:ouch: Crunch, should have seen those coming!

I still think that we need to have a more modern approach to this. These people were in civilian clothes, off duty and conducting their life - I believe that this has f# all to do with the RN. I know that view is not accepted by the NDA, but it is my view nonetheless. I've never agreed with consequentials, they stink, why do we punish someone twice for a crime?

Consider an exmaple where Officer A visits a family member who happens to be Rating B over XMAS. Does Officer A have to make his excuses and says sorry Dad/Brother/Sister I cannot stay with you for fear that if we have an argument after a few too many beers, then I will be punished for being a poor officer and for that matter you will be too?

Using this sort of example, I cannot understand the underlying principle that is being used against this female RN officer. However, I accept that it is the NDA and QR's so it is the law and hence why so many just blatantly accept it without question.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "off duty" as far as the NDA is concerned, whether you are in or out of uniform. When a rank or rate is given to you, it is made abundantly clear that you are expected to behave at all times in a manner commensurate with that rank or rate - this is hammered home during leadership training. OK, if they were civilians, then this would not have been remotely interesting. However, they are Service personnel, one of which was an officer, and they are expected (sometimes unfairly) to behave in a certain manner. This is a courts martial based on CCTV evidence - they were fighting in a "military" town, so some evidence-sharing between the local plod and the crushers can be assumed - used to happen in Portland all the time. Sometimes being a Service person on the wrong end of the long arm of the law can pay dividends - but not in places where there is a military presence. If this had been another town, they may simply have been told not to act like prats and sent on their way.

Consequentials - they tend to be a day's pay and time, which ultimately are considered fair in that a civilian employer would also expect you to take leave to attend court. The additional "punishments" are also fairly in line with civilian company redress actions. And yes, we all know that you are punished twice for one offence, but as yet no-one has managed to challenge this successfully in a court. This is not consequentials, obviously, they are not being punished twice - they have been handed to the military for punishment rather than being punished in a civilian court for affray/threatening behaviour/breach/etc.

Behaviour should not be a considered action - if you feel that you are unable to hold your drink, and are liable to "out-pin" if you have too much, then logic dictates that you don't place yourself in that situation. If you place yourself in a situation where you are having to think "if this goes pear-shaped", then arguably you are at the point where you decide that your best plan of action is to remove yourself. That has served people successfully for many years on runs ashore. Notice how the officers disappear first, then the SNCOs, leaving the LHs and the ABs to carry on? It's a judgement call, and sometimes people get it wrong.

The NDA is quite specific - they were fighting, and they cannot choose when and where the NDA applies to them. A sad case of "life in a..." which will probably not affect the LH too much, but will sit in the personal file of the officer for a few years to come....

It's no different to other uniformed roles - consider the situation if all involved were serving Police officers - it'd be just as bad, if not worse.

As PS says, life in uniform is not the same as in a civilian job, and people should think carefully before a) joining and b) going out and getting totally ratted.

Corrected for spelling

You are correct about Police Officers. At least with the Forces you are expected to go out and cause mayhem! :ok: Police Officers are generally expected to have to deal with the consequences and so should really know better. (Whether they do or not is a different matter!)

Anyway, I've found there is no problem with having a beer or two, but as someone said, it's a wise man (or woman) who knows when to make their excuses and leave.

1. The Navy is so small that'll never happen.

2. If it did, then Officer A minds his tongue, slows his drinking and if it comes to it, has a scrap out of view of CCTV and the public at large ;)

There are a couple of key issues here...

1. If it was lads, this wouldn't be an issue, its standard drill, get hammered, scrap with civvies, and expedite your exit upon arrival of the plod / town patrol, no problem. If questioned by the crushers, lie, lie and thrice lie until said jossman realises he is being outfoxed by a group of absolute professional liars and relaxes his interest. Girls are unable to cope with this basic concept.

2. This is clearly a case of 3 girls, who participate in finger sports involving beans, therefore, there are three offences committed here..

a) They were not covered in baby oil.

b) They failed to publicise the event in advance and provide ticket allocation or at least a free invite to the lads.

c) They failed in their duty to involve the ships phot man.. girls getting physical with each other should always be photographed, I believe its in Queens Regs, if it isn't, it bloody should be.

Girls are unable to cope with these basic concepts.

'up the ronson'

Fantastic! What's a ronson?

DSAT Man

You jest, surely???

"Ronson Lighter" otherwise known as "The Gary" (As in Glitter) we getting it yet?? Think Cornish Contraception..:ugh:

Ronson Lighter - rhymes with ****er, which is an expression for the anal passage :=

Wow,

I am amazed there are people out there who actually seem to take thier role and position seriously and appreciatte that there is a time and place to socialise and the time to leave. It is such a shame that this lesson is so rarely learnt before the 12-14 year point, I should know I was an awful offender! Yes they should have known better, yes they should have been seperated but the biggest crime has to be getting caught! Especially on CCTV! Remeber Big Brother is always watching!

Re usable lighters
 

What a laugh!!

Only problem that there was no mud or jelly thrown in the ring (no pun intended!).

If indeed it is three chicks, the judge should throw the book at them for not inviting any chaps to add to said beanfest for a spot of uphill gardening.

Naughty Fish Heads - what happened to the old Navy policy of 'Rum, Bum and 'Baccy!'?

Permission to go ashore, sah!!

ISITD
:8
LFOGOOTFW

PS The crime is not socialising/scrapping/liver licking with your superiors or subordinates - its getting caught as pointed out by DB. Let the laughter commence!!

I naturally guessed that a ronson would have been one of 2 orifices but I had never heard that particular gem of rhyming slang. Thanks for the education; I have learnt something new and the day has not been wasted!

If that happened in Middlesbrough the guy operating the CCTV speakers would probably have egged them on.

Given the overstretch affecting UK forces I would think that these people should be demoted and posted elsewhere (Falklands perhaps), not dismissed - the latter being a waste of training investment and essentially the easy option.

I'm reliably informed by an esteemed colleague that the "Ronson" and the "Gary" has now been replaced in all cases by the "Council".. as in "Council Gritter"

:D :D