EXCLUSIVE: Carpeted: Dozens of cadets at Sandhurst broke coronavirus rules in a drunken party at the prestigious military academy

[HCL]

From a Tom's perspective, two queries:

A dozen or so Taffs have been sent to the Big House for the same offence as these officer cadets and it won't be long before someone points out to them that these cadets have not received the same punishment for the same offence. What's going to happen and/or what will be the likely consequences if some of them/parents pool their resources and instruct a decent civvy lawyer?

The names of those officer cadets will become widely known across the Army eventually so come their commissioning and their joining their units there's going to come a day when a squaddie* is going to disobey an order and the YO will attempt to assert his authority and the squaddies will tell said YO to shove it where the sun doesn't shine on the grounds that said YO him/herself disobeyed orders and has no (moral) right to make him obey. Do tell, what happens next to restore not only the YO's credibility but also the Army's?

*From a Tom's p.o.v. if YO is a good 'un then that situation probably won't arise as the incident would just add to the YO's rep, however, if the YO is a duffer then it's an odds on certainty.

 

[The_Duke]

From a Tom's perspective, two queries:

A dozen or so Taffs have been sent to the Big House for the same offence as these officer cadets and it won't be long before someone points out to them that these cadets have not received the same punishment for the same offence. What's going to happen and/or what will be the likely consequences if some of them/parents pool their resources and instruct a decent civvy lawyer?

The names of those officer cadets will become widely known across the Army eventually so come their commissioning and their joining their units there's going to come a day when a squaddie* is going to disobey an order and the YO will attempt to assert his authority and the squaddies will tell said YO to shove it where the sun doesn't shine on the grounds that said YO him/herself disobeyed orders and has no (moral) right to make him obey. Do tell, what happens next to restore not only the YO's credibility but also the Army's?

*From a Tom's p.o.v. if YO is a good 'un then that situation probably won't arise as the incident would just add to the YO's rep, however, if the YO is a duffer then it's an odds on certainty.

OK - all NCOs and SNCOs have the same rules applied then? Any rules broken during the early stages of their career means all soldiers have a free pass to tell them to poke it if they give an order the soldier doesn’t like later in their career.

Interesting proposal. I always thought that “MCTC and soldier on” appeared in the records of a number of great NCOs who were allowed to move on past indiscretions in the earlier parts of their careers.

 

[HCL]

OK - all NCOs and SNCOs have the same rules applied then? Any rules broken during the early stages of their career means all soldiers have a free pass to tell them to poke it if they give an order the soldier doesn’t like later in their career.

Interesting proposal. I always thought that “MCTC and soldier on” appeared in the records of a number of great NCOs who were allowed to move on past indiscretions in the earlier parts of their careers.

Nice try. It's not the same situation at all and you're flying a kite there.

SNCOs and NCOs are from and of the enlisted. Those with pips are not. The standards and expectations of the two types are clearly not the same nor are the consequences: the young squaddies have gaol time, the cadets will the officer equivalent of ROPs, or have I not understood the disparity (and the hypocrisy)?

In your own time, do carry on.

 

[The_Duke]

NCOs are also expected to follow the rules. Many don’t, yet retain or regain rank and are allowed to continue to command.

No kite flying, just realistic. They are in training, have messed up and will be punished. Those who pass the course will ultimately recover and be put in positions of command. There is no “opting out” by any soldiers under their command, no matter what you might hope will be the case.

 

[HCL]

NCOs are also expected to follow the rules. Many don’t, yet retain or regain rank and are allowed to continue to command.

No kite flying, just realistic. They are in training, have messed up and will be punished. Those who pass the course will ultimately recover and be put in positions of command. There is no “opting out” by any soldiers under their command, no matter what you might hope will be the case.

A hypothetical is now a hope is it?

Nae doubt, ye'll hae me down as chippy now. Aw hey.

 

[Ruckerwocman]

View attachment 524797
Every 10th one

First Offense then?

 

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

From a Tom's perspective, two queries:

A dozen or so Taffs have been sent to the Big House for the same offence as these officer cadets and it won't be long before someone points out to them that these cadets have not received the same punishment for the same offence. What's going to happen and/or what will be the likely consequences if some of them/parents pool their resources and instruct a decent civvy lawyer?

The names of those officer cadets will become widely known across the Army eventually so come their commissioning and their joining their units there's going to come a day when a squaddie* is going to disobey an order and the YO will attempt to assert his authority and the squaddies will tell said YO to shove it where the sun doesn't shine on the grounds that said YO him/herself disobeyed orders and has no (moral) right to make him obey. Do tell, what happens next to restore not only the YO's credibility but also the Army's?

