jango999
26th Feb 2006, 17:51
Hi Thought I would mark my fisrt post with this topic to see what the view is from the blue side of life.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/02/good_military_o.html#more
Good Military Order and Discipline?
I have decided to hand this post over to a soldier who wrote to me following my previous post, and last week's Sunday Times article, raising questions over the role of officers in some of cases of alleged wrongdoing in Iraq. This soldier wants to highlight the way in which good servicemen and women with excellent confidential reports can find their lives and careers destroyed when someone above them takes against them - and the victims can themselves be officers of course. It is not a problem that just affects the lower ranks.
This is something that happens in "civvy street" too of course but the difference is that superior officers have immense power over someone in the armed forces that would not be possible in civilian jobs and so the effect is that much greater. Don't get me, or this anonymous soldier, wrong. The disciplinary powers available within the forces are absolutely vital to what is known in the forces' jargon as "good military order and discipline", particularly during military operations, but the ability to abuse those powers can be devastating.
When I was on the Daily Telegraph I covered a number of such cases, most notably the case of a paratrooper called Paul Biddis. That was an horrific case and it is unlikely to go away. I understand that his wife Debbie is now writing a book on the incidents that led to their son Chandler becoming disabled. MPs on the Commons committee looking at the Armed Services Bill currently before Parliament could do worse than ask to be able to interview Debbie or even Biddis himself about his experiences in the army's internal appeals process, which is now known as Redress of Complaint - I seem to remember it was redress of grievance in my day. The problems with that system are addressed here by a soldier who not only has experience with his own redress process but has helped others pursue their complaints as well - the sort of role that the Armed Forces Federation recently mooted on the Army website ARRSE might usefully perform. Here is the soldier's article:
Army Redress Problems
"Over the past few weeks I have seen and discussed much on the pros and cons of an Armed Forces federation. Many aspects of service life were discussed at length in the Mess. Kit shortages, scoff (food), their terms of service. One point that would be raised from a few who dared was the fairness of the internal Army complaints system known as “redress” but just raising the issue in the mess, made some feel uncomfortable.
"Having helped a number of soldiers put in their redress and myself having been on the wrong end of a redress - and when I say wrong end I mean daring to complain against an Officer – I can see one of the arguments as to why an Armed Forces Federation might be effective.
"For a so-called modern Army, we have some antiquated working practices. A few years ago, soldiers would have been to scared to have even considered submitting a redress. Nobody believed it was worth the effort. The system would never rule against itself, so what was the point? If they did put in a redress, they would be actively hounded. No way would a commanding officer (CO) allow for it on his watch and regimental, or company sergeant-majors would have taken great joy in making sure that the soldier “changed his mind”. The same still happens today but in a more sinister and clandestine way.
"I have seen soldiers who have made a complaint see their own promising career cut dead as a result. Some officers would accuse the soldier making the complaint of trying to ruin the accused officer's career. Often of course the officer accused of bullying would be a friend of the CO, and even if he or she was not, the fact that such bullying takes place would reflect badly on the CO himself. Some in the chain of command would try to dismiss it as some sort of weakness on the soldier’s part, and the bully would try to charm everyone else, and threaten/bribe the soldier to drop his complaint. We who saw it happen could not say much or we would suffer the same fate. Some who were wise saw a mobbing culture brewing from the start and steered well clear. The company commander and company sergeant-major would get others to join in the destruction of the soldier’s credibility and mentally bully him into submission.
"There is often disbelief by senior officers that someone they know, went to Sandhurst with, worked on a ward with, drink in the Mess with, is capable of bullying. There is also the fact that when bullies are finally exposed their superiors often feel foolish because they are in a double bind - if they knew what was happening why didn't they take action; if they didn't, why not. "Crap. Let’s try to bury this before its get to a higher level, or my job will be on the line too for not having control of my subordinates."
"Later, I was the victim of such tactics and it opens your eyes when Officers blatantly lie to hide their mistakes. Quite a rude awakening for me. Before I raised my complaint, I never got less than an “A” grade annual report. Suddenly my grade dropped, all because I decided to intervene against bullying in the ranks. I complained that the officer in charge did nothing to resolve the problem when he could have. I was perceived as the guilty party, trying to squirm whilst the poor, innocent officer was to be believed at every turn.
"I learnt over time that the system has inherently sought to protect the officer against the complaint is made and the length of the redress process is deliberately spun out and the guide lines abused. You also learn who your real friends are. I witnessed first hand the mobbing culture, and the soldiers who steered clear of anyone who put their head above the parapet so as to protect their career. I was married and even my wife and kids were treated like lepers.
"The consequence of this seems to be that the redressee seems to get away with it, while the redresser is still battling against a buggered career and reputation years after. The officer would carry on, get promoted and later be given his own regiment and even join the staff.
"The main flaw in the system was that you were unable to see what was being reported up the chain about you, and defend yourself against it, until your complaint had gone through three levels of investigation, within the unit and at higher levels, a period that could extend to as much as three years.
