Time for the Army to grow up?

#1
Or should a condition of service as an Officer in Para Reg be Chemical Castration?

Two stories have appeared in the papers this week-end; one regarding the resignation of Brig Wilson resigning as he explained he had an affair http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=473253&in_page_id=1770 and another of the shock horror incident in the Falklands where a Para Reg officer Captain M King was RTU'd for shagging the female RN officer. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007320187,00.html

Just call me old fashioned but isn't there something a little giggling schoolboy about this continual obsession with the whereabouts and activities of other peoples genitals?

Or, is the Army so flush with experienced leaders that it can casually throw them on the slag heap?
 
#2
If there wasn't a pack of rabid journalists trying to dig up whatever trash they can find, there wouldn't be half this problem, as it would be handled in house.
 
#3
Why does it matter that a couple of adults had sex? They're not even in the same bloody service, they've got zero chance of impacting on ops or op effectiveness, it really shouldn't have been an issue. Bloody Newton-Dung...
 
#4
I have always wondered why these things are considered an issue. I think we should sack someone for being rubbish but not for having a life outside of the MOD.

There are very few circumstances where this type of thing actually damages the forces...
 
#5
OK the Falklands article is the usual muck raking but him being RTU'd and her sacked from her ADC Job, by Prince Andrew FFS! He who was all over the Sundays groping female arses.
But what did the Governer get so po faced about as we all know morals are not high on the Agenda of the Falkland Islands or the Foreign Office.

AS for the Brigadier that is just a pitiful waste, unless of course there is more to it than meets the eye.
 
#6
hellfyyr said:
I have always wondered why these things are considered an issue. I think we should sack someone for being rubbish but not for having a life outside of the MOD.
I'm not sure Revd Dannatt would agree...
 
#7
Regardless of whether Army V & S are realistic and require reassessment, both cases indicate flawed judgement, although to different degrees.

The Brig was disingenuous on a variety of fronts, hardly one of the required attributes of any officer, let alone a 1*.

As for the two junior officers - their stupidity, insensitivity and rudeness meant it was impossible to keep them in post.

PAW
 
#8
hellfyyr said:
I think we should sack someone for being rubbish
HA HA HA, that's the funniest thing I have heard in ages.

msr
 
#9
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Regardless of whether Army V & S are realistic and require reassessment, both cases indicate flawed judgement, although to different degrees.

The Brig was disingenuous on a variety of fronts, hardly one of the required attributes of any officer, let alone a 1*.

As for the two junior officers - their stupidity, insensitivity and rudeness meant it was impossible to keep them in post.

PAW
It's the dual standard that makes me laugh. Half the bloody forces are at it but suddenly the are all puritans if the activities of one breaks the surface, Althiugh I agree with you to a degree it is the hypocrisy that makes me chuckle or do you truly believe that members of the services are really different to the rest of the human race?

Having been involved in investigations into both types of incident I know how obsessive the Army is on such matters especially as reading reports on the subject is the only was that a number of G1 Officers of my aquaintance would ever be capable of achieving an erection.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
western said:
casually throw them on the slag heap?
Isn't that the problem they had in the first place :D
 
#11
Hmmm.

The loss of Gibbo is, from the very little I know of him, a very sad one for the Army.

Whilst the 'Values & Standards' side of things is pretty clear about adultery, it does seem a little bit of farce for the Armed Forces to be the sole defenders of the sanctity of marriage vows, which most of the rest of the population now treat with the same flexibility as they apply to changing their mortage provider or car insurance.

He (presumably) deceived his wife in a matter of the heart/loins. Does this mean he has suddenly become untrustworthy in his profession? And, if so, why does that not apply to lawyers, judges, policemen, politicians etc etc? Unless, of course, there is more to it than that as Western says (eg a Chain of Command issue for instance).
 
#12
western said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Regardless of whether Army V & S are realistic and require reassessment, both cases indicate flawed judgement, although to different degrees.

The Brig was disingenuous on a variety of fronts, hardly one of the required attributes of any officer, let alone a 1*.

As for the two junior officers - their stupidity, insensitivity and rudeness meant it was impossible to keep them in post.

PAW
It's the dual standard that makes me laugh. Half the bloody forces are at it but suddenly the are all puritans if the activities of one breaks the surface, Althiugh I agree with you to a degree it is the hypocrisy that makes me chuckle or do you truly believe that members of the services are really different to the rest of the human race?
W,

No, which is why I caveated my post, and your point regarding dual standards is certainly valid.

Presumably, these officers also had double standards - on the one hand they were, it is reasonable to assume, busy upholding those elms of mil discipline and order that they agreed with, whilst on the other hand conveniently ignoring those that they did not.

Most of us have skeletons in the closet, and pray that they remain there - on those odd occasions when they do emerge, however, it's only right to accept the consequences of ones actions, however unpalatable and unfair that may seem.

PAW
 
#13
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Presumably, these officers also had double standards - on the one hand they were, it is reasonable to assume, busy upholding those elms of mil discipline and order that they agreed with, whilst on the other hand conveniently ignoring those that they did not.
So rather like Cabinet Ministers and drugs then...

msr
 
#14
PAW, I totally agree with your position given the current military regime which is obsessed with the sexual activities of others. The only thing that makes these activities 'wrong' in the military context is the Army has set a rule making it so. I recall that homosexual activity was once viewed in this light as was gender realignement.

So change the rules and the problem goes away the Army did not disintegrate because it allowed homosexuals and lesbians to stay in and their contribution to the system is as it always was as they have always been there. I served in one post where there was a large amount of 'Unnatural Conduct Enquiries' all of which resulted in the discharge of those involved and all of which were processed by a lesbian officer. Her sexuality was well known in the Brigade and had been subject of an official complaint.

I also served with a number of people who were on their third marriages, what happened there did their other wives evaporate?
 
#15
look if we got a chance of a bit of nooky on the side, most of us would take it. So why jump down these people throats for doing what we would do. Now there are a different set of rules when you are in the forces and you know if you get caught then you have to face the music. I think why it was widely reported the lass in Falklands was one of the Royal Aides
 
#16
Maybe they were both married? Inappropriate behaviour indeed, but worthy of sacking?

Maybe they both denied it happening and so were tripped up by the integrity question?

Maybe, as the article implies, it was a security issue - no-one is allowed within 100ft of Edward unless cleared and Monsieur King was not?

Shouldn't be in the press though and how does a journo find out about such like without being tipped off by an "insider"?
 
#17
W.Anchor said:
look if we got a chance of a bit of nooky on the side, most of us would take it. So why jump down these people throats for doing what we would do.
Speak for yourself!
 
#18
I read all these posts on why should their sexual conduct have any bearing on their military career which I find quite surprising when one recalls that recently their was a case mentioned on the Gunner forum of a WO2 having a fling with a soldiers wife and the ionly punishment not proposed was hanging. Double standars?
 
#19
Please tell me Craftsmanx that you are not so fúcking stupid that you cannot see the difference?

One case is two officers from 2 different Services banging each other. The one you quote is a person abusing his rank and destroying respect for his rank and having an adverse affect on a unit's morale and cohesion, thus affecting its fighting ability.

Or is it still beyond your wit?
 
#20
Got there before me Dread.

As I said earlier, if two people in two different services have a fling, it really won't impact upon performance. THe case quoted by yourself, craftsmanx, is completely different.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top