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

Not my fault if "serve to lead" is a bag of bollocks is it?
I wasn't the one on here who claimed officers had a chance to avoid a CM by resigning or made up some **** reason why an officer should let someone be hurt.

Hook(s), line and sinker. Welcome to Friday night.
 
Depends when it was and even before adoption of drivers hours what driver standing orders were. Oh and depends what actually happened and the extent to which fatigue could have been a contributory factor.
So your answer is?
You are Blair and I claim my dosh
 
I know, I said there were exceptions, I meant as a rule of thumb.

Have a look at these CM results


Note how many assault type charges dont involve pokey.

Although I notice racial harassment and conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline carries 90 days

As does racially aggravated threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.
 
..................
But what would the charge be where the driver's done nothing wrong? "Cpl CAARPS, you are charged that you did, on or about sometime in 1991 at RIPON, did, erm, do fvck all, and got rear ended, occasioning damage to the tune of £12.83 to a military vehicle". Doesn't seem like it'd pass muster to me.
A true dit. I had to do the write-off paperwork for a vehicle accident where the driver was held not to blame for the mishap and damage. It was winter and the roads in Lincolnshire were in a sh!t state. The driver had been ordered to deliver a load of Firestreak missiles (real ones, not drill rounds) to Binbrook - there was some urgent operational need otherwise it wouldn't have been sent. Near to Binbrook the vehicle had slid off the road and overturned with the cargo taking the weight. Firestreak missiles didn't come cheap.

The vehicle was being escorted due to the classified nature of the load. The driver claimed he was doing no more than 5 mph and this was corroborated by the escort driver. Both the Unit Inquiry and Civpol reports cleared the driver, exceptional weather conditions being cited as the cause.

The write-off went off to MoD due to the value of the loss - we are talking serious mega bucks - whereupon it was returned 'unapproved' with a letter from some senior civil servant that the driver was clearly negligent, that he should have refused to take the vehicle and directing that he was to be charged for causing damage by negligence. There was disbelief amongst the station's hierarchy at this letter.

The driver was charged as directed and marched in to the station commander. The WO MT who attended the hearing later told me it was all a bit of a blur. The driver was marched in, the charge read out, charge dismissed and the driver marched out - as quick as that. Done and dusted in less than a minute; disciplinary action had been taken as directed by MoD.

The write-off was re-submitted, amended to read "Disciplinary action taken against the driver". The write-off paperwork came back ''approved" and signed off by the same jobsworth who had originally returned it.
 
Have a look at these CM results


Note how many assault type charges dont involve pokey.

Although I notice racial harassment and conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline carries 90 days

As does racially aggravated threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.
As @wetsmonkey said earlier, anyone can lose their temper and assault anyone. I would be surprised anyone with a history of violent offending is still in the army. Again, we all know of exceptions. Sentencing similar to civvy life.
Dishonesty/theft/burglary offences are a bit different in the army. Any copper on here who has dealt with dismal fraud offences in civvy life knows that the defence heaps on the deprivation/poverty/abuse etc.
No army person has to steal to feed their family. They may do it for other reasons. So a court is less likely to be sympathetic towards a hard case story.
As we all know, the CoC is very sympathetic to a hard case story.
 

giatttt

War Hero
Whoever would have thought that battering a work colleague would have consequences?
TA soldier of mine assaulted by his day job supervisor in a pub, said supervisor glassed another soldier in the neck who was lucky to survive. Supervisor got a suspended sentence his underling was binned for refusing to work with his psycho boss.
 
TA soldier of mine assaulted by his day job supervisor in a pub, said supervisor glassed another soldier in the neck who was lucky to survive. Supervisor got a suspended sentence his underling was binned for refusing to work with his psycho boss.
That seems a little odd. I was under the impression that a glassing would always get you a custodial sentence.
 