"Regardless of your previous good record, the chain of command would seek to protect itself by painting you in a very bad light to the point of making false statements about you. This would then be contained in the brief to the Army Board as fact. You would then have a chance to comment on the brief, but the case officer would pay lip service to what you said in your own defence and mostly ignore what you have to say even when you could prove the brief wrong. You would find out only then, that people you had mentioned as witnesses were never interviewed and what hope would a soldier have of paying for independent legal advice when the redress was dragged out so long?
"I have personally helped a number of soldiers with a redress over the years since my complaint. I have seen a change in the way the redress is managed in the past year. But still the guide lines contained in AGAI 70 (the redress guide) are abused by the officers in charge. If such abuse occurs there are no guide lines or points of contact in AGAI 70 for the soldier to appeal to. The Chief of Defence Staff and others constantly argue that soldier has a confidential support telephone line. However the support line cannot actively get involved. Officers in the soldier’s chain of command still try it on, repeatedly telling the soldier that he has no chance, “you cannot beat the system, just take it on the chin.”
"Some will shout from the roof tops that the army can keep its own house in order, but more of these stories keep coming out. Officers forging documents or covering up bullying is the norm in today's press. Some in the military community accuse the press of only putting one side of a story or distorting the facts against the Army, but from my experience some of the reporting against complainants made by officers from the parent unit to the Army Appeals Wing in Glasgow could put the most vindictive in Fleet Street to shame.
"During the last Comprehensive Attitude Survey it was stated that only 10% of soldiers surveyed had complained about bullying. But 85% of soldiers asked believed bullying did exist. The reasons for this apparent disparity are clear when soldiers are asked why they did not complain about ill treatment. The survey found that 31% believed such a step might adversely affect their career, 34% thought that it would cause problems in their workplace and 33% did not believe that anything would be done if they did complained.
"Why do soldiers feel that nothing would be done or it would affect their career? The Attorney General said there was evidence which could be taken to show a concerted attempt by the chain of command to influence and prevent an investigation into the death of Sgt Roberts. This was of course far more serious than a redress but if true it shows how officers are willing to abuse the system when it suits their purposes.
"There is still a prehistoric attitude towards internal complaints, particularly when its about bullying within the military. The CDS’s gut reaction to the federation last week and what he perceived it would stand for, did not surprise me in the slightest. He can argue that the existence of such bodies will be to the detriment of the organisation as a whole. That may be so, but the organisation only has itself to blame when it comes to problems with recruitment, retention, trust and, more importantly, loyalty in the ranks."
An Anonymous Soldier
*If anyone can provide me to a link to the actual survey I will post it, Mick
Posted on February 24, 2006 at 02:37 PM in British Army | Permalink
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2006/02/good_military_o.html#more
Good Military Order and Discipline?
I have decided to hand this post over to a soldier who wrote to me following my previous post, and last week's Sunday Times article, raising questions over the role of officers in some of cases of alleged wrongdoing in Iraq. This soldier wants to highlight the way in which good servicemen and women with excellent confidential reports can find their lives and careers destroyed when someone above them takes against them - and the victims can themselves be officers of course. It is not a problem that just affects the lower ranks.
This is something that happens in "civvy street" too of course but the difference is that superior officers have immense power over someone in the armed forces that would not be possible in civilian jobs and so the effect is that much greater. Don't get me, or this anonymous soldier, wrong. The disciplinary powers available within the forces are absolutely vital to what is known in the forces' jargon as "good military order and discipline", particularly during military operations, but the ability to abuse those powers can be devastating.
When I was on the Daily Telegraph I covered a number of such cases, most notably the case of a paratrooper called Paul Biddis. That was an horrific case and it is unlikely to go away. I understand that his wife Debbie is now writing a book on the incidents that led to their son Chandler becoming disabled. MPs on the Commons committee looking at the Armed Services Bill currently before Parliament could do worse than ask to be able to interview Debbie or even Biddis himself about his experiences in the army's internal appeals process, which is now known as Redress of Complaint - I seem to remember it was redress of grievance in my day. The problems with that system are addressed here by a soldier who not only has experience with his own redress process but has helped others pursue their complaints as well - the sort of role that the Armed Forces Federation recently mooted on the Army website ARRSE might usefully perform. Here is the soldier's article:
Army Redress Problems
"Over the past few weeks I have seen and discussed much on the pros and cons of an Armed Forces federation. Many aspects of service life were discussed at length in the Mess. Kit shortages, scoff (food), their terms of service. One point that would be raised from a few who dared was the fairness of the internal Army complaints system known as “redress” but just raising the issue in the mess, made some feel uncomfortable.
"Having helped a number of soldiers put in their redress and myself having been on the wrong end of a redress - and when I say wrong end I mean daring to complain against an Officer – I can see one of the arguments as to why an Armed Forces Federation might be effective.
"For a so-called modern Army, we have some antiquated working practices. A few years ago, soldiers would have been to scared to have even considered submitting a redress. Nobody believed it was worth the effort. The system would never rule against itself, so what was the point? If they did put in a redress, they would be actively hounded. No way would a commanding officer (CO) allow for it on his watch and regimental, or company sergeant-majors would have taken great joy in making sure that the soldier “changed his mind”. The same still happens today but in a more sinister and clandestine way.
