Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court Martial & punishment in the DF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by apod View Post
    I also have to say i agree with Cliffords observations regarding the officer corps numbers and the class system.Sad but true.
    (Before anybody jumps on their High horse i am putting this on record.I AM NOT ANTI-OFFICER)
    What class system are you talking about? This is Ireland, not the UK ffs.

    After 18 months in the Cadet School you get to know the family backgrounds of all your classmates very well. Added to that you get to know other officers really well in certain units and overseas. What 'class' are you and that muppet Clifford talking about?

    Ridiculous comment. Even more pathetic than the clowns that posted here about too many officers being the sons or daughters of other officers. Absolutely no facts to support the statement, the facts (commissioning programs with bios) prove the contrary. But then again, Clifford writes opinion pieces, he doesn't deal in facts. My opinion is that he's fond of animals....................no facts to prove it though!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      I don't understand why people have a problem with this, an officer is supposed to set the example.
      It's a problem when someone can say "He called me a prick" and with the defendant saying "No I didn't".

      The end result being that, with no actual evidence that the defendant uttered such a phrase, a person can lose their job and be threatened with a 12 month sentence.

      No witnesses at all and case of "It's his word against mine" results in someone losing their job?

      It's just plain ridiculous. How could anyone think that there's nothin wrong with such a judgement and the system responsible for it?

      Everyone accpets the need for discipline but when it gets to the stage where people are getting ****ed on charges where there's no actual evidence is very, very wrong.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tango_Charlie View Post
        I never realised there were so many officers in our DF. What would be the average ratio of officers to enlisted men in other armed forces around the world?
        This is the problem with people's trust of the media in Ireland. It's in a paper so it must be true. Clifford has been anti DF for years. Posters here are quick to point out the anti Public Sector agenda of the Indo. Well, guess who has a significant shareholding in The Sunday Tribune............IN&M!

        Clifford is too arrogant to do his own fact checking but he didn't bother to get a minion to do it either. 1200 officers is the establishment. If he'd bothered his lazy ass to do some checking he'd find out that the Lt and Capt ranks are consistently massively under strength. Half of my Cadet Class left before making Comdt for example.

        As for insight, no fear of that either. The standard of journalism in this country is appalling. An INF BN needs a BN HQ and the requisite complement of HQ Officers and HQ Senior NCOs. It's a 'sunk cost' regardless of having one rifle coy or four rifle coys. If each of the Inf Bns had one more rifle company that would be approx 1000 more o/ranks but approx only 60 more officers. Same with the Arty Regts and the Cav Sqns.

        On every occasion that the DF gets targeted for cutbacks the priority has been to try and maintain the operational unit establishment while political interference (internal and external) has protected the Band, the Pony Club, the Cadre etc. Firstly, it provides promotion opportunities for ALL RANKS. Secondly, it provides a framework to quickly build up strength within existing units if required. Sadly, the latter reason may have had a glimmer of hope back in the days of the 'Efficiency Audit Group' but today, it's a pipe dream.

        The good news for Clifford and his acolytes on this forum is that he will get his 'acceptable ratio' after the new White Paper when nine Bns will be merged into six. There'll be less officers and a better ratio but a lot less other ranks too.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jessup View Post
          Clifford is too arrogant to do his own fact checking but he didn't bother to get a minion to do it either. 1200 officers is the establishment. If he'd bothered his lazy ass to do some checking he'd find out that the Lt and Capt ranks are consistently massively under strength. Half of my Cadet Class left before making Comdt for example.
          Why is it that Lt. and Capt. ranks are under strength Jessup? Is it just a case of not enough bodies being brought in with each Class or as you allude to, people leaving early?

          I'd imagine there's a bit of a glass ceiling once an Officer hits Comdt? Since vacancies obviously aren't as plentiful as you go up the ranks?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hello Alaska View Post
            Why is it that Lt. and Capt. ranks are under strength Jessup? Is it just a case of not enough bodies being brought in with each Class or as you allude to, people leaving early?

            I'd imagine there's a bit of a glass ceiling once an Officer hits Comdt? Since vacancies obviously aren't as plentiful as you go up the ranks?
            Class sizes are too small, you're right about that. Pre the recession a lot of guys left at Captain to go and do other things, it wasn't always promotion prospects. I know one female officer who was first in her class who left recently, two Captains that left after the ARW etc. Others looked at their chances of promotion and that can be a big influence. It's about 50/50 I'd say.

