2's in....utter tosh.
Srennaps....spot on.

2's in.
What complete tripe.
And the dark blue and green don't need to rubbish the light blue. You are doing an outstanding job, especially on Prune, without any outside help.

Why does the public need to know?
 

I’m afraid I don’t understand how this matter needs to be reported to the general public? Regardless of any kind of behaviour, this is a service matter, and should be dealt with by the service.

2's in is not necessarily talking tripe, look around you - the government is pulling cash from anything it can, pay freezes and reductions in allowances throughout the public sector are commonplace, and it makes it all a great deal easier to push through if a few folk can be demonised along the way. Whether it's 'policy' or just somebody's idea of a brilliant stroke is another matter, but it's naive to assume that the story amounts to all that has been published.

As far as the dipso comment goes, THAT makes you look stupid - defending 2 blokes against what looks like a trial for witchcraft is my take on it, the guys were pissed. They weren't bothering anyone, they weren't going flying anytime soon.

Once over we had sqn barrels, we had a bloody good laugh, what happens these days - 15 mins at the local Costa Coffee and Almond slices all round?

As I'm in a jovial frame - now I'm no longer in the RAF, let alone on a sqn, I find myself in what I see as a potential Sqn Ldr's (equivalent) rank, which I have sewn onto a spare pair of pyjamas along with miniatures of my array of medals (only some of which are chocolate) and cannot help but observe that when I cut my steak up I am performing much the same motions as an SAS trooper might carry out on an inconvenient guard whilst on an op. Should I be receiving some sort of allowance for this, or simply objecting to the SAS getting it?

I mean to say, one does like to keep one ends up on the outrage, doncher know?

Dave

Umm, just maybe, because we public pay for it?

And also, because it happened in public where public people saw it.

And you think we don't ? In more ways than just tax!

In Memorium
 

And in how many occupations do you know that over half the people you started work with never drew their pension?

And pensions were available from the age of 38.

Making a tit of yourself in public is not just the preserve of the UK military!!
This one from one of the German Navy's finest!!

Hendrick Huelsman audition - Britain's Got Talent 2011 - ITV.com - Video Player

Caiman27,

I am sorry but your comment has really annoyed me.

Do you feel ripped off or short changed because two men had a few more beers than they should have. Do you feel that you are not getting value for money for “your” Armed Forces because two individuals let their hair down for reasons that we don’t know about. Do you lie in your bed at night worrying about just how many other Servicemen are committing heinous crimes, obviously not doing their jobs properly and therefore wasting tax payers’ money?

Are you suggesting that because the public pay for the Armed Forces then any misdemeanour, error of judgment or even some form of behaviour that does not meet with your obviously high standards should be dealt with harshly, swiftly, without trial and reported out of all proportion in the gutter press.

Or do you just enjoy reading about a good old scandal where you can pass judgment and feel superior.

caiman 27, why are you posting on a military forum? And whatever makes you think your tax revenue pays for the Royal Air Force? It might keep David Cameron in socks.

A lot of the comments on this subject appear to miss the point (deliberately or not?), that is that irrespective of whether you "support" or "condemn" these guys, they are in the military.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr.../separator.gif
I have (as a divisional officer) been involved in defending young (and not so young) guys who have drunk too much. It doesn't matter whether you like them or not, or if you sympathise with their reasons for hanging one on, the simple fact is that they (allegedly) broke the rules in the Naval (RAF Army) discipline act and they will be dealt with iaw that book, you have to try and minimise the damage to them and their career.

The fact also is that it happens all the time, all over the world and will go unnoticed by the general public most of the time mostly because it's not "newsworthy". Able Seaman scroggins getting p%$ssed ashore in some bar will usually result in 10 days punishment and a stoppage of leave or some other "usual" penitence.
The higher you go up the tree, the more that punishment reflects, not only your position on the tree, but also, how that behaviour is perceived by those lower than you. If you add into the mix a very high profile operation that gives access to the worlds press, you have the makings of a very embaressing situation for the command. Even forgetting that a hungover man is a danger to himself and those around him (always a concern at sea when dishing out the bad news), it shows lack of judgment not expected from a leader of men in the military.
Was the decision to stop the troops drinking a bad one? Of course it was. In the context of a man getting drunk in his own mess or bar, you can punish him and his peers because it says, "you all share the responsibility for what has happened", and actually, you do. The feeling of resentment and injustice that the troops feel when being punished for an officer's bad judgement is palpable and completely divisive (been there), so all in all well done whoever sanctioned that one!
Have I ever hung one on? Yes. Does that make my opinion less valid? I don't care, it's my opinion.

