Up for a 69?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGS

War Hero
Moderator
#3
I urge caution on this one, chaps!

The vet may be a civvi, but he's a bloody-good-bloke and has lots of friends in the Mess.  
 
#4
I worked with this young officer on operations last year.  She was outstanding at her job.  If we are to throw her out for an affair with an Other Rank, losing such a valuable commodity in the process, can we kindly get rid of those morons who purposefully drink and drive and receive only a Displeasure?  The times they are a-changing, and neolithic ideals about the sanctity of marriage above all else and the dangers of cross rank sex etc are sadly not reflected in the society that we serve.
 
#5
Sounds a good enough response.  The Army bleats on about IiP, management and attempts to band about a modern image.

To dismiss either is surely a waste of resources in both experience and training.  Sadly Victorian values seem to be a thing that will stick with the Forces for a long time.

What would the tabloids report should a 30 yr old shelf stacker suddenly start an intimate relationship with the 23 yr old nubile blonde store manager.  Not a great deal, but I hear somebody shout something to do with the operational effectiveness of the unit.

Of all the alleged scandals reported by the media.  Have they really disrupted operational effectiveness.  I think not.  This individual case does not appear any different.  It is just that it has been sensationalised for effect by the media again.
 

CGS

War Hero
Moderator
#6
Trust me gentlemen, this case is outstanding in its execution!

My caution is urged not just as the operational impact on the unit concerned is actually potentially very real, but more importantly to protect the innocent.

The merits of this case should be considered by those to which the case pertains and the rest of us should just accept it.  We would be doing the girl no service whatsoever by dissecting this any further.  Imagine the thoughts going through her head upon her parents reading the Sun, or the Telegraph!
 
#7
i wonder how long section 69 will last when the human rights lawyers get their teeth into it or the whole army act for that matter.
As to cross mess relationships I feel there should be no difficulties as long as both parties are single and discreet about it. The fact that both paties are married does cause me concern yes it happens in civvy street all the time but this is the army wich does have slightly different values and requirements. Considering what 14 regt does it certainly leaves both parties vulnerable.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
#8
Considering what 14 regt does it certainly leaves both parties vulnerable.
Well, both will have been DV'd, so there will certainly be some fallout there - although, realistically, they're not blackmailable any more and, nowadays, perhaps not during the relationship.

I must confess I laughed at the particular story nurse refers to. That's what you get for allowing lumpy jumpers into close contact with the Royal Corps, can't trust them.... wouldn't have happened in the Good Old Days at Scheuen and Celle, that's for sure (on account of the then single-sex Regiment spent forty weeks or more per annum with at least one component out of camp).

I was EPV/DV for 22 years and don't miss it. While some ASVU etc types were genuinely open-minded and grown-up, there was still a large component in the various successive organisations with some very odd views on society and what was and was not "normal".

As to cross-Mess relationships, colour me old-fashioned. The Army is a hierarchical organisation which people join voluntarily, thus accepting the rules. Cross-Mess relationships in the same unit are a recipe for disaster. One of the parties should be moved if they decide to continue the relationship and they should never serve together.
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
#9
To add insult to injury, the SNCO in question is truly, cataclysmically, ugly and rough, as well. No accounting for tastes, love is blind etc etc
 
#10
There's nothing normal about cross rank relationships at all.  'Wimmin' in the Army have a difficult time justifying to themselves that they are legitimate to command, depsite being made of Adam's rib.  In striking forth cross ranks they get to exercise command at home and at work and it in some way makes up for the penis envy they so frequently suffer.

There are very few wimmin in the Army that don't end up marrying someone else within  the Army.  This is very sad and we only have ourselves to blame by making them think that they are equals at work aswell as at home.  Shame, but we love them not for their ability to command unruly soldiers but to make lemon meringues. ;D
 
#11
G 10 For men! I would love to know how you make an Officer who sleeps with soldiers' spouses a 'Valuable Commodity' Should we have more?

Maybe by having more of them it would make it easier to explain to a young soldier on Operations that his wife is being 'turked' by an Officer at home, but the rest of the Officer Corps are Jolly Good Chaps'?

