View Full Version : Military legal advice.
Taxi.Idge
28th Jul 2018, 15:35
Yet another det somewhere in the Med and someone has effed up. Our lords and masters deem that it is good leadership to therefore confine the whole det to camp. The individuals who have contravened orders are on a different fleet and are totally unknown to me and my colleagues. Is it therefore legal to confine us all to camp?
Pontius Navigator
28th Jul 2018, 15:47
Yes. There are several reasons one of which is to protect you from revenge by the locals. Similar restrictions have been in place in Cyprus on numerous occasions.
It may seem unfair but there are probably sound diplomatic reasons as well.
I may be wrong, but during my 38 years in the RAF I was confined on 3 separate occasions for stuff that had nothing to do with me. If the order is given I don't see that there is much that you can do.
Easy Street
28th Jul 2018, 17:05
Since you mention a ‘different fleet’ within one det, you must be on operations on a camp that has within its perimeter a beach club, karting track, cinema, several bars, shops, food outlets, coffee shops, clifftop running routes etc.
Confined to camp for a bit while on an operational detachment? Get over yourself.
I may be wrong, in which I case I apologise, but I scent a truckie......
MPN11
28th Jul 2018, 18:29
I was banned from the Mess, except for meals. Was that cruel and unusual, or what?
Two's in
28th Jul 2018, 18:40
... Is it therefore legal to confine us all to camp?
Good question. It is a bit vague " ...and will observe and Obey all orders of Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors , and of the Air Officers and other Officers set over me,"
gijoe
28th Jul 2018, 19:38
Yet another det somewhere in the Med and someone has effed up. Our lords and masters deem that it is good leadership to therefore confine the whole det to camp. The individuals who have contravened orders are on a different fleet and are totally unknown to me and my colleagues. Is it therefore legal to confine us all to camp?
Another example of someone serving who thinks that they are serving in the military...but only when it suits them.
Get over it...and yes they can do it...or leave.
Ken Scott
28th Jul 2018, 20:19
. I may be wrong, in which I case I apologise, but I scent a truckie......
ORAC: you may be guilty of an ‘ism’ with your blatant bias against an individual solely on your perception that they might be a member of a diverse group of people who are only connected by the type of aircraft they operate. Shame on you!
Melchett01
28th Jul 2018, 21:10
You’re on Ops why would feel the need to be out socialising? If it’s that much of an issue though I guess you could always just ignore orders. Which as long as they are legal, are lawful. At least the last time I checked my Commissioning Scroll.
Pontius Navigator
28th Jul 2018, 21:22
Taxi.ldge may not have a commissioning scroll.
I seem to remember, not that long a go, that Det personnel at an RAF base in the Med were not permitted off base whereas permanent staff were.
We've all been there....
3 sides to this, the protection of the people (fighting with locals) and also the punishment factor for "messing up". Usually alcohol fueled in some form too. Serves a reminder to everyone to behave.
the 3rd side is the locals, whilst everyone is confined to camp, local trade goes (and profit) goes down....
lose/lose scenario.
I suspect this post was just a initial vent.
AUTHENTICATE
28th Jul 2018, 22:33
I have been in a similar situation recently in what I guess is the same area of the Med. The restrictions in place were a ‘two can rule’ and confinement to camp. Both of these restrictions only applied to those deployed on Operations; neither applied to those who were there on an overseas posting.
Firstly, if the result of the restriction is a direct result of someone else’s misdoings/actions, then this can be seen as a group/collective punishment. In this scenario, I would quite happily ‘press to test’ and I would quite happily ignore any restrictions.
If the restrictions were applied to all members of the armed forces in the local vicinity, as a direct result of perceived repercussions to an incident e.g. threats made by the local populous towards member of the armed forces, then this probably would be seen as a reasonable and proportional restriction and one that should be obeyed.
To those claiming that all orders should be followed…. Rubbish. An order needs to be proportional and legal.
I have always found it ridiculous, as member of the military who has never been in trouble, sober or otherwise, to be told how to conduct myself in time outside of work as result of someone else’s cockup. As an adult, with a wife, children, and a mortgage, I am more than capable of deciding where I go and what I drink (whilst complying with the laws governing alcohol and aviation). During my time at the same place, I would quite happily and openly drink an amount of alcohol THAT I deemed reasonable. Despite at times it being more than the ‘2 cans’, I never once found myself fighting or drink driving. Nor as a result did I have ever have other people punished as a result of my actions.
In short, if you are being confined to camp as result of someone elses actions, then you would be in contravention of a 'standing order'; The fact that this standing order is unreasonable, I would quite happily disregard.
Hydromet
29th Jul 2018, 00:04
If the detention is imposed as a collective punishment, it violates laws against detention without a fair trial. However, it may well be an administrative decision made for the protection of both locals and those on detachment.
Have fun trying to prove that it was one or the other.
heights good
29th Jul 2018, 02:26
Embrace the suck!!!
TBM-Legend
29th Jul 2018, 06:40
The unit commander can of course close camp as he sees fit...
