Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not pretending to.

You're the one pretending to have done a course on the use of Milan in the field and to know more about inf than inf.

You were an ATO. Why you're pretending to be something else, to be an expert on inf, and to have been taught things you obviously weren't is completely beyond me, but if that's what you did when you served I can understand why the inf bns you served with fแcked you off at the high port.
You tell lies
 
Yes, that's what you said. It's utter cr@p.

The phrase used in QRs, which you quoted yourself, is "wherever they are serving". There's no room for any "interpretation". None at all.
You never posted what you said you had. It's not complicated.
You tell lies
 
Ummm ..... only in Bugsyland. Maybe it's next to dingerrland.
Evidently not. Not only are ATOs not taught Milan's use in the field, including effective ranges (even here, and the thread's hardly objective, dingerr's on his own), but dingerr's recollections are contradicted by every vid of Milan being fired and every open source reference. They could, of course, all be wrong, and the vids could all have been edited (including even the one dingerr posted).

That's always a possibility .....
You tell lies
 
I notice that John is trotting out the 'it's irrelevant' line when caught ribbing.

I think he's desperately lonely. I still wonder if he's had an offline adult interaction since this thread started.

Cast out of his regiment and the army, shunned by his family and forced to retire to the far east, where the locals will not speak to the creepy old western bore.

Tragic.
 
I’ve never once pretended that.
So you've never pretended to know more about Milan's use and operation in the field than someone who's fully Milan trained and qualified as a Milan pl comd?

To know more about who allocates trg ammunition in an inf bn than the person directly responsible for doing that?

You're completely delusional.
You’re the one spouting bollocks about Milan, when you can’t even quote which ones which.
I did that some 1,500 posts ago. You simply chose to ignore it as it didn't suit you.
You’re the one pretending to be competent to be an expert on the K115, having never done a course or conversion on it.
... and you know that because ... of course, like everything else, you just dreamt it up.
As I said, you’ve talked to someone in the bar and you think it makes you an expert.
Yes, dingerr, you've said it plenty of times. It's as childish and stupid as your comments usually are now.
You’re the one referring to Javelin and Eric missiles and confusing them for Milan.
Really? When? Just one example will do. Just one.
 
Last edited:
I notice that John is trotting out the 'it's irrelevant' line when caught ribbing.
It’s hardly a surprise you think rape is irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether soldiers on holiday abroad in countries like Thailand, with no SoF, MoU, etc, can be charged with a criminal offence under English law. It's nonsense, and B-S's supposed example was irrelevant to that. Hardly difficult to follow.
 
So you've never pretended to know more about Milan's use and operation in the field than someone who's fully Milan trained and qualified as a Milan pl comd?

To know more about who allocates trg ammunition in an inf bn than the person directly responsible for doing that?

You're completely delusional.
I did that some 1,500 posts ago. You simply chose to ignore it as it didn't suit you.
... and you know that because ... of course, like everything else, you just dreamt it up.Yes, dingerr, you've said it plenty of times. It's as childish and stupid as your comments usually are now.
Really? When? Just one example will do. Just one.
You tell lies
 
It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether soldiers on holiday abroad in countries like Thailand, with no SoF, MoU, etc, can be charged with a criminal offence under English law. It's nonsense, and B-S's supposed example was irrelevant to that. Hardly difficult to follow.

You tell lies
 
It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether soldiers on holiday abroad in countries like Thailand, with no SoF, MoU, etc, can be charged with a criminal offence under English law. It's nonsense, and B-S's supposed example was irrelevant to that. Hardly difficult to follow.
You said they were on R+R, which was it holiday or R+R?
 
It’s hardly a surprise you think rape is irrelevant.
What's the rape thing all about? I saw something about him sticking up for rapists or something. Have I missed the story, or is it in this thread somewhere and I've just glazed over as I read it?
 
What's the rape thing all about? I saw something about him sticking up for rapists or something. Have I missed the story, or is it in this thread somewhere and I've just glazed over as I read it?
@stacker1 knows the story best, but it’s something along the lines of some British military raped a girl in Thailand, John interfered, demanded money out of the lads then let them on their way. They didn’t face justice because John perverted its course.
 
Stop wriggling JohnG. Just walk away from the keyboard. Keep some last dreg of dignity intact.

From memory, Madame Slug, he intervened to 'help' some British soldiers on holiday who were accused of rape by a local girl and negotiated an honour payment ("local custiom") to the girl's family to simplify or avoid police involvement. Take from that what you will.
 
Absolutely sure. 100% positive. They can't be charged with sexual assault / rape, etc, only with something like "bringing the Army into disrepute", Sect 69, etc.

Get it right you ******* bellend!
"conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline contrary to section 69 of the army act 1955"
FFS! If you can't get that right, how the merry **** are we supposed to believe you made it to field rank?

View attachment 388860
They're two different offences. That's why there's a comma. How you made it beyond Pte, if you did, God alone knows.
 
@stacker1 knows the story best, but it’s something along the lines of some British military raped a girl in Thailand, John interfered, demanded money out of the lads then let them on their way. They didn’t face justice because John perverted its course.
Stop wriggling JohnG. Just walk away from the keyboard. Keep some last dreg of dignity intact.

From memory, Madame Slug, he intervened to 'help' some British soldiers on holiday who were accused of rape by a local girl and negotiated an honour payment ("local custiom") to the girl's family to simplify or avoid police involvement. Take from that what you will.

This is what kicked it all off

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/veteran-in-trouble-in-peru.278765/page-16#post-8655332
 
You said they were on R+R, which was it holiday or R+R?
It makes absolutely no difference. They weren't serving in Thailand. There was no MoU, SoF, etc, so they could only be charged with any criminal offences under Thai law.

There was / is no system for them to be charged with a relevant criminal offence under military law or English law, either as soldiers or as civilians.

It doesn't exist.

All they could be charged with under military law was something along the lines of Section 69, (or) bringing the Army into disrepute, (or) failing the Service Test.

That's all.
 
Yes, he was absolutely toxic on the Veteran in trouble in Peru thread, wasn't he.

I do wonder why, if he dislikes officers and british infanteers so much and won't believe those who have practical knowledge of a subject he is trying to discuss, does he hang around on a British Army gossip forum? I know he says he likes to wind people up, but he is the one who froths at the mouth.

Perhaps he is some new kind of Russian Troll.
 
It makes absolutely no difference. They weren't serving in Thailand. There was no MoU, SoF, etc, so they could only be charged with any criminal offences under Thai law.

There was / is no system for them to be charged with a relevant criminal offence under military law or English law, either as soldiers or as civilians.

It doesn't exist.

All they could be charged with under military law was something along the lines of Section 69, (or) bringing the Army into disrepute, (or) failing the Service Test.

That's all.
Of course Walter.
 
So you say. Unfortunately the only example you've given has no connection with what was actually posted. Just a minor problem.
You tell lies
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top