Questions about the Mails coverage of Tilern de Bique (aka that woman who is at the centre of the army child care thing.)

If the Mail decides you have been awarded the "wrong" sort of compensation, then there's a good chance you might get slapped all over the front page, with one of those "bloody typical compo gone mad" headlines. Ones involving the armed forces, and MoD personnel who are deemed the "wrong sort" of recipient can receive a particularly hard time. (stuff like when they say that an MoD "pen pusher" got ten zillion quid for a paper cut, that sort of thing) This time it is the turn of Tilern de Bique, an ex soldier who is hoping to sue the MoD for a million pounds (this has been misunderstood by some commenting on it, as she has actually been AWARDED that amount.) in an industrial tribunal, after she rejected the 100 000 pounds offered. (she had enlisted for two decades, but only ended up doing 5 years, and this is the lump sum she claims she will lose after she has lost all her army pension and other pay.) The cause of the dispute is claimed to be due to the fact that she felt compelled to leave the army as a comms line technician, because she was a single mother who couldn't provide child care that corresponded to her hours. So there is accusations that she was given hours the army said she wouldn't get. Counter accusations have been that she knew what she was signing up to, and should have provided adequate cover, and thus had no excuse for missing parades to bring her kid up. I won't go into much into the details, as the result isn't out yet, and pouring through the rival claims is time consuming.

The nature of the claim, and the amount she wants (she hasn't been awarded a million) are the source of much of the contention in the commentary on the case. The sum she wants has been contrasted with what was finally awarded to the paratrooper Ben Parkinson, who was badly maimed by a mine in Afghanistan. (finally awarded £570 000, assuming with all military privileges in tact, such as pension etc. After initial £150 000 was offered, to much public anger.). The amount of money subjectively justified, to what plaintiffs should receive is a matter of opinion, and can't really be objectively set in stone. I feel that some of the injured soldiers have been short changed by the MoD personally. A mine will mess you up bad, and providing the best care available to those who are willing to get blown up, so we don't have to is of course paramount. On the other hand I know of many cases of where child care provision has been inadequately accounted for in the workplace, despite assurances that it would be, and I don't think it is an issue to be dismissed as a self indulgent one, as the articles imply (They are quite different cases of affairs as well, that's why she's going through an employment tribunal. So it's hard to compare them together). But the real thing that does bother me about the comm entry on it is how DeBique has been vilified as a gold digging opportunist. A feckless single mother (is there any other kind in Mailworld?) who cried victim, when she couldn't be bothered to turn uop for work. She has had articles about her being a disgrace to women soldiers. A betrayer of "our boys". Her Myspace profiles have been sifted through to try and portray her as a bit of a slapper, and a "women of loose morals", because she wrote vaguely saucy comments just about everyone under the age of 35 has put on their social networks. This let's remember, is before we really know the ins and outs of it. She may be just a base opportunist, or she may have been forced out of the forces. I like to think we should make our minds up when we know the full outcome, and what actually happened. Not smear someone who may be the legitimate victim of employer malpractice.

In a way I'm not surprised she has received this treatment by the Mail. She just about ticks every box on their hate list. She's black. She's a woman. She's a single Mun. She's not British. Part of her claim involves accusations of racism, and that withering Mail euphemism; "hurt feelings." She's (was) a lady soldier, why was she not at home? She said racy things at one time in her life. Yes she's not only betrayed the army, she's betrayed all proper women who stay at home and cook and clean, and don't get ideas like doing men's work, and then having the brass neck balls to get above her station and demand adequate child care in the workplace! And to top it off she's a Johnny foreigner from the dusky regions. Wouldn't have happened in Churchills day!