Vincy v MOD: Tilern DeBique and the Million Dollar Baby

Maybe it wasn’t the brightest idea for Lance Corporal Tilern DeBique to refuse a settlement offer of £100,000 from the Ministry of Defence and to issue a race and sex discrimination claim for £1 million shortly thereafter. Maybe it wasn’t such a bright idea for her to apply for a job in Afghanistan that would have required her to leave the UK for twelve weeks at a time while she complained that her job did not make allowances for her child care requirements. Maybe it wasn’t a bright idea for her to refuse a posting in Dorset. But then again, the MOD didn’t hire Ms DeBique to be bright. She was recruited a naive, what we would call “fass” young girl in the Caribbean, who saw a Commanding Officer and who inquisitively asked him whether he was taking persons to England and when he answered in the affirmative, went along for the adventure. She was recruited to fill the royal battalions with strong, assertive soldiers, to dismantle bombs in the mountain ranges of Belize, to stand up and be counted in Iraq, to serve God, Queen and Country in Afghanistan and did so, honourably, for over 10 years.

You would think the opposite from the newspaper headlines:” “What did single mother Tilern DeBique expect- a crèche in Afghanistan?” (this piece of vitriol from the Daily Mail which blames the single mothers for everything wrong with British society). She was pre judged on the thin evidence of her My Space pictures under the sobriquet “Sexy T” . A photo of her on her bed wearing a white mesh top and tight jeans (standard clubbing wear for most young Britons) was presented as her offering sexual favours (I kid you not). Other headlines included “Soldier Single Mum will cost Army 1 million”. This from the Daily Star. Ms Debique’s case was keenly followed by the daily weeklies – she was accused of setting a bad precedent for the Army and of fleecing hardworking taxpayers of their cash, ironically by the section of the populace claiming benefits because they alone have the time to comment so fully on the internet pages. Who was this non citizen daring to claim money from the Army? It was unsaid but the prevailing sentiment was bloody cheeky black girl.

What the papers do not say however, is that behind the headlines lies a story of pathos. Ms Debique fell pregnant at the age of 24. Her story is probably the story of any person in the UK battling with the prohibitive cost of childcare. She initially flew her sister to the UK for six months to care for her daughter. Presumably still finding it somewhat difficult, her sister took her daughter back to St Vincent for one year. Ms Debique then returned to St.Vincent on vacation and chose (understandably) to return with her daughter. She found it hard to cope and her brother then came to the UK for six months to assist her with her daughter's care. Her sister came to her aid again after her brother returned. It was when her sister was refused an extension to her visa that she missed her parades, citing childcare difficulties because her child was ill. She suffered some depression during this period. She was met with an unsympathetic employer- she did not apply to be a part time soldier she was told. The army wanted its soldiers 24-7. She was infoirmed that the Army was not a place for those without proper arrangements. Her commanding officer dictated that she had to be available for duty at all times, any time and that the Army was first of all, a “war-fighting” machine.

Ms Debique received 17,000 in compensation. Interestingly (and oddly) on the ground of racial discrimination, it held that it was discriminatory to refuse a visa to her sister because British soldiers could rely on relatives for childcare. The great British public have expressed their opinion on this award- she should take her “black arse” to St Vincent together with her sprog, “this is what happens when you use diversity targets to recruit “unsuitable persons”, “she has seen the UK as a golden cow and has decided to milk it”, she is a “parasite”. Whether or not Ms Debique who lives in a shared flat in Tooting and who is behind on her rent payments can be reasonably described in these terms is perhaps academic. I am more concerned that the great British public has adopted a “How Dare She” approach to the matter: how dare she sign up for work that is traditionally reserved for men, how dare she complain about having a job after she was delivered from the untold misery that is St. Vincent, how dare she have a child as a single mother, how dare she then expect her employer to make reasonable concessions and not to dismiss her demands outright when requested?

There for the grace of God go I. I would hope that if I am in the position of a single mother, that my employer would be fair and gracious enough to allow me the opportunity to work flexibly. The Army is not exempt from the ordinary obligations of an employer to treat its employees fairly. It is not for me to judge the desirability of an Army career (all I can say is that it is definitely not for me), but certainly our young women should have a chance to have a viable career in the armed forces, with or without children. It is simply not enough to claim the imperative of war as an exonerating excuse. The Army does not go soft because it makes allowances for working mothers. All workplaces have adapted and changed to respond to the needs of families and a serving officer should not feel compelled to take up an offer to relocate into the backwaters of England to slot herself into a suitable position. One shouldn’t have to give up frontline service and resign oneself to uninspiring roles to serve one's country. Isn’t it time that the Army redeemed itself of its macho persona and unfeeling reputation? And no, that does not mean telling the enemy to wait, you can’t launch a bomb because you need to send your daughter a text- it simply means ensuring that all employees are embraced and supported, irrespective of their personal choices.

And for the record, it is also very unreasonable to expect a Caribbean woman to live in Dorset.