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!

The Times - How a text message can wreck your Army career

Given that drink driving was a common occurrence until a few years ago, I'd suggest that at least 50% of people who secured a driving license prior to 1995 has driven drunk.

Therefore, anyone who passed their driving test before 1995 is guilty, on the balance of probability, of drink driving. Jail them all.

Drink driving is ( and as far as my memory serves always was during my service) a prevalent offence and therefore would not be dealt with on a balance of probabilities.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Given that drink driving was a common occurrence until a few years ago, I'd suggest that at least 50% of people who secured a driving license prior to 1995 has driven drunk.

Therefore, anyone who passed their driving test before 1995 is guilty, on the balance of probability, of drink driving. Jail them all.

Have you ever even pleaded a civil case in a court? 'Balance of probability' is not simply a statistical guess that 50% of those presented have committed the offence complained of. It requires an evidential burden. It requires findings of fact based on that evidence and the application of the relevant law to those facts.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
[1] Just how serious is a letter of censure? Should he have just taken it on the cheek?
[2] ...even him being Facebook friends with OTC cadets is a mistake. I'm sure there must be guidance to that end.
[3] I'm sure a number of people will have actively persued postings to OTC's for the opportunity to bang some students.

[1] A letter of censure in this case would, according to MCM, result in the officers' career being terminated, as they would be unable to convert their commission. End of career. Serious enough?

[2] No, there wasn't - in fact, the guidance was completely the opposite, the outgoing CO encouraged Capt McLeod to "treat the OCdts like subalterns in a Regt". The new CO came in, heard rumours, secretly applied to APC - with the Bde Comd's support - to remove Capt McLeod, they got rejected by MCM, they (CO and Bde Comd) then disobeyed orders from APC and removed him anyway. In went the Service Complaint, and almost two years of unmitigated dishonestly from senior Army officers followed.

[3] I hate to say it, but you're probably right. It's attitudes like that which result in people being hung, drawn and quartered based on rumours and gossip, though. We expect rumour and gossip from students, but it should not be indulged by COs and Bde Comds.

If you want full details of this entire case, including some far nastier cases documented to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, please send me a PM. We can exchange DII contact details for verification, then I'll send you the info. You will then be able to - and I really do mean this without any criticism - comment authoritatively on the case, rather than guessing.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
I'm a bit lost about all the hype here...

That's because you've only seen a very short report based, on information leaked by Members of Parliament to the press. I have sent you a PM, so if you want full details, reply to me and I'll happily enlighten you. That will also include details of a number of other deeply unpleasant cases, including assaults, sexual assaults and attempted suicides.

We all recognise that the press don't have the expertise or time to document things in detail - so be it. I remember being in Oman on Ex SAIF SAREEH II in 2001 and my family back in the UK being told that we were 'pre-positioned to invade Afghanistan, in anticipation of 9/11'. Really? That said, while the press necessarily simplify things, sometimes they are correct. Like I say, I've PM'ed you.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
Have you ever even pleaded a civil case in a court? 'Balance of probability' is not simply a statistical guess that 50% of those presented have committed the offence complained of. It requires an evidential burden. It requires findings of fact based on that evidence and the application of the relevant law to those facts.

Depends entirely on who is decided on the balance of probability.
 
Depends entirely on who is decided on the balance of probability.

There is no deficiency in the principles of the evidential burden in civil disputes.
 
Their is no such offence as Racism, you can be a Racist if you wish to be, that is your choice, by the way I am not saying you are.

The offence is to racially aggravate an existing offence. IE criminal damage, assault , public order etc. this allows a judge or magistrate to take the racially aggravated factor into account and impose a more severe sentence. This would be beyond all reasonable doubt

I would imagine that under employment law, action could be taken against you for Racism if it is held to be incompatible with your job. This would be on the balance of probability.

Apologies if this has already been answered, but (a) racially aggravated criminal offences and (b) race discrimination in employment law are two different things.

I think others have mentioned employment tribunals in one of these threads. In fact members of the armed forces have no right to go to the ET over actual or constructive dismissal or breach of contract in general. The ET is only available to forces personnel in cases of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation, plus you normally have to go through the redress system first, which I think is probably fair enough.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
The story in The Times was the result of a report leaked to the press by MPs. Sections 1 and 2 (of a 10-section, 169-page report), are below. Because The Times report is an inaccurate summary of leaked information, I have posted a redacted version of part of that report in the original post to this thread - this now puts the story in context. It remains, however, a very small excerpt from many hundreds of pages of documentation. It does not, for example, include details of the Army cover-up which protected the Commanding Officer's and Brigade Commander's dishonest conduct from being examined. This is alluded to in open source information in parliamentary questions:

Hansard said:
Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the conduct of the Commanding Officer was excluded from the terms of reference of the investigation into bullying in the case of Captain McLeod of Oxford?

