Time for public perception to take a dive for the Army?

#82
Errrm, no. Casualty crawling away after a burst of 30mm from an AH. No one of right mind would've considered him a threat. This Inf Lt Col's point was that the bloke should've been finished off, and he gave scant concern to the protection of the casualty, under our RoE, of their being hors de combat.

I've seen the same thing on the Joint Air Weapons Course, and a couple of other PDT events - people trying to outsmart the token (usually fairly cute) Legad by asking questions about the rights & wrongs of mercy killing [the fictitious scenario of a wounded insurgent who is obviously v badly burned or injured, won't survive etc etc etc etc]. The reply is always the same - "I can't prevent you, because I won't be there on every occasion you have an opportunity to break the Law, but what I can tell you unequivocally is that if you do it, you're into Court Martial territory" or words to that effect.

We're not the Sally Army, but I reiterate that we're not the Totenkopf either.
Would it not be fair to say the bar had already been set in the Falklands ammo dump accident 82
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#83
I think the problem is values and standards, if you have to teach them and have them written down then society is giving the army shi t material to work with.

That said the army is for killing HM Govts enemies and at the moment that looks like the content of the house of commons!
Joking aside train men to kill but tell them of for obscenities? Really?
 
#84
I think the problem is values and standards, if you have to teach them and have them written down then society is giving the army shi t material to work with.

That said the army is for killing HM Govts enemies and at the moment that looks like the content of the house of commons!
Joking aside train men to kill but tell them of for obscenities? Really?
Very Kurtz
 
#85
I'm currently serving and not offended by CGS's video. Aside from the unnatural body positioning, which is distracting, I think his message is clear; most sensible people would apply the, 'if the cap fits' approach.

I do wonder if the most recent alleged incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, perhaps there's been an increase in sexual assault incidents involving members of the Armed Forces? Looking at 2018 Court Martial proceedings, there seems to be quite a few, although they do include the other services*.

Back to the OP's question, as others have noted, the civilian population are a fickle bunch when it comes to the Armed Forces, I won't lose any sleep over their opinion of us.

* I haven't done any proper analysis of the 2018 figures or compared it with other years, just a quick scroll through using sexual harrassment, 'guilty' verdicts as baseline (Army).

Court martial results from the military court centres: January to December 2018 - GOV.UK
Crikey! Some interesting combinations of rank and crime there. Like the Raffles the Gentleman Thief walt - an RN Lieutenant found guilty of theft on 21.11.18.
 
Last edited:
#86
Agree. Been talking with people about it tonight, both ex-, current and unconnected. All thought it was embarrassingly bad. Those in the mob thought it a poorly done and unconvincing photocopy of the more heartfelt Aussie version from Morrison a few years back (check it out on Youtube).

I think it's probably been a double fault.

First, to the external audience. As you say, it creates an impression which inaccurate, but had been set up by the past 3-4 years of virtue signalling and hand-wringing from Andover. Namely, that the Army has invested a lot of £ and media time into claiming it has turned on a penny to become a super woke organisation within no time at all. Meanwhile, the reality on the ground (for any organisation) is that it takes a lot longer to implement those kind and scale of changes, and the Army - for obvious reasons that the majority of sensible people understand - did not start from a position of right-on politics to begin with. This disparity was always going to break publicly at some point, and so it has. So to cover the fact that the slower adoption of attitudes by soldiers has not matched the unrealistic idea presented by senior officers and politicians, the latter now panic into a kneejerk overreaction to any suggestion that things are not entirely as their as campaign has said. The reality, I suspect, is that the significant majority of the Army are not representative of this (the sexual assault) behaviour, but there is a dedicated minority who still hold pretty backward attitudes. It is going to take time to get them out. That was always going to be the case. The only reason this is remotely a surprise is because of unrealistic expectations created from on high.

