Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by semper, Nov 24, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
see this story and see what you think
Disgraceful indeed. What the hell is wrong with these arogent mutherfuckers? I know a few folks in Cali who would be 'fascinated' by these reports. I'll pass it along.
Please bear in mind that British Forces policy is that you do not drink alcohol in uniform - ever.
I agree that in this case common sense should have been applied, however the policy is there for a reason.
The marines involved could perhaps have got changed before having a drink to remember their friend, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Must remember this next time in the Mess.........
Make sure you can substantiate your claims before posting them. That is a load of shite.
Complete uneducated b0locks.
If what you say is true Nige, them you must have served in some truely shocking units that didnt allow beer to be present on leaving drinks etc.... and i'm talking about when a Junior rank is leaving, not Mess functions. Its downright rude not to get in the crewroom and get pissed (in rig!) if one of the lads is off to pastures new.
Or maybe -as i suspect - you are just a fcuking tit.
I have been on several functions where the festivities have extended into town - standards of dress ranging from civvies, through no2's and No1's up to Mess dress. Ive hit the town wearing them all, for different reasons.
As to this incident - fcuking disgraceful attitude by the Walkabout doorchimps.
OK, perhaps I should clarify this a bit.
It is British Forces policy that you don't drink alcohol in uniform in public.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I'm just stating the policy.
As to it being bollocks, well hey, up to you - but it definately ain't uneducated bollocks - I can do my 1,2,3 and my a,b,c
Nige is correct, it is illegal and an arrestable offence to be 'drunk in uniform' they will be able to get you under sect 69 of the AA 1955 (if I remember correctly) and 2 other ones (an RMP would be better suited to go through that).
Having a drink isn't an offence but should only be social and not 'drinking'.
Source - Regimental police NCOs course somewhere in a horrible camp in Chichester.
Fitness for Duty
Health, safety and professionalism require that soldiers are fit for duty and not a liability to themselves and others. Under section 43(1) of the Army Act 1955 (AA 1955), it is an offence to be unfit for duty through drink.
This would be roughly 2 beers (pints) at present - unfit for duty - unfit to drive a motor vehicle.....
Oh - and it could contravene part 1 orders, station standing orders, garrison standing orders and looks pathetic!
It is neither an arrestable offence nor is it illegal to be drunk in uniform. For it to be illegal then it would need to form part of statutory law, i.e. it would be written down somewhere, and it isn't. Additionally the practice of using s.69 AA 1955 as a "catch all offence" went out in Oct 2000, once HRA 98 came into force. It can only be used for disciplinary offences, where no other section provides an appropriate charge.
Agree with all that, however it is not Health, Safety or Professionalism that require it, it is the law, and it applies irrespective whether the soldier is on duty or not.
The 2 pints of beer thing is not entirely relevant, if it were then any soldier who did not have a driving licence could never be convicted under this section, as you cannot be reasonably expected to be called upon to drive a vehicle, if you do not have a licence.
You can have two sips of shandy and be charged with drunkenesss if it is deemed that you are unfit for duty.
SC - that was a cut and paste from QRs or the AA55 which is on the current serving soldier web presence - a govenment / mod / army source.
I can only see what is written and what I have or had been instructed to watch out for and do something about!
Aslo the standing orders for Lond dist state clearly that no social activiteis are to be undertaken in uniform unless officially sanctioned which means that if you do go to an official thing - you don't have too much to swig (common dog really).
P.S. Health and safety does require it as it is not allowed to use any machinery under the influence which means if there are traces of alcohol in your blood - NEBOSH course attendees will verify this - you won't get compo if something goes wrong and you would be liable for prosecution for injuries you are responsible for via employer (civil) and CPS (Criminal).
I have checked s.43 AA 1955, and it doesn't mention anything about being drunk in uniform. Why would it do - it would be a nonsense for two soldiers to be drunk as skunks, but for only one of them to be charged becuase he was in uniform.
I have done the NEBOSH course and hold a Diploma in Safety from the British Safety Council, offences in this respect are concerned with the laws of tort (negligence) and not the criminal law (Army Act). Although I do concede that the AA 1955 can make a tortious offence a criminal one.
As for not receiving compensation if something goes wrong - this is also rubbish. You will receive compensation even if it was your fault, the amount being reduced according to the degree of blame that lies with you, see the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1943 for a detailed explanation.
Furthermore you will not be liable to meet further claims for the same offence against your employer unless the civil court directs that this should be the case, that is the purpose of awarding compensation in the first place. Additionally the CPS do not have any grounds for prosecution in a civil exchange between employer and employee.
Is it not the case that entering a Public drinking establishment in uniform, except when on official duty (e.g. RMP, Recruiters), constitutes an offence under AA 1955? I always believed this to be the case, though I can't be any more specific I'm afraid.
Does anybody know different?
Sounds to me like an over-enthusiatic ex-mob doorman.
No doubt with a chip on his shoulder. W@nker.
Separate names with a comma.