PDA

View Full Version : Drunken Soldiers Fined for Causing Panic on Plane


Airbubba
6th Dec 2003, 07:17
From the boyz will be boyz department:

Drunken Soldiers Fined for Causing Panic on Plane

By John-Paul Ford Rojas, PA News

Five soldiers who caused panic on a packed passenger aircraft with their drunken and rowdy behaviour were each fined sums ranging from £1,200 to £1,500 today.

They were in a group of 18 soldiers heading back to Newcastle Airport from Belfast in November last year.

Their antics included shouting, abusive language and touching the bottom of a young air hostess, Newcastle Crown Court heard.

The pilot of the British European flight had to radio for police to meet the men when it landed and some of the soldiers reacted violently as they were arrested.

Judge Beatrice Bolton said: “This is reminiscent of a school bus where the children don’t know better. The behaviour is far below what could be expected from adults, especially adults who are serving in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”

John Adams, Neil Ambler, Glen Vickers, Michael Brierly and Paul Wright all pleaded guilty at earlier hearings to being drunk on board the aircraft.

The five, from the first battalion of the Coldstream Guards, based at Aldershot, were going on home leave to north-east England after service in Northern Ireland.

Vickers, 35, of Keasdon Close, Berwick Hills, Middlesbrough, a staff sergeant and the senior officer among the group, was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £150 costs.

Ambler, 26, of Emmerdale Close, Penshaw, County Durham and Brierly, also 26, of Strawberry Gardens, Wallsend, North Tyneside were each fined £1,200 and ordered to pay costs of £300.

Adams, 24, of Alnwick Square, Sunderland and Wright, also 24, of Orpington Avenue, Newcastle, were both fined £1,200 each and ordered to pay £150 costs.

Handing down the fines the judge said: “You are each a member of the same platoon and what you did was to let your commanding officer down, let your battalion down, let your regiment down, and let the Army down.

“Instead of protecting the civilian population you intimidated them. Instead of being courteous to the civilian population you were rude and vulgar.

“Instead of giving them a sense of security you can imagine those on the plane felt a sense of panic.”

She added: “I hope each and every one of you are more than sorry for the disgrace that you wrought upon your regiment and for the sense of disturbance and disquiet that you caused those of us who pay your wages.”

The men had been drinking heavily before boarding the 50-seater de Havilland dash-8 aircraft which was carrying 48 passengers.

Robin Patton, prosecuting, had told the court that almost as soon as the doors were closed on the aircraft it had become clear they were in a “boisterous” mood.

Two young female cabin crew who became the subject of their abuse first noticed their behaviour when shouting interrupted the safety demonstration as the plane was about to take off.

Mr Patton said one woman who was sitting alongside the soldiers had described how they used “foul language” throughout the flight, leaving her feeling intimidated.

He said that by the end of the flight she was “hysterical“.

The court also heard how the men rushed around the plane and swore and became abusive when confronted about their actions. Many of the women on board were in tears.

An Army officer told the judge that each of the men would be disciplined internally and barred from promotion for two years.

The judge said this was not a case of “air rage” as it had not involved violence towards other passengers or members of the cabin crew or damage to the aeroplane.

She told the men: “Whilst despicable that sort of behaviour can be distinguished from the sort of behaviour which is called air rage and always merits a custodial sentence.”

http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2264624

luoto
6th Dec 2003, 17:57
Expect to see this in The Sun, talking about the shame "Our Boys" have brought on the Nation. Not.

Timothy
6th Dec 2003, 18:07
There is a line of argument that says that if you recruit a bunch of young men especially for their courage and aggression, what can you expect?

W

one dot right
6th Dec 2003, 18:17
If you recruit a bunch of young men especially for their courag an agression what can you expect?

Well,presumably these "courageous" young heroes could have their transport provided by the Army as they are clearly unfit to travel with the public.:yuk:

Meeb
6th Dec 2003, 19:03
The men had been drinking heavily before boarding the 50-seater de Havilland dash-8 aircraft which was carrying 48 passengers.

flybe (British European as was) should be brought to book as to why these idiots were allowed to board in the first place. Very very poor flybe, putting your cabin crew in this bad situation, shudder to think what might have happened on a relatively small aeroplane.

WCollins, don't be such a prat.

Chickfeed
6th Dec 2003, 19:10
"And it's Tommy this and Tommy that and Tommy go to war but when the gun's fall silent then there's no room for you no more" you self riteous hypocrits make me sick, I'd like to see some of our pampered bretheren face the pressures of a 4 or 6 month emergency tour in Ulster or anywhere else for that matter. They behaved badly and they will be punished, far more heavilly than their civillian counterparts would have been you may be sure of that whilst the streets abound with loutish behaviour that goes unheeded, Rudyard you were right and the British public doesn't deserve it's armed forces.

Howard Darby
6th Dec 2003, 19:54
MEEB; itsnot quite that simple. Ground staff maynot inform the crew pror to boardingwhether a passenger or passengers is in fit state to travel on an aircraft due to alcohol. On the other hand a dispatcher may inform the Captain that a pax has had a few to drink, but should be alright to travel, thereby negating his responsibility and placing it firmly on the Captains shoulders. When the Capt refuses to allow the pax on board there is a look of disbelief.
I know of a colleague of mind who's departure was delayed for several hours due to weather, meanwhile a rugby team had been drinking heavily in the bar filling in time. Whilst in the bar they were rowdy, abusive, etc and were escorted to the departure gate by the police, at no time were the crew informed and it was only when they were being boarded it became evident there was a problem!

Final 3 Greens
6th Dec 2003, 20:43
Chickfeed
Rudyard you were right and the British public doesn't deserve it's armed forces

I think you have a good argument here, but have chosen the most inappropriate circumstances for making it.