VinRouge
29th Jul 2018, 07:27
The unit commander can of course close camp as he sees fit...
I have never understood why we don't just extended miscreants in tour for their OOA by a suitable amount or just done what you the civvies.would do. You know, sling you out on your @rse for not meeting a reputational standard.
Why we need to act like we are managing school children, I've never figured out.
MPN11
29th Jul 2018, 09:04
I have never understood why we don't just extended miscreants in tour for their OOA by a suitable amount or just done what you the civvies.would do. You know, sling you out on your @rse for not meeting a reputational standard.
Why we need to act like we are managing school children, I've never figured out.
Because some people behave like school children?
The Old Fat One
29th Jul 2018, 09:24
I seem to recall when I was in that group punishment was unlawful under QRs??? I certainly vetoed a group action once as a Sqn Ldr (and on a det as well). That said it would depend on the circumstances and scenarios as to whether a decision could be an operational one, or some sort of punitive "sheep dip" action.
I don't any of any truck with the "because I say so and I have rank" school of leadership, although I saw plenty of it. Effective leadership in the military should be more intelligent and capable than that and thankfully often is (was).
FWIW...I can remember the exact moment I thought, "this is no longer for me"... and subsequently pulled the PVR handle.
I was sitting on the steps to my portacabin in a hot sandy place watching the sunset and wondering why I could not sip a glass red wine in peace and tranquility, but I could trudge over to a bar built out of containers and get a shed on - on tinned beer - surrounded by dozens of sweaty pissed up airmen (and women) of all ranks and "demeanours".
"What am I...a fkn school kid", was my exact thought.
charliegolf
29th Jul 2018, 09:59
I have never understood why we don't just extended miscreants in tour for their OOA by a suitable amount or just done what you the civvies.would do. You know, sling you out on your @rse for not meeting a reputational standard.
'Cos an officer corps is deemed a necessity maybe?
CG
LincsFM
29th Jul 2018, 10:20
Also whilst you are on said det please remember to put your handbrake on whilst parked near other Aircraft!!
VinRouge
29th Jul 2018, 10:42
Because some people behave like school children?
The 95% of people who had no involvement in the incident and whom now are on schoolchildlike "restrictions"?
MPN11
29th Jul 2018, 11:24
VinRouge ... perhaps a bit of peer pressure on the 5% from the innocent victims may be effective?
I have no idea what happened to trigger this group restriction, and I'm only guessing at the location.
Easy Street
29th Jul 2018, 11:29
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.
Easy Street
29th Jul 2018, 11:55
^ I gather that the vast majority of those currently confined are not on a drink ban, which makes the OP's complaint all the more ridiculous. Anyone for sundowners?
Bob Viking
29th Jul 2018, 12:19
Assuming it is an RAF complaint (and also assuming it’s not a wind up) I think it’s fair to say any Army or Navy guys reading this right now will probably be laughing their c0cks off.
Do we not get enough ‘civilians in uniform’ banter already?!
BV
MPN11
29th Jul 2018, 12:42
Easy Street ... Thanks for typing at length what I implied! ^
m0nkfish
29th Jul 2018, 15:32
The real issue here is making PPrune your first port of call and whinging like a baby. Real aircrew with a fighting spirit will find a way to the Aki Arms and to hell with the consequences.
Make it happen so that we can all believe all is not lost.
gr4techie
29th Jul 2018, 16:12
Since you mention a ‘different fleet’ within one det, you must be on operations on a camp that has within its perimeter a beach club, karting track, cinema, several bars, shops, food outlets, coffee shops, clifftop running routes etc.
Confined to camp for a bit while on an operational detachment? Get over yourself.
Theres one det working constant 12 hour shifts. When you're not working you are sleeping and it's soon back to work again. The one day off per week was wasted as you tried to adjust to changing shifts. Don't confuse the det with the permanent staff (who complain that they now need to do some work thanks to the det)
The beach club was shut down long time ago. I never knew going for a run was a privilege !
Could be worse... your det could have been the only people confined to camp just because one person saw an article in the daily heil saying WW3 was going to happen. While the rest were driving past out of camp and carried on as normal.
alfred_the_great
29th Jul 2018, 19:11
Assuming it is an RAF complaint (and also assuming it’s not a wind up) I think it’s fair to say any Army or Navy guys reading this right now will probably be laughing their c0cks off.
Do we not get enough ‘civilians in uniform’ banter already?!
BV
It’s a fairly routine occurrence in the RN. I was in a position to put one messdeck in such a situation, but the wiser heads in that mess came to me and said they were placing their mess on a “voluntary” beer and run ashore ban...
The Old Fat One
30th Jul 2018, 10:59
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.
I could not agree more. As a mate once put it (A Cat, Sqn Exec, could paper his bathroom with AOCs,) when we were sunning ourselves on his yacht.
"The RAF is great and I loved every moment. But one day you wake up and realise you have outgrown it...then its time to go." He left and 41 and I left at 46, guess it took me longer to grow up :)