapping a fleet of fighter planes and an aircraft carrier as part of the government's deficit-slashing agenda. Murphy cited the email sacking and RAF job losses as an example of how the current government is running the Ministry of Defense in "shambolic way" led by cuts, rather than by Britain's military and foreign policy needs. The soldiers who received the emails will now individually discuss with their commanders if their jobs will be renewed.[/release] Source - [url]http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=delawareonline&sParam=43744170.story[/url]

It reminds me of a larger scale version of when kids break up using text messages. I would feel pretty bad about myself if they did that to me. Like they felt I wasn't worth the time to be told in person. At least it was just an error(as far as we know)

:britain:

Uh huh....... Okay, I'll be the first retard posting on this thread. How is this a big deal?

[QUOTE=Swilly;28079617]Uh huh....... Okay, I'll be the first retard posting on this thread. How is this a big deal?[/QUOTE] It's a big deal because it's 'rude' to fire a man serving to protect the country by electric type rather than written type, for some reason. I think it's pretty dumb, myself.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28079617]Uh huh....... Okay, I'll be the first retard posting on this thread. How is this a big deal?[/QUOTE] If after years of service, you recieved some cheesy pre-written e-mail with your name slapped on the end of it followed by your formally being terminated from service, how would you feel? I wouldn't shrug it off.

[quote]The soldiers were 38 warrant officers, each with more than 20 years' service[/quote] That's actually disgusting, why would you do that to them?

Cut costs. Quality goes down. Blast officials for quality going down and tell them to do more with less. Quality goes down further.

Pretty much, Contag.

[QUOTE=garrynohome;28079501]It reminds me of a larger scale version of when kids break up using text messages. I would feel pretty bad about myself if they did that to me. Like they felt I wasn't worth the time to be told in person. At least it was just an error(as far as we know)[/QUOTE] In all honestly sometimes you have to do it remotely. I had to dump my girlfriend via MSN as she didn't want to see me at all, so I physically couldn't do it in person. Though, the army has no excuse. If I were to get fired by email I'd immediately disregard it as spoofed.

Oh conservatives, you so shit

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;28079655]It's a big deal because it's 'rude' to fire a man serving to protect the country by [b]electric type[/b] rather than [b]written type[/b], for some reason. I think it's pretty dumb, myself.[/QUOTE] Now I'm picturing the UK army being run by pokemon trainers.

A Challenger approaches.

if the cuts continue another falkland war would be impossible. its just riduculous

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;28091323]if the cuts continue another falkland war would be impossible. its just riduculous[/QUOTE] Argentina wouldn't be stupid enough to try it again.

I hope this doesn't mean a kid with a bunch of stolen e-mail accounts can dismantle an army.

[QUOTE=David29;28092020]Argentina wouldn't be stupid enough to try it again.[/QUOTE] i mean something similar. defending our own turf abroad would be out of the question when military spending is being dubbed down

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28088794]Oh conservatives, you so shit[/QUOTE] To be fair you can't blame them for this. They might have made the decision to cut numbers but it is not their fault that it was done by email. [editline]17th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=XanaToast.;28096592]i mean something similar. defending our own turf abroad would be out of the question when military spending is being dubbed down[/QUOTE] It does make you wonder how they would do it. I mean the UK has no carrier capability now (or won't very shortly, although this wouldn't be a problem for the falklands) so how the UK would defend (or attack on its own) is a mystery. Well there's always that treaty with the French (Unless they supply the missiles to the other side again..)

[QUOTE=Jsm;28096708]It does make you wonder how they would do it. I mean the UK has no carrier capability now (or won't very shortly, although this wouldn't be a problem for the falklands) so how the UK would defend (or attack on its own) is a mystery. Well there's always that treaty with the French (Unless they supply the missiles to the other side again..)[/QUOTE] Uh...we're currently building two new carriers at the moment.... It also amuses me how over the past few weeks the Tories have managed to stumble from one PR disaster to another.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;28097777]Uh...we're currently building two new carriers at the moment.... It also amuses me how over the past few weeks the Tories have managed to stumble from one PR disaster to another.[/QUOTE] That's great but the jets to go them won't be ready till some point near the end of the decade.

[QUOTE=Jsm;28097856]That's great but the jets to go them won't be ready till some point near the end of the decade.[/QUOTE] Eh, I'll grant you that one, to a degree. The F-35 project seems to be dragging it's feet, but I'm guessing we'd just press current aircraft into use for a few more years, until either the F-35Cs are ready, or our old stuff dies on us.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;28099225]Eh, I'll grant you that one, to a degree. The F-35 project seems to be dragging it's feet, but I'm guessing we'd just press current aircraft into use for a few more years, until either the F-35Cs are ready, or our old stuff dies on us.[/QUOTE] Shame that governments hardly ever go back on their words. I am sure the harriers could stay in limited service for a couple of years till the F-35's are ready (although there's nothing to say they won't suddenly be brought back into service once the new carriers appear). It's a shame the F-35 will probally be outdated by the time it actually starts being used.

[QUOTE=Jsm;28099614]Shame that governments hardly ever go back on their words. I am sure the harriers could stay in limited service for a couple of years till the F-35's are ready (although there's nothing to say they won't suddenly be brought back into service once the new carriers appear). It's a shame the F-35 will probally be outdated by the time it actually starts being used.[/QUOTE] They may go back on their words, if forced to. Or maybe not. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that the current UK government really has any idea what to do with the armed forces, except try and cut money from them.

This is why I decided to join the Merchant Navy before the armed forces, its going to be extremely hard to get a job in any of the services for quite a while, apart from infantry.