Bully allegations at Deepcut - Blake Review - Sgt BB

#1
Having followed the news about the Deepcut Review on the internet last week and in the news, I read the report of Nicholas Blake QC with considerable interest.

Having now had the opportunity to read the review which is on the internet, I feel very sorry for the families of the recruits who died at Deepcut, but one thing did disturb me the actions of a person refered to as Sergeant BB who it is alleged rode a bike over fat recruits and bullied people.

Whilst we have a need for discipline and I often have to deal with the issues surrounding AGAI 67 and military discipline, I think it is important that the RLC recognise that there is no place in the Army for thugs who bully recruits and intimidate soldiers, who ever and what ever rank someone is they can still be brought to book.


I have copied below details of the allegations surrounding sergeant BB.

Rgds
R

ACCUSED OF RIDING BIKE OVER TRAINEES

THE Army's failure to prosecute Sergeant BB is the key to Mr Blake's charge of 'institutional failure' at the base.

He was accused of hitting recruits on parade and allegedly rode his mountain bike over trainees he had ordered to lie down in the mud because he considered them overweight.

In a similar incident he simply stood on their prone bodies.

Sgt BB was posted to Deepcut in 1998. That November he threatened to knock one female recruit's head off and had to be physically restrained after hurling a tea mug at her.

Recruits said one of his favourite tricks was to offer them the choice of guard duty or a punch in the head or stomach.

He allegedly asked recruits whether he should hit them on the right or left side of their face, before lashing out.

A Royal Military Police investigation recommended 11 charges against him but the Army Prosecuting Authority decided a court martial 'would not be in the public, including the service, interest' Mr Blake said he regarded the decision with 'some surprise and considerable dismay'.

Sgt BB was finally discharged from the Army after being convicted in a civilian court for shoplifting.

Edited - Woopert
 
#2
Journo? or WAH?

msr
 
#6
Just to clear up any misunderstanding I am new to the forum, And no I am not a Journo, and apologies for the grammar I am a little dyslexic lets say....

But getting back to the more important issues, if someone bullies people isn't it time that they are brought before the relevant authorities, the MDP could easily deal with them, I have personal experience of this in the past hence the reason I asked anyone with experience to contact me, PM would be most appropriate way to contact me and perhaps I should have made that more clear, again apologies.

If I could put things into context I have a lot of years service and have often dealt with the issues surrounding discipline and the line between discipline and what becomes bullying and how we tell the difference and support staff and those who have charge of recruits and the duty of care, one of the issues is being able to help recruits to know the difference between the essential discipline required for a military career and bullying or a senior NCO or instructor using there position to exploit a recruit during phase 1 or 2 training.

I am currently working on a project to look at how we deal with there issues and the way forward in assisting staff and victims of bullying, one of the ideas is to look at bring both parties together in a moderated setting to talk through issues and to let the victim know that the army / mod take seriously there concerns and at the same time to support them and to talk to the bully (alleged) and to see if there are issues which need to be explored.

The prison service have done work in this area and good practice can be learned from there strategy to protect recruits and allow staff to be able to perform there duties, it is a very difficult balancing act for all involved in the care of new recruits.

I hope this helps to clear things up and explain why I ask.

R.
 
#7
I find it a bit of a wild statement tomake:-

THE Army's failure to prosecute Sergeant BB is the key to Mr Blake's charge of 'institutional failure' at the base.
How can the actions of one person, or how that person is diciplined or not be the key to 'institutional failure'? Surely to be institutional it has to pervey throughout the whole institution.

One example could be proof of a single failure in the system, that the person involved had some dirt on the CO or even corruption, but not that there was institutional anything.

This Sgt BB may very well have been a nasty piece of work and he may well have been sorted out sooner or in a different way, but none of us were there and none of us know the whole story. Hounding him after the effect helps nobody.

Then again, if you are now a slimmer fitter former fatty who used to be ridden ove à la push bike, or used to be hit while on guard and you happen to meet Ex-Sgt BB in a dark alley, feel free to express your displeasure in his methods in any way you feel are appropriate. Just be carefull you don't find yourself done for institutional bullying or some other such sh1t.
 
