Army Duelling

[Top Bunk Tester]

Duelling Officers Set Fire To Mess | Forces TV (http://www.forces.tv/98339400)

Hi jinks or the brown job equivalent of bicycle jousting ..... You decide

[4everAD]

How about criminal behaviour? I can guarantee if it had been junior ranks a spell in Colchester would have followed should be no different just because they're commissioned; if anything the punishment should be more severe.

[Out Of Trim]

I vote send them to Colchester, Officers or not!:E

[Wander00]

Subject to the usual formalities of course "march the guilty b@stards in!"

[langleybaston]

I gather the duellists couldn't hit each other when they fired, but managed [just] to hit the Mess.

And clearly the Fire Inspection and Risk Assessment regime was derisory, to have water supply cut off since January.

You couldn't make it up. Not a jolly jape, sheer incompetence.

Thank God for the Regiment!

[airborne_artist]

Fortunate indeed to have tested the fire response the way they did, and with no casualties. God help all involved if a fire had occurred by more expected means and there had been people injured or worse.

Bet no-one ever turns off the sprinklers again on MoD property and forgets about it.

[waterbottle]

As long as there is a blank cheque on the mess managers desk the following morning I really don't see the issue.

[NutLoose]

The issue is it is in the press and the fact it initially tied up 10 units of the counties finest, again in the press.

[Always a Sapper]

As long as there is a blank cheque on the mess managers desk the following morning I really don't see the issue.

There's lots of issues, none of which should come within the possibilities of settlement via a blank cheque!

Firstly, there's the issue of two idiots firing off flares at each other while sat in a couple of kayaks in the paddling pool...

Secondly, they set fire to the Bldg as a DIRECT result of their stupidity. It's called ARSON and IIRC can be punished by life imprisonment!

Thirdly, they put EVERYONE in the Bldg at risk because they set the place on fire, okay the fire hoses were shut off... The directive to do that came out years ago when DE were in the chair. They should have been fully removed.

What if they had been NCO's or JR's would a 'blank cheque' be acceptable then? No of course it wouldn't, they would have been in jail before the fire engines got through the gates. What makes it different for these two?

Out of interest, where is the money coming from to repair the Bldg, which is now unoccupiable when we are struggling to fund even minor repairs? As for the hotel bills for everyone that's now homeless...

Cost to fix it? almost certainly over 100k and I wouldn't be surprised if it got close to 500k or more if the place needs a full re-wire, re-dec, new ceilings, new carpets, drying out etc.... Just share it out on the mess bills for the dinner that was on...

Supposed to be responsible Officers and leaders of men? Don't make me laugh, my two grandkids at 5 & 6 show more responsibility than these two muppets. A fine example they showed to the JR Trainees on the base, not. Trainees who get rifted for pretty much anything and everything btw.

GCM, bust them to Trooper (or whatever the tankies call a private) some time to reflect on the matter in Colchester, a fine that will cover the cheque and make them pay back the cost of the training that the army has wasted training the numpties!.... Then soldier on in the ranks for a bit just to really piss them off!


And breathe....

[trim it out]

With regards to the fire hoses, the argument goes that you can't test a hose for serviceability so fire extinguishers are the answer, which they did have. Fire hoses are dependent on servicing, the water pressure being correct, the water supply being available etc etc, whereas fire extinguishers are easy.

[Stanwell]

Good to see someone who takes the issue seriously, Always.

While, in my 'young and frisky' days, I'd been partial to the occasional a bit of 'fun and mischief' or even a tad of 'havoc and mayhem',
it was generally not at Her Majesty's expense or undue inconvenience.

These half-arced dudes need their bottoms spanked - and, more particularly, be made to pay for it.

[parabellum]

Good to see that someone had the presence of mind to save the cheese board!

[Whenurhappy]

Some of you will recall the high jinks at the Mess at RAF Boulmer in the early 1990s, when a chopped student decided to let off a maritime anti-collision flare during a Dining In. The same evening saw a car rolled on to its roof. No amount of cheques was going to sort out that debacle. The officer in question was severely disciplined, lost his commission, but is still serving - I ran into him at Farnborough two weeks ago. Still a prat.

[TBM-Legend]

I say a posting to the Khyber Pass...

[Stanwell]

Erm... Carry on, TBM. :p

[Maxibon]

As ever, the outrage bus turned up and the anticipated Offr v OR "in my day" rhetoric cracks off. These two individuals both possess serious judgement impairment but to be fair, it is an old game that got out of hand; arson (?!) - have a word with yourself.

Guess what will happen? The chain of command will deal with these two appropriately to the severity of the crime in question. Either way, I doubt they'll be taking reference from a bunch of chippy internet forum posters before invoking the appropriate AGAI.

[4everAD]

As ever, the outrage bus turned up and the anticipated Offr v OR "in my day" rhetoric cracks off. These two individuals both possess serious judgement impairment but to be fair, it is an old game that got out of hand; arson (?!) - have a word with yourself.

