Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

So is shoving a troopie first. Always provoke the **** into starting it so you can finish it, safe in the knowledge he cant report it without having to say he was the aggressor.
Standing there with your hands raised saying "Calm down" whilst whispering "come on then cunty" straight after...
 
Out of idle interest, what would the likely punishment have been, had he taken his CO's
punishment?
Best answered this way as @moderator it‘s largely the same Q (in an odd way): in some circumstances the case must be sent to RMP (serious assault being obvious in this case).
Allowing that the legal advice gave the go ahead to the CO to make a charge (legal again), one of the first questions in the proforma for Summary Hearings is “do you want this to go to Court Martial?” (I paraphrase for the legal pendants of ARRSE). If not, the case is heard, and award given. There is no question of the defendant being asked if they accept the punishment. They may then appeal against finding, punishment, or both at appeal.
 
Standing there with your hands raised saying "Calm down" whilst whispering "come on then cunty" straight after...
Doing the ****** gesture while everyone is distracted trying to calm him down or hold him back is a good one as well.
 
In my experience it was the seniors who PREVENTED this sort of stuff happening.

I remember my first troop do in ‘83. A sapper had just given me the “you’re the best troop commander we’ve ever had” spiel. At that point my troop staffie said to me words to the effect of “drink up sir and leave on a high note”. I think I demurred and he said “things will only go down here from now on. Next they’ll be saying ‘with all due respect’ and then be asking to use your first name; from there it will then move very quickly to chest poking...”

It was obvious he was speaking from experience and I followed that advice from then on.

I agree it sounds very much the fault of the staffie in this instance. I recall hearing about a conversation that went on in another squadron do a few years later, when our OC was a VERY unpopular man indeed.

My then troop staffie had apparently got the full screws together and briefed them thus about the OC:

“He’s a ****. I know he’s a **** and you know he’s a ****. But FFS keep the lads away from him because it’ll only come off bad for them, what with him being a ****”.
Wasn’t there an unwritten rule “on parade, on parade, off parade, off parade”?
Treat everyone at work with all the due deference, but if you met a group of young troop leaders down town you could call them all Rupert loudly while demanding they open their purses. Same in the squadron bar. OC present or not.
Anyone acting up, trooper to captain would be sent away to sleep it off.
Seemed to work, perhaps things have changed.
 

9.414

Old-Salt
No they're not.
I would think that they are for a case of this nature - on the basis that most senior ranks on this charge get sent to CM - particularly when the other party is an officer.

MML Chapter 13 sets out what the CO can dish out and to which ranks his powers extend.

He cannot lock up a Sgt or bust him (although he could bust him with extended powers). So for a "misconduct through alcohol" it is unlikely that the CO would think he was sufficiently empowered and would probably also be given legal advice to that effect.
 
There is no question of the defendant being asked if they accept the punishment.
It's just a rehash of the previous procedure where, if there was a monetary impact (that included detention) in the considered punishment the guilty bastard defendant would have been given the option of going to CM immediatly after being told they were guilty and before being informed how much it would cost, having about three seconds to consider their options and make a swift decision. Just a tad oppressive. Now its simply on a form well before the hearing.
 

9.414

Old-Salt
It's just a rehash of the previous procedure where, if there was a monetary impact (that included detention) in the considered punishment the guilty bastard defendant would have been given the option of going to CM immediatly after being told they were guilty and before being informed how much it would cost, having about three seconds to consider their options and make a swift decision. Just a tad oppressive. Now its simply on a form well before the hearing.
Almost ... the question is now put to the accused during the hearing, but right at the beginning as question 5 whereas prior to 2009 it was almost at the end.
 

Attachments

  • Election.png
    Election.png
    274.8 KB · Views: 47
It's just a rehash of the previous procedure where, if there was a monetary impact (that included detention) in the considered punishment the guilty bastard defendant would have been given the option of going to CM immediatly after being told they were guilty and before being informed how much it would cost, having about three seconds to consider their options and make a swift decision. Just a tad oppressive. Now its simply on a form well before the hearing.
No, it’s part of the hearing, and quite soon in the proceedings. Right after the person doing the SH has confirmed their identity and read out the charge(s). The defendant (for want of a better word) is asked if they would prefer it to be dealt with summarily or at CM.
If the charged person says CM, then the proceedings stop and a CM will be convened. The person charged can ask to proceed to SH and it be dealt with from there.
Finding comes later. And the CO can, at any stage, take a recess to consider a sentencing, I.e. nothing to say it must be done within a certain timeframe.
 
I would think that they are for a case of this nature - on the basis that most senior ranks on this charge get sent to CM - particularly when the other party is an officer.

MML Chapter 13 sets out what the CO can dish out and to which ranks his powers extend.

He cannot lock up a Sgt or bust him (although he could bust him with extended powers). So for a "misconduct through alcohol" it is unlikely that the CO would think he was sufficiently empowered and would probably also be given legal advice to that effect.

However, you'd ask for extended powers in your RFLA and thus bob is your uncle!
 
So is shoving a troopie first. Always provoke the **** into starting it so you can finish it, safe in the knowledge he cant report it without having to say he was the aggressor.

I'm glad we agree.
 
Wasn’t there an unwritten rule “on parade, on parade, off parade, off parade”?
Treat everyone at work with all the due deference, but if you met a group of young troop leaders down town you could call them all Rupert loudly while demanding they open their purses. Same in the squadron bar. OC present or not.
Anyone acting up, trooper to captain would be sent away to sleep it off.
Seemed to work, perhaps things have changed.

It didn’t quite work like that in my experience, but I admit it was a long time ago. And of course other people’s experience may have varied.

For example, in Berlin there were thousands of bars: hundreds in the British sector alone. Try as we might to visit all of them we never seemed to bump into any of the lads downtown. From any unit.

Some bars were somehow deemed (unofficially and unwritten) ‘officers only’. The most famous was ‘Mon Cheri’. Similarly, the Sappers’ bar on Hameln was ‘The Hammer and Toenail’ while the subbies drank in the Guinness Bar.
 
I was in Berlin 1979-80 and Mon Cherie wasn't 'officers only' that I could see. More a case of 'first in best (un)dressed'. Mind you, I wasn't in the habit of checking ranks.
 

Latest Threads

Top