            Pre the embargo Comdt and north of Comdt is always filled. Establishment = Strength. Isn't it pretty much the same for o/ranks? Lots of Cpl and Sgt vacancies but a CQ/CS/BQ/BSM is never left vacant too long.

            Comment


            • Donohoe now faces the prospect of being the first officer to be ejected from the defence forces.
              Donal de Roiste was "ejected" in 1969. Mr Clifford should have done his research before he sat down to type this little piece.

              Last edited by WES; 7 June 2010, 15:23.
              The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity.
              (George Bernard Shaw, Playwright, 1856 - 1950)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WES View Post
                Donal de Roiste was "ejected" in 1968. Mr Clifford should have done his research before he sat down to type this little piece.

                http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer.../story9712.asp
                Was he comissioned?


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WES View Post
                  Donal de Roiste was "ejected" in 1968. Mr Clifford should have done his research before he sat down to type this little piece.

                  http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer.../story9712.asp
                  Brilliant example! From the stupid civvy and lazy journalist point of view 'his only crime was go to a pub to listen to traditional Irish music'.

                  Certain pubs were known to be frequented by subversives and DF pers were ordered to avoid these locations. He disobeyed that order. As an officer, that's it, end of story.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                    Was he comissioned?
                    Yes, a Lt I think. Couldn't even use the "I'm only a 2/Lt excuse"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                      Was he comissioned?
                      What he says happened to him lacked all semblance of natural justice. In 1968 he was a young army lieutenant. Out of nowhere, he says he was taken to military headquarters, put under confinement, interrogated for several days and eventually dismissed from the army.
                      seems so
                      "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

                      Comment


                      • He was a commissioned officer of the Irish Defence Forces and held the rank of Lieutenant when he was retired.



                        The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity.
                        (George Bernard Shaw, Playwright, 1856 - 1950)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hello Alaska View Post
                          It's a problem when someone can say "He called me a prick" and with the defendant saying "No I didn't".

                          The end result being that, with no actual evidence that the defendant uttered such a phrase, a person can lose their job and be threatened with a 12 month sentence.

                          No witnesses at all and case of "It's his word against mine" results in someone losing their job?

                          It's just plain ridiculous. How could anyone think that there's nothin wrong with such a judgement and the system responsible for it?

                          Everyone accpets the need for discipline but when it gets to the stage where people are getting ****ed on charges where there's no actual evidence is very, very wrong.
                          The sentence is harsh I totally agree with you and will be most likely reduced on appeal but with the other nine charges pending, it's only a matter of time before he's gone.

                          It's funny (well not really) that none of the journalists have fully reported Gary Gartland's testimony who was in the next room when the comment was made. You can't have the adjutant in the room for a 451 (which Donohoe appears to have exploited) but it might be no coincidence at all that the Adjudant was 'just outside the door' when the comment was made. A bit sly on behalf of the OC perhaps if it was pre-arranged, but if so, it proved to be a prudent move.

                          The three officer court martials that I can recollect are this one, Collette Mc Barron and Tony Byrne. All are public record. From the point of view of a civvy or a fat journalist like Michael Clifford they were all for 'minor infractions'. Clifford refers to 'you can't handle the truth'. Clifford can't handle the fact that there isn't a explosive Court Martial to report about that would make great copy and sell lots of newspapers. Perhaps the very reason that the DF don't have Court Martials where officers are complicit in a soldier being beaten to death (like his reference to a Few Good Men) is because officers should not be not let away with the 'little things' like calling your CO 'a little prick'.


                          Popping out for a few hours to do a message - Collette McBarron - AWOL and deserting your post


                          Not leaving a party when asked to do so - Tony Byrne - Disobeying an order


                          Calling someone a prick - Niall Donohoe - Insubordination


                          What Clifford and none of his acolytes here have addressed is the alternative. I see only three options;

                          1. Turn the other cheek. No self respecting officer or NCO could do that.
                          2. Deal with the matter 'creatively' outside A7. There was far too much of that in the past. Issues regarding officers in particular. Some got very harsh treatment, others got away scott free only to cause even greater problems later.
                          3. Deal with the matter inside A7. Only way to go. To hell with gombeens like Michael Clifford who wouldn't last one day as soldier, garda, nurse or firefighter and do the right thing.
                          Last edited by Jessup; 7 June 2010, 15:36.