Cheers all

Ref #151
 

Well said SRENNAPS !!

well said?
What total garbage. These two broke the rules, got drunk in public, attracted ridicule to themselves, country and armed forces, and rendered themselves incapable of work for at least two days (so making themselves unavailable if plans had to be changed). These two were supposed to be in a management position where they led others. Some leadership. Sooner they are kicked out the better. There are plenty of others who want to fly without breaking the rules.
And what do you find in this forum? A bunch of old fools patting them on the back for getting drunk and enjoying themselves! And in the same thread I see comments about the mortality rate, suggesting that this gives an "entitlement" to get pissed up. Well just maybe if there wasn't such a drinking culture the mortality might be just a bit lower. Ever thought of that?

Exascot
Thank you for brightening what was starting to become a dull old day!
Cretan Red is quite good too! :\

Oh come on Jamesdevice - calm down.

People make mistakes. Don’t read too much into it when people do foolish or inconsiderate things, it's easy to judge others when you don't walk in their shoes.

No one died, no missions were cancelled, no poor decisions made (er, apart from making the the op dry imho) and they were sent home for it - i would suggest punishment enough.

If we threw everyone out of the military who have ever been drunk in public, i think that would sort out the defence cuts quite quickly. :ok:

jamesdevice

What rules did they actually break? I doubt if they broke any - the context of the story is factually unknown in this forum!

Well said SRENNAPS, and ghostnav :ok:

I'm ex-mil and can hang one one with the best of them. Don't know enough facts to comment on the particular incident however the comment above makes me laugh.

There are plenty of threads in the Mil forum where people talk about respect. The respect they think they deserve from the public because they volunteer to join a fighting force (and do a bloody good job). The fact they think they deserve to be treated differently from Joe Public when it comes to healthcare etc, because they 'deserve' it.

It makes statements above slightly ironic... If you want respect, you earn it. Maybe, just maybe, the public who proportionally are facing bigger hardships than the military find it difficult to give that respect when ambassadors for the country, which is what these 2 pilots were, screw up.

Whether it should be in the paper or not is a different argument. If you think you should know about Ryan Giggs screwing some bint other than his wife (personally I think it is none of our business), then it's a fair argument that we have a right to know about incidents such as above.

As stated by another poster in JetBlast aobut something different "What interests the Public is not always in the Public's interest"

Jamesdevice wrote:

These two broke the rules, got drunk in public, attracted ridicule to themselves, country and armed forces, and rendered themselves incapable of work for at least two days (so making themselves unavailable if plans had to be changed).

Take out the 'and armed forces' bit and you now have an accurate description of a large percentage of the UK taxpayers exploits on any Friday or Saturday night. :ugh:

As ever, this seems to have degenerated into mutual mud-slinging. I think you need to look at this without plastering it with emotion or righteous indignation. The simple fact is that it is about perceptions. There is no doubt that the social mores prevailing during the 70s and 80s have changed: what may have been acceptable then is no longer seen the same way. This is not restricted to the military - just imagine the fuss if these two had been professional sportsmen who got lagered up prior to a big match. Remember Freddie Flintoff losing the England vice-captaincy and being banned (= fined) for the pedalo incident? And before anyone raises the 'ops are much more important than sport' issue, I agree, they are! Which makes the perception worse...