"I have seen soldiers who have made a complaint see their own promising career cut dead as a result. Some officers would accuse the soldier making the complaint of trying to ruin the accused officer's career. Often of course the officer accused of bullying would be a friend of the CO, and even if he or she was not, the fact that such bullying takes place would reflect badly on the CO himself. Some in the chain of command would try to dismiss it as some sort of weakness on the soldier’s part, and the bully would try to charm everyone else, and threaten/bribe the soldier to drop his complaint. We who saw it happen could not say much or we would suffer the same fate. Some who were wise saw a mobbing culture brewing from the start and steered well clear. The company commander and company sergeant-major would get others to join in the destruction of the soldier’s credibility and mentally bully him into submission.
"There is often disbelief by senior officers that someone they know, went to Sandhurst with, worked on a ward with, drink in the Mess with, is capable of bullying. There is also the fact that when bullies are finally exposed their superiors often feel foolish because they are in a double bind - if they knew what was happening why didn't they take action; if they didn't, why not. "Crap. Let’s try to bury this before its get to a higher level, or my job will be on the line too for not having control of my subordinates."
"Later, I was the victim of such tactics and it opens your eyes when Officers blatantly lie to hide their mistakes. Quite a rude awakening for me. Before I raised my complaint, I never got less than an “A” grade annual report. Suddenly my grade dropped, all because I decided to intervene against bullying in the ranks. I complained that the officer in charge did nothing to resolve the problem when he could have. I was perceived as the guilty party, trying to squirm whilst the poor, innocent officer was to be believed at every turn.
"I learnt over time that the system has inherently sought to protect the officer against the complaint is made and the length of the redress process is deliberately spun out and the guide lines abused. You also learn who your real friends are. I witnessed first hand the mobbing culture, and the soldiers who steered clear of anyone who put their head above the parapet so as to protect their career. I was married and even my wife and kids were treated like lepers.
"The consequence of this seems to be that the redressee seems to get away with it, while the redresser is still battling against a buggered career and reputation years after. The officer would carry on, get promoted and later be given his own regiment and even join the staff.
"The main flaw in the system was that you were unable to see what was being reported up the chain about you, and defend yourself against it, until your complaint had gone through three levels of investigation, within the unit and at higher levels, a period that could extend to as much as three years.
"Regardless of your previous good record, the chain of command would seek to protect itself by painting you in a very bad light to the point of making false statements about you. This would then be contained in the brief to the Army Board as fact. You would then have a chance to comment on the brief, but the case officer would pay lip service to what you said in your own defence and mostly ignore what you have to say even when you could prove the brief wrong. You would find out only then, that people you had mentioned as witnesses were never interviewed and what hope would a soldier have of paying for independent legal advice when the redress was dragged out so long?
"I have personally helped a number of soldiers with a redress over the years since my complaint. I have seen a change in the way the redress is managed in the past year. But still the guide lines contained in AGAI 70 (the redress guide) are abused by the officers in charge. If such abuse occurs there are no guide lines or points of contact in AGAI 70 for the soldier to appeal to. The Chief of Defence Staff and others constantly argue that soldier has a confidential support telephone line. However the support line cannot actively get involved. Officers in the soldier’s chain of command still try it on, repeatedly telling the soldier that he has no chance, “you cannot beat the system, just take it on the chin.”
"Some will shout from the roof tops that the army can keep its own house in order, but more of these stories keep coming out. Officers forging documents or covering up bullying is the norm in today's press. Some in the military community accuse the press of only putting one side of a story or distorting the facts against the Army, but from my experience some of the reporting against complainants made by officers from the parent unit to the Army Appeals Wing in Glasgow could put the most vindictive in Fleet Street to shame.
"During the last Comprehensive Attitude Survey it was stated that only 10% of soldiers surveyed had complained about bullying. But 85% of soldiers asked believed bullying did exist. The reasons for this apparent disparity are clear when soldiers are asked why they did not complain about ill treatment. The survey found that 31% believed such a step might adversely affect their career, 34% thought that it would cause problems in their workplace and 33% did not believe that anything would be done if they did complained.
"Why do soldiers feel that nothing would be done or it would affect their career? The Attorney General said there was evidence which could be taken to show a concerted attempt by the chain of command to influence and prevent an investigation into the death of Sgt Roberts. This was of course far more serious than a redress but if true it shows how officers are willing to abuse the system when it suits their purposes.
"There is still a prehistoric attitude towards internal complaints, particularly when its about bullying within the military. The CDS’s gut reaction to the federation last week and what he perceived it would stand for, did not surprise me in the slightest. He can argue that the existence of such bodies will be to the detriment of the organisation as a whole. That may be so, but the organisation only has itself to blame when it comes to problems with recruitment, retention, trust and, more importantly, loyalty in the ranks."
An Anonymous Soldier
*If anyone can provide me to a link to the actual survey I will post it, Mick
Posted on February 24, 2006 at 02:37 PM in British Army | Permalink