So sad it came to this.

[Farrier]

A sorry tale. To gamble a pension for this? William Donaldson: RAF serviceman stole £15,000 of life-saving military equipment and sold it on eBay | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189856/William-Donaldson-RAF-serviceman-stole-15-000-life-saving-military-equipment-sold-eBay.html)

Shame on you Mr Donaldson.

F:mad:

[Courtney Mil]

"Are you happy now?" Is he? Are his kids?

Idiot.

[cornish-stormrider]

Good Riddance!

[Tiger_mate]

When a Joint Service Establishment are tasked with monitoring eBay as a primary duty, this conclusion was inevitable from day one. I am amazed that it has built up as far as it has. He has plenty of time for reflection with regards to his own stupidity, but is his pension really on the line? I have heard such a threat in other Court Marshal scenarios but I would have thought that a pension cannot be touched by a disciplinary procedure even a clear cut case such as this.

AL1. Google was my friend:

Against that, the Forfeiture Act 1870, one of the oldest statutes still in force, allows all entitlement to PCSPS benefits to be withdrawn in certain circumstances.
The PCSPS deeds state: "The Minister will have power to withhold benefits payable under this scheme where a civil servant or former civil servant is convicted of an offence in connection with any employment to which this scheme applies, being an offence which is certified by a Minister of the Crown either to have been gravely injurious to the State or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service."
John Pearson, a pensions expert at City solicitors Lovells, said: "There are other powers to withhold pension benefits available to the Minister for the Civil Service.
"For example, benefits could be withheld where the scheme member is convicted of treason or offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989 and is sentenced to imprisonment for at least 10 years.
"However, before benefits may be forfeited, the person concerned is entitled to appeal to an independent board nominated by the Minister and he will accept the board's judgment on whether or not the appellant's pension should be forfeited."
David Astley of the National Association of Pension Funds emphasised that private sector employers have no such wide-ranging rights to sequester an employee's pension.
However, he added that there is one exception: "Whether you are in a final salary or a money purchase scheme in the private sector, the only way an employer can withhold pension rights is if you have committed fraud or caused financial loss to the employer and there is no way for the company to recover the debt, other than going after your pension.
"Even then, the trustees would need court approval before they could reduce a member's benefits by the amount of an outstanding debt. This would not be an easy course of action and it might even be necessary for the trustees to seek the Inland Revenue's approval that this would not prejudice the scheme's tax exempt status.
"For all these reasons, it is extremely unusual in the private sector for an employer to go after an employee's pension. In 17 years in the insurance industry, I only came across one case where trustees considered doing so and I do not think they went forward with the idea."
By contrast, pursuing the pension as a form of punishment is by no means uncommon in the public sector. On Tuesday this week Dorchester Crown Court heard that a retired Army major will lose his pension after pleading guilty to running a brothel and living off immoral earnings.
Ian Brazier, defending Michael Chubb of Gold Hill, Shaftesbury, Dorset, told the court: "He is a former Army officer and a conviction means he will lose his Army pension."

[glad rag]

Doubt very much he has ANY regrets, arrogance beyond belief.

What makes it worse is his position and the affect he probably has had on countless sevicepeople who have had the misfortune to pass through his hands.

[NutLoose]

Considering the pay a WO is on compared to a lot in the Forces, it makes it even worse, if I have any sympathy it is for his kids who are unwilling participants in this...

Adios to your pension... You lost the right to that when you started down this path.

[Tableview]

What's really pathetic is that over 3 years thieving he only made £10,000.

[Tashengurt]

Ten grand for a career, pension and reputation? No thanks. :eek:

[Goprdon]

Tiger-mate

W.O. Donaldson is not a Civil Servant. The military are explicitly excluded from the definition of a Civil Servant.
It may be that the rules for service pensions are the same or similar to those for the Civil Service
I am not sure if the service pension is now treated as a contributory pension, if it is then Ex W.O Donaldson may well get his pension.

[Biggus]

I'm working from memory here, so I could be wrong, however....

A couple of years ago, when I was a flight commander, one of my chaps was up in front of a military court facing likely dismissal. One of the things I did was check the relevant AP on court proceedings, which included a section on punishments and pensions. I seem to remember that, except in extreme cases, e.g. treason, any pension rights already earned were not generally lost as a result of the court decision.

Standing by to be proved wrong by someone more knowledgable.....



P.S. My chap was dismissed from the RAF.....

[Just This Once...]

He will get his pension.

Quite a few years since the regulations change but IIRC only the Defence Council can decide to withhold a service pension and I don't think they have ever enacted the power since the regulations were changed.

[gijoe]

Different colour uniform - same offence within reason = pension lost.