A govt employing military force in the full glare of international scrutiny has a right to assume that all measures are being taken to avoid mistakes - it actually has a duty to ensure that LOAC is followed, and it has a duty to protect others involved in the operation regardless of which side of the border one sits. Hence there is regulation handed down usually in the form of orders. The civil sector is regulated and policed, and there is not much sympathy there for those who stray, just a P45 or equivalent. Whether the GDC 2 would have 'failed' a comparable test when they turned up for duty is open to question - none of us have the facts. However, the perception of Joe Public (or the Govt) is that they would have been unfit, and that is the part - exacerbated by the involvement of the locals - that causes the reputational damage and invites the questions about whether ops are being conducted professionally.

As for the subsequent order sending the JOA dry, I don't see that as weak leadership. The easy option would have been the 'do nothing'. Ask yourself how you would respond to the question from SofS' office asking what you had done to prevent a recurrence. If your answer is 'Er, not a lot...', it is your leadership that is weak, not those further up the chain. I do have sympathy for the GDC 2, as there is every possibility that the consequences of their actions will be more severe because the 'offence' has been made so public. There is at least one career in ruins. And, yes, there but for the grace of God... etc.

However, what I find most distasteful is the knowledge that one of our own chose to contact the media and feed them the story. Why? Or did it come to light via PPrune and Training Risky's helpful rush to post event and names on another thread? Who knows. I accept this is a rumour forum, but it is always worth remembering (pace Orwell) that some rumours are more damaging than others.

Fort, I agree with most of what you say, but got to challenge the bit about weak leadership. It may or may not have been the right decision to make the theatre dry (after an MPA tour I see both sides), but I am surprised you think doing something just so you can tell the SoS you have done something is strong leadership? I hope and assume that the officer responsible made the decision because he/she? felt it was the right thing to do as a commander, not because they just wanted to be seen to do something. A lot of the **** most of us have to deal with is surely the consequences of people doing things to be seen to be doing things?

Because of the knee jerk reaction to make the JOA dry, thus punishing hundreds of innocent parties?

Apologies for being late on parade...just back from the sunshine.

Re the thread...I know nowt about it (no longer partake news comics) but if a couple of aircrew types were following play hard work hard rules, tick VG, now trousers down and take it like a man.

Now for a spot of thread drift...

Getting old is a pretty miserable experience, but I confess the pill is sweetened by winding up the today's youth...which ain't hard.

Well this old fool was smart enough to get selected as RAF aircrew and enjoy himself drinking and shagging round the world for ten years (unfortunately, thanks to the Mayfair Bar, at least on one occasion both in public at the same time)

Smart enough to get the job done whilst doing it and get promoted six times.

Smart enough to know that he had had the best of it (evidently!) and to pull the handle early.

And smart enough to know that british military are the best in world (and give the tax payer incredible value for money) precisely because of the ethos and traditions founded over hundreds of years and many wars. Which is exactly why the earlier comment about the Battle of Britain is spot on.

I think it is a point worth making that the good reputation of the British armed forces, including the RAF was formed during all the wars we fought and won whilst drinking heavily at every chance we got, not during the recent dry wars.
If anything, the dry Iraq and Afghan wars have tarnished the image of our forces, since we have demonstrably not won.

We are the armed forces.

We are not here to set an example to the public.

We are here to kill and threaten to kill people as required by polititians

Pandering to public opinion is a slippery road, we should just focus on our job.
We will get all the respect we need from winning, not trying to win in a certain PC way.

Leadership - of a sort!
 

"As for the subsequent order sending the JOA dry, I don't see that as weak leadership." No, it is hasty badly thought-through leadership. In what way are the troops in Cyprus going to be motivated to go the "Extra Mile" by having the sins of people 1000 miles away visited on their recreational drinking?

Yes - and beating the wife, especially before she had the vote, was good for morale as well? Hurrah for the good old days!

:rolleyes:

Cleared to Roll: I'm afraid weak leadership is not a new phenomenon; the knee-jerk reflex has always been around. I recall Stn Cdr Gutersloh (& this was not his fault) in '89 having to go around the Unit & surrounding countryside one Saturday evening, terminating Xmas social functions due to the crash of a USAF A-10 on an apartment block in the Clutch, with regrettable loss of life.

