Interesting court martial on the horizon, General in the dock.

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Thinking about that post...

There was a problem with 'bed leggings' in our battalion at one point. For the gentler generation, this was when soldiers lived in communal rooms and disputes were sometimes settled by battering a man as he slept - frequently with a weapon. Bed legging could also be a calculated 'punishment' designed to motivate a problem soldier, or just random drunken violence - and frequently involved more than one assailant.

Physical injuries aside (the worst of which were life changing) getting bed legged must have been a horrible and terrifying experience. Even the toughest and least imaginative soldiers would have been left deeply unsettled by such an experience.

The attitude of officers seemed to be that if a bloke got bed legged, he must have deserved it on some level and it was just the soldiers imposing some barrack room justice. It happened more than once that assailants did their 28 days and then returned to the same platoon. Even when men were sent to MCTC, they'd usually return to the same battalion - and occasionally the same company.

The army has never cared about soldiers who are victims of crime and has traditionally viewed them almost as an embarrassment. Vicious cowards were allowed a fresh start, their victims had to shift for themselves.
Not too sure about your last paragraph. When I joined my battalion in mid 1960s this was prevalent. Within a year it had disappeared. Now I was just a young soldier so have no idea what went on in the background but the bed ending, as we knew it, stopped. I am not saying all violence stopped as this was a 1960s infantry battalion where violence was a day to day occurrence, but there is a difference between a square go and bed ending and it was the latter that stopped. There must have been input from senior NCOs, WOs and officers to ensure this practice did not continue.
 
Not too sure about your last paragraph. When I joined my battalion in mid 1960s this was prevalent. Within a year it had disappeared. Now I was just a young soldier so have no idea what went on in the background but the bed ending, as we knew it, stopped. I am not saying all violence stopped as this was a 1960s infantry battalion where violence was a day to day occurrence, but there is a difference between a square go and bed ending and it was the latter that stopped. There must have been input from senior NCOs, WOs and officers to ensure this practice did not continue.
It's the kind of thing that usually occurs in spates within a battalion. Good leadership suppresses it.

I can think of many acts of violence - and have no doubt forgotten many more - where the assailants continued in the same sub unit as their victim. I'm not referring to square goes, or the swift punch to the jaw that young lads use to establish a pecking order. That was part of the rough and tumble of infantry life and the same blokes would usually be on the piss together next payday.

I remember several really nasty acts of extreme violence, a few almost resulting in murder. In the very worst cases, the offenders were placed under immediate close arrest and were out of the battalion within days, presumably held somewhere else until trial. They would finish up in civilian prisons.

But I can think of many cases when some really nasty individuals got (in effect) a slap on the wrist and continued in the same platoon or company as their victims. Part of the problem was that any crime was seen primarily as an offense against good order and military discipline - not as an act against an individual. Victims were almost seen to have let themselves down on some level...by allowing themselves to get hurt.

A badly run infantry battalion, based in Germany during the Cold War, could be a feudal, Hobbesian world.
 
I’m just a moderate minded individual that thinks we should following official sentencing guidelines as appears to have happened in this case. Crime committed aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered, fair sentence given.
What a surprise that you think someone who commits sexual assault should keep their job.
 
If the end result that the sentence was services no longer required I’d be equally satisfied. The point is that the process was followed and a sentence was given within the guidelines.
Oh well so long as the process says it's OK then why change anything.
It must be right otherwise the army wouldn't do it.
No shock why nothing ever changes.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
What a surprise that you think someone who commits sexual assault should keep their job.
Of course they shouldn't keep their jobs, they should be given the time and space to refine their nonceity and given lots of lovely benefits to help sustain them! :rolleyes:
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
How can you jail a SSgt?
From the minute he walks in to MCTC he is not a SSgt but a soldier under sentence and treated like all the others. Once he is out the gate after release he goes back to SSgt.
 
Gets a full pension, changes his name or even just spells it slightly differently, and opens a small business; plumber, builder, gardener, courier etc.

Or just moves to Thailand.
It's not tolerated in Thailand. He'd be on very thin ice.

E2A: for a farang, obviously.
 
What exactly is it that's wrong here and needs changing?

You are asking why someone convicted of a sexual offence is allowed to keep his job?
I know you are royal signals and so don't have much experience with women but even so, you should know women aren't keen to serve with men who are convicted of "barely" sexual offences.
 
You are asking why someone convicted of a sexual offence is allowed to keep his job?
I know you are royal signals and so don't have much experience with women but even so, you should know women aren't keen to serve with men who are convicted of "barely" sexual offences.
Are you saying that anyone in any form of employment should lose their right to any form of employment on conviction for a sexual offence?
 
You are asking why someone convicted of a sexual offence is allowed to keep his job?
I know you are royal signals and so don't have much experience with women but even so, you should know women aren't keen to serve with men who are convicted of "barely" sexual offences.
The crime was between two individuals not a WO2 and every woman in the Army. Why are you judging someone on the name of an offence as opposed to the severity?
 
The crime was between two individuals not a WO2 and every woman in the Army. Why are you judging someone on the name of an offence as opposed to the severity?

Why are you defending a someone who committed a sexual assault?
I bet your female subordinates must love the way you dismiss being touched up as "barely" a sexual assault.
 
Are you saying that anyone in any form of employment should lose their right to any form of employment on conviction for a sexual offence?

Should they lose the job they are in when they sexually assault a work colleague?
Errrr yes.
 
Yup, and don't look at at any mitigating factors before you convict either.

You seemed determined to defend someone convicted and sentenced to detention for sexual assault.
 
From the minute he walks in to MCTC he is not a SSgt but a soldier under sentence and treated like all the others. Once he is out the gate after release he goes back to SSgt.
Never come across this one before? surely he would be reduced to the rank of Trooper for his time in MCTC then on release had rank restored to SSgt? At one time was there not an upper age limit to MCTC in particular 'soldier on' due to the physical nature of the course there?
 
Last edited:
Should they lose the job they are in when they sexually assault a work colleague?
Errrr yes.
Got you, it is just their present employment from which they are disqualified, but they are perfectly entitled to take up an other form of employment even if that employment means they have to interact with different women?
 
Why are you defending a someone who committed a sexual assault?
I bet your female subordinates must love the way you dismiss being touched up as "barely" a sexual assault.
If he'd been sentenced outside of sentencing guidelines, then I'd have the right to be annoyed. A grope is on the bottom end of the scale of sexual assault punishments, wether or not every woman in the armed forces is happy with it or not.
 

Latest Threads

Top