I'd be extremely surprised if collective restrictions were introduced as the result of a single occurrence. There's more likely to have been a few, and there's only so many alcohol-related incidents (with the attendant reputational damage) that a commander can tolerate before his or her grip comes into question. Units with the best disciplinary records tend to be self-policing and collective restrictions are one way of incentivising development of such a culture. Repeatedly punishing individuals has its limitations on operational detachments: sending them home means that someone else has to deploy at short notice; disciplining them in-situ shoulders the detachment with the management burden and possible safety risk of a disgruntled idiot; and extending their tour simply lengthens that burden. It is far preferable to prevent such incidents, and until the military can find a way of filling 100% of its ranks with mature individuals* such as AUTHENTICATE, TOFO and VinRouge, the best way of doing that is to get idiots' mates to deal with the issue at source: whether that's telling them to stop drinking, escorting them back to the block, or even ensuring that it's the military (rather than local) police that pick them up. If a short period of restrictions successfully reminds everyone of that responsibility then it's a justifiable command decision, and leaders at every rank have a responsibility to 'suck it up' to help create the collective peer pressure that keeps the idiots in line. Simple as that. As for barrack room lawyers spouting BS about 'unlawful detention'... I presume you also think that orders not to visit certain locations when off-duty are an infringement of your personal liberty?
* My emphasis is intended as a criticism. If you want to be treated as an individual citizen with all the rights due to you under civil law then it's very simple. Be a civilian.
Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Jul 2018 at 11:50.