Sailors Dismissed For Drug Offences

#21
Ninja_Stoker said:
My understanding, although not expert in this, with regard CDT is that under English (Scottish too?) Law you cannot be compelled to give evidence against yourself.

Therefore as random drug testing is compulsory, you cannot be charged for taking drugs revealed by CDT, simply dismissed as it contravenes the Armed Forces Act.

To that end, when you leave the service for drugs offences detected under CDT, you do not incur a criminal conviction.

Strange, but true.

Unless anyone knows different...
On that subject, do they still have consequential punishment, something surely flying in the face of all civil rights legislation.
It'd be interesting to know.
 

Levers_Aligned

War Hero
Moderator
#22
Lingyai said:
Good news, weed the scum out (pardon the pun).
Drug and alcohol testing is becoming more widespread in the offshore industry as well.
In my opinion, drug testing should not be random but routine, the trouble with druggies is that they are chancers by their nature and keep thinking they will get away with it.
Drug takers are a liability and a disgrace to the service and should be dismissed immediately.
Whereas the plethora of alcoholics and problem drinkers we breed or shield every day with our 'pissing up is good for you' peer-group mentality is just merely 'excusable'?

Okay, as ever, I play devil's advocate. But alcohol = very powerful depressant, makes people prone to violent outbursts and irrational behaviour. It also kills thousands per year either as a physical derivitive of it's abuse or a social effect of it's use. It's widely available, however and is now engineered into more palatble concoctions which appeals to a younger, less discerning taste. MDMA (for example) = kills far less people and induces feelings of euphoria and collective bliss. As a doorman during the infamous 'Summers of Love' circa 1988-89-90, I know which punters we had the most trouble from, and it wasn't the pill-heads and the pot-heads.

Tell me how many times you have seen people turn to at 0800 still pissed from the night before, and how many people you have seen swan back from a DTS 'unfit to carry out a duty to which he may be reasonably expected to carry out'?

Alcohol abusers are an equal liability to drug users in my opinion.

Levers
 
#24
I'm with levers on this one. It is a problem in the RN and perhaps we don't take it seriously enough. But the problem is only a small percentage of what it would have been ten or fifteen years ago.

Realistically, if we want to take the moral high ground, we should add to the NDA that no person be allowed to consume alcohol during the working day / whilst effectively still on duty. What people choose to do in their own time is another matter and one which cannot reasonably be controlled. That said, the new Minor Admin Action is a good step forward in dishing out punishments to persons who turn up late or unable to perform due to alcohol.

SF
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#25
sussex2 said:
On that subject, do they still have consequential punishment, something surely flying in the face of all civil rights legislation.
It'd be interesting to know.
Not sure on that one, think we still do, but I'm inclined to think you're right- doubtless someone will illuminate.
 

Levers_Aligned

War Hero
Moderator
#26
SILVER_FOX said:
I'm with levers on this one. It is a problem in the RN and perhaps we don't take it seriously enough. But the problem is only a small percentage of what it would have been ten or fifteen years ago.

Realistically, if we want to take the moral high ground, we should add to the NDA that no person be allowed to consume alcohol during the working day / whilst effectively still on duty. What people choose to do in their own time is another matter and one which cannot reasonably be controlled. That said, the new Minor Admin Action is a good step forward in dishing out punishments to persons who turn up late or unable to perform due to alcohol.

SF
Agree, but further to that:

The new MAA (as has been discussed before on here) is a paperwork nightmare fraught with inconsistencies and pratfalls for the administrator not-too genned up on the rules. It won't, for example, solve the problem of people rolling back on a Daily Harbour routine at 0745 and donning overalls or 4s and being responsible (for example, again) for the safety of the magazines on the ship or the capability of the duty watch. Coupled with that is the certification of drunkenness in line with QRRNs, which requires absolution with a credible Medical Officer's assessment. Try finding an MO on your average 23 parked alongside Weston Mill or Fountain Lake. It's also (and I am a sinner where this is concerned, so a bit rich in mentioning, but here goes ...) apparent that a whole ship alcohol ban is a plain possibility whilst at sea. Sure, I enjoy a scoop now and again, but the amount of legislation, equipment failures and opportunities for disaster due to underinvestment and unreliability leads me to believe that a pre-Sunday Routine at sea mishap isn't very far away. I tend to stay away from it these days. My pension, reputation and credibility is at stake, as are the lives of others. I wish I could speak with great conviction regarding the attitudes of others, though. Time will tell.

Levers
 

oberon

Lantern Swinger
#27
Think CDT came in about 1998? I was at Collingrad then as Guard Commander, we got done twice in 6-months, then on to Dryad for GS LS(S) course, the team turned up twice before I joined Glasgow in refit. Saw the team 5 times on there between Nov 98 and May 00 including in Sydney! Neptune called for my last 18 months and was tested 4 more times. On leaving the mob decided to see what the fuss was all about so off the Amsters for a few days R&R with the girlfriend in tow. Did a couple of coffee shops and wasn't really impressed. One of my mates from Faslane was a MAA and he wanted to know all about it as he was planning to try it the day he left the mob! The CDT works and hope they keep it up (and enjoy the jollies to Oz).
 

