ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Dollsteeth

I hope he sues the shit out of them.

Be interesting to see if he can.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Be interesting to see if he can.

Quite, I mean where is the civil wrong or the criminal act?

Unless there is evidence of malfeasance in public office or some other irregularity in prosecution (ie, deliberate altering a statements, etc) I would be at a loss to think of grounds?

If everything was correctly (ie, legally in order) done in the prosecution, I think you just have to swallow it and move on. If you can.

Originally Posted by GuanYu

Its comments like that, that make you appear simple minded.
1) the Corporal in question was trying to save lives so he slapped a terrorist around. No biggie
2) the rmp lcpl job is to report incidents of this kind no matter how small or trivial and looking the other way only jepodises the rmp
3) the ARMY is the problem here neither the corporal or lcpl did anything wrong ,but it was the army bigwigs that decided to drag the corporal through the courts based on a limp wristed report.

But hey.. you know better, you simpleton

Dig out the crayons and go straight to the personal abuse...

As you area a relative newcomer to the ARRSE I'd suggest you pop down the QMs and sign out a sense of humour. It might just come in handy.


Rodney2q

Originally Posted by Boumer

Would it be fair to suggest that the Army is now at the point the police reached many years ago, with a risk averse culture in this respect?

An incident is investigated, proceeded with until exhausted against the potential for either embarrasment or judgement against?

The sole good thing for the soldier concerned is that he is now exhonerated by a court, and people cannot say he was given special treatment (except in the case he was proceeded against to a higher standard than others are held?)

The saddest things are, firstly (and mainly) that the bloke has had that incident hanging over his head for 3 years, but also that the RMP are still obviously being used to 'tidy up any loose ends' to save embarrassment, rather than being given the autonomy to be able to turn round and say "We've looked at this, it won't hold water, here's a report which says it's a non-runner." But the Army has had it's laundry aired in public so many times now, that it has taken the attitude that the subject's career doesn't matter, just as long as 'we' are seen to be doing the right thing and don't draw any adverse criticism further down the road. When that sort of attitude prevails, then it's difficult to change it, particularly when senior officers would rather not have to answer awkward questions and possibly risk their careers. I can see the investigator's face now, in total disbelief that he or she would have to report the bloke for bugger all, but being overwhelmed by the classic managment response to any questions asked that "We've spoken to Legal, they've said to report him, so get on with it, it's down to somebody else whether he gets charged." It's classic. You've also got to look at the bloke's CO's involvement in this matter. If there was insufficient evidence to charge the lad, he is the man to take that call. RMP only report them to the CO, they don't charge them. Contrary to what Joe Soap thinks, they've never had that authority. The lad's CO would have discussed the matter with Army Legal. What advice was given over the phone? Charge him? Obviously. Someone in the chain of command decided to charge that bloke irrespective of the lack of evidence before him and it was his CO or someone acting on the CO's authority. One thing for certain, it wasn't anyone from the RMP, but those who made the call (his own chain of command) will as always, be happy to sit back and let the great unwashed blame the RMP.

Originally Posted by llech

When did Paras become "special forces"?

Before the RAF Regiment but after the SAS.

Originally Posted by Boumer

Quite, I mean where is the civil wrong or the criminal act?

Unless there is evidence of malfeasance in public office or some other irregularity in prosecution (ie, deliberate altering a statements, etc) I would be at a loss to think of grounds?

If everything was correctly (ie, legally in order) done in the prosecution, I think you just have to swallow it and move on. If you can.

Actually, if he does, it'll be an employment law matter.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

Be interesting to see if he can.

I'm no lawyer (clearly) but I would assume that what career he did have left prior to leaving was urepairably damaged by the allegations and eventually led to a promising life in the forces cut short. One could argue anyone under the same pressure would do the same, i think they'll bung him some cash to stay away from the matter any further.

Originally Posted by Dollsteeth

I'm no lawyer (clearly) but I would assume that what career he did have left prior to leaving was urepairably damaged by the allegations and eventually led to a promising life in the forces cut short. One could argue anyone under the same pressure would do the same, i think they'll bung him some cash to stay away from the matter any further.

with a confidentiality clause to prevent further discussion?