Up for another 69?

Happened again hasn't it! (see Telegraph)

Please ladies, stop playing into the hands of all of the narrow minded blokes out there who want to tar you with the same brush.

And seniors.  Stop shagging young officers, married or not.  Yes you have the banter to achieve it, but you know it's wrong.
"...so that's the end of the O Gp (Teehehehe)! Wasn't that fun? Any Questions? No? Good. Off you go then - oh, Sgt Smith - could you stay behind for a second? I'd just like you to run through a few things...like me...oh God - it's so lonely out here on Salisbury Plain...my boyfriend doesn't understand me... he said I only joined the Army for sex and skiing (Yes! The COs sent me to captain the team in 'Val'  next week! 'mazing! It's really wierd - Crispin in C troop's much better than me...) Oooh! Yes! I love your moustache! Is that Blue Stratos you're wearing? EEk! LOOK OUT! It's the Adjt...!No! Bugger you Toby - I've done nothing wrong! It's My Life...who are you to judge me? I don't care if you got an MiD in Kosovo..."

Etc Etc Etc

The day is coming brothers and sisters. Green tracer will focus the minds of the weak...see you all in Iraq this Summer...except for the REMFs rutting in the Div Admin Area, marriage-wrecking...

Ta Ta!

I know both parties in this unfortunate tale having been in OTC with both of them. Regretfully the marriage of two people has ended because of an affair, and knowing the aggrieved as I did some time ago, that will come as a devistating blow.

Realistically this has been going on for as long as there has been an army. Certainly it was the case in WW2, but "needs must and all that" meant a blind eye was turned. The press love a juicy tale of "randiness" and it is no surprise that they reported it. Sadly the only purpose that has served is to deepened the wounds for a number of people, especially as it happened some months ago. The army has to shoulder a share of the blame by having such an inflexible attitude towards complex human relationships. While we all knwo what should and shouldn't be done, if 2 people who are having difficulties in their marriage come toegether there is a high probability that they will engage in some sort of relationship, and no set of rules is going to stop that,  in fact it only makes the affair more exciting. So the question that should be asked is "is it about time that the army looked again at its moral code of conduct?"..not water it down, or diminish it, just look again at how it functions.

Kind of hear what you are saying.  But don't you think that the moral values which set us apart from the rest of society (and at present they do) have been looked at far enough?  In a world where an awful lot of us are away an awful lot of the time, leaving an awful lot of wives behind I don't think that we should change.  There needs to be the reassurance there that it is at least disapproved of.  And indeed those caught transgressing ought to be disciplined.  There needs to be a bit of discouragement does there not.  
But there is a pattern developing is there not?  You don't see (and I obviously don't have all of the facts, but experience tends to suggest) Lt Dave Whatever porks SSgt Mandy Whoever, do you?

It remains unprofessional, whatever, never mind not interfering with the chain of cammand.

But I could be wrong!
Dogmonkey - wise words...perhaps if people concerned themselves more with 'holding the line' and doing the right thin we wouldn't have scenarios such as that in Deepcut last year, with a senior female Captain involved in her 3rd {at least) inappropriate relationship...being continually protected by the spineless chain of command. And yes, I know the people involved there as well - and she's a disgrace.

Woopert - I should stay away from the married patch of my battalion if I were you! And if you're finding the pressure of complex relationships in a high pressure environment a bit demanding, perhaps you're in the wrong job. Or perhaps your compassion is merely clouding your view of the framework we need to keep people supported when they're on operations. Call me a crusty old traditionalist, but I like the idea of people getting kicked hard in the nuts by the system if they start sniffing around the wives/putting out for the troops etc.

Fly-off lever's gone...1...2....3..........
I am quite happy with the notion of discouraging innapropriate relationships where it is the correct thing to do. I know of one case of a Capt who was weeks away from marching out of the front gates for he last time and who had discreetly started seeing a Cpl, who he had stayed a proper distance from until he got his release date, and who had his record marred because he was seperated from his wife and deemed by his CO as still married, even though it was a technicality, and using his rank and authority to co-erce said Cpl. This is hardly an appropriate use of the moral code of conduct given the circumstances. They are now married (to the best of my knowledge) and I cannot see that either had done anything wrong, though it could be argued that the letter of the QRs and code of conduct were broken, the spirit I believe, was not.

I don't have problems with the web of complex human emotions, but I do not see the point of dragging the guilty parties in any such incident of infidelity into the public eye to be yelled "harlot" at. If the relationship is inapropriate in nature then in the first instance a quiet word, if it continues split people up if necessary, but don't stigmatise people as if they were caught stealing the mess silver. The problem as I see it is the Army not recognising this and trying to apply Victorian values to a modern world. While I accept that the armed forces are all the better for nnot being a social experiment, the application of common sense would not go amiss.
Inappropriate relationships should always be discouraged, that's why they are inappropriate.  Take the point about airing dirty washing in the press, but hey, if it don't want airing, don't soil it!  We know the rules and we should always stick by them.  
As for bloke leaving the Army, yes I can sympathise, but surely to make sure they could have kept their OPSEC for slightly longer to be absoultely clear.
Suppose this Cpl and this Captain, counting the days to rolling his first joint since University, are serving in the same unit. Will he grip her if she's late for work/in bad order/fails her BFT? And still have a real relationship after hours?