Grubber

Lantern Swinger
#29
Agree with Lingyai's earlier post.

Test everybody regularly, from 1sl to the newest recruit, and bin those who endanger the friends(?)

I don't drink on board myself, but as long as there are enough of us who are sober, and we are aware of those who aren't, I think it does no harm for some of the lads to cut loose once in a while.
 
#30
Not sure about the last comment everyone should be accountable for their actions at all times.
Okay a piss up once is a while is fine and everyone enjoys it.
But making the excuse they are cutting loose just doesn't seem acceptable.
If you are injured doing you're job and you're the only sober one
Do you want to be looked after by some pissed up pusser while some real help arrives??

Because I know I wouldn't!
 
#32
mixyblob said:
A man who drinks at sea is a danger to himself his ship and his shipmates.
Always stuck with me that one.
Absolutely !!! the Yanks have got it right and they survive without booze . No booze means everyone no booze of course and a completely dry navy. Imagine the squeals from you know where .

:threaten: :threaten: :threaten:
 
#33
hobbit said:
mixyblob said:
A man who drinks at sea is a danger to himself his ship and his shipmates.
Always stuck with me that one.
Absolutely !!! the Yanks have got it right and they survive without booze . No booze means everyone no booze of course and a completely dry navy. Imagine the squeals from you know where .

:threaten: :threaten: :threaten:
Does it start with a 'W'?
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#34
lsadirty said:
Remember from my time in the Pusser the Act always specified for most if not all offences "Two years or any lesser punishment authorised by the Act." Let's start giving these people 2 years and see if that has any deterrent effect - unless the Act has been changed since 1979 ?
Every Accused person found guilty at trial is awarded a punishment on a scale proportionate to their offence, as directed by the sentencing guildines (or "Green Guide"). Each person is convicted having taken into account the aggravating or mitigating factors, hence the reason offenders rarely get the maximum punishment available. Trying Officers award punishment for these types of offences in the first instance based on appropriate legal advice from their Higher Authority.

If everyone was awarded the maximum punishment of 2 years detention then I agree, you would have the deterrent effect. But someone found with one spliff and another found with 2kg of coke, both awarded 2 years? Not consistent with sentencing guidelines. And it is likely that the amount of quashed convictions at Summary Appeals Courts would increase.

As much as ome people don't like that, it is better to get a conviction with an appropriate punishment, rather than punish excessively only for the conviction to be throw out at appeal, and removing the possibility of a retrial ("autrefois accuse" or double jeopardy rule).
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#35
Levers_Aligned said:
SILVER_FOX said:
I'm with levers on this one. It is a problem in the RN and perhaps we don't take it seriously enough. But the problem is only a small percentage of what it would have been ten or fifteen years ago.

Realistically, if we want to take the moral high ground, we should add to the NDA that no person be allowed to consume alcohol during the working day / whilst effectively still on duty. What people choose to do in their own time is another matter and one which cannot reasonably be controlled. That said, the new Minor Admin Action is a good step forward in dishing out punishments to persons who turn up late or unable to perform due to alcohol.

SF
Agree, but further to that:

The new MAA (as has been discussed before on here) is a paperwork nightmare fraught with inconsistencies and pratfalls for the administrator not-too genned up on the rules. It won't, for example, solve the problem of people rolling back on a Daily Harbour routine at 0745 and donning overalls or 4s and being responsible (for example, again) for the safety of the magazines on the ship or the capability of the duty watch. Coupled with that is the certification of drunkenness in line with QRRNs, which requires absolution with a credible Medical Officer's assessment. Try finding an MO on your average 23 parked alongside Weston Mill or Fountain Lake. It's also (and I am a sinner where this is concerned, so a bit rich in mentioning, but here goes ...) apparent that a whole ship alcohol ban is a plain possibility whilst at sea. Sure, I enjoy a scoop now and again, but the amount of legislation, equipment failures and opportunities for disaster due to underinvestment and unreliability leads me to believe that a pre-Sunday Routine at sea mishap isn't very far away. I tend to stay away from it these days. My pension, reputation and credibility is at stake, as are the lives of others. I wish I could speak with great conviction regarding the attitudes of others, though. Time will tell.

Levers
SF: Agree with your point of view, and it is written into various Standing Orders that personnel are not to consume alcohol within 8 hours of commencing a duty (especially personnel operating machinery or weapons). Failure to comply with these regulations is a contravention of Section 14A(1) of the NDA.

