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!

Oyibo Needs A Shag

Status
Not open for further replies.

Erinon

Old-Salt
Thanks for everyone’s replies (some more helpful than others but I understand what I let myself in for when I posted).

So to try and address a few points yes I know this is wrong but it’s more complicated than that, I never understood how this could happen until I found myself in this position. In regards to the ‘fault’ debate I accept I am at fault and yes so is he neither of us are blameless it’s 50/50.

I don’t want to cause issues for him personally or in regards to his work and don’t want to hold it over him like some have suggested but I feel I needed to know as he’s worked hard to get to where he is and I’m concerned this is potentially clouding his judgement.


I really think to get to bottom of this we need pictures. Then we can provide some informed advice.
 
It only breaks the service test if his actions or behaviour have badly affected, or are they likely to affect the operational effectiveness of his unit

The act of a married man simply shagging a slapper does not in itself constitute a wrong doing ^~

What if Cosmo is actually Olga Kosmonov and has a strange military air about her?

And he works in a Secret Squirrel capacity.
 

Oyibo

LE
Thanks for everyone’s replies (some more helpful than others but I understand what I let myself in for when I posted).

So to try and address a few points yes I know this is wrong but it’s more complicated than that, I never understood how this could happen until I found myself in this position. In regards to the ‘fault’ debate I accept I am at fault and yes so is he neither of us are blameless it’s 50/50.

I don’t want to cause issues for him personally or in regards to his work and don’t want to hold it over him like some have suggested but I feel I needed to know as he’s worked hard to get to where he is and I’m concerned this is potentially clouding his judgement.

You're banging a married man and you're ' concerned this is potentially clouding his judgement'?

Stop f*cking him.
 
You old dinosaurs. Not once has the OP declared their gender, yet the thread is three pages of 'wife' this and 'she' that.

Has it not occurred to anyone that the OP is a bloke and he's shagging a married man, who is married to a bloke?
 

StBob072

LE
Book Reviewer
No then it would only be your fault because you're a coercive, dominant bloke ;)

But seriously I just think the married person (be they a man or a woman @Taffwob) has to be more at fault than the person they have an affair with.

And they're often accomplished liars - "I'm not married", "the marriage was over anyway", "we're separated/divorcing" etc. etc.
 
If the person who he is seeing is not serving or married to anyone serving or connected to you unit, it’s nothing to do with you.

If it was me, I’d tell you it was my personal life, didn’t affect my work, role or rank and as such was none of your business.

Cheeky cünt.

I’m going to assume (but don’t actually know for fact) that your role involved DV. I can’t see how some aspects of EOD would not be classified. If your intent was to continue seeing the OP, but to maintain your marriage and keep the affair secret, then you are open to blackmail. Thus it does affect your role, because you would have deliberately placed yourself in a position to be susceptible to blackmail.

If these were the facts and your CO was aware of them, surely he is duty bound to act. He might say “You’ve got until Monday morning to sort this out. End it, tell your wife, whatever, but this is not to continue”. If none of that happens and the soldier maintains “None of your business” line, then surely he must report the soldier to the Defence Vetting Service, or whatever they’re called this week? If he fails to act, he condones one of his soldiers being in that position. It’s then for the Vetting Officer to make a determination. They might interview the wife and she says “oh, I ‘ve known for years, I don’t like it, but I love him“. Vetting officer might then think “well it’s not affecting the service, so it’s their business, NFA”. Or they might not interview the wife at all and just withdraw or downgrade vetting status.

Either way, those with security clearance tread a very fine line when they err from the straight and narrow in pretty much any aspect of life, and attempt to conceal it. As you say, if the wife knows, or it’s an open marriage, then no issue. But I’ve seen people lose vetting for it.
 
It only breaks the service test if his actions or behaviour have badly affected, or are they likely to affect the operational effectiveness of his unit

If he’s happy with the situation it could improve his efficiency and therefore effectiveness of the unit.

MBEs have been awarded for less.
 
I’m going to assume (but don’t actually know for fact) that your role involved DV. I can’t see how some aspects of EOD would not be classified. If your intent was to continue seeing the OP, but to maintain your marriage and keep the affair secret, then you are open to blackmail. Thus it does affect your role, because you would have deliberately placed yourself in a position to be susceptible to blackmail.

If these were the facts and your CO was aware of them, surely he is duty bound to act. He might say “You’ve got until Monday morning to sort this out. End it, tell your wife, whatever, but this is not to continue”. If none of that happens and the soldier maintains “None of your business” line, then surely he must report the soldier to the Defence Vetting Service, or whatever they’re called this week? If he fails to act, he condones one of his soldiers being in that position. It’s then for the Vetting Officer to make a determination. They might interview the wife and she says “oh, I ‘ve known for years, I don’t like it, but I love him“. Vetting officer might then think “well it’s not affecting the service, so it’s their business, NFA”. Or they might not interview the wife at all and just withdraw or downgrade vetting status.