Second, the internal audience. The major problem here, I think, is how unconvincing Mark CS looks. However you want to break that down: stance, voice, writing, bizarre mid-90s news anchor bluescreen background. Compare it with the Aussie version. Simple, easy, effective. Morrison clearly means it. Mark CS looks like he's saying someone else's words under duress, in a bad corporate video parody. I mean that quite specifically: he looks like a POW being forced to give a political speech. I doubt anyone inside the Army is convinced by this. There's a reason for that. Who actually believes that in the past 20+ years in the Guards, SF, and 16AA, any infantry officer could have come through and been clubbable enough to get promoted to CGS without, at a minimum, standing silent while lots of other blokes in those units made (even in private) reams of disparaging remarks about women, lizards, clunge, gays, whatever, and displayed bags of unwoke attitudes which are incompatible with what he describes in that video. Making jokes about slotting an unpopular left-wing politician. We are meant to believe this never happened in his earshot without him giving a moral lecture about how it's contrary to V&S?

Anyone?

Bullshit. It's impossible to imagine to anyone who has known those environments. So he is, flat out, being a hypocrite. That is a massive problem when you are taking a moral stance as a leader. What's worse is he is so transparently unconvincing. He doesn't even sound like HE believes it. That is one problem with this new breed of senior officer hyper-focused on the political and presentational: they are incredibly bad at it. They act as if the only audience that matters is the one above them, or outside the Army. In fact, most of the people listening are their subordinates inside the tent: and to those people the message is completely tone deaf. It's an excrably bad strategy. Every time a senior officer makes a move like this where much of the Army think it is quite likely he/she is being hypocritical, dishonest or politically motivated, it strikes a huge blow to the moral component of the entire Army. It tars the entire leadership cadre and officer corps by association, and thus every decision or order they ever make.

CS would have done vastly better if he had released an honest, personalised video, saying: I've not always been perfect in my career. I've not always lived up to this ideal. Times change. This behaviour is not ok. I've changed. lf this is you, you need to change too. Whatever has happened before, this does not happen from now on. This is your warning shot. There will not be another.

Humility. Pursuit of excellence. Treating your soldiers as people, adults and professionals with a brain, rather than children defined by rank or class. I'm sure I've heard of those ideas somewhere before. Not much of them on display in that video.

Organisations change because real leaders get their hands dirty to make them change. It takes time, effort, inspiration, persuasion, purpose and patience. They don't change because the boss says they have changed, and then gets annoyed a year or two later after finding out that not everyone read the memo. Sad but unsurprising that modern British Army officers chronically don't seem to get this.
A while back I read something from a USMC officer. He said the USMC has the same discipline problems as US society, because it recruits from that society. He said the Corps has had within it's ranks murderers, rapists, thiefs, racists, gang members, and people joining to gain military experience for gang use outside the Corps.
When asked what was being done he said We deal with it the same way society deals with it.

I thought his honesty was refreshing. We seem to prefer to pretend our Forces are above all that sort of thing, then get flustered when something untoward happens.
 
#87
I'm currently serving and not offended by CGS's video. Aside from the unnatural body positioning, which is distracting, I think his message is clear; most sensible people would apply the, 'if the cap fits' approach.

I do wonder if the most recent alleged incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, perhaps there's been an increase in sexual assault incidents involving members of the Armed Forces? Looking at 2018 Court Martial proceedings, there seems to be quite a few, although they do include the other services*.

Back to the OP's question, as others have noted, the civilian population are a fickle bunch when it comes to the Armed Forces, I won't lose any sleep over their opinion of us.

* I haven't done any proper analysis of the 2018 figures or compared it with other years, just a quick scroll through using sexual harrassment, 'guilty' verdicts as baseline (Army).

Court martial results from the military court centres: January to December 2018 - GOV.UK
basic break down

RAF kiddie porn
Matelots drunk and abusing senior ranks
Army AWOL and filling in subordinates
Royal pretty much sticks to the golden rule
 
