Talk:Army Legal Services Branch

Merging

Although the ALS is part of the AGC, it is also its separate entity. I also think that the wiki is long enough to be allowed to stay as it is. Jhfireboy I'm listening 22:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces Bill & the Service Prosecuting Authority

Does any one have any information, with a reference, that states that the three services legal sections have been combined? I have removed information from the page concerning this, as it was not linked, nor have I found any link that proves they have. This link shows a bill passed through parliament that says they will be combined. But is that the cases at this present time?

Here are the details I removed from the main page concerning it:

The Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) has merged with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Prosecuting Authorites to form the tri-service Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA). The SPA is headed by a Civilian who is a QC and who is Director SPA. The SPA is based at Uxbridge in Middlesex but also has an office at Bielefeld in Germany. The Deputy Director is currently a member of the ALS and is currently [Brigadier]] McEvoy OBE, although there are moves to have this post rotate among the three Services

and

Director Army Legal Service no longer has day to day command of ALS Officers attached to the SPA, although the ALS still maintains career management and provides the SPA with manpower

The SPA is based at Uxbridge in Middlesex but also has an office at Bielefeld in Germany. The Deputy Director is currently a member of the ALS and is currently Brigadier McEvoy OBE, although there are moves to have this post rotate among the three Services

Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have just found a link to the army.com page on the ALS, which has a section on the SPA. I will forthwith add a section to the article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a homepage

The wording and content of this article are appropriate to a homepage, not an encyclopedia article. It is good that it is up to date, but an encyclopedia article needs to take a longer view. The "history" section needs to be greatly expanded. The word "currently" currently appears five times in the article. In all such cases, there is equal reason to include the previous state of affairs. For example if the identities of the Director General and other officers is to be included, some effort should be put into listing the corresponding previous office-holders. The tenses used reflect the same problem, for example "has been" which should be "was". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)