Flashing para in possession of Class A gets fine

Should zero tolerance mean zero tolerance?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a limp wristed liberal who can't make up my mind.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters

He told police that although he had the class A drugs on him, they weren't his as he was a "serving soldier and had to undergo random drug tests".
Well that makes everything okay then, does it? He was a bit of a prat to get caught flashing but to be in possession of cocaine and only get a fine? I'm obviously not suggesting that the named individual has being consuming this Class A substance but why else would he be in possession of it if he wasn't taking it? Supplying it?

So much for the zero tolerance towards drugs in HM Forces*

*By zero tolerance, we don't include junior ranks who we let off with a warning instead of being dismissed from the services as a warning to others.

I know that this problem is not just exclusive to the Army. I know of at least one individual in the RN who got discharged for testing positive for drugs and it wasn't his first offence and he had done in excess of 10 years-I'm still trying to figure out why they retained him after his first CDT came back positive....

I still like making the RN Police squirm at the compulsory drugs lectures when they go on about zero tolerance to drugs yet then provide examples of individuals who have been retained within the Service.

Any CDT wallahs care to explain how they claim there is zero tolerance to drugs in HM Forces and still retain people who have tested positive on a CDT?
Aunty Stella said:
Does being done by the civvy courts mean that he won't get further done by the CO?

Not being facetious
, just wondering how it works nowadays when the Magistrates have dealt with it first.
A valid point and obviously I can only speak from an RN Divisional Officer's point of view. In theory, he should get hammered by his CO for an offence committed in civvy street (eg, get done for Drink Driving and you're looking at an instant career check for a minimum of 6 months-no promotion and not likely to come off the signal for quite a while). I don't know if the Army have got a similar guide but we've got the green guide which gives the CO a rough indication of what punishment he should award.

However, this is drugs related and whilst it's supposed to be 'zero tolerance', we're seeing more and more people being let off from what should be an instant admin discharge. If that's the case, then surely they should drop the whole pretence of 'zero tolerance'?

No doubt the fact that he is deploying in July spared him from jail but if he was going over the wall because of being in possession of drugs, surely the ALS would've have informed the civvy court of this and they would've sent him to jail anyway?

I'm only querying this because I know of ratings who have been jailed civvy side for less.

I've queried this a number of times with the service police and never seem to get a consistent answer!

Obviously, with the Armed Forces Act 2006 now in place, we should be all singing off the same hymn sheet however I've yet to receive a comprehensive briefing on this!
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
gizmo17 The NAAFI Bar 16
brettarider The NAAFI Bar 13
D The NAAFI Bar 71

Similar threads

Latest Threads