Two-Can Rule in Bosnia. WTF?

Discussion in 'RLC' started by ScranSpanner, Jun 12, 2005.

?
  1. Yes! It is a practical method of controlling alcohol.

    55.6%
  2. No! It causes more harm then good.

    44.4%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The two-can rule seems to cause more trouble than it saves.

    Does it stop people drinking? NO. Is it costly to manage? YES. Does it prevent drink-related incidents? NO. And so on.....

    It is typical of the "two-can mentality" that applies to many other things than just drink.

    Recently, a group of R SIGS guys were charged for drinking in their CoRiMec. If they had had 5 or 6 cans in the JRs bar, would they have locked themselves in their room to have a small p1ss up? I think no. The chain of command created it's own problem here. Admittedly, you can't prevent the Jocks from smashing things up with fire extinguishers, two-can rule or not.....

    What other "two-can" things are happening around the world, and how can we put a stop to it?
     
  2. There is a good reason for the two can rule and that is operational effectiveness. If you limit people to two cans they will always drink more and many units wont have any practical restrictions but if they have 4 or 5 they will still be able to do their job in the morning but if they have 6 or 8 they may well be a bit rough and wont be focused on the task in hand fully. It will be obvious they have drunk too much. The boredom on tour often causes soldiers to drink excessively so again a good way of looking out for the troops welfare. Don’t get me wrong I like a good drink the same as the next man and on tour have broken the rule countless times but not kicked the arse right out of it rendering me unfit for work the next day and that is ultimately what is being limited.

    On tours I have been on where there has been no alcohol or a strict 2 can rule it has been for good reason such as you could be realistically crashed out at a moments notice.

    Dave
     
  3. Posted twice.
    Doh!!
    To much ale last night

    Dave :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  4. General Melchett

    General Melchett LE Moderator

    As DD says on operational tour everyone may be required to be crashed out at anytime. For this reason alone the 2 can rule should be enforced.

    I know tours can cause boredom to set in, but excessive drinking is not the answer. If soldiers cannot keep to a 2 can rule. Breaking the 2 can rule shows a lack of self dicipline in the soldiers and moral fibre in their superiors for not enforcing it. Would you rather be like the US and have a no alcohol policy?

    Were you one of the guys caught in the CoRiMec? Feeling a little bitter?
     
  5. It is very easy to rattle on about moral fibre, self discipline and leadership but a few factors should be taken into consideration:

    1. Alcohol is being purchased off-site and smuggled back into camp. The chain of comd cannot stop this, despite snap searches and any other inspection measures, SOIs, and other orders or guidelines.
    2. Alcohol is being consumed in accommodation blocks, despite measures to the contrary.
    3. The 2 can rule is administered by the costly use of manpower and stationery to produce all the beer cards, RP patrols, administration and so on.
    4. Service personnel are permitted to consume alcohol during visits to local restaurants (with the same conditions as "on camp") where drinking is usually regulated by the senior member of the group. There have been times when personnel have returned to camp having consumed more than the equivalent of 2 cans.... (Civvies and multi national personnel too.)

    So. Why not rescind the 2 can rule, which is ineffective anyway, and bring on-camp drinking into the open (the Jr Ranks club) where it can be controlled more effectively by the overt presence of the RP staff and duty personnel?

    If alcohol is likely to cause operational ineffectiveness, then those personnel are dry (which has happened to certain people by choice or by imposition.)

    Also, deal with people that break the rules properly (i.e. AGAI 67) rather than the wishy-washy "disciplinary action may be taken...."

    For the record, I was not caught in the CoRiMec, nor feeling bitter. Just questioning why we do business this way, which is based on the desire for intellectual debate rather than feeling grumpy about drinking habits being restricted. Just because something is in place doesn't make it right. Having a 2 can policy has not eliminated our booze problems - just made them harder to find by having driven them 'underground'.
     
  6. On a Telic tour it came to my attention that the Brits were the only army in theatre allowed any alchohlol at all.

    We don't seem to be the worst army over there so I don't see any reason for the prohibitionist w*nkers to get out of their box about.