#8
Plant-Pilot said:
I find it a bit of a wild statement tomake:-

THE Army's failure to prosecute Sergeant BB is the key to Mr Blake's charge of 'institutional failure' at the base.
How can the actions of one person, or how that person is diciplined or not be the key to 'institutional failure'? Surely to be institutional it has to pervey throughout the whole institution.

One example could be proof of a single failure in the system, that the person involved had some dirt on the CO or even corruption, but not that there was institutional anything.

This Sgt BB may very well have been a nasty piece of work and he may well have been sorted out sooner or in a different way, but none of us were there and none of us know the whole story. Hounding him after the effect helps nobody.

Then again, if you are now a slimmer fitter former fatty who used to be ridden ove à la push bike, or used to be hit while on guard and you happen to meet Ex-Sgt BB in a dark alley, feel free to express your displeasure in his methods in any way you feel are appropriate. Just be carefull you don't find yourself done for institutional bullying or some other such sh1t.
Last I heard BB I am told is working in Iraq if its the same person that colleagues think is refered to in the Blake report.

The important thing is that ATRA and Upavon learn the lessons of past failures and deal with the current duty of care issues, many of the young people coming into the army come from a broken past and have issues, but if guided and looked after then they can make very good soldiers and friends, many of whom make the finest senior NCO's in the British Army.

What ever did or didn't happen at Deepcut lessons need to be learned and the men who have abused rank and position should face the full extent of military law and justice.

R.
 
#9
One of my mates was there at the time of Sgt BB riding bikes over recruits and the same Sgt, BB is not his initials obviously, was seeing a Pte in my Sqn when he was getting kicked out of the army.

A clue to his id for those who think you may know hi.....Teeth!
 
#10
Guys,

Don't let this thread nose dive into anything controversial.

I trust you to be sensible.

Thank you.

GM
 
#11
Echoing GM's sentiments, I'd go one stage further and warn I'm not going to tolerate the "outing" of anyone on this thread! I don't care if the Blake report identifies a "Sgt BB" by pseudonym or not, if his actual identity is known to any individual here it never gets mentioned on this site.
 
#12
This sort of thread grips my sh1t.

Get yourself to Deepcut to truly understand the whole raft of inspections/reports/ministerial levels of visits that have happened there to see the changes already in place.

Do not assume that the Blake report is talking about today's Deepcut; he makes it quite clear that he isn't. Don't also underestimate the tenacity and efforts of the individuals who were there at the time doing what they could in difficult circumstances. I ask you to read the appendices, in particular the one regarding the CO who came down hard on the trainees if they stepped out of line, and the appendix where the CO makes the decision to remove a senior soldier from his post for moral misdemeanours.

Don't lecture us: "What ever did or didn't happen at Deepcut lessons need to be learned and the men who have abused rank and position should face the full extent of military law and justice" sounds sanctimonious, pious and particularly patronising given that I suspect you know neither the details nor the background to most of the sorry affair. Of course your statement is utterly true, but also in a non Deepcut context.

A further quote "I think it is important that the RLC recognise that there is no place in the Army for thugs who bully recruits and intimidate soldiers, who ever and what ever rank someone is they can still be brought to book." - it's not just the RLC either. Tell me where there have been more training deaths? Deepcut or Catterick? There isn't one rational person who would think that there was a place in the Army for thugs and bullies.

There are bad apples in every walk of life and profession. Now. Kindly get off your shining white charger and do a little more research before spouting crap.


Edit - spelling
 
#13
Ginger_Magician said:
Get yourself to Deepcut to truly understand the whole raft of inspections/reports/ministerial levels of visits that have happened there to see the changes already in place.
When did all these changes take place?
 
#14
woopert said:
Echoing GM's sentiments, I'd go one stage further and warn I'm not going to tolerate the "outing" of anyone on this thread! I don't care if the Blake report identifies a "Sgt BB" by pseudonym or not, if his actual identity is known to any individual here it never gets mentioned on this site.
Under 'normal' circumstances, I agree entirely with your sentiments.