As @wetsmonkey said earlier, anyone can lose their temper and assault anyone. I would be surprised anyone with a history of violent offending is still in the army. Again, we all know of exceptions. Sentencing similar to civvy life.
Dishonesty/theft/burglary offences are a bit different in the army. Any copper on here who has dealt with dismal fraud offences in civvy life knows that the defence heaps on the deprivation/poverty/abuse etc.
No army person has to steal to feed their family. They may do it for other reasons. So a court is less likely to be sympathetic towards a hard case story.
As we all know, the CoC is very sympathetic to a hard case story.

I know several in my last sqn who went to MCTC for assault and were repeat offenders (and got soldier on until it was one assault to many)
Im quite confident if I lost my temper and assaulted a work colleague I would lose my job at the same time. Strange how people generally keep their cool when their job is on the line.
 
I know several in my last sqn who went to MCTC for assault and were repeat offenders (and got soldier on until it was one assault to many)
Im quite confident if I lost my temper and assaulted a work colleague I would lose my job at the same time. Strange how people generally keep their cool when their job is on the line.
I am talking from a background of policing to the criminal justice world. And the service justice system.
Army: drunkenness (As indulged first time). Then fighting, assaults involving drink. Thus far indulged by the CoC as an otherwise useful bloke will be binned and the regiment will need another. Regiment gets involved.
At this point “useful” bloke does it again, and CO gets involved again, or gives up.
All fairly straightforward in the CJS.
Civworld. Way, way messier than that. But if you hit a colleague, it’s gross misconduct and you are sacked.
MCTC has always had an aspect of rehabilitation. It is indeed one of its core missions, to return a soldier to the army.
One of the aspects of the army being different from the rest of the world.
 
I am talking from a background of policing to the criminal justice world. And the service justice system.
Army: drunkenness (As indulged first time). Then fighting, assaults involving drink. Thus far indulged by the CoC as an otherwise useful bloke will be binned and the regiment will need another. Regiment gets involved.
At this point “useful” bloke does it again, and CO gets involved again, or gives up.
All fairly straightforward in the CJS.
Civworld. Way, way messier than that. But if you hit a colleague, it’s gross misconduct and you are sacked.
MCTC has always had an aspect of rehabilitation. It is indeed one of its core missions, to return a soldier to the army.
One of the aspects of the army being different from the rest of the world.

Do you think many civvie firms put up with it? Why is the Army special in letting bellends fight?

Earlier in the thread, some people were trying to justify why ROO wont get involved in a fight between subordinates.
Its not as if those at the top have to continue to work and live with violent people is it?
 
Do you think many civvie firms put up with it? Why is the Army special in letting bellends fight?

Earlier in the thread, some people were trying to justify why ROO wont get involved in a fight between subordinates.
Its not as if those at the top have to continue to work and live with violent people is it?
Civvy firms can do what they please.
In many ways the army plays catch up to the normal, civilian world. Until abolished, it was illegal to fight, or offer to fight in civvy life
 
Civvy firms can do what they please.
In many ways the army plays catch up to the normal, civilian world. Until abolished, it was illegal to fight, or offer to fight in civvy life

Civvy firms not wanting bellends on their payroll, what a shock eh?
 
Civvy firms not wanting bellends on their payroll, what a shock eh?
And there’s the truth. Many organisations outside the army do indeed tolerate bellends on the payroll.
”steady hand”
”firm leadership”
”takes no nonsense”
”shouts when needed”
”losers; gone”
Pick up your cheque and P45.
 
And there’s the truth. Many organisations outside the army do indeed tolerate bellends on the payroll.
”steady hand”
”firm leadership”
”takes no nonsense”
”shouts when needed”
”losers; gone”
Pick up your cheque and P45.

Pretty sure most firms dont allow their staff to attack other staff.
 
Have a look at these CM results


Note how many assault type charges dont involve pokey.

Although I notice racial harassment and conduct prejudicial to good order and service discipline carries 90 days

As does racially aggravated threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.
No duff question.

I noticed lots of the 'usual' AWOLs but also a few 'Desertions'.

No wah, can someone tell me how those soldiers were charged with desertion not AWOL? They were not on Ops surely?
 

Latest Threads

Top