Either way, those with security clearance tread a very fine line when they err from the straight and narrow in pretty much any aspect of life, and attempt to conceal it. As you say, if the wife knows, or it’s an open marriage, then no issue. But I’ve seen people lose vetting for it.

I was at least DV and god knows what else. People have affairs, it’s not a showstopper.

Anyone who wanted to blackmail someone would expect something that far outweighs an affair. If having an affair was a bar to DV there’d be no one doing a multitude of jobs.
 
I was at least DV and god knows what else. People have affairs, it’s not a showstopper.

Anyone who wanted to blackmail someone would expect something that far outweighs an affair. If having an affair was a bar to DV there’d be no one doing a multitude of jobs.

it’s all very subjective. If the OP’s boyfriend is some random lance jack in the MPGS or an RE bricklayer, the Army isn’t going to give a shit. On the other hand, if the OP’s name is Svetlana, recently arrived from Russia on a student visa and the boyfriend is an INT CORPS bod, then it looks a bit different, both from a “what is the risk here?” and “WTF were you thinking?” perspective.
 
The revenge of mumsnet!!
After a very ambiguous opening post the bus has surely been started by certain know-alls.
Well done CosmoOzi, an awesome first thread.
 
Perhaps you could stick to your expertise on defusing IEDs, and maybe let people listen to @Roadster280 on vetting issues? Cheers mucker.

No. I don’t think I will. Knowing quite a few people who were DVd and had affairs with no detriment to their career, I think the facts speak for themselves.
 

CRmeansCeilingReached

ADC
Moderator
No. I don’t think I will. Knowing quite a few people who were DVd and had affairs with no detriment to their career, I think the facts speak for themselves.

As do I. But that does not mean that: a) having an affair is not a risk to one's vetting; nor b) that it doesn't provide adequate compromise material for an adversary.

The fact that some people have affairs without losing their DV does not mean you can make blanket assertions, and playing down the risk of compromising behaviour is not helpful. Hopefully anyone reading can see the difference between someone who clearly knows what they are talking about on the vetting front (@Roadster280) and somebody who is making sweeping generalisations from their own limited experience (your good self).
 
Perhaps you could stick to your expertise on defusing IEDs, and maybe let people listen to @Roadster280 on vetting issues? Cheers mucker.

In fairness, @dingerr will know just as much (or little) as people like me do about vetting. You’re either in that world or not, as I’m sure you know. I had (correctly) assumed that ATs would require at least SC, and DV for some (all?).

There were two things that generally made people lose vetting while I was in. Infidelity and unreliability. Drink driving was a big erm, driver, for the second one, and financial misdoings also.

Amusingly (not for him), I saw one guy lose vetting for shagging the sister of a PIRA player in Londonderry. Another lost PV(TS) as it was then because he married a German, whose entire family were Ostis.

But this might be nothing at all to do with vetting. I re-read the OP, and actually she doesn’t say “Army” at all. Just Armed Forces. So the BF could be anything from a nuclear power plant engineer on submarines to a musician. Any rank from LAC MT Fitter to Commander 11 Signal Bde.
 
As do I. But that does not mean that: a) having an affair is not a risk to one's vetting; nor b) that it doesn't provide adequate compromise material for an adversary.

The fact that some people have affairs without losing their DV does not mean you can make blanket assertions, and playing down the risk of compromising behaviour is not helpful. Hopefully anyone reading can see the difference between someone who clearly knows what they are talking about on the vetting front (@Roadster280) and somebody who is making sweeping generalisations from their own limited experience (your good self).

Well as the evidence points to no one ever suffering for having an affair outside the services, I’d say the truth paints the real picture.

You need to stop getting into a wanking frenzy and deal with real truths.
 
In fairness, @dingerr will know just as much (or little) as people like me do about vetting. You’re either in that world or not, as I’m sure you know. I had (correctly) assumed that ATs would require at least SC, and DV for some (all?).

There were two things that generally made people lose vetting while I was in. Infidelity and unreliability. Drink driving was a big erm, driver, for the second one, and financial misdoings also.

Amusingly (not for him), I saw one guy lose vetting for shagging the sister of a PIRA player in Londonderry. Another lost PV(TS) as it was then because he married a German, whose entire family were Ostis.

But this might be nothing at all to do with vetting. I re-read the OP, and actually she doesn’t say “Army” at all. Just Armed Forces. So the BF could be anything from a nuclear power plant engineer on submarines to a musician. Any rank from LAC MT Fitter to Commander 11 Signal Bde.

All ATs are SC, then DV to complete high threat, after that it’s all the little vetting nuances depending on what we are doing - I’ve been STRAPed on, STRAPed off and shaken all about. It’s all rather confusing.
 

Oyibo

LE
Well as the evidence points to no one ever suffering for having an affair outside the services, I’d say the truth paints the real picture.

You need to stop getting into a wanking frenzy and deal with real truths.

I'm not quite sure how your post relates to the OP's one. If you're smashing it out with a married bloke in the military (who is not your hubby), then where does the moral (or security) high ground lie?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top