Let's wait and see...Oh the arrogance of the untouchable WO.

What a twit.

G:uhoh:

[Tankertrashnav]

I also doubt that he'll ever spend much time in the Legion with others from his time in the mob.


Bit of thread drift, but have you been in a Legion branch recently? I attend a club meeting in one once a month and I doubt if half of the deadbeats propping up the bar have ever worn the Queen's uniform - most I would guess are only there for the cheap beer.

Mind you the ladies' darts team I saw there last month looked as though they would have no trouble with the Lympstone course - what a tough looking bunch!

[Ali Barber]

I never realised there was such a demand for tourniquets on eBay. I would have thought there were quicker forms of first-aid in such a life threatening situation.

[Whenurhappy]

Pensions are very rarely lost. A review is carried out to determine if there should be any penison reduction (not sure of the right term) but the review is based on the assumption that the majority of the SP's career has been blameless.

[Voxpop]

Here is what the scheme rule says:

J.5 Events enabling forfeiture
(1) This paragraph applies to a member who is an active member, a deferred
member or a pensioner member if the member—
(a) is convicted of treason or one or more offences under the Official Secrets
75
(a) 1826 (7 Geo 4 c. 16)

Acts for which the member has been sentenced on the same occasion—
(i) to a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(ii) to two or more consecutive terms amounting in the aggregate to at
least 10 years;
(b) is convicted of an offence in connection with the service that qualifies the
member to belong to the Scheme which the Defence Council considers to
have been gravely injurious to the defence, security or other interests of
the State; or
(c) has after becoming a member of the Scheme incurred a monetary
obligation to the Crown which—
(i) arises out of a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission by the
member; or
(ii) arises out of or in connection with the member’s service in the armed
forces.
(2) This paragraph applies to a person who is convicted of the murder or
manslaughter of the member or any other offence which involves the unlawful
killing of the member.
(3) In paragraph (2) “unlawful killing” includes unlawfully aiding, abetting,
counselling or procuring the death.


Looks like J5(1)(c) is what the powers that be will be addressing their minds to. As others have said, pensions are not reduced without a good deal of consideration at a very senior level.

[Mach Two]

Serving WO steals stuff - go to prison. MP steals allowances - pay it back and carry on. Lead by example and apply the law equally. They should all be in prison together.

[tucumseh]

While he deserves what he gets, methinks plod went after an easy target while turning a blind eye to more serious offences.

Just once I'd love to hear a defence barrister plead in mitigation;


In MoD,

1. It is not an offence to commit fraud
2. It is not an offence to issue an order to commit fraud
3. It is an offence to refuse to obey that order.


(Formal rulings by DGAS2, CDP, DPRD 1998-2004, upheld by five Ministers for the Armed Forces. The same RAF plod took no action. The money involved was was a lot more than 10 measly grand. And, according to those regs quoted, my future pension isn't at risk as I'm merely quoting unclassified Ministerial correspondence to my MP, forwarded to me).

[Chugalug2]

Well said, tuc. This case illustrates yet again that everyone is equal under the Law, it is just that some people are more equal than others...

[Whenurhappy]

All well and said Tecumseh, but your assertions have not been tested in Court, from what I understand. Even if this were to be the case, how does this get the Warrant Officer (ex) off the hook?

Just because some people are able to get their hands into the biscuit barrel but can avoid prosecution for doing so (howsoever achieved), does that mean that there should be no offence (and prosecution) for theft?

Imagine if it was GBP10K of your personal property that was taken and the CPS chose not to prosecute the perpetrator becasue of some unrelated larceny allegedly commited by other people?

[Halton Brat]

This guy was a WO age 43yrs; no slouch at all. I don't know what trade he was, but he must have been quite a performer to achieve this. I am saddened that a holder of the Royal Warrant could stoop so low; I don't care about rogues/charlatans/hawkers/MP's or anyone else - he has reaped his just reward. The man is a stain on the honour of his rank.

Just appaling.

HB

[Chugalug2]

Wuh:
your assertions have not been tested in Court, from what I understand.
Indeed, and that is, I think, the very point that tuc is making. Evidence laid before 2 judicial reviews, the civil police and the RAF Provost Marshal, amongst others. Result, zilch, not even an interview. The only thing we have been told is that evidently they are "honourable men", whatever that might mean. No-one is suggesting that the full vigour of the law should not be brought to bear on those committing fraud, theft, or indeed any other crime. The point is that it should be brought to bear be they high or low, isn't it?

[Roadster280]

HB - I would contend that the stain on his rank is less than the stain on his capbadge. It should't matter whether he was a corporal or a squadron leader. All would have been in long enough to know the severity of the crime.

