Theft of weapons from Small Arms School Corp Museum

No he does not, CCF (or ACF) must appear on the rank slide, allowably in combination with affiliated unit - ie REME CCF. Like this:

A friend sent me a new one today, from the SASC Journal from 2003, with a claim to him being a TA REME captain (for which there is no evidence in the Gazette and I spent some time today in there...):



As @HE117 says, odder and odder...
 
Last edited:
Well technically in those days if he was a CCF Capt he would have been a TA Capt, albeit Group B.
Yes, but a CCF Captain, not a REME captain, with no right to wear captain's pips with REME under them.

The thing in the Gazette with him resigning his commission as Lt in 2003 is another interesting weirdness in the whole thing...
 
Another tidbit I just spotted in this book

1592762618804.png


1592763370136.png


Given the Radley School CCF commission in 1987, which was only resigned in 2003, I presume that there is no way someone could simultaneously hold a TA / Reserve commission alongside in 1993, right? They'd just be seconded to the CCF under their normal commission, presumably?
 

oldnotbold

War Hero
Another tidbit I just spotted in this book

View attachment 483937

View attachment 483939

Given the Radley School CCF commission in 1987, which was only resigned in 2003, I presume that there is no way someone could simultaneously hold a TA / Reserve commission alongside in 1993, right? They'd just be seconded to the CCF under their normal commission, presumably?
There were a couple of dual commissions in my regiment, CCF and TA. One was a Lt in the CCF (coincidentally in my old school) and also a Captain REME TA. That was mid-1990s.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I was led to believe that a cadet commission was a TA type B?
 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
Another tidbit I just spotted in this book

View attachment 483937

View attachment 483939

Given the Radley School CCF commission in 1987, which was only resigned in 2003, I presume that there is no way someone could simultaneously hold a TA / Reserve commission alongside in 1993, right? They'd just be seconded to the CCF under their normal commission, presumably?
Teachers could be required to be in the school’s Cadet Force, and at the same time also be found in the TA. Had at least one officer who fell in to that bracket.
 
Teachers could be required to be in the school’s Cadet Force, and at the same time also be found in the TA. Had at least one officer who fell in to that bracket.
We had some too, but they wore their TA beret and insignia and to my knowledge were never CCF commissioned. This was in the 1994-1999 period.

Either way, this chap is implying he was a 'proper' TA Capt in the REME.
Indeed, and the Gazette hasn't turned this up thus far... If I'm really bored one evening I might just flick through every single reference to any Laidler at all being commissioned from 1970 to 1993.

Thus far I made the obvious searches with the full name, surname + initials, surname + REME / Engineers, and it turned up nothing...
 
Last edited:
We had some too, but they wore their TA beret and insignia and to my knowledge were never CCF commissioned. This was in the 1994-1999 period.



Indeed, and the Gazette hasn't turned this up thus far... If I'm really bored one evening I might just flick through every single reference to any Laidler at all being commissioned from 1970 to 1993.

Thus far I made the obvious searches with the full name, surname + initials, surname + REME / Engineers, and it turned up nothing...
So what is the latest in this case?
 
Officers of the ACF/CFF held the substansive rank of Lt. All other promotions, ie Capt, were acting ranks. So even if you became an ACF “Col“ you would retire as a Lt.
 

HE117

LE
As I understood the way in which the CCF/ACF commissions worked, they were essentially a way in which individuals could be granted a commission for legal and liability purposes. Regardless of the rank they displayed, they were all substantive 2Lt holding an honorary rank at whatever level the cadet force required them to have.

An individual could also be a serving member of the regular or reserve forces both with or without holding a commission. I am not sure if an individual who already held a commission needed to be given another one or not. As the rank held within the cadet force was purely honorary and held no authority outside the working of the cadets, it was largely irrelevant. There seems to have been a custom for ex regular or reserve officers holding their previous rank, but I suspect this may have been dependent on situations and the characters involved. There is also the point that ex regular officers (but not ex TA officers..!) continue to hold their final rank after they retire, and of course Field Marshall never retire!