Your quotation from 'Tommy' interesting, so here's a link to this most wonderful poem for those who have yet to experience it http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Kipling/Tommy.htm

There is a line of argument that says that if you recruit a bunch of young men especially for their courage and aggression, what can you expect?

Discipline, when flying as pax on commercial flights. I have the greatest of respect for our armed forces and they are generally very professional in my experience.

pipersg
6th Dec 2003, 23:00
Vickers, 35, of Keasdon Close, Berwick Hills, Middlesbrough, a staff sergeant and the senior officer among the group, was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £150 costs.

First of all, there are no Staff Sergeants in Infantry Regiments such as the Coldstream Guards, they are Colour Sergeants.

Secondly, these soldiers were dropped off at the airport at least 8 hours in advance of their departure after having been on operations for quite some time, stress relief is the word that springs to mind. While their behaviour was clearly unacceptable I think this piece of one dot right's mind shows that he is in particular need of a good slapping.

Well,presumably these "courageous" young heroes could have their transport provided by the Army as they are clearly unfit to travel with the public.

What did the Army official who decided it would be a good idea to leave these guys in a poxy little airport with little else to do for eight hours but visit the bar think was going to happen?

Once again the full story is never told and people make ill informed deductions.

They behaved badly and they will be punished, far more heavilly than their civillian counterparts would have been you may be sure of that whilst the streets abound with loutish behaviour that goes unheeded, Rudyard you were right and the British public doesn't deserve it's armed forces.

Yes, you can rest assured that these men will and have been punished far far more severely than any civilian ever would be. We used to be proud of our armed forces in this country, these boys scre**d up and it has been dealt with. End of story.

Chickfeed
6th Dec 2003, 23:02
Thanks for the quote correction, I know the poem well, but , with Kipling's forebearance, I hope, I was paraphrasing, to convey the essence of the work, we're quite happy to have the crude licencious soldiery fight our wars for us, die for us and guarentee our freedom for us, but perish the thought that me might actually have to associate with them, dear me no. Having said that I was dissappointed by their behavior, but I'd rather have a soldier fighting for me than an angel.

Final 3 Greens
7th Dec 2003, 15:17
Chickfeed

I tend to agree with your thesis and some might also say that lack of boots in the gulf, jamming rifles, gulf war syndrome problems etc all point to our forces being poorly supported by those relying on their intervention.

luoto
7th Dec 2003, 15:32
Perhaps our politicians need to be blamed then? Regardless of politics, I think more people are supportive of our forces in a defensive capacity protecting British interests. But some of the conflicts in more recent times are hardly strongly supporting British interests arguably. (Rather than British politician interests).

But as I understand it the money IS there. It is just wrongly spent by the penpushers.

TightSlot
8th Dec 2003, 00:41
I don't see that this matter is as complicated, or laden with hidden meaning as some may think:

1. They behaved stupidly, and illegally and now have to deal with the consequences. They have been punished comprehensively.

2. Whilst the armed forces are due a generous degree of latitude, an aircraft cabin in flight is one of the places where this kind of behaviour in not tolerable ever, by anybody. It is not the same situation as being in a pub, street or other public area.

3. Members of the Armed Forces have a responsibility to protect all members of society, at all times, and not to frighten or intimidate them. If this responsibility proves an excessive burden, then that individual may not be suitable for the role.

4. This kind of incident is unfortunate, but happens from time to time: It has now been dealt with so we move on.

I don't accept the analogy with Kipling in this thread. I don't believe that his work condones this incident, or is relevant to it.

Final 3 Greens
8th Dec 2003, 02:25
Tight Slot

Kipling, who understood the unique relationship between the military and public more than most, was commenting on the duplicity of the non military in both relying on and despising the army in parallel.

Chickfeed's quotation of Kipling was in my opinion quite relevant in the context he made and I am surprised that you would contest this.

In the Flybe incident, criminal offences were committed and dealt with, but the underlying tensions about how we relate to our soldiders still remains and Chickfeed thought s/he heard echoes in the thread - the citation was therefore legitimate and also thought provoking.

TightSlot
8th Dec 2003, 03:52
F3G Ok, well I just reread my post, and was maybe a little brusque - I'm not looking for a fight on this, but just for academic interest -
...was commenting on the duplicity of the non military in both relying on and despising the army in parallel...
I don't think that this incident relates to anybody despising the military. It does relate to despising a group of drunks who intimidated people and were convicted of doing so in law. The Kipling verse relates to a more generic, institutionalised discrimination against forces personnel, historically barred from some venues and taking part in some activities: This kind of discrimination is morally unacceptable, and not permitted in law in modern times.

Chickfeed is entitled to draw the parallel (although I would disagree with it) but is on less certain ground in his/her assertion that
...the British public doesn't deserve its' armed forces...
The Armed Forces are the British Public - they are one and the same. The British Public does deserve the right to travel on an aircraft without being frightened by drunken soldiers. I have worked (in the cabin) frequently with all 3 services, terriers, medics, movers et al. I have the highest possible respect for them (war & peace times) and have found them to behave impeccably on all occasions. I recognise that they do a difficult and dangerous job well, and deserve my support - and they get it. That said, if they get pissed and scare the s**t out of folks in an aircraft, then I view this as absolutely unacceptable (and not typical). Apparently, the law agrees.

Just to emphasise - not looking for a punch up on this - I just think that Kipling was talking about a problem that is not relevant to this specific incident.

Over 2 U !:D

Final 3 Greens
8th Dec 2003, 14:52
Tight Slot

Not looking for an argument either ;)

I read Chickfeed's post as reacting to another post(s) rather than this specific incident.

There's no argument about the public's right to travel without drunken interference nor your right to do your job without being the object of such behaviour either.

I'm not an apologist for this type of behaviour and it was judged to be criminal by a court.