Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

It's not a regimental photo. It was a JNCOs cadre pass out pde attended by him and Chris Patten. The first and only time I ever met him. No idea what's fascinating about that.
Chris Hamerbeck, in a recent interview was asked about Op Granby and any regrets he might still have: ‘while swanning around in contact within the forward coy/sqn gp boundaries, with fuck all understanding of their drills and no comms with them, was a touché difficult to live down, I’ve come to terms with that particular episode of bellendery. I do however have to suffer the daily indignity of seeing Major Glitter’s gurning face staring at me from the group photo on my khazi wall. I should’ve sacked the cunt then.’
 
Given that you admit making up your rank and your uniform it would be pointless to ask why you’re wearing a **** cap, appropriate though it undoubtedly is.

I admit to being at a loss regarding the Boy Scout badges though.
No, I never said I'd made either up, and you've now had all the "documentary proof" you demanded. The rank slides were locally made, exactly as they are for all offrs showing the unit - including yours and everybody else's here.

Thanks to your digging you've also now got "documentary proof" of the bling, or at least enough of it to have rather more than Brig Hammerbeck, so that's no longer in doubt either.

Thanks for that!:rofl:

Edit:
Chris Hamerbeck, in a recent interview was asked about Op Granby and any regrets he might still have: ‘while swanning around in contact within the forward coy/sqn gp boundaries, with **** all understanding of their drills and no comms with them, was a touché difficult to live down, I’ve come to terms with that particular episode of bellendery. I do however have to suffer the daily indignity of seeing Major Glitter’s gurning face staring at me from the group photo on my khazi wall. I should’ve sacked the **** then.’
His memory must be failing - he tried to.

I would have though he'd remember that he was so p'd off at being shown up in front of the Governor by having far less bling than a mere Major that he tried to sack the **** but when he checked he found out all the bling and the boy scout badges were all on the ****'s docs. The sup clerk bubbled him.
 
Last edited:
John, have you ever thought about fucking with everyone's heads by just saying "Actually, maybe you're right, it's not that important anyway, sorry about that" and leaving it be at all?
 

You notice he's ignored my post which shows you posted about QR's?
Which is a little odd considering he's a permasending essay writing cúnt.
 
You notice he's ignored my post which shows you posted about QR's?
Which is a little odd considering he's a permasending essay writing cúnt.
Our John simply wouldn’t do that, would he? He must be having his cornflakes.
 
Our John simply wouldn’t do that, would he? He must be having his cornflakes.
I will pop back later to not read his 100000 word rebuttal full of his usual shīte.
He's probably working out the best way to selectively quote it to alter its meaning and how to tie in Milan guidance wire and his expertise in EOD.
 
I will pop back later to not read his 100000 word rebuttal full of his usual shīte.
He's probably working out the best way to selectively quote it to alter its meaning and how to tie in Milan guidance wire and his expertise in EOD.
Now he’s had time to scan an IEDD dissertation he’ll undoubtedly be a (self proclaimed) high threat operator. He may out, advising the Thai authorities on their C-IED policy.
 
Now he’s had time to scan an IEDD dissertation he’ll undoubtedly be a (self proclaimed) high threat operator. He may out, advising the Thai authorities on their C-IED policy.
More likely he's having colonic irrigation to remove the mixed DNA from him.

John's a bachelor you know.
 
More likely he's having colonic irrigation to remove the mixed DNA from him.

John's a bachelor you know.
I believe he uses a hose to felch himself...
 
Well, if that is the apparatus he is using for either activity, I think we can safely assume that is another area he is wrong about an expert in.......
 
One post from him today so far, must be a record
 
Ahhh but he did, here you go a link to the post.

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/army-wo3s-and-raf-wo1s.290697/post-9219758

Heres a screenshot with a helpful arrow for the terminally dense
View attachment 388710


Cue numb fuçk claiming it was an oversight
My apologies on behalf of the Arrse search engine, which failed to come up with the post although it came up with others by dingerr using "law".

Unfortunately, as was inevitable and so I could say it with confidence without even reading it, it doesn't say what dingerr claims it does. Not only, again inevitably, was it taken totally out of context to give it a very different implication, but it doesn't say anything like dingerr says it does in any case.

Firstly, there's no mention in QRs Para 18, which he quoted, of whether they're "on duty" or not. It clearly refers only to "wherever they are serving" which is totally different. You can be "serving" somewhere, for example in BAOR, on Telic, etc, but not "on duty", just as you can be "on duty" somewhere, for example on R&R or on AT, but not "serving" there. Totally and completely different.

Secondly, dingerr's completely ignored the note (note '4') even though it's in his quote. That takes you (two lines under, on the same page, FFS!) to "4 s70 of Army Act 1955 and from Jan 09 s42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006" which, as I've already told him, clearly explains the position beyond any possible doubt as it leads on to:

Jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom
56. Introduction. .....
57. .....
58. Countries other than NATO countries.
a.
Where a treaty, Status of Forces Agreement or MOU is in place in non-NATO countries, sometimes the UK Service authorities will be able to exercise jurisdiction to deal with all offences committed by persons subject to Service law or civilians subject to Service discipline. However, in other countries, the Services will only be able to exercise jurisdiction to deal with offences committed whilst on duty and in other specified situations. Staff legal advice should be sought in the first instance if there is any doubt as to whether such an agreement may exist.

As I said, pure fantasy based on something which he's taken completely out of context and then either accidentally misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented, despite being not just told but shown beyond any possible doubt that he's wrong. I can't even begin to guess the motivation or reasoning any more.
 
My apologies on behalf of the Arrse search engine, which failed to come up with the post although it came up with others by dingerr using "law".

Unfortunately, as was inevitable and so I could say it with confidence without even reading it, it doesn't say what dingerr claims it does. Not only, again inevitably, was it taken totally out of context to give it a very different implication, but it doesn't say anything like dingerr says it does in any case.

Firstly, there's no mention in QRs Para 18, which he quoted, of whether they're "on duty" or not. It clearly refers only to "wherever they are serving" which is totally different. You can be "serving" somewhere, for example in BAOR, on Telic, etc, but not "on duty", just as you can be "on duty" somewhere, for example on R&R or on AT, but not "serving" there. Totally and completely different.

Secondly, dingerr's completely ignored the note (note '4') even though it's in his quote. That takes you (two lines under, on the same page, FFS!) to "4 s70 of Army Act 1955 and from Jan 09 s42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006" which, as I've already told him, clearly explains the position beyond any possible doubt as it leads on to:

Jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom
56. Introduction. .....
57. .....
58. Countries other than NATO countries.
a.
Where a treaty, Status of Forces Agreement or MOU is in place in non-NATO countries, sometimes the UK Service authorities will be able to exercise jurisdiction to deal with all offences committed by persons subject to Service law or civilians subject to Service discipline. However, in other countries, the Services will only be able to exercise jurisdiction to deal with offences committed whilst on duty and in other specified situations. Staff legal advice should be sought in the first instance if there is any doubt as to whether such an agreement may exist.

As I said, pure fantasy based on something which he's taken completely out of context and then either accidentally misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented, despite being not just told but shown beyond any possible doubt that he's wrong. I can't even begin to guess the motivation or reasoning any more.

You called dingerr a liar and claimed he hadn't posted about QR's. You were wrong.
Not man enough to admit though are ya.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top