And WO at 43? If you haven't made WO in the Army by 35, you have **** it.

[The Nip]

He was/is a Medic.

[Halton Brat]

I can't argue with your point R280 as a broad view, however I expect a WO's conduct to be beyond reproach in every way; he represents the pinnacle of the non-com cadre, and holds HMQ's signed Warrant for the execution of his duties. His influence & responsibility as an interface between the Officer/OR worlds is considerable; this should be a person to inspire respect.

Regarding his age/rank, I have probably been out of the RAF too long (17yrs) to comment accurately, but there is a clear difference between RAF/Army career structures & age/rank/retention targets here. Perhaps those still in 'blue' could advise, but to be a RAF WO in your early 40's is still good going - remember, there is no WO2 in the RAF (Flt Sgt equivalent).

Furthermore, the Technical trades have the Chief Tech rank between Sgt & Flt Sgt; this represents an additional hurdle to their promotion prospects, especially significant when the age/rank/retention spectre looms. The non-technical trades do not have the burden of this additional rank (hunkers down now to await meat-seeking missile salvo from all directions).

HB

[Goprdon]

On the question of whether or not W.O. Donaldson should have been prosecuted; comparing him with others . Each case must be considered on its merits. or some might say its lack of merit.
In the 1994 edition of " The Code For Crown Prosecutors" There is "The Public Interest Test"
Quote: In 1951, Lord Shawcross, who was Attorney General, made the classic statement of public interest,which has been supported by Attorneys General ever since: "It has never been the rule in this country --I hope it never will be-- that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution"

This case was one where I think prosecution was well deserved.

[SOSL]

Observed a CM many years ago when a Sgt (nurse) was reduced to SAC and sent to Colchester. Assumed his pension was also downgraded but maybe not?

Rgds SOS

[tucumseh]

whenurhappy

I'm not condoning the WO's actions and do not wish to see him "off the hook". Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm saying is I'd like a barrister to make such a plea to bring out these facts in open court, forcing action against those who commit far greater crimes. I think it would be interesting citing such precedents and watching the MoD legal system twitch violently.

Nor am I "asserting" anything, merely offering for pprune consumption the contents of MoD and Ministerial letters which have been passed to me by my MP or obtained under FoI. It is an acknowledged fact that MoD staffs were for many years routinely instructed to commit fraud and disciplined if they did not. This commenced in December 1992 when we were threatened with dismissal by AMSO's DGSM for complaining about the direction that aircraft be allowed to be functionally unsafe so he could generate money to compensate for his policy of deliberate waste. Haddon-Cave got the phrase "Savings at the expense of safety" directly from that evidence.

While it happens less nowadays, the damage has been done (e.g. major contribution to the financial black hole) and Ministers have refused to expunge the personnel records of those so disciplined (i.e. they continue to condone this action).

As Chug says, this evidence has been placed before major inquiries and accepted without question; although they took no action. Similarly the RAF Provost Marshall, PUS, PAC, HCDC and Ministers. MoD themselves (i.e. those who brief Ministers) have claimed some of the evidence is forged, but they were made to look foolish when original copies, transcripts and recordings were forwarded to MPs. It has been a few years (April 2004) since they made that claim. Now they say the documents don't exist (which prompted Lord Philip to simply ask myself and others for copies!). But, as I say, MoD is self healing, mainly because those who brief Ministers are sitting in judgement of their own case.

One reason why these facts have not been exposed in open court is the sheer cost of bring such an action. Without revealing details or breaching confidences, suffice to say this was a major reason why Mull of Kintyre dragged on so long. Very few private individuals have the wherewithal to fund such a battle against the might of MoD, which makes the victories on MoK, Nimrod and C130 all the more sweet. All 3 cases were characterised by serial fraud (the making of false written declarations, knowing them to be false).

The real question that is never asked by MoD is this. Whose actions brought us to our knees? We hear of the "black hole" but why has there never been an open inquiry as to the cause? Some of the culprits are still serving. All have prospered.

[Chugalug2]

Goprdon:
Each case must be considered on its merits. or some might say its lack of merit.
As they invariably are, though what constitutes "merit" is rather the nub of the case, is it not?
Would, for instance, a 2* issuing an order to an entire IPT to disregard the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations as applicable to the subject aircraft of the project team, but nonetheless to sign them off as complied with, have merit?
Would such an order not be illegal?
Are not illegal orders to be both disobeyed and reported to higher authority?
Is it then at the discretion of that higher authority to not only take no action against the 2* but on the contrary to confirm that such an order was legal and that disobeying it should result in disciplinary action?
Does such an interpretation of such an order pass:
"The Public Interest Test"
How?

