Well, perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to what bollocks he was coming out with. He was not talking about back aft, he was a SWS tech. He was talking about nuclear weapons, not nuclear reactors. Quite what the civil reactor regulator knows about weapons I have no idea, and how they'd develop the SQEP I also have no idea.

And the moment anyone investigated nuclear weapons, it would immediately become hugely classified. Any investigation would never be made public.

And before anyone gets excited about the USAF incidents, and subsequent reports, they were 'brief, unclassified synopses' of the actual reports. The report writers in each of those cases were USAF or DoD employees, vetted by the DoD, directed by the DoD.

I am simply afraid that for nuclear weapons, self regulation is the only way.

ATG, was that aimed at me?

I wish people would say who the "you" in their quote is.

"The MoD is also held to wider account by Parliament. Able Seaman McNeilly published his comments following his first submarine deployment. He was under training, and his access and exposure to activities and material on board were appropriate to his security clearance.
"We have found no evidence that he raised any concerns with colleagues on board or with the chain of command: had he done so, the more senior and experienced submariners would have been able to explain how the boat operated and why McNeilly’s concerns were unfounded. A number of the issues he raised did not occur during his patrol.
"Most of McNeilly’s concerns proved to be either factually incorrect or the result of mis or partial understanding; some drew on historic, previously known, events none of which had compromised our deterrent capability and, where appropriate, from which lessons had been learned to develop our procedures as part of a continuous improvement programme.
"Only one of the allegations remains to be fully examined – the allegation that e-cigarettes were being used within the submarine. No independent corroboration of this has been found but even if it were true, there is clear evidence that their use did not put the safety of the boat at risk.
"Able Seaman McNeilly was arrested having not reported for duty after a period of leave. He was released the next day, but confined to a specified location in Portsmouth while interviews were conducted.
"He is being afforded the duty of care that we give all our personnel, is in contact with his family, and is still in the employ of the Royal Navy."

Courtney, I think he meant the McNeilly.

Really? I'd read it as Chugalug2 being the aiming point.

Anyway, now yer man McNeilly's fed that well known patriot Salmond an excuse to stir the pot, his objective may have been achieved. Salmond: Response to Trident whistleblower claims insults intelligence of the British public | Politics | The National

For what it's worth, the only sense I'm reading at the moment is predominantly from Not_a_boffin, alfred_the_great and, when he's got his serious head on, Courtney Mil.

atg:-
I can see your point, and doing otherwise would indeed be difficult, but not impossible. To a lesser extent much the same has been said of UK Military Aviation Regulation. For myself I would say that where there is a will there is a way. Mercifully I am not alone in my call for independent regulation. The Nuclear Information Service has called for it also at this site (simply copy, then "paste and go"):-

nuclearinfo.org/sites/default/files/NIS%20JSP%20538%20summary.pdf

Rather like our erstwhile Able Seaman, they may well have an agenda of their own but that does not make them devoid of informed opinion. They may indeed be set upon a goal of nuclear disarmament, but that could therefore be the key to compromise on the issue of nuclear safety. Therein lies a very British solution, we keep the deterrent but ensure that it is demonstrably as safe as is reasonably possible (it might be a way also of countering SNP propaganda).

http://www.nuclearinfo.org/

This confirms what a lot of us have said. There are allegations and there is parroting of third-hand 'tall stories'; I sure there is the equivalent on a boat of pull up a sand bag. Perhaps along the lines of:

Able Seaman William McNeilly will not face court martial or further action after publishing his disclosures and going on the run, but has been discharged “services no longer required” a defence source said. (The Daily Telegraph).

ap:-
Well perhaps, but then why isn't he instead making bedpacks in Colchester following a CM? This smacks of a deal, he gets his "PVR" they get his further silence having scared him with the threat of the OSA. This is deja vu all over again and both depressing and worrying...

Or perhaps because if they had banged him up, the conspiracy theorists would have been cheerleading a campaign describing him as a safety martyr?

You may be right, Chug. Just one thing,

Can you have that? Déjà déjà vu perhaps? :ok:

CM:-
Again and again, it seems:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_Vu_All_Over_Again

Surely Official Secrets Acts offences come under the DPP and CPS and not the Service Prosecuting Authority?

According to Forces TV he was given "a dishonourable discharge" ... so not quite scot-free!


[assuming ForcesTV (BBC) has got it right!]

Have they been watching too much US TV? There's no such thing in the UK Forces...

Chug. You just Googled that! But I do take your point.

Regarding the young man, I think the phrase I saw was something about being discharged, services no longer required. He may well have phrased it differently, but his accuracy hasn't exactly been 100% to date, has it.

Anyway, it's a reasonable result for everyone, so why worry?

...or is there more to it? :E

SNLR is a 'not honourable discharge' in the RN.

I think that equates to the US 'other than honorable' discharge which is an admin board can recommend, and does carry loss of some benefits but not others.

A t G. ISTR being told, in Boy Entrant's, that to have SNLR on yr discharge docs was a big deal, or as Cpl Harris would have said "Your a waste of f****** oxygen". OWTTE.

PM