*From a Tom's p.o.v. if YO is a good 'un then that situation probably won't arise as the incident would just add to the YO's rep, however, if the YO is a duffer then it's an odds on certainty.

If an officer's a bellend, those under his/her command will have far more contemporary and direct reasons for discontent than raking up something that happened back in the mists of time and away from the unit.

 

[wetsmonkey]

Why wouldn’t a custodial sentence be considered for these Officer Cadets, if precedence has already been set for ORs?

 

[Sexton Blake]

Why wouldn’t a custodial sentence be considered for these Officer Cadets, if precedence has already been set for ORs?

Without wishing to 'take sides' perhaps because of a difference between trained soldiers and un-commissioned (not trained) cadets?

 

[wetsmonkey]

Without wishing to 'take sides' perhaps because of a difference between trained soldiers and un-commissioned (not trained) cadets?

Quite possibly. I know soldiers who have been given custodial sentences in training for fairly minor things.

 

[Himmler74]

From a Tom's perspective, two queries:

A dozen or so Taffs have been sent to the Big House for the same offence as these officer cadets and it won't be long before someone points out to them that these cadets have not received the same punishment for the same offence. What's going to happen and/or what will be the likely consequences if some of them/parents pool their resources and instruct a decent civvy lawyer?

The names of those officer cadets will become widely known across the Army eventually so come their commissioning and their joining their units there's going to come a day when a squaddie* is going to disobey an order and the YO will attempt to assert his authority and the squaddies will tell said YO to shove it where the sun doesn't shine on the grounds that said YO him/herself disobeyed orders and has no (moral) right to make him obey. Do tell, what happens next to restore not only the YO's credibility but also the Army's?

*From a Tom's p.o.v. if YO is a good 'un then that situation probably won't arise as the incident would just add to the YO's rep, however, if the YO is a duffer then it's an odds on certainty.

Is that the same welsh regiment that had 4 CDT failures in the same “party”?

 

[Sexton Blake]

Quite possibly. I know soldiers who have been given custodial sentences in training for fairly minor things.

Fair point.

 

[The_Duke]

Perhaps the failed drugs tests for some of the trained soldiers also had something to do with it?

From the open source information available, the officer cadets broke the rules but by breaching an internal bubble structure. The ORs went one step further and partied outside of their own bubbles and with members of the public.

Perhaps the better question would be which is the punishment most appropriate for the crime, rather than cadet v OR?

 

[Himmler74]

Perhaps the failed drugs tests for some of the trained soldiers also had something to do with it?

From the open source information available, the officer cadets broke the rules but by breaching an internal bubble structure. The ORs went one step further and partied outside of their own bubbles and with members of the public.

Perhaps the better question would be which is the punishment most appropriate for the crime, rather than cadet v OR?

With a tour of Iraq next year also.

 

[wetsmonkey]

Perhaps the failed drugs tests for some of the trained soldiers also had something to do with it?

From the open source information available, the officer cadets broke the rules but by breaching an internal bubble structure. The ORs went one step further and partied outside of their own bubbles and with members of the public.

Perhaps the better question would be which is the punishment most appropriate for the crime, rather than cadet v OR?

I don’t necessarily think that anyone should be going to prison for a Covid breach, however the army thought it was appropriate in one case for a set of soldiers and must consider whether that same set considerations are appropriate in this case.

The days of Officers and ORs being punished differently for similar offences because of their status should have passed.

 

[wetsmonkey]

Is that the same welsh regiment that had 4 CDT failures in the same “party”?

Failing a CDT is not an imprisonable or criminal offence though.

 

[Himmler74]

Failing a CDT is not an imprisonable or criminal offence though.

It’s also not conducive to military service.

 

[Himmler74]

I don’t necessarily think that anyone should be going to prison for a Covid breach, however the army thought it was appropriate in one case for a set of soldiers and must consider whether that same set considerations are appropriate in this case.

The days of Officers and ORs being punished differently for similar offences because of their status should have passed.

Different situations, it’s not like the cadets left the camp and partied with members of the public, whilst providing support to the NHS.

 

[wetsmonkey]

It’s also not conducive to military service.

Absolutely, and that’s why they can be discharged but not imprisoned for it.

 

[wetsmonkey]

Different situations, it’s not like the cadets left the camp and partied with members of the public, whilst providing support to the NHS.

Is that what The WG folks did?