[Biggus]

Chug, tuc,

Considering there is the whiff of scandal in what you assert, involving ministers of both main political parties, and supposedly easily obtainable evidence, why aren't investigative journalists taking any interest in this story?

After all, it's presumably good "copy" and doesn't involve them in any great cost. Or is this a grassy knoll moment between the establishment and the press?


Must go,there's a knock at the door..........

[Davaar]

if half of the deadbeats propping up the bar have ever worn the Queen's uniform

Used to have a dear friend, now sadly dead, who for a time flew the Me 109 in anger, while not wearing the Queen's, or even King's, uniform. As I recall, he was a member of the Legion. He certainly applied to join, although not without meeting some opposition. As he put it though, truly enough, he was "a veteran".

Long post-war, too, I shared an RAF QFI with a "refresher" (jet conversion) course Luftwaffe ace from WW2, later a Lieutenant General.

Then again, I had a business client over here whom I inherited from an ex-combatant WW2 captain, Canadian Armed Forces. Said client was in the automotive transmission business, "trading as" a member, like the regrettable Mr Donaldson, of Clan Donald. Just a coincidence. My chap first met Canadians when he was but a lad in the Waffen SS and occupant of a panzer toy.

With one employer in the aviation business over here I had a former colleague who had worked with the late Kurt Tank on the FW 190.

All irrelevant to shafting the boss, I know, so forgive my digression please, but all memories sparked by the thread.

[Rector16]

Perhaps those still in 'blue' could advise, but to be a RAF WO in your early 40's is still good going - remember, there is no WO2 in the RAF (Flt Sgt equivalent).

Furthermore, the Technical trades have the Chief Tech rank between Sgt & Flt Sgt; this represents an additional hurdle to their promotion prospects, especially significant when the age/rank/retention spectre looms. The non-technical trades do not have the burden of this additional rank (hunkers down now to await meat-seeking missile salvo from all directions).

================================

HB - you've been gone too long; we got rid of Chief Techs 5 years or so ago. You might see a few around, but we're not creating any more (for the reasons that you outlined).

The Flt Sgt equivalent is (and always has been) Staff Sergeant or Colour Sergeant - WO2 doesn't have an equivalent, although the Army will claim that all WOs are the same!

43 is generally pretty good for WO - but each Trade is different. Good for Eng, not sure for Medics, average for Int, Master Aircrew different again.

[NorbertDentressangle]

Rector, you might be correct about the Chief Tech rank in TG 4 (post amalgamation with TG 11), however, I can assure you that in TG 1, Chief rank is very much alive with the AV trade promoting some 50 odd this year.

[Chugalug2]

Biggus:
why aren't investigative journalists taking any interest in this story?
A very good question, from which response you might detect that I don't really know. Although this scandal (for scandal it is) is about life and death issues, it is a very technical scandal. A journalist would have to absorb the shifting MOD scene over the years as departments wax and wane and of course change their names, understand the difference between airworthiness and serviceability (a difference not always clearly understood in this forum!), be sufficiently au fait with Service life to understand the duty to obey an order, and yet at the same time the obligation to disobey an illegal order, and what that constitutes. In short he/she would have to be ex-military themselves, probably ex-RAF, probably aircrew or engineering, probably ex-Staff as well. Such exotic creatures do exist and can be found, right here!
That is why I post here, to attempt to mobilise the informed professional expertise that abounds within this membership. This scandal may have its shortcomings as a media story, but then they usually end up wrapping next day's Fish and Chips anyway.
My purpose is to see UK Military Airworthiness Provision and Air Accident Investigation made independent of the MOD.
My reason is that only in that way can avoidable airworthiness related accidents be avoided and hence lives saved.
My means are to see that the suborning and subversion of military airworthiness and accident investigation be revealed in court, for only in that way will its extent be made public and reform demanded.
Tall order? You bet. Worth it? You guys are the professionals. You tell me.

[tucumseh]

Biggus


supposedly easily obtainable evidence

Not supposedly. Full evidence on Who wasted money/committed fraud, When and Why submitted to Haddon-Cave, Lord Philip (especially), Public Accounts Committee and MPs.

why aren't investigative journalists taking any interest in this story?



The better question would be why none of the above took an interest. One of the more eminent IJs did take an interest a few years ago. MoD’s (successful) strategy was simply not to comment, mainly because denial was futile in the face of said evidence (primarily letters from Mins(AF) to MPs, in particular Ainsworth and Ingram).