Maxibon, so you're telling us that you don't believe a JR would get time in Colchester for a similar offence in the JR bar? Just because they're offr's doesn't mean that it automatically gets treated in house by their CO this should go to Courts Martial full stop same as it would for a JR (caveat I'm no lawyer and I'm only going by the press release which pretty much says they did it).

[Maxibon]

As ever, the outrage bus turned up and the anticipated Offr v OR "in my day" rhetoric cracks off. These two individuals both possess serious judgement impairment but to be fair, it is an old game that got out of hand; arson (?!) - have a word with yourself.

Maxibon, so you're telling us that you don't believe a JR would get time in Colchester for a similar offence in the JR bar? Just because they're offr's doesn't mean that it automatically gets treated in house by their CO this should go to Courts Martial full stop same as it would for a JR (caveat I'm no lawyer and I'm only going by the press release which pretty much says they did it).

Where did I say that in my post? They'll get what's coming to them but whatever you demand, whether Colchester or loss of rank is sod-all business of yours or anyone else's. The current culture is perhaps not as divergent as you and some others would have everyone believe.

[4everAD]

I believe as it will be a criminal matter it is my business as both a member of the military and a tax payer! These idiots have embarrased themselves and the wider Armed Forces. We've worked hard over Afghan and Iraq to show the public we are a dedicated and professional Armed Forces clowns like this do great damage to that reputation.

I repeat your statement:
As ever, the outrage bus turned up and the anticipated Offr v OR "in my day" rhetoric cracks off. These two individuals both possess serious judgement impairment but to be fair, it is an old game that got out of hand; arson (?!) - have a word with yourself.
I would say it is not a game and the anticipated Offr v OR rhetoric is well justified in that I would guess these two will serve no time in Collie and will instead be severly reprimanded and probably lauded as legends in their mess.

[Maxibon]

Well done 4EAD, I'll drop an email to their CO asking him to read your comments and recommendations. We're all aware of Afghan and Iraq but your use of hyperbole et al is wonderful.

Back to your Daily Mail and Jeremy Vine show. Have a nice day.:D

[charliegolf]

Looking at the carbunkle masquerading as an O's Mess, I'd have thought a commendation was in order! What a block of flats! Anyway, Alastair and Roy got off with a severe dig and a fine of a crate of Wobbly didn't they?

CG

[Maxibon]

It's known as the Bovy Hilton; not much of a place but it's the spirit....

[Autobahnstormer]

Back in my day (pull up a sandbag) flares were classified as weapons and loss thereof was instant castration. So what were these two berks doing with flares in their possession? Secondly, and more importantly considering my present career in Infrastructure, who the hell turned the fire hoses off?? The block should not have been occupied under those circumstances and whoever decided upon that course of action endangered many more lives. Hangings too good for them.

ABS

[Tankertrashnav]

Arson? Absolutely not - arson implies an intention to set fire to a building or whatever. It's obvious these pissed up idiots never intended to set fire to anything.

Colchester Out of Trim, 4ever AD et al? Obviously impossible as Colchester is only set up to deal with OR offenders. Many of its inmates return to service after they have served their sentence. If an officer commits an offence which would entail a trip to the Glasshouse for an OR he is going to be court martialled and dismissed the service - with or without a prison sentence which will be served in a civvy prison.

[BEagle]

Although the odd banger or few have livened up a few Dining-In Nights in the past - and in WW2, the odd Verey cartridge dropped down a victim's chimney was known to cause interesting effects.

But discharging pyros inside a building? Just plain stupid - what if one of these drunken idiots had actually hit the other? AOABH or worse....

Next time, pongoes, use something like champagne. Back when the RAF still had Friday evening Happy Hours, OC35 and OC617 were persuaded to settle an inter-squadron issue by a champagne duel in the bar; back-to-back, walk the agreed number of paces, then turn, shake and fire. No damage, a drenching for both and what was thought of in those days as harmless horseplay - and pas devant.

But flare guns? Did these fools actually know that some idiot had ordered the fire hoses to be turned off? Whoever that was also needs to be brought to task.

[Yellow Sun]

Next time, pongoes, use something like champagne. Back when the RAF still had Friday evening Happy Hours, OC35 and OC617 were persuaded to settle an inter-squadron issue by a champagne duel in the bar

Well, let's just not mention the long case clock in the bar at Waddington that was peppered with shotgun pellets.

YS

[charliegolf]

Which flares were used. 'Pyro Petes', or (God forbid) parachute rocket flares?

CG

[NutLoose]

I remember an accounts officer that spent time at Colchester, he was very good at accounting until they found out, he was reduced, and kicked out post sentence

[Wander00]

One of my Towers entry CMd and kicked out for creative accounting in a families club in Germany late 60s. Don't know if he went to Colly on the way out

[Wrathmonk]

But discharging pyros inside a building?

Duelling Army officers set fire to mess with flares during fathers and sons dinner (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/dueling-army-officers-set-fire-to-mess-with-flares-during-father/)

It was an outdoor pool - guess the flares were either a "rick o'shea" off the kayak or appalling officer aim. Love the quote that its being put down to high jinx....

After a father and son event as well. Wonder how many colonels and above were present....