However, as the individual's identity is now in the public domain by way of having 3 pages dedicated to him in one of today's tabloids (including photographs), he is no longer serving, he is not under investigation, and he is a convicted thief, I do not believe that your point remains valid in this instance.
 
#15
Bellthrob said:
However, as the individual's identity is now in the public domain by way of having 3 pages dedicated to him in one of today's tabloids (including photographs), he is no longer serving, he is not under investigation, and he is a convicted thief, I do not believe that your point remains valid in this instance.
Agree this point and as Blake identifies, Sgt BB wasn't there at the time of any of the deaths.

As for Lynxtips - Read the Blake report at http://www.deepcutreview.org.uk/index.php?module=Website&action=Text&content=1111359418445-6578 then come back to me with questions. I detect an undertone of cynicism in your remark. I hope I am mistaken and that isn't a loaded question you ask. The manning issue wasn't resolved until late 2002, and is recorded in Blake. Likewise the myriad of other reports and remedial actions attempted to rectify what they could with the resources they had, and the errors made (with hindsight) are all documented in there for you to read.
 
#16
Bellthrob said:
woopert said:
Echoing GM's sentiments, I'd go one stage further and warn I'm not going to tolerate the "outing" of anyone on this thread! I don't care if the Blake report identifies a "Sgt BB" by pseudonym or not, if his actual identity is known to any individual here it never gets mentioned on this site.
Under 'normal' circumstances, I agree entirely with your sentiments.

However, as the individual's identity is now in the public domain by way of having 3 pages dedicated to him in one of today's tabloids (including photographs), he is no longer serving, he is not under investigation, and he is a convicted thief, I do not believe that your point remains valid in this instance.
At the time of writing I wasn't aware that he was the subject of a newspaper article. That being said, I still don't wish his name to be repeated in "clear" because there is the obvious implication of someone saying something that could be considered libellous and land the management team (i.e CO's and mods) in a little legal difficulty. Referernces to Sgt BB are fine, naming him in clear even if it's been in the papers in relation to this topic not fine.
 
#17
Ginger_Magician said:
As for Lynxtips - Read the Blake report at http://www.deepcutreview.org.uk/index.php?module=Website&action=Text&content=1111359418445-6578 then come back to me with questions. I detect an undertone of cynicism in your remark. I hope I am mistaken and that isn't a loaded question you ask. The manning issue wasn't resolved until late 2002, and is recorded in Blake. Likewise the myriad of other reports and remedial actions attempted to rectify what they could with the resources they had, and the errors made (with hindsight) are all documented in there for you to read.
I read the Blake review from cover to cover the day it was released as the findings will affect all three services. Yes there was cynicism in my remark because I was there until mid to late 2003 and the only changes seemed to be for show.
 
#18
Lynxtips said:
Ginger_Magician said:
As for Lynxtips - Read the Blake report at http://www.deepcutreview.org.uk/index.php?module=Website&action=Text&content=1111359418445-6578 then come back to me with questions. I detect an undertone of cynicism in your remark. I hope I am mistaken and that isn't a loaded question you ask. The manning issue wasn't resolved until late 2002, and is recorded in Blake. Likewise the myriad of other reports and remedial actions attempted to rectify what they could with the resources they had, and the errors made (with hindsight) are all documented in there for you to read.
I read the Blake review from cover to cover the day it was released as the findings will affect all three services. Yes there was cynicism in my remark because I was there until mid to late 2003 and the only changes seemed to be for show.
So what did you do about it? Or did you just get on with it - head down, no one will notice?
 
#19
barbs said:
So what did you do about it? Or did you just get on with it - head down, no one will notice?
No I didn't just get on with it :evil: People who could have done things about it didn't want to know. As far as the CoC at that time were concerned everything in the garden was rosy - even if you had evidence to the contrary.
 
#20
Lynxtips said:
barbs said:
So what did you do about it? Or did you just get on with it - head down, no one will notice?
No I didn't just get on with it :evil: People who could have done things about it didn't want to know. As far as the CoC at that time were concerned everything in the garden was rosy - even if you had evidence to the contrary.
That's not the impression I got from reading the report: http://www.deepcutreview.org.uk/index.php?module=Website&action=Text&content=1111359418445-6578

msr
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top