The common feature of all these committees, inquiries (and indeed many posts on pprune) is that there is a willingness to moan and groan, but not to investigate and find the truth. (The rubbish spouted about “procurement” is a typical example). First, this requires time, effort and understanding, which few have. Second, because that truth is often unpalatable. The exception was Haddon-Cave, who named a number of people; but he got them wrong. If that were all he’d done, then it could be dismissed as incompetence (given he was led by the nose to the real MoD culprits). But he compounded his actions by praising the latter. The silence has been deafening since this was pointed out to various MPs, Ministers and H-C himself. Even more so since the Philip Inquiry evidence wholly contradicted H-C. (Remember, H-C’s claims were not evidence based; the submissions to both he and Philip were). Philip also contradicted H-C’s claim that the main problem (deliberate waste followed by cutting airworthiness to compensate) commenced in 1998; albeit obliquely. Nevertheless, it is in his report if you understand the subject.



The only reason for this must be desperation to protect certain individuals by throwing lower ranks to the wolves. Now THAT is something most here on pprune agree is routine in MoD (both Military and CS). Their utter silence following the Philip Inquiry says it all.
The MoD is willing to pursue junior ranks (quite rightly in this WO’s case), yet commit significant funding and resources to protect those whose deliberate actions have wasted billions and caused so many deaths. The might of the Thames Valley Police, RAF Provost Marshall, Health and Safety Executive and Crown Prosecution Service were set upon those named by Haddon-Cave (esp. Baber and Eagles). That act showed willingness to prosecute. But they stopped dead in their tracks when it was demonstrated the ability of these two to function had been compromised by VSOs (including those praised by H-C). So why didn’t they then pursue the VSOs with equal vigour? They are a protected species, that’s why. 2 Star and above is more a political post than Military/CS. It isn’t fair, and we’ll never fix it; but that doesn’t stop you gathering and making public the evidence (within legal bounds). When AMSO / Chief Engineer issued orders to knowingly waste money and run down airworthiness, I was one of many who were told to keep detailed records, because the regs state you must be able to justify decisions retrospectively. I never thought for one minute they’d ever be used, but they were. The task now is to ensure the direct link between this deliberate waste (fraud) and lack of airworthiness is fully understood. That is more difficult, which doesn’t make for a good media article.

[Farrier]

No more Chief Techs? Hmmm, I've just congratulated a (now ex-) Sgt on Promotion to Chief Tech 6 weeks ago. Maybe the news hasn't got to this rural Tonka base yet?

Mr Donaldson was indeed a medic, a very experienced operational medic and I believe a 7 year WO too. I heard he had done the hills but not the jungle. Until recently I believed him to be one of the sharpest tools in the box; I may just shorten that sentence from now on.

Farrier

[The Nip]

Rector 16, I can assume you are a senior officer. Why? Because you have no idea. Chf Tech is still a current rank and there is no end in sight. They did away with JT some years ago. Sgts, in theTech trades, are being promoted to Chf Tech as normal.

[The Old Fat One]

As others have posted, pensions are only lost if an offence is especially grave, whatever anybodies personal judgement, this one probably won't qualify. That may not stop the aithorities having a go, but then they will fall foul of the UK laws preventing cruel and/or excessive punishments/tariffs.

Dude I helped defend (found not guilty BTW) was charged with GBH and was looking at two years. He explicitly asked this questions of his barrister (while I was there, so not hearsay) and was told, not a chance you will lose it.

[teeteringhead]

One used to occasionally share an office with a very senior P1 chappie, who said loss of pension was very rarely heard of, and never in his experience (which was the conversation at the time) for FTKZ* offences.

Although I did know one chap who was servicing the wife of a subordinate ('twas a "love job"; they eventually married) when he was about 37 and 6 months. Realised he'd be binned, but thought he'd be "allowed" to go at his 38 point, or that the paperwork would take at least that long.

Not so - never seen admin work so fast: net result he was sacked at about 37 and 10 months - ergo no pension. :eek:



* an amusing Americanism I picked up somewhere = Failure To Keep Zippered!

[Biggus]

Presumably though he still got his preserved pension rights...?

[teeteringhead]

..... I suppose he must - he'll be there or thereabouts by now ...

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

He got what was coming to him, but I feel very sorry for the kids, they are most likely in care courtesy of Social Services.

CWD

[It's Not Working]

... and holds HMQ's signed Warrant for the execution of his duties.

When did that happen? Somebody very close to me had his 'signed' by Geoff Hoon, not quite the same as one signed by HM.

[Avtur]

Royal Warrants are signed by the SoS Defence at the time of issue.

[downsizer]

On behalf of the reigning monarch....

[Courtney Mil]

I can see it now. pp under the signature.