The brave Mrs Mendonca.

Not open for further replies.
I'll make no further comment beyond that there is, IMHO, a very good article by respected defence writer John Keegan in today's Daily Telegraph ref. the Col Mendonca issue.

Daily Telegraph - John Keegan

For a little light relief, TCB and the Attorney general get a pagging on p 1 and 2 about the case as well.

Daily Telegraph - front page ref. Col Mendonca

Lastly there are some good letters from the distaff side about life as an Army wife.


Can I suggest no-one else makes any controversial comment otherwise this thread will (rightly) be deleted
Having read the article there are aspects of this issue I hadn't appreciated and the less said by any of us that "could be used in evidence" the better.

Kind regards

Despite PTP's apparent New Labourite stance (ie if you don't like it, hide it and pretend it'll go away and then pour scorn on your detractors - I refer you to the prompt reaction to my post yesterday) over this important matter in the public domain, this subject is surely something that deserves an airing on the website.
Edited by PTP.
Sorry, Mr B,
My mistake, wrong Brig. Post duly edited.
Queensman, you are partly right in that the relationship within the chain of command, from rifleman to PM, need to be discussed. You seem unable to divorce this discussion from the details of an ongoing investigation however. The details impact on the individuals involved to a massive degree, way beyond the righteous pique of a few internet users. You can't even get the names right. The simple fact is that we don't have the full picture, so gobbing off about what we think we know will damage those involved. I agree that this is an important discussion, but lets stay out of the weeds of what Brig X says to Lt Col Y and discuss the wider implications such as: "can a nation combat a terrorist conglomorate seeking a war of annihilation with an army bound by uninformed political restrictions and hamstrung by a culture of fear?"

Stop blurting names and stamping your feet until the investigation has run its course. We're quick enough to damn the Sun et al for jumping the gun.
^ I agree with RTFQ the lines in this are far too blurrable to allow a valid discussion.

Save up your angst for when it is all over.
barbs said:
^ I agree with RTFQ the lines in this are far too blurrable to allow a valid discussion.

Save up your angst for when it is all over.
Then whatever the outcome you can help to close the stable door.
Hat20 said:
barbs said:
^ I agree with RTFQ the lines in this are far too blurrable to allow a valid discussion.

Save up your angst for when it is all over.
Then whatever the outcome you can help to close the stable door.
If the first you knew about it was an article in the press might I respectfully suggest that the time for a pre-emptive strike has come and long-since gone.

I wish some of you would accept that people like PTP (and barbs) are constantly closing stable doors firmly and very successfully. And not just quietly behind the scenes to protect the Service but also on here. Stopping threads with the potential to damage ARRSE is a perfect example of stable door closing so how about some congratulations and not just constant criticism.
Can I refer PTP etc back to Hat20's pertinent point on the Sexual harrassment thread.

"Col Mendonca thread was removed as CM ongoing but this is allowed to continue while Cpl Mates ET is also ongoing,not that I'm complaining just wondering on the reason behind it."

thegimp said:
Can I refer PTP etc back to Hat20's pertinent point on the Sexual harrassment thread.

"Col Mendonca thread was removed as CM ongoing but this is allowed to continue while Cpl Mates ET is also ongoing,not that I'm complaining just wondering on the reason behind it."

A Court Martial is a criminal trial that is subject to the rules of sub judice i.e. In law, sub judice means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" by some lawyers. It is generally considered inappropriate to publicly comment on cases sub judice, particularly criminal cases, as doing so may constitute interference with due process. Both District and General Court Martials are presided over by a (civilian) Judge Advocate and are subject to the rule of law.

Employment Tribunals are simply statutory bodies that review the actions of an employer to establish if the decision taken to dismiss was lawful and in accordance with the emlpoyer's own stated policies and procedures, or in the case of unfair treatment whether an employee was treated substantially differently and inappropriately because of race, creed, colour, gender, or sexual orientation and thus placed at a disadvantage. All a tribunal can do is make a financial award to compensate for breach of contract. EATs are not therefore subject to the strictures of sub-judice and so can be commented upon.

As a moderator, and PtP alike, I will take a view on what comments are made about information in the public domain and the circumstances. Comments have been made about the case before the EAT because it is not sub judice. I may find some comments distasteful but I do not cull them because I may disagree and PtP is the same. I, like PtP will only cull comments if they are predjudicial to the due process of law, and as Lt Col Mendonca's Court Martial has not yet concluded it would be wrong to openly speculate on matters not yet reported, and thus discussed in court.
I am not usualy described as a crawling, arse-licking, snivelling git but I support the mods on their points. They have a difficult task to hold in the headstrong and decimate the ejits. It is not possible to debate what we do not know as hard and fast facts.
After all, those who disagree with the decision to limit or cease the debate always have the choice of writing to the media where their published views will reach a wider audiene than here (and may limit load on the server so the damn thing stays up!)
The Brig who is alleged to be canvassing for opinions will have considered what he is doing and - if acting as described - has either decided it is lawful and in tradition of officer conduct or feels he has enough top cover to be safe if challenged.
Yes - all this is indicative of an army going to the dogs - so, what's new there then? Nothing is the same as The New Model Army. Were I lucky enough to be still serving, I would adopt the same defence as I used to do with homesexuals - I didn't approve but so long as they did not come near me or mine, I tolerated them.
Everyone needs to know what is right and what is wrong. If in doubt - find out. Ensure those down the line from you have the same information. Yes - the fog of war/red mist does intervene but I suspect - based on past experience - not so often as is claimed.
I already knew Woopert's answer about the rules of sub judice - but that's only because I spend way too much time on ARRSE. Could we add his post to the 'STANDARDS- THIS AFFECTS YOU AND ARRSE' sticky?( ) That way newcomers or those who don't post as often will understand why court martials etc can't be discussed.