Suppose the unit gets mobilised before he gets out the gate - he won't be going anywhere unless he wants to be posted as a deserter. And off they go to Twatistan. And her vehicle packet drives into a contact of any description, while he's watchkeeping, and needs to make a dispassionate decision..etc...etc...etc. Its all well and good bleating about 'weal welationships and nasty old bullying Victorian values', but we all take the Queen's shilling, and we all signed up to soldier for Queen and country, no questions asked.

Sad fact of this chap's marriage ending or otherwise, I don't accept that relationships in the workplace are inevitable. If you want to meet a partner, get your arse down to the smoke and meet a real girl - don't sniff around the vehicle park chatting up the little blonde who looks alright in her coveralls. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and standards are standards. The management of these issues (quiet word to nip a problem in the bud to begin with / dirty laundry in public all fine) is another issue, but I've got to say D_M is bang on target. There's too much of this shit going on.Girls, pull your knickers up, leave the Sergeants' Mess alone and concentrate on your bloody job. And boys, if you hump the payroll, you're scum too.

God I'm feeling pompous. I'm off to bully some subbies.


Surely the whole business boils down to a complete inability to understand the army for what it is and being incapable of behaving within the very straightforward guidelines that have been laid down?

Pad shagging is the lowest crime of all and should be treated as such. I cannot think of any other act that immediately lowers the bond of trust within a unit - especially given the amount of time that most of us spend away from home these days.

If a woman can't keep her legs closed and a bloke can't keep his dick in his pants then I have absolutely no problems with them getting publicly humiliated. If there is no official damnation of these activities then they will increase.

Everyone knows what should and shouldn't happen - "complex human relationships" - what utter bollocks. It seems to me that they just weren't morally strong enough to sort their lives out. The people who really dip out in all this are those who are sitting at home having to read the papers to find out who their wife/husband is getting porked by.

Air raid warning RED!!!
Aaaabsolutely right.  Any equivocation is weakness. If I leave my wife behind for 6 months, I want to know that any ****** who sniffs about her will get a shoeing by the system, and she wants to know it'll be the end of me if I start Cpl Comes-Quickly.


I've only just picked up on this topic but it would appear obvious that most cases involve Officers getting involved with Other Ranks.  My comment would be to remind the Officers that one word stands out from Sandhurst and the standards paper and it has nothing to do with effectiveness.  

Integrity of Officers is all important.  This includes all aspects of personal life,  Drink Driving, Finances and Shagging to name but three.  Anyone who does not demonstrate Integrity is not fit to lead soldiers.  So forget the sob stories, press exposure, regimental cover ups et al, if you lack integrity fall on your sword and spare all of us the grief!!


War Hero
If anyone is in any doubt as to the relevance and substance of the Code of Conduct, then read it!

It is clear that some have not.

The rules are not monolithic, but are rigid enough to ensure that those in command are not compromised by matters of the heart (rather than matters of the body and mind, which are much easier trained and conditioned).


Keeping your cocks in your trousers, gentlemen, is the only way forward.  Grown_upsbeware - or whatever his name is had the best diatribe I've seen on the subject for a while.  Girls shouldn't be trying it on with blokes because that never happens in the darkest corners of Germany.  I'm off to the prairie to forget and then Shriv for a bit of UK acclimatisation.  Uk based peeps should be shot for shagging in house.  They can speak English to those they're trying to chat-up down town, for heaven's sake and shouldn't need it off LCpl Admin and her blond highlights.

What about civvie mess-staff.  It's becoming too regular a leisure pursuit for some callsigns in this address group - it's not the end of the world, quite, and even though it no doubt feels so right, I know it is all wrong.


War Hero
The rot seems to have really set it and it seems that the officer ideal is too subjective and can be wiggled out of all too easily with cop out phraseology such as "chain of command" etc.  The standards and values may be an attempt to address this but should also include a section tying ones contract of employment with the standards so that a breach can be actioned by dismissal from the service.  

Whilst I know that the old and bold would find this suggestion abhorrent and everyone else would refuse to limit themselves in such a way I propose every officer cadet should sign such an agreement at Sandhurst; including ones shagging their CSgts!
Look at all the leaders of the world and this country. If it is good enough for them then hey -

But seriously, we all know people that have been there.  Would you want to see them sacked for a few moments of indiscretion (other than the w*****s of course)? We also know what goes on behind closed door in the mess.  I am not advocating liaisons across the ranks, nor am I advocating liaisons between pads,  but it happens.- Don't let us lose the Montgomery's and Nelsons of the world just cause they could not control their animal lusts.

Many great leaders have a less that angelic outlook on life and many bend those social rules.