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.