For those concerned that no debate means the stable door is only closed after the horse has bolted - well that's not enitrely true. Sure - there are a few soldiers who have been treated badly such as Trooper Williams, Col.Collins etc. But overall I would say there is a definite head of steam building behind the idea that *something* is wrong with the court-martial system and it needs to be fixed...


and then pour scorn on your detractors
I'd like you to point out exactly, where I have 'poured scorn' on my detractors. An explanation of why the thread was removed was posted. This outlines exactly why we do not allow discussion concerning ongoing or pending CM's.

I have already explained Arrse's position with regard to commentary on pending and ongoing CM's. Arrse is unique in that the majority of members are currently serving in the British Armed Forces. Because of this, there is a very real danger of commentary being posted that will take us into sub-judice. We have a great many journalists using Arrse on a daily basis. Some of these journalists , are friends of, or ambivalent to the Armed Forces , however, some are not. Arrse is regularly quoted in the media, we none of us, want a quote to be used that may prove damaging to a friend or colleague currently in the process of CM.

Those that oppose the very concept of Arrse, will be well-armed to seek changes or have us closed down , if such commentary is aired prejudicial to the conduct or investigation of a CM.

I will not allow, or tolerate any posts or attempts to take us into any situation that will allow our detractors to damage Arrse, and the service it provides for currently serving Armed Forces personnel at every level.

In your inital post, as far as I can tell, you even made a statement which got a name wrong. Other currently serving posters have pointed this out to you. I don't think I have to force the point home, as to what damage could potentially be done to Arrse if erroneous statements in sensitve areas are allowed to remain.

Arrse is regarded in some quarters , as THE authoritive source on how the Army feels. I will not have all the hard work by the CO's , the moderators and our members, some of whom are VERY senior figures in the Armed Forces and Politics undone, because you feel the rules of this forum do not apply to you.

I will continue to delete commentary or threads on this , and other ongoing and impending CM's for the reasons given by the CO's, myself and supported by other currently serving members , some of whom are close friends and colleagues of Lt. Col Mendonca.

"ARRSE is the British Army's UNOFFICIAL centre of military and civil current affairs, news, discussions, humour, jobs, photos and bullshit."


I made a mistake with a name which was duly corrected - remembering vast chunks of the previous days Daily Telegraph verbatim is not a skill I have yet mastered. For the record, I don't know nor have I heard of anyone of the first name I used, it was a simple misrecollection. Only one other poster pointed it out; you draw attention to the fact that he/she is a 'serving poster' - is that relevant?

Are there two classes of Arrse users? Those serving and those not? Or are you more concerned with the feelings of 'VERY senior figures in the Armed Forces and Politics'? A very telling admission?

You fail to note that I was not attempting to discuss an impending CM. I was not even trying to discuss the poor unfortunate who may end up in front of a CM, who, as yet, as I understand it, has not been charged with anything, but has just been told that when they find what they are looking for they'll do his legs!

I was introducing the brave Mrs Mendonca's position into the fray, much as the Daily Telegraph has done. In much the same way that I fail to remember pages of newsprint, seeing as you've obliterated my musings both today and yesterday, I can't remember exactly what I wrote earlier either. But, yesterday, my post re the Mendoncas was ridiculed by persons unremembered, but possibly you - we'll never know now because it's all 'vanished like an old oak table'.

You point out that ARRSE is taken to be a barometer of how the army feels. Exactly. Why then are you so determined to prevent this barometer from giving a true reading?

I'm afraid I find your argument unpersuasive. I understand and accept your (and PTP's) point, that the mods have the right to make a subjective evaluation of comments posted here and to err on the side of caution, where they believe a comment may be prejudicial to criminal proceedings.

To then go on and suggest you are happy to allow the proceedings of an administrative tribunal to be freely discussed, regardless of whether such discussion might be prejudicial, is ridiculous. Why not apply the same subjective judgment to administrative tribunals (which are, after all, semi-judicial proceedings) as you do to criminal cases? You seem to be suggesting that a member of an employment tribunal would not be influenced by a prejudicial comment published on this site, regarding a case he or she were hearing, while a member of a court martial would.

We are not talking about textbook legal distinctions here, merely about fair moderation.
It's also true that criminal cases ongoing elsewhere are the subject of a great deal of discussion on other boards, without censorship on the grounds put up by PTP, which are well considered, but possibly only by PTP and possibly a few others, without the benefit of general discussion - I may be well out of order here, but that could certainly appear to be the case to anyone who, like me, hasn't studied all of the forum rules minutely. I know that this board is a special case for a dozen reasons, but it's a subject worth nailing conclusively.


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
PartTimePongo said:

and then pour scorn on your detractors
I'd like you to point out exactly, where I have 'poured scorn' on my detractors.

PTP you are so correct. You don't pour scorn on your detractors you just delete their posts, even when the subject matter is not about what was said but how you handled it. It would appear that the only POV allowed on here is one that accords with your own views.

If you disagree then re-instate the posts I put up during your defence of the Sun newspaper - and what a defence that was. I hope your cheque from Murdoch arrived OK.
This has not been the first time, I remember every time their was a mention about a high court case involving a Brigadier DELETED BY MOD. The thread or the officers name would be deleted then explain subju laws ect. Judicial review are not subject to this law but any mention of Brigadier DELETED BY MOD and it be taken off. he was in the public eye under the allegations twice in the papers and once on TV, Name deleted this time by PTP . Im counting :lol:
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest Threads