                          Comment


                          • Somewhere in the middle of your posts Jess you actually come to the point-

                            Everyone realises the need for discpline-

                            but it has to be proportionate and fair-

                            Firstly as Hello Alaska says, how can it be fair when there was only 2 people in the room and both

                            are in conflict- last week the High Court struck out a case where 2 lads in a jacks in Lucan Golf Club

                            alledged the other had initiated a fight- the Judge said he couldnt make a determination

                            on the basis that there were no independent witnesses-

                            Prick gate is not a great case to argue anything about

                            but if this sets a precedence that a senior is always beleived over a junior then that

                            opens an appaling vista

                            akin to the West Midlands crime squad- The Donegal fiasco etc,

                            Say for example - I was your CO and we didnt get on- all I have to do is say you called me a prick

                            and bang your out.

                            The fact that the Lt Col and the Comdt had an acromonious relationship should have put the on notice

                            that this would need corroborating evidence-
                            Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                            Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                            The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
                            The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                            The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                            Are full of passionate intensity.

                            Comment


                            • In 1963 there was a case called Deaton v AG which established that the act of sentencing was an integral part of the administration of Justice therefore -It was held that therefore sentencing must comply with the Constitutional requirements of Justice - fairness and independence.

                              In the State (Healy) v Donoghue (1976) Henchy J held that these Constituional imperatives also included the fact that an accused should receive a sentence appropiate to the degree of guilt and relevant circumstances-

                              and thats why we dont keel haul a sailor for texting his girlfreind- nor do we fine a female Soldier ten million euro for absences.

                              In 1994 in the case of the People (DPP) v WC- Flood J held that

                              Quote:
                              the selection of the particular punishment to be imposed on an individual offender is subject to the Constitutional principle of proportionality- the puishment must strike a balance

                              Keep the word Proportionality in the back of your head-

                              a sentence has to be proportionate- you cant send a man to prison for life for not having a TV licence

                              nor should you imprison a man for 3 months ad dismiss him from his job for texting his girlfreind

                              or imprison a messer for messing .

                              No matter how high a standard WE set ourselves

                              all sanctions must be proportionate to the act complained off.
                              Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                              Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                              The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
                              The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                              The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                              Are full of passionate intensity.

                              Comment


                              • Jessup is correct as well in that the sentence is harsh-


                                one lad called another chap a prick- and thats basically what happened.

                                What the Lt Col should have done is simply given him the Officers equivalent of a 667b.

                                Jessup- how many times has someone alledgedly called you a prick

                                I know when I was in I was called a prick frequently- sometimes I let it go

                                other times I didnt- good leadership knows the value of discretion.

                                Military law like civilian law should know the beneifit of mercy, common sense and proportionality.

                                Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
                                In 1963 there was a case called Deaton v AG which established that the act of sentencing was an integral part of the administration of Justice therefore -It was held that therefore sentencing must comply with the Constitutional requirements of Justice - fairness and independence.

                                In the State (Healy) v Donoghue (1976) Henchy J held that these Constituional imperatives also included the fact that an accused should receive a sentence appropiate to the degree of guilt and relevant circumstances-

                                and thats why we dont keel haul a sailor for texting his girlfreind- nor do we fine a female Soldier ten million euro for absences.

                                In 1994 in the case of the People (DPP) v WC- Flood J held that

                                Quote:
                                the selection of the particular punishment to be imposed on an individual offender is subject to the Constitutional principle of proportionality- the puishment must strike a balance

                                Keep the word Proportionality in the back of your head-

                                a sentence has to be proportionate- you cant send a man to prison for life for not having a TV licence

                                nor should you imprison a man for 3 months ad dismiss him from his job for texting his girlfreind

                                or imprison a messer for messing .

                                No matter how high a standard WE set ourselves

                                all sanctions must be proportionate to the act complained off.
                                Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                                Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                                The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
                                The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                                The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                                Are full of passionate intensity.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X