This Biblical over-reaction was due to a directive from the Foreign Office, generated by their equivalent of the Orderly Corporal, in response to an out-of-hours request from his opposite number at the German FO. Herr Flick sent out a demand to all NATO forces Germany that a period of sombre reflection be observed by same. Quentin Fawcett-Home at HM FO leapt upon this with zeal & gusto, certain that this would propel him to become HM Ambassador to Washington DC before you could say "where's my Pimms?", and instigated this Draconian reaction. The other Nato (G) forces, when confronted with the same request, quietly ignored this tosh. It was interesting to note that the Bars/Clubs/Whorehouses of Germany continued to party as normal. 'Twas ever thus.................

HB

I have seldom been more in agreement with a post on Prune :D

Mr C the attitude you endorse is exactly why today's military is what is today and IMHO you Sir are an arse :=

Beating the wife????? What are you on about? That wasn't acceptable in those days either and by the way, it is not a thing of the past. It still happens now (a lot) so you can't use that as an example. Didn't women have the vote then as well?
I know what he is trying to say and so does everyone else, don't twist his words. Of course booze and flying does not mix, but he is right in parts, the armed forces should not be PC like the NHS.

Hinecap

Just because some things were bad in the old days does not mean everything was.

For example, in the old days nobody would have considered for a moment the truly excerable disloyalty and cowardice displayed by some on here who slag off brothers in arms on a public forum from behind the shield of annonymity, but time change, eh Hinecap.
Previously you would have been horswhipped and never allowed in an Officers mess again.

I miss the old days.....sigh......

In the good old days he and his like would never have made it into the mess in the first place, sycophantic yes men are part of the new breed that are slowly but surely wrecking the military and all it once stood for :(

I think it is a point worth making that the good reputation of the British armed forces, including the RAF was formed during all the wars we fought and won whilst drinking heavily at every chance we got, not during the recent dry wars.
If anything, the dry Iraq and Afghan wars have tarnished the image of our forces, since we have demonstrably not won.


Congratulations. Quite the silliest piece of reasoning on this whole thread. And that's saying something.

hanoi

No, because whilst it does not prove that drinking is good for reputation, it does prove that it does not destroy a reputation.

Incidentally, in response to your earlier comment about "moral bancrupty", whilst I dearly love your part of the world, at least in the west nobody has ever tried to sell me their 10yr old daughter for sex.

As an aside, and so she STFU, I see that police in Vietname have been banned from answering non-work related telephone calls or drinking alcohol..

So clearly it is not just the west that has an alcohol problem.

whilst I dearly love your part of the world

And we dearly love you, which is why we...

tried to sell me their 10yr old daughter for sex.

erm.....ok?

I see that police in Vietname

You were trying to spell 'Viet Nam'? Oooops!

So clearly it is not just the west that has an alcohol problem

Remarkably astute of you. But I fail to see how this stunning observation impacts upon the subject under discussion. Perhaps you could drag me up to your level of enlightenment?

Whether people on this forum like it or not, the Forces are expected to set high standards of behaviour. Inter alia, our troops are under the media - and social media - spotlight 24/7. And dose being PC mean that our persoNnel strive hard not to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc? Does it also mean that the 'leadership' should not discourage inappropriate behaviour at work - including alcohol excesses?

I agree with Chinecap - the good ol' day should be left where they belong. Oh, and Tourist, I think that success in Afghanistan being linked to alcohol consumption is a non sequiteur ie it doesn't follow.

The RAF has changed immeasurably in my 25 years service and having done several tours in the Balkans (2), Middle East (2) and the 'Stan (2) I also support the no alcohol ban (and enforced in the early days of Kosovo when several aircrew became v ill on the local brew (and against FP advice)

Are you losers still discussing this?

Oh sorry I forgot, this is the pprune ex military forum where you all discuss how wonderful things were when you were in and how naughty everybody is today compared to what you were like.


http://www.madamandeve.co.za/vd/high-ground.jpg


Can I lend any body a quarter?


http://www.thejokester.net/Cartoons/...20Life_gif.jpg

Fraud. You seem to be only 'Mildly Annoyed' not 'Really Annoyed'.

I demand my money back.