Bringing the Army into Disrepute???

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by james_pugh, Mar 1, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. An individual commits an offence and is charged by the civvy police....why can the Army still charge that individual with "Bringing the Army into disrepute"? Who decides how and why the Army has "been brought into disrepute" or is it as it seems, that soldiers can be charged with the same offence twice, just in a different guise. Employers in civvy street have very little, if any, jurisdiction over their employees outside the workplace. How long can we still be treated differently??? Why can soldier's careers and postings be affected by these decisions???
  2. Employers will not charge an individual with bringing their firm into disrepute, they simply sack them, eg a Salrs rep with a ban for drunken driving is no use to a civvi firm.

    It's quite difficult to sack a soldier (honest) unless the Courts give a custodial sentence, so the Army takes another line.

    There are also some offences that will always affect ones career, military or civilian. Breaches of trust, an interest in children etc.

    The answer is not to be a naughty boy in the first place.
  3. Mil law and AGAIs. It is part of the conditions of service.

    Army Legal Service normally.

    As long as you are in the Army ! We are different which is why we are so good ! We have the highest standards of professionalism, integrity and honesty, and what we do not want is someone who is tarnishing the reputation of our Army.

    If you do not agree, then you can always leave and become a civilian where lying, cheating and behaving in an unsocial manner is the norm.
  4. world cup, hooligan charged lost his job as a post man.

    Not just the armed Forces james_pugh. :)
  5. There's a bit of a difference between a football hooligan and someone caught speeding. You must agree?
  6. True :) every crime has a different punishment.
  7. that post man got his job back on appeal backedby the union as he hasnt been convicted of any offence only charged and was susequently dropped due to lack of evidence
  8. I always thought that a person  in UK "COULD NOT"be charged twice for the same offence ?? ??? ::)
  9. my point exactly. you are not charged with the initial offence twice. You receive your punishment for that and then you get charged by the Army for bringing them into disrepute.
    The point with the Postman - He didn't have his posting cancelled or his promotion suspended.
  10. I think that you will find that there is a difference between disciplinary punishments and administrative sanctions.  For the definitive answer, read AGAI 67, it is very clear exactly how drink driving, breaches of the Values and Standards, etc  are to be treated.  

    "Administrative action for misconduct is distinct from disciplinary action under the Service Discipline Acts.  Administrative action is taken for a different purpose, using different rules, different standards of proof and different powers.  It is action taken in the best interests of the Service in order to safeguard its efficiency and operational effectiveness....It may be taken in addition to disciplinary action, or following prosecution in a civil court, whether the accused is convicted or not.  Administrative action in these circumstances does not amount to double jeopardy, nor should it be regarded as oppressive or unfair in principle.  It is consistent with civilian employment practice and the regulation of other professions."

    In the main most soldiers who undergo administartive action have had a laspe in their conduct which necessitates a posting.  This is predominantly because their position as a JNCO or officer is less tenable with other soldiers who know how they have erred.  This does not always affect their career (I am not even sure if the rebukes/displeasures are atually taken into account at MCM, although they are kept in your P file).

    At the end of the day you signed up to accepting military law in all its various forms and it is this that makes us a bred apart, exactly as Ramillies points out.  If you cannot take the heat, keep out of the fire.... ;)
  11. I :mad: but look what happens when a Officer F**ks up
    Different story then ::)
  12. It certainly is because the rules are stricter for when an officer digresses. An officer should know better and hence the penalty is greater.
  13. cheers for the jokes ;D
  14. Untrue Ramillies and well you know it.   The comparison of two recent Courts Martials testifies to that.

    Courts Martial A:   Infantry Sgt is sentenced to 3 and a half years custody  and dismissed from the Service for indecently assaulting trainee soldiers under his care.  He plead guilty.

    Courts Martial B: An RMP Captain is dismissed from the Service for indecently assaulting men under his command and others.  He denied the charges.  despite that, he was convicted.

    Both have committed the same offence yet the OR gets a three and a half year sentence before his dismissal.   Why was the officer not given a custodial sentence?

    Any arguemnt as to loss of gratuities and pensions is nonsense, where is the equity in those sentences?  If your claim that officers are more severly dealt with were true, why can the officer now walk the streets, whilst classed as a sex offender and seek emloyment, be with his family and freinds whilst the OR sits in a prison cell for the next three and a half years?

    Both deserved jail, one got it, the other didn't.

    Why is that?
  15. As for bringing the Army into disrepute, it will depend upon the circumstances.  For instance:

    A.   If you were on a CAPE tour and whilst 'recruiting' you snotted someone, you may well find that after the civilian police have charged you for assault, your CO may wish to charge you under S69 of the AA55, for bring ing Army into disrepute.  You would be guilty of having done so, as you were on duty in uniform in the public eye and whther you agree or not, you have discredited the Service.  That charge has nothing to do with the assault charge and is a seperate matter, so you will have little defence.

    B.  On the other hand, if you are off duty, down town in civilian attire, and you snot someone, you may be charged with assault by the police,but your CO cannot charge you under S69.  If he does get a lawyer.

    If however, you are in a situation such as B above, and you were to shout your mouth off about what unit you were or the fact that you are a soldier, before, during or after you snot your target, you have in fact brought the military into disrepute, by identifying the fact that you are a soldier and therefore a representative of the Army.  I think your CO could actually get that one past.

    So, the solution is, if you plan to snot someone, do it in civvies and don't tell him that you are a soldier.