Source: Captain McLeod: 29 Nov 2011: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

Parliamentary website said:
House of Commons Select Committees, Session 2012-13, Defence Committee - Written Evidence

CONTENTS: The work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces


This is a volume of submissions, relevant to the inquiry into The work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces which have been reported to the House. Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee have been included.

Source: House of Commons - Defence Committee - Written Evidence <- First part of Defence Committee submission can be found here.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
DangerMouse, you seem to have intimate knowledge and an emotional involvement in this. Do you have a personal or familial relationship to Captain McLeod?
 

Mattb

LE
Or more importantly, are you the female OCdt?
 

msr

LE
Or more importantly, are you the female OCdt?

Sadly he isn't, but he does disprove the old adage that you can't put lipstick on a pig ;-)
 
[2] No, there wasn't - in fact, the guidance was completely the opposite, the outgoing CO encouraged Capt McLeod to "treat the OCdts like subalterns in a Regt". The new CO came in, heard rumours, secretly applied to APC - with the Bde Comd's support - to remove Capt McLeod, they got rejected by MCM, they (CO and Bde Comd) then disobeyed orders from APC and removed him anyway. In went the Service Complaint, and almost two years of unmitigated dishonestly from senior Army officers followed.

That alone makes you wonder about the CO. OCdts are not at all like subalterns; subalterns have at least passed out of RMAS (whether Regular or TA). First-year students can quite easily have been schoolchildren six months earlier - some will be more mature than others; all grown up, but not yet adults. You might treat UOTC subalterns like subalterns in the Regiment, but I can't see how you could treat the mass of OCdts that way.

I've also seen an RSM interfere by suggesting via a third party that someone drop an allegation "for the sake of the unit"... (that one had an 2ic, Adjt, and two OCs going ballistic).

[3] I hate to say it, but you're probably right. It's attitudes like that which result in people being hung, drawn and quartered based on rumours and gossip, though. We expect rumour and gossip from students, but it should not be indulged by COs and Bde Comds.

As an OC at a UOTC, I was careful to avoid spending time alone with any female OCdt; it's not enough to be innocent, it's safer to be seen to be innocent. As a student, I saw the rumours start about two PSIs (I don't know whether they were guilty, I didn't suspect anything), and as a student I knew that one of the TA Captains was trying his hardest to cut a swathe through the female population - but I know a far larger proportion of PSIs and Officers then and later who looked on the students in a more professional way.

Basically, being posted to a UOTC is a test of common sense; needless to say, the students are out of bounds. 98% of the time you can treat everyone in a sensible and adult way, 1% of the time you remind yourself you shouldn't be trying to relive your own student days, 1% of the time the alarm bells are going off in your head and you're being damn careful about who/what/when.
 
Reminds me of my Trg Maj days at a TA unit. I was at a function for the unit when I decided to bug out late at night, sober too, when one of the female TA officers decided to do one as well so we left together and stood outside chatting for about five mins before going our separate ways. Next day, I'm having an affair with this girl and it's the biggest scandal to hit the unit. The fact that she was in her early thirties and married to a serving officer who was also a friend of mine was irrelevant to the ****** of a TA CO who warned me off about fraternising with female TA officers. Utterly, utterly stupid beyond belief so if that can happen that easily in a supposedly grown-up environment, **** knows what it's like at a UOTC.

The most miserable tour of my Army career thus far, that one.
 

msr

LE
all grown up, but not yet adults.

Yet some 70 years ago people of barely that age were flying night-time bomber raids over Germany...

If you don't think any inter-rank hanky panky goes on at OTCs, I suggest you might want to cover the legs of your tables, send a child up your chimney and avoid the East End of London.

m-s-r
 

msr

LE
Reminds me of my Trg Maj days at a TA unit... was irrelevant to the ****** of a TA CO who warned me off about fraternising with female TA officers.

Not quite as racy as the Adjt of a now disbanded RSIGNALS unit who brought his wife and girlfriend (TA Offr) to a Regimental function. By all accounts there was a fair cat-fight when the two were introduced "I'm sorry, I am afraid I don't know who you are, but let me introduce you to the Adjt's girlfriend". Even funnier, so I am told, was the ****** of a regular CO who ordered the entire Officers' Mess into an anteroom and tried to bollock the lot of them.

m-s-r
 

Latest Threads

Top