Sack her.
 

CGS

War Hero
Moderator
#12
Here here.  Well said the Enforcer.

Crypto.
Money.
Rations.
Ammunition.
Another mans wife.

Lets take a leaf out of the Saudi Book....
 
#13
yes I see the logic behind the cross mess relationship thing but it says alot about the orginisation that can't leave their personal lives at the front gate. Yes juniors would be vulnerable to bullying bitching and back stabing but are thease values that should be encouraged in the army. If people are discreet and I could gaurentee that some where in the army a Junior and a Sargent or officer aor any combination of the 3 are discreetly having a relationship with no one the wiser. Is that wrong?
And I think I spefically said it should be ok If the 2 parties concerned are SINGLE. Pad shagging should be stamped on if its officers them required to resign and Junior ranks posted or kicked out.
 

CGS

War Hero
Moderator
#14
Exactly the case here, Nurse.  Trouble is, leaving your personal life at the gates is not really feasable.  Most PAX live all their lives, both social/domestic and work, behind the wire.

The Supermarket manageress scenario doesn't wash here either.  Remember, this is a vocation, not a job!

Anyway, aren't you TA or something?
 
#15
yep been regular to. Nursing is also alledged to be vocational and alot live behind the wire to.
In years of TA service have seen inter mess relationships some have  worked some haven't major problems are when either or both parties are married. In case of PSI's playing away from home one unit I was with posted the regular and discharged to TA.
Have had a relationship between messess and to my knowledge nobody knew till after it was over.
 
#16
OK My View..

1. I know her well.
2. I have met him and I can confirm he is a top bloke ...even for a civvy.
3. She was more than a little naive to think that a whole world of grief was not going to knock on her door when this broke (and it broke some time ago and has only just been reported).  After all the other reports of "Army Golden Girls" F**king Up she knew the consequences.
4. For those of you that believe that the marriage thing isn't worth the worry after all it doesn't matter at Tescos.  Try this for a scenario and operational effectiveness.  "The Wife in Question was on Guard the day she heard about it and shot dead both parties before turning gun on herself...." Nice headlines that luckily in this case didn't happen.... but believe me something similar will have happend before and it will happen again.
5. I believe she'll be discharged ... but what about the SSgt?  Lets look at this he knew exactly what he was doing... First tour troop commander ... all alone in the Balkans... get a grip he was supposed to be looking after her  ... the one that told her the law...  this guy is a disgrace to the Sgts mess and rank aside was the troop commander.... he needs to be shown the door as well ... a totally unprofessional attitude and one that should not be tolerated.  

Only my opinion ...
 
#17
well said Bow man it should not become the norm to have these things happen every time a unit is away on operations and examples should be made
 
#18
I agree with most of Bows sentiments in this matter, but often feel that sometimes we should remind ourselves that we are human (even the cav) and that mistakes however big are seldom planned.
 
#19
Quick call in the moral police.  Don't bring guns into the equation when talking about troops who are highly emotional.  Half the Army wouldn't be able to carry arms if so.

These things happen whether people are married or not.  It is a fact of life, tragic as the circumstances may be, but it should not be a sacking offence.

I'm sure Victorian Dad will have the last say on the issue and waste thousands of pounds in training and sack a valuable asset over a private matter.  That'll help things lots.

Those stuck on the moral high ground will be telling us next that soldiers are not allowed to take drugs.
 
#20
I just want to post a quick health warning before the CO is given cause for concern at RHQ.....we are talking about 2 individuals who are under the public spotlight right now and their activities under scrutiny. At some point they may come under further scrutiny. I am sure if the press haven't yet found this site they soon will. Please note the warning on the home page about taking care about what you post. The papers can quite legitimately quote anything off this site and attribute it to "army sources". I have seen this on another BB where post contents have ended up in the Sun.

Please make sure that any post content doesn't reveal anything that hasn't already been reported or personal to the individuals concerned as it will be moderated and/or edited .

Take care and play nicely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top