    (even the aussies I met in Kuwait wouldn't drink because of the draconian penalties)
     
  7. ignoring the two can rule is a squaddies job, but in moderation - Boz '96 a young lad shot himself through the jaw cuddling his rifle inside his sleeping bag after a session on the Pivo.

    You work it out
     
  8. Booze is allowed on TELIC???
     
  9. That's why the bulk EFI is there!

    I have been back for a year though so the office of the bottom inspectorate may have changed it.

    When I opened an account at the bulk EFI in my regiments name I was informed that we would be limited to 1300 cans per day because of the two can rule. Our little faces lit up as there were only ten of us there.
     
  10. Two shot themselves in the brain-box whilst stone cold sober in Boz '96 too BTW...

    There was a strict two can rule in HQ 3 Div - two jerry-cans per man and the last man standing had a night cap with the Prince of Darkness! Thank the lord for RC padres! 1 (UK) Armd Div under Praisethelordbarebones Kiszely were slightly more puritanical..but only when the GOC was in residence! At other times the "if you only drink two cans you're a poof" rule came into being...
     
  11. The two can rule is an excellent management tool. But what is its objective ? Every young officer needs a good tour under his belt for reporting purposes, ie an op tour with no accidents etc, When the troops drink they get outside of the control of the officers, and therefore may act in a manner that could adversely effect the officers reporting period. Therefore they are not allowed to drink more than two cans.
    Discuss
     
  12. Surley two cans is better than no cans! If your that way inclined. :p
     
  13. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    And this is the point....
     
  14. "The two can rule is an excellent management tool. But what is its objective ? Every young officer needs a good tour under his belt for reporting purposes, ie an op tour with no accidents etc, When the troops drink they get outside of the control of the officers, and therefore may act in a manner that could adversely effect the officers reporting period. Therefore they are not allowed to drink more than two cans.

    Discuss"

    This is an interesting viewpoint, but only because it tells me more about you than the practicalities of the argument. So what?:

    1. How can it be an excellent management tool if you don't even know what the objective is?

    2. A good tour is neither here nor there "for reporting purposes". One can achieve an excellent grade without ever having set foot outside of the camp gates.

    3. If soldiers decide to get drunk, how could that possibly adversely affect an officer's report? (Unless the subject officer was the ringleader....)

    4. If a soldier decides to get drunk, he is not "outside of the control" of anyone in the chain of command. He is merely insubordinate, and can be dealt with, if not by reason, then by force. (Call RMP/RP staff etc...)

    Let's call the 2 can rule a management tool then. We have it, but it is not effective. We know this because of the prevalent "offences" that continue to contravene it. So why do we have it? The question that I am asking here is, if the majority of respondants to this poll think it is so effective but in reality it isn't, why don't we impose some other measure that WILL be effective? Is the 2 can rule the answer? If you go to Sarajevo, where no 2 can rule exists, do you observe a riot of drunken behaviour? Well, no is the answer to that. Admittedly, they do have the odd incident but no more than normal. In practice the imposition of such a rule is proved to be worthless at this time, and in this location.

    I agree that the consumption of alcohol should be controlled, it's just that the 2 can rule is not the way to do it. All we do is drive the problem out of sight. Soldiers WILL get drink into camp somehow. They WILL find places to consume it away from prying eyes. Why shouldn't we be able to bring the problem into the open where we can see it and manage it properly?
     
  15. Let's just remember that ScranSpanner is in Bosnia......There was a 2 can rule there 10 years ago.....What good is it doing now? I'll tell you what good it's doing; taking away the ability of the strict minority to have a few (more than 2) beers without kicking the ARRSE out of it.

    There will always be a small cadre of people who want to get sh*t faced and ruin the experience for the others. Even if the 2 can rule exists it is certain that it will always be broken.

    I remember a very well know Senior Officer drinking with the USA CIA embeds with 19x in Iraq on TELIC 2 who was so s*hit faced that a couple of Cpls had to put him to bed.........there's a 2 can rule for you!

    Regards,

    Gen M