What a waste, what a fool.
So, you would be jailing members of the armed forces for drinking a glass of Whisky, a champagne cocktail, a pint of beer, a glass of wine? They are ALL recreational drugs.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad but we all know the rules. Given his length of service he must have been tested umpteen times and been very clear on the regs. Very much dancing with the devil as has been said. Equally, bragging about it in mess and tempting others to "use" hardly helpful. I'm afraid I would have reported him PDQ as well. I dont really see an alternative for overt class A drugs use especially on an op sqn.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't comment on the individual or his actions, but I am incredibly disappointed that his work with 'them' has been put in the spotlight. He's ex-Special Forces, the tabloids should be more respectful of his security.
Whatever happened to the simple old days of excessive beer, and sex in the back of a car?
Or possibly neither
(In any case Mrs TTN would put a stop to any of that!)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Papa, I was once summons, as SDO, as an independent witness at a drugs search.
It was unedifing.
We were concealed near the suspects barracks block. They gave him sufficient time to settle in and then raided him. There was no politeness that one would expect between superior and potential malefactor more like CIA hit squad. I was relieved when more heavies arrived.
As I was dismissed I chose to let the RAFP inform the CoC. I got a flea but WTH.
It was unedifing.
We were concealed near the suspects barracks block. They gave him sufficient time to settle in and then raided him. There was no politeness that one would expect between superior and potential malefactor more like CIA hit squad. I was relieved when more heavies arrived.
As I was dismissed I chose to let the RAFP inform the CoC. I got a flea but WTH.
PN,
as the Adj of a well-known Salopian helicopter base, I was asked to witness a P&SS drugs-search of an off-base flat, normally occupied by an RAF Chef (remember them?). It was one of the more unpleasant tasks that I have ever been involved in. The place was a tip, and they went through everything to find evidence of drug-taking. All correspondence was read (days before the internet), they emptied his bins, sorted through his rank laundry (put me off eating in the Mess for a while), checked his bedding, porn stash, the works. Although it was professionally conducted, it made me feel pretty sick. Although drugs were not found, 'paraphernalia' was, as well as evidence of other criminal activity and there were also concerns about some of the (very) young women he was, ahem, entertaining. IIRC he was admin discharged from the Service.
Clearly, there is no comparison with the Sqn Ldr cited in the OP, but I do wonder what happened to the chef (it was over 20 years ago). I recall the P&SS people of the time commenting that the CVIPOL wouldn't have bothered searching a property for marijuana, and even then, possession of a spliff would result in little more than a caution (as would probably have been the situation if this Sqn Ldr had been a civilian). Yet in the Services we are bound by higher standards of ethics and behaviour (quite rightly, too) but the effect of compromising these higher standards can cast a shadow of the rest of one's life, long after leaving the Services, which I think is a tad unfair.
as the Adj of a well-known Salopian helicopter base, I was asked to witness a P&SS drugs-search of an off-base flat, normally occupied by an RAF Chef (remember them?). It was one of the more unpleasant tasks that I have ever been involved in. The place was a tip, and they went through everything to find evidence of drug-taking. All correspondence was read (days before the internet), they emptied his bins, sorted through his rank laundry (put me off eating in the Mess for a while), checked his bedding, porn stash, the works. Although it was professionally conducted, it made me feel pretty sick. Although drugs were not found, 'paraphernalia' was, as well as evidence of other criminal activity and there were also concerns about some of the (very) young women he was, ahem, entertaining. IIRC he was admin discharged from the Service.
Clearly, there is no comparison with the Sqn Ldr cited in the OP, but I do wonder what happened to the chef (it was over 20 years ago). I recall the P&SS people of the time commenting that the CVIPOL wouldn't have bothered searching a property for marijuana, and even then, possession of a spliff would result in little more than a caution (as would probably have been the situation if this Sqn Ldr had been a civilian). Yet in the Services we are bound by higher standards of ethics and behaviour (quite rightly, too) but the effect of compromising these higher standards can cast a shadow of the rest of one's life, long after leaving the Services, which I think is a tad unfair.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 10th Dec 2014 at 15:11.