#88
basic break down

RAF kiddie porn
Matelots drunk and abusing senior ranks
Army AWOL and filling in subordinates
Royal pretty much sticks to the golden rule
A fair bit of of 'battery', though, which given that the legal definition seems to involve a threatening finger close to the chest, means that the drillsquare practices of yesteryear must be much more caring today. I was quite surprised at the number of 'not guilty' decisions; must mean that people aren't doing their homework before sticking their subordinates in front of a CM.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#89
A fair bit of of 'battery', though, which given that the legal definition seems to involve a threatening finger close to the chest, means that the drillsquare practices of yesteryear must be much more caring today. I was quite surprised at the number of 'not guilty' decisions; must mean that people aren't doing their homework before sticking their subordinates in front of a CM.
CM's aren't the doomsday Armageddon solution they used to be, for instance getting a sh1tty OC can end up in a JNCO taking a case all the way to CM knowing that with a good brief the Army doesn't have the brains, balls or legs to stand on when it comes to career mismanagement. This is why I believe the service complaint procedure was introduced. Sadly it doesn't seem to be effective in curtailing some of our so called leaders fantasies about how great they are.
 
#91
Maybe I'm out of date, but I thought the presumption in the British judicial system was innocent until proven, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty. I think people may be jumping the gun a tad.
Where have you been for the last few years? Trial by social media has replaced trial by jury in nearly every case these days, anything and everything posted on FB, Twitter and/or You Tube will be noted and used against you in a court of law.

Welcome to the future.
 
#92
It is difficult for the public to have an opinion about the army as they don't have a clue about the army.

Having said that, it is in general the media that tells the common British public what to think. CGS is probably playing to them rather than caring what people think.
 
#93
Crikey! Some interesting combinations of rank and crime there. Like the Raffles the Gentleman Thief walt - an RN Lieutenant found guilty of theft on 21.11.18.
Mess Do get out of hand?

2nd Lieutenant Army 19 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1 & 2: Disobedience of a lawful command. Ch 4: Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol. Guilty Severe reprimand, œ3,000 fine and forfeit 12 months seniority.

2nd Lieutenant Army 4 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1 & 2: Disbedience of a lawful command. Ch 3: Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol. Guilty Severe reprimand, œ3,000 fine and forfeit 12 months seniority.

Lieutenant Army 4 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1: Disbedience of a lawful command Guilty Severe reprimand and œ3,000 fine.
 
#94
...2nd Lieutenant 19 Regt RA
2nd Lieutenant 4 Regt RA
Lieutenant 4 Regt RA...
Why are junior wooperts getting to Courts Martial - Do the Arty types not have babysitters?
Shouldn't there be a LE Captain somewhere that scares the living shite out sproglette wooperts to behave/not get caught?
 
#95
I wonder whether there was a whiff of something sulphurous and purple...
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#96
Mess Do get out of hand?

2nd Lieutenant Army 19 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1 & 2: Disobedience of a lawful command. Ch 4: Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol. Guilty Severe reprimand, œ3,000 fine and forfeit 12 months seniority.

2nd Lieutenant Army 4 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1 & 2: Disbedience of a lawful command. Ch 3: Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol. Guilty Severe reprimand, œ3,000 fine and forfeit 12 months seniority.

Lieutenant Army 4 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1: Disbedience of a lawful command Guilty Severe reprimand and œ3,000 fine.
Well that's their LSGC out of the window!
 
#99
Not familiar with that one, do go on?
just after the cease fire on the FI, a working party of argie troops were tasked with clearing a ammo dump that was in shit order, during which something was set off, leaving a argie with multipe life ending injures and in serve pain iirc it was also that any attempt to help him has dangerous given the ammo involved, a british snco grabbed a rifle and ended his suffering if irrc both sides accepted the snco action was right and in the best interest of the drying man
 
Mess Do get out of hand?

2nd Lieutenant Army 19 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1 & 2: Disobedience of a lawful command. Ch 4: Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol. Guilty Severe reprimand, œ3,000 fine and forfeit 12 months seniority.

2nd Lieutenant Army 4 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1 & 2: Disbedience of a lawful command. Ch 3: Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol. Guilty Severe reprimand, œ3,000 fine and forfeit 12 months seniority.

Lieutenant Army 4 Regt RA Bulford 23-Nov-18 Ch 1: Disbedience of a lawful command Guilty Severe reprimand and œ3,000 fine.
They are the 3 subbies who went on the piss in Latvia whilst supporting the eFP BG and got "furiously hammered!"

Operation Hammered: drunk British army officers clash with Riga police
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top