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

[Sexton Blake]

Drift.......

At the RMA Sandhurst (as recently as 1907) a young officer cadet was nearly 'sacked' from the Army after leading a 'rag' (party) in which another cadet had his shirt set on fire and was so severely burned he was rushed to hospital for emergency treatment.

The cadet in question who led the rag, and set fire to his fellow cadet, was the future Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery.

I just wanted to lighten things up a bit (pun intended).

 

[The_Duke]

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.

Let’s put rank to one side.

Three companies of soldiers, A, B and C.

All three were gated and told to remain separate. A and B were on a low level training cycle. No other current tasking which required their presence. No immediate deployment potential. A block party got out of hand, and A and B Coy personnel mingled, but at no point did anyone leave camp.

C Coy were on a tasking in support of the national main effort. They were also building up for a future operational tasking. They left camp, mingled with others, and a few of them did a few lines of coke to really get the party started.

The underlying “crime” is the same, but the details and circumstances are very different. Enough to warrant different punishments?

 

[Caecilius]

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

Quite. This is about people who've already been gated for some time mixing household bubbles. Assuming that's the extent of it, it's a lot less severe than the Welsh Guards' example. There's a further difference in that the cadets are still in training, which changes the punishments that can (and, indeed, should) realistically be given out.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that Officers need to stop getting away with things that see ORs punished, but I don't think this is as simple as 'guardsmen went to colly for something COVID related so OCdts need to go for another COVID-related incident'.

RMAS has a range of available punishments and is generally much more trigger-happy with them than any regiment would be. I imagine life will be pretty uncomfortable for these cadets for a while.

 

[Himmler74]

Is that what The WG folks did?

It’s all open source.

 

[supermatelot]

Let’s put rank to one side.

Three companies of soldiers, A, B and C.

All three were gated and told to remain separate. A and B were on a low level training cycle. No other current tasking which required their presence. No immediate deployment potential. A block party got out of hand, and A and B Coy personnel mingled, but at no point did anyone leave camp.

C Coy were on a tasking in support of the national main effort. They were also building up for a future operational tasking. They left camp, mingled with others, and a few of them did a few lines of coke to really get the party started.

The underlying “crime” is the same, but the details and circumstances are very different. Enough to warrant different punishments?

I do get your point but, is that not like saying: 3 blokes, 2 were unemployed ,they went out on the beer and leathered someone. 3rd bloke had just finished at Cambridge and was about to start a new job in the city...

Is it correct to gauge punishment according to somebody’s capacity or potential, as opposed to the misdemeanour?

 

[wetsmonkey]

Let’s put rank to one side.

Three companies of soldiers, A, B and C.

All three were gated and told to remain separate. A and B were on a low level training cycle. No other current tasking which required their presence. No immediate deployment potential. A block party got out of hand, and A and B Coy personnel mingled, but at no point did anyone leave camp.

C Coy were on a tasking in support of the national main effort. They were also building up for a future operational tasking. They left camp, mingled with others, and a few of them did a few lines of coke to really get the party started.

The underlying “crime” is the same, but the details and circumstances are very different. Enough to warrant different punishments?

Yes and they would be mitigating circumstances for the Court or Orders to listen to, however the rank of the offender shouldn’t automatically preclude a certain type of justice.

 

[The_Duke]

I do get your point but, is that not like saying: 3 blokes, 2 were unemployed ,they went out on the beer and leathered someone. 3rd bloke had just finished at Cambridge and was about to start a new job in the city...

Is it correct to gauge punishment according to somebody’s capacity or potential, as opposed to the misdemeanour?

It is not about their potential - it is about the potential impact of their misdemeanour.

 

[The_Duke]

Yes and they would be mitigating circumstances for the Court or Orders to listen to, however the rank of the offender shouldn’t automatically preclude a certain type of justice.

I am sure the CO of 1 WG might well have thought of that, and factored that into the punishments he imposed.

 

[Commentator]

It is not about their potential - it is about the potential impact of their misdemeanour.

You mean such as if Group A had a social event with various people who could all have had COVID, brought them in from outside of the camp, drugs involved etc etc

And if Group B had all been isolated for 3 months solid, and we're all classified as "clean" but they broke Orders by two clean groups socialising together?

Do you (not The Duke) see the difference yet?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

 

[wetsmonkey]

I am sure the CO of 1 WG might well have thought of that, and factored that into the punishments he imposed.

I’m sure he did, that’s not the point in question, I’m interested in knowing that Officers Cadets aren’t automatically excluded from similar consideration due to their status.

 

[Commentator]

I’m sure he did, that’s not the point in question, I’m interested in knowing that Officers Cadets aren’t automatically excluded from similar consideration due to their status.

Their rank/position as trainees does not automatically preclude any type of discipline measure.

It may be a factor in mitigation.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

 

[BuggerAll]

I’m sure he did, that’s not the point in question, I’m interested in knowing that Officers Cadets aren’t automatically excluded from similar consideration due to their status.

It’s not their status that’s different it’s the ‘crime committed’ that’s different.

as mentioned soldiers who committed similar crimes did not get sent to Colchester. It was those who went outside the wire whilst on Rescript who got that.
It’s not difficult.
Let’s face it plenty of soldiers have been caustic having illegal block parties and got nothing worse than a bollocking.

 

[06FA56Paderborn]

Yes and they would be mitigating circumstances for the Court or Orders to listen to, however the rank of the offender shouldn’t automatically preclude a certain type of justice.

Is not the rank of those a RMAS the same as a private soldier, their appointment being that of Officer Cadet, therefore they should be treated as any other private soldier whilst under training.

It is possible that, whatever the punishment, that they will be held to a higher standard than a private soldier undergoing training.

Their conduct should be considered in relation to their suitability for commissioning and they could as a result not pass out, a sanction unlikely to be used against any other private soldier.

 

[Bravo_Bravo]

And on Arrse so the whole of HQ Land Command now know.

General Sir Nick Parker told me in conversation a few years ago that he had a query about dress regulations, so "logged onto ARRSE and had an answer back in minutes."

 

[Commentator]

General Sir Nick Parker told me in conversation a few years ago that he had a query about dress regulations, so "logged onto ARRSE and had an answer back in minutes."

Luckily now we have Defence Connect where all Dress Regs are a mere click away

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

 

[Dan Gleebles]

General Sir Nick Parker told me in conversation a few years ago that he had a query about dress regulations, so "logged onto ARRSE and had an answer back in minutes."

It's where he gets his investment advice too.

Apparently.

 

[Wee Hawken]

With respect, it’s not all I need to know

Really? Internal disciplinary matter unless/until serious enough to reach civilian courts. Until then, the details are really none of your business or mine.

 

[Bravo_Bravo]

General Eisenhower sums it up (without notes) in less than 3 minutes:

Wonder how many of those souls were alive 12 months later...

 

[Bravo_Bravo]

It's where he gets his investment advice too.

Apparently.

Well he could do worse; since I penned a highly popular and informative article about the stock market crash on 24th March, my own portfolio has risen by 29% net of charges.

Which is nice.

Edited to correct typo.

 

[Sexton Blake]

Well he could do worse; since I penned a highly popular and informative article about the stock market crash on 24th March, my own portfolio has risk by 29% net of charges.

Which is nice.

Risk or risen?