SHornet
Members of 7 Sqn are not themselves SF. They are part of JSFAW and provide support to SF units.
I do agree with your sentiment though, that it's a shame his name is all over the tabloids. He has been punished severely and now every time a future employer (it happens) Googles his name they will find this.
We all have views about these things but I find it slightly distasteful to air them in public when the guy has been named and shamed. It's very different to have an opinion when it is reported as 'an RAF pilot'.
As I said previously I am not expressing an opinion either way since I have worked with him previously but please spare me the holier than though comments.
We all make errors of judgment (some worse than others) and are hopefully sensible enough to learn from our errors. After all 'to err is human'.
BV
I do agree with your sentiment though, that it's a shame his name is all over the tabloids. He has been punished severely and now every time a future employer (it happens) Googles his name they will find this.
We all have views about these things but I find it slightly distasteful to air them in public when the guy has been named and shamed. It's very different to have an opinion when it is reported as 'an RAF pilot'.
As I said previously I am not expressing an opinion either way since I have worked with him previously but please spare me the holier than though comments.
We all make errors of judgment (some worse than others) and are hopefully sensible enough to learn from our errors. After all 'to err is human'.
BV
Proone,
The facts are quite simple; the individual concerned freely admitted taking Class A drugs on repeated occasions, in contravention of both criminal law and aviation regulations.
Whilst the station, fleet and squadron will have suffered adverse publicity due to the actions of one individual, they have many years of great work to leverage against it - and as someone has pointed out, the media will have moved on in a day or so.
The real damage here is to the relationship between unit and their customer, who rely on crews to perform tasks where mistakes could quite easily be fatal.
I have no sympathy for the individual - and I am fairly shocked by the suggestion that this could have been solved quietly by a chat in the CO's office... not only is that unlikely to have happened had it been SAC Bloggs from MT, but to repair the relationship with the user unit, it is crucial that the matter is dealt with openly, and to the furthest and fullest extent of the law.
Other than the individuals lifestyle, the remainder of this sad and unedifying episode suggests that it has been handled correctly at all levels.
The facts are quite simple; the individual concerned freely admitted taking Class A drugs on repeated occasions, in contravention of both criminal law and aviation regulations.
Whilst the station, fleet and squadron will have suffered adverse publicity due to the actions of one individual, they have many years of great work to leverage against it - and as someone has pointed out, the media will have moved on in a day or so.
The real damage here is to the relationship between unit and their customer, who rely on crews to perform tasks where mistakes could quite easily be fatal.
I have no sympathy for the individual - and I am fairly shocked by the suggestion that this could have been solved quietly by a chat in the CO's office... not only is that unlikely to have happened had it been SAC Bloggs from MT, but to repair the relationship with the user unit, it is crucial that the matter is dealt with openly, and to the furthest and fullest extent of the law.
Other than the individuals lifestyle, the remainder of this sad and unedifying episode suggests that it has been handled correctly at all levels.
Given his length of service he must have been tested umpteen times
Please note I am not condoning any form of drug use by any serving personnel. The way that the current case has been reported makes it sound like either breathtaking arrogance or a cry for help by the individual involved.
CDT
I'm not sure it's quite as rigorous as some people seem to think. I've been in for over 15 years and have never been tested. I'm more than happy to pee in a bottle any time though.
BV
BV
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He who is without sin?
Of course this individual was foolish but was it really so bad? Hands up all who have got very drunk and out of control and perhaps "borrowed" things that looked interesting at the time or drove a car when perhaps that was unwise? Oh of course that's okay as it was "Gentlemen's high spirits"! Let's remember that certain acts are always wrong and others only in the context of their time, the substance in question was available over the chemists counter in my Grandmother's day and probably will be again before too long.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 clear aspects to this - technical and moral.
Technical - he was a pilot, responsible for the lives of all who flew with him. Furthermore, he was doing so in a very demanding and challenging environment. Anything which he knowingly did to inhibit his performance (notwithstanding his boasts on how certain things were enhanced) is just plain wrong and unacceptable.
Moral - he was an officer in HM Armed Forces. He has a duty and obligation to set and maintain the highest of standards and set the right example to his peers and juniors. Doing what he did shows an absolute lack of moral courage and furthermore, to compound the issue, it seems he encouraged others to engage in what he clearly knew to be illegal activity.