[MPN11]

Well, in my day at a small Radar Unit in Norfolk, we used to settle for buying a crap piano at a local auction house, to demolish/burn outside the Mess while Adrian was playing it [badly].

The forecourt was studded with lumps of molten lead, but whatever ... Watton was going to close eventually. (Oh, so it did) ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

I thought mess rules should apply. Simple fine at costs x six. Covers the costs, provides a suitable fine that matches the crime, avoids unnecessary administrative costs, and a suitable write-up on their personal files - job done.

[esa-aardvark]

Sounding rocket test, Sicily, Officers Mess, lots of drink & a spare igniter.
What will happen if we fire this off ? Instant removal of mess windows.
So take care, or not, just as you please.
John

[taxydual]

Do the Army still have Mess Webley's? Perhaps a simpler solution..................

[charliegolf]

Watton was going to close eventually. (Oh, so it did)

Went there on a Puma task a few times (is it near Stamford?) and the Staish was a Flt Lt! It was a mixed Os and Sncos mess. Very civilised. "I'm off to bed now gents, help yourselves and put the cash in the jug." Priceless!

CG

[sitigeltfel]

I suggest aarse will fill in the details

Nineteen pages (so far) of bickering, points scoring and "in my day blah blah".

Best avoided!

[Wander00]

In the 60s at Watton there was a wg cdr Irish doctor with a bit of a reputation with the WRAF of the "You have a cold, take your clothes off please". One night during the after dining in night formalities both he and the piano were thrown through a window

[West Coast]

These two will live on in stories at reunions for the next couple of decades.

"Remember those two guys who..."

[MPN11]

Went there on a Puma task a few times (is it near Stamford?) and the Staish was a Flt Lt! It was a mixed Os and Sncos mess. Very civilised. "I'm off to bed now gents, help yourselves and put the cash in the jug." Priceless!Yes, as the Station shrank to just Eastern Radar, the Sgts moved in to one end of the Mess and we had the other ... with a partition in the Dining Room. We only had about 50 officers & NCOs at Eastern Radar, so it made sense. The Airmen then moved in to the old Sgts Mess. A very pleasant and civilised little Unit ;)

The flt lt was actually called "OC Honington Admin Wing Detachment" (OC HAWD), as they became our parent unit.

[Basil]

We were very lucky to (mostly) avoid life changing injury as a result of some stunts.
Recollect late one Sunday morning gazing at the melted tar at the front of the mess as the event which caused the damage slowly surfaced in my brain.
Some were less fortunate; during the course of a 'mock' sword fight with real swords, a student pilot lost an eye.

[eko4me]

Reminds me of these two blasts (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-48124.html) from the past (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-468757.html).

[Pontius Navigator]

Question: Why did RAF Akrotiri have two officers' messes?

Answer: So they had somewhere to eat while the other was rebuilt.

AFAIK this happened more than once.

[langleybaston]

Bugger!

I have just lost half an hour of my life re-reading chunks of Blasts from the Past.

Bugger! They are brilliant .............. I am just going out with a soppy grin on my chops!

[Wander00]

LB - you and me both

[Old-Duffer]

I rather seem to recall that the RAF had a rather nasty incident in the not too distant past, where some young officers ended up causing serious injuries to one of their colleagues.

I think it might have been Chivenor or Valley and the victim was badly burned.

Old Duffer

[teeteringhead]

'Twas indeed Chiv O-D and involved setting fire to a colleague.

It became something of a legal precedent IIRC. The senior Teeterette, when a law student, asked me darkly:

"Father, what exactly happened at Chivenor when ........"

Turns out it became a precedent to do with "consent" to GBH as the victim had allegedly been doing similar stuff to another (apologies if I got this wrong) .... other similar precedents were strange chaps who invited other strange chaps to nail their dangly bits to the floor :eek::eek: de gustibus and all that ....

I'll speak with said Teeterette and see if I can confirm my ageing memory,,,,,


[Edited to add:] The case was R v Aitken, Bennett, Barson (1992) CA. A summary of the case and ruling are quoted here (D=Defendant and V=Victim; Section 20 is the Section of OAPA dealing with GBH) from a Law Revision website.

[General defences - assault – Sec 20 an offence of basic intent - consent by conduct therefore intoxication not a defence]
D's RAF officers at a party at the completion of their flying training. They drank a lot. There was some horseplay that was treated it as a joke.

D's set fire to V's fire resistant suit [his flying suit]. In his drunken state he could only resist weakly. Flames flared up rapidly and although the appellants took immediate action to put out the fire but V was severely burned.

Held:
Section 20 not an offence of specific intent.
Therefore drunkenness is no defence to the forming of the intent necessary.

D’s would have acted maliciously if they had foreseen that their actions would result in injury to V or would have foreseen injury but for drunkenness.

A victim can give effective consent to the risk of accidental injury in the course of rough undisciplined play.

Moreover, if D honestly but mistakenly believed that V had consented (or in this case, would have so believed had they not been intoxicated), that too would be a defence.

Not Guilty of GBH