In the case of Peter Laidler, there certainly does seem to be a number of questions about his lineage. As I have remarked before on this thread, I have been in contact with him several times over the years, and he always came across as a helpful and knowledgeable individual and whose work on military optical sights was of an extremely high standard. We have a mutual friend who served with him in the Police, and who I know through both regular and reserve service. He seems to have had some sort of employment relationship with the School of Infantry, in what capacity I do not know.

From what little communication I had with him prior to the last court case, it seems that most of this is down to a lack of clarity as to the disposal of firearms and components from the School of Infantry collection. As some may be aware, the MOD has changed its attitude to small arms drastically over the past twenty odd years. Originally arms were held within the military sphere completely separately from the civil one. Military arms were not subject to civil proofing requirements or any of the firearms acts. There was a blanket exemption for possessing firearms by both servicemen and crown servants, and the civil police and courts had almost no influence. This has been subject to significant change over the past decades, with loss of Crown Immunity and the gradual shutdown of the arms trade, both civil and military.

In typical Whitehall fashion, these changes have been applied in a haphazard and mostly illogical manner. In particular, the status of weapons and associated components within the military sphere has steadily slid from the military to the civil authority. The legal disposal of obsolete firearms and their components from military to civil spheres has been steadily removed to the point now where it seems that nothing is allowed to be sold. This is a drastic change that has occurred without any consultation. I assume that at one level the intention is to stop arms falling into the hands of terrorists, however the unintended (or perhaps intended!) consequence is that the whole historical arms collecting trade comes to a shuddering halt! There is also the business of where do you draw the line with spares and components? Also what are the status of exhibits in military museums? The answer is "Nobody Knows"! Anyone watching Holts sales will have seen a series of guns appearing in the sales from the School of Infantry Collection. I can only assume that these are legal transactions, though I deplore the breakup of any arms collections.

Peter I believe was involved in the edges of the military surplus gun trade. He did, I believe manage to acquire one of the early L98 Cadet rifles which had been sold or given to an overseas government and which had been legally re-imported before the Dunblane ban. He was arrested and charged on the basis of a statement made by MOD that "No SA80 rifles of any type had ever been sold" therefore the one he had must have been stolen. One could question the veracity of the MOD/Royal Ordnance accounting and record systems, but however...! (.... I think that one got thrown out..!)

Subsequent prosecutions seem to have been on the basis of "R v Pte Snooks in the case of the possession of a gas plug" variety..!

I dunno.. the whole thing seems to have been a huge guddle! I do not believe that there was ever any criminal or security implications in any of this.. It looks very much like a "pointy hat and burning stake" expedition by the usual suspects...!
 
I do not believe that there was ever any criminal or security implications in any of this..
The jury seems to have disagreed with you on this point...
 

4(T)

LE
Peter I believe was involved in the edges of the military surplus gun trade. He did, I believe manage to acquire one of the early L98 Cadet rifles which had been sold or given to an overseas government and which had been legally re-imported before the Dunblane ban. He was arrested and charged on the basis of a statement made by MOD that "No SA80 rifles of any type had ever been sold" therefore the one he had must have been stolen. One could question the veracity of the MOD/Royal Ordnance accounting and record systems, but however...! (.... I think that one got thrown out..!)

Subsequent prosecutions seem to have been on the basis of "R v Pte Snooks in the case of the possession of a gas plug" variety..!

I dunno.. the whole thing seems to have been a huge guddle! I do not believe that there was ever any criminal or security implications in any of this.. It looks very much like a "pointy hat and burning stake" expedition by the usual suspects...!


I think it was all "tip of the iceberg" stuff, though. The fact that parts in most cases are untraceable probably prevented this from being a much wider investigation. I reckon quite a few individuals in the Trade were in a cold sweat for much of the time.

Regardless of the cluster around weapon/parts status in museums and military collections, and the SA80 fiasco, its still not really on for someone in a position of trust to use Crown property as a private parts bin for personal gain.
 
Irrespective of the criminal case aspect of it, if it is in fact the case that he presented himself to the School of Infantry as a REME Captain (whether reg or TA) but in fact wasn't (unless something turns up in the Gazette which is somehow missed by the search function for some reason, but surely there should be several entries in any case), got a job with them on that basis and had access to firearms as a result, that's not nothing...

Note: if something turns up in the Gazette that somehow escapes the search function, apologies will of course be in order.
 

HE117

LE

Latest Threads

Top