Finally, I find it astounding some on here feel it appropriate to advocate a 'one rule for officers, one rule for sailors/soldiers/airman' approach. HM Forces have very few absolute zero tolerance boundaries - drug taking is one of them and therefore should be treated accordingly in every circumstance, regardless of rank or rate.
Technical - he was a pilot, responsible for the lives of all who flew with him. Furthermore, he was doing so in a very demanding and challenging environment. Anything which he knowingly did to inhibit his performance (notwithstanding his boasts on how certain things were enhanced) is just plain wrong and unacceptable.
Moral - he was an officer in HM Armed Forces. He has a duty and obligation to set and maintain the highest of standards and set the right example to his peers and juniors. Doing what he did shows an absolute lack of moral courage and furthermore, to compound the issue, it seems he encouraged others to engage in what he clearly knew to be illegal activity.
Finally, I find it astounding some on here feel it appropriate to advocate a 'one rule for officers, one rule for sailors/soldiers/airman' approach. HM Forces have very few absolute zero tolerance boundaries - drug taking is one of them and therefore should be treated accordingly in every circumstance, regardless of rank or rate.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cocaine use is very high among many of the high and mighty.
I put up with being tested upon at least 3 occasions as I recall, and also had to be piss sampler/logger bloke on 1 occasion as well. By accident or design mostly Junior Rates were sampled, cant ever recall a massive amount of aircrew going through-but then I think RN squadrons were locked down and done separately.
I could imagine a few in that time have beat the wrap, I never thought it was an entirely safe, ethical system.
There'll be a few still flying or operating that have indulged and haven't been caught, bound to be.
It always really gripped my **** that we were treated and tested like prisoners, whilst those that implemented the law (i.e. those that lurk in the House of Commons) are never ever tested, or held to account).
Taking cocaine isn't a hanging offence, never was anyway. Maybe he took it to ease his stress and strain in the same way loads of us used to drink very heavily, to just get high? Stressful enough job he was in anyway FFS, people should remember that as they put the boot in on him.
And the point I'm badly trying to make is, if...if we could ever bring it about to carry out random tests on MPs, House of Lords day sleepers, Barristers and QCs, Police Officers, CEO's, Managing Directors...you would all be amazed (or saddened by this country's lack of morality and high minded hypocrisy).
I could imagine a few in that time have beat the wrap, I never thought it was an entirely safe, ethical system.
There'll be a few still flying or operating that have indulged and haven't been caught, bound to be.
It always really gripped my **** that we were treated and tested like prisoners, whilst those that implemented the law (i.e. those that lurk in the House of Commons) are never ever tested, or held to account).
Taking cocaine isn't a hanging offence, never was anyway. Maybe he took it to ease his stress and strain in the same way loads of us used to drink very heavily, to just get high? Stressful enough job he was in anyway FFS, people should remember that as they put the boot in on him.
And the point I'm badly trying to make is, if...if we could ever bring it about to carry out random tests on MPs, House of Lords day sleepers, Barristers and QCs, Police Officers, CEO's, Managing Directors...you would all be amazed (or saddened by this country's lack of morality and high minded hypocrisy).
No comment on the pilot. As some have said, his offence wouldn't warrant much attention in civvy street. Rightly, others point to expected standards and duty of care as a pilot.
But what I find truly bizarre are the contradictions between what MoD thinks illegal/punishable and what happens in "civvy street".
Most of the public would be outraged at what is condoned in MoD. In my career I came across senior officers and civilians condoning, or not seeking to punish in any way whatsoever, fraud (the obvious one), serial sexual assault on a minor (under 10 yo and with rape charges held on file because the minor wasn't well enough to give evidence), arson (on an MoD base), wheel man in a robbery, common assault, GBH and more. Every one of them progressed beyond the grade/rank they held at the time of the "offence". Some, mainly the fraudsters, occupy high office.
Ask any reasonable person to place them in order of seriousness and the snorting Sqn Ldr would be well down the list. I just like to see consistency.
But what I find truly bizarre are the contradictions between what MoD thinks illegal/punishable and what happens in "civvy street".
Most of the public would be outraged at what is condoned in MoD. In my career I came across senior officers and civilians condoning, or not seeking to punish in any way whatsoever, fraud (the obvious one), serial sexual assault on a minor (under 10 yo and with rape charges held on file because the minor wasn't well enough to give evidence), arson (on an MoD base), wheel man in a robbery, common assault, GBH and more. Every one of them progressed beyond the grade/rank they held at the time of the "offence". Some, mainly the fraudsters, occupy high office.
Ask any reasonable person to place them in order of seriousness and the snorting Sqn Ldr would be well down the list. I just like to see consistency.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
We all make errors of judgment (some worse than others) and are hopefully sensible enough to learn from our errors. After all 'to err is human'.
A subtle difference may be noticeable here ... the officer concerned actually went off-base [I hope] and bought an illegal substance for private consumption.
'Nuff said?
If the facts turn out to be as reported in the Volkische Beobachter, then there is absolutely no excuse for this appalling event.
None.
Nada.
Zip.
Taking illegal drugs might perhaps appeal to certain ageing hippy champagne socialist lawyers, but it has no place in the UK Armed Forces. Whether chummy was an ACM or LAC makes no difference - the drugs policy is the same for all.
Re. the CDT, when they first bowled up at Brize to do their thing, a certain 'Kelvin Rucksack' was amongst the people they'd chosen at random. To which a Sqn Cdr remarked "Doesn't surprise me - everyone else has been taking the p*ss out of him for years!".
None.
Nada.
Zip.
Taking illegal drugs might perhaps appeal to certain ageing hippy champagne socialist lawyers, but it has no place in the UK Armed Forces. Whether chummy was an ACM or LAC makes no difference - the drugs policy is the same for all.
Re. the CDT, when they first bowled up at Brize to do their thing, a certain 'Kelvin Rucksack' was amongst the people they'd chosen at random. To which a Sqn Cdr remarked "Doesn't surprise me - everyone else has been taking the p*ss out of him for years!".
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Some seem to forget that he is a pilot.
When I was part of the recruiting system for the RAF, a number of "make or break" questions were asked of potential recruits. One of them involved the taking of drugs. A positive answer would disbar the application going any further. He knew exactly what the penalty would be for possession and taking of a Class A drug. As a senior officer he held a position of higher responsibility in any case and it appears that rather than discouraging the use of cocaine, he had condoned and even encouraged its use in those junior to him.
When I was part of the recruiting system for the RAF, a number of "make or break" questions were asked of potential recruits. One of them involved the taking of drugs. A positive answer would disbar the application going any further. He knew exactly what the penalty would be for possession and taking of a Class A drug. As a senior officer he held a position of higher responsibility in any case and it appears that rather than discouraging the use of cocaine, he had condoned and even encouraged its use in those junior to him.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In the close confines of the Officer's Mess, Sqdn crewroom etc. this chap's personality and private life (divorcee, apparent womaniser, high social activity in the bar) must have been well known and gossiped about by his peers and senior officers. So what of his annual F1369 reports? Did they not indicate that he was perhaps drinking too much, a loose cannon maybe? Where were the checks and balances that keep a lookout for the odd maverick?
Or was he given enough rope....?
Or was he given enough rope....?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Goldie, that was the old system. Now good eggs get at worst an anodyne report as it is open reporting. If you said someone was a piss artist or dope head you could be challenged to prove it.
Bit like usually honest or slightly pregnant.
Bit like usually honest or slightly pregnant.
ShyTorque wrote:
Indeed. At UAS recruiting we termed the 'big 3' questions 'pills, pigs and poofs' (this was 25 years ago, I hasten to add - long before 'Pink Wednesday'). In other words, "1. Have you ever been involved in drugs? 2. Have you ever been in trouble with Plod and 3. What are your attitudes towards homosexuality?"
An affirmative answer to Q1 would mean "***k off and don't ever darken our doors again!"
When I was part of the recruiting system for the RAF, a number of "make or break" questions were asked of potential recruits.
An affirmative answer to Q1 would mean "***k off and don't ever darken our doors again!"