L_A: First, MAA is not the 'be all and end all' answer to discipline. The offender's superior officer(s) makes the decision whether or not to impose an administrative sanction against him. This has to be approved by a Reviewing Officer before it is awarded, if at all. However, given the circumstances you describe in the example (X returns on board, hanging out from the night before, etc...) it is likely that his condition would be noticed by various people and he would face disciplinary action for being drunk on board.

Second, personnel who are found to be drunk (on board, on shore, etc.) are not certified drunk by a Medical Officer. This was never the case; in the old days, drunk people were certified drunk by the OOD. But as he was not a medical expert, this was legally challenged. So drunks who were arrested by Service Police were then certified medically fit for protective supervision (in a bed with a sentry, but not in arrest) or custody (in a cell with a sentry, but in arrest) by a Medical Branch rating (if they were below LH, or by an MO for LH and above). Depending of the nature of his arrest he would be de-arrested into the care of the OOD, who would authorise him/her to be placed in protective supervision, or placed in custody (as authorised by an officer of LT or above).

As you correctly point out, it is often difficult to get hold of an MO out of working hours, so an on-call PCT GP would be notified to authorise supervision/custody. However custody regulations have changed in the last couple of years, so a drunk no longer requires medical assessment, unless it is deemed necessary by the Custody Supervisor, or the detainee requests it.

Drunks are never 'certified' - the arresting policeman (or any other duty personnel who deals with him/her) forms the opinion that he/she is drunk - based on professional experience - and the OOD is advised accordingly.

Third, wholeship beer bans are highly unlikely; personnel (and sometimes whole messdecks) can have their beer issue withdrawn for a specified period, but it has to be approved by the CO. And to be honest, I would rather a ship at sea had beer (in a controlled environment) rather than go dry, as this usually results in the Ship's Company going ashore at the first opportunity and 'outpinning', which causes more problems all round. Pissed matelots on board can be contained, out of the public eye. Pissed matelots ashore brings discredit on the Service. Better the devil you know, etc...
 
#36
Maxi_77 said:
rosinacarley said:
Runsilentrundeep said:
the only way to keep the RN zero tolerance is to keep testing and discharge SNLR... was tested last week for the second time in 19 years...obviously testing not been in that long but not that much of a deteranant if thats the way they test...wouldn't even risk my pension for cheap thrills though
Perhaps you have not been tested so frequently because you were not in a high risk establishment. Consider how often and when the CDT team go to say - Collingrad or Sultan - usually the first day back after leave.

Like stop and search - there is little point in stopping old ladies with shopping trollies.
That may have been true once but todays little old ladies are now yestrday's hippies. There are quite a few now being convicted of serious drugs dealing and there is growing evidence of pensioners being used as couriers for all sorts of nefarious doings. After all we are seeing white islamic radicals and so on.
Maxi I must agree with you concerning little old ladies. Up until the early 60's amphetamine sulphate was very regularly prescribed as a help for slimming as it is an appetite depressant. Some of these continued to use(addicted) A.S illegally and now are in their 70's and are still users. Was never a priority target in my plod days so does not show in th figures. If we arrested a speed dealer and middle aged females were in the vicinity we politely told them to go and find another dealer cos this one was nicked.


Nutty
 
#37
As a really old phart who was around in the days of the Tot and probably excessive drinking I am amazed at the self righteous attitude taken by just about everybody on this thread when no comment or surprise was made about the recent evidence given at a Court Martial for an alleged sexual offence where a RN Ship at sea had all ranks enjoying a BBQ and drinking excessive amounts of beer and wine, spirits may have been taken but were not mentioned in the evidence published.

Talk about two faced double standards.

Nutty
 
#38
I wholeheartedly agree with the comments about the double standards regarding alcohol, and vividly recall (ish) the "compulsory" runs ashore on the razz. Even for a 3 day course, you had a start-of-course run, a middle-of-course run and an end-of-course run. I also agree that the dangers of alcohol compared to the class B/C drugs are underestimated.

As to testing, I recall seeing a programme a couple of years ago (Mythbusters or Brainiac) where they showed that you can get a positive CDT by eating poppy seeds, such as those sprinkled on bread rolls.

As to drinking, I'm fairly sure that the official line is no drink during the 8 hours before going on watch, whether at sea or alongside. Heck, many of those I knew on boats had a personal rule of "not at sea" as regards their beer and wine, although some just went on as usual, of course.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#39
Nutty said:
As a really old phart who was around in the days of the Tot and probably excessive drinking I am amazed at the self righteous attitude taken by just about everybody on this thread when no comment or surprise was made about the recent evidence given at a Court Martial for an alleged sexual offence where a RN Ship at sea had all ranks enjoying a BBQ and drinking excessive amounts of beer and wine, spirits may have been taken but were not mentioned in the evidence published.

Talk about two faced double standards.

Nutty
'Nuff said. If you ask a matelot how much booze they've consumed they will likely lie to make themselves sound bigger/harder than they really are ("Ooh, I drank a whole crate last night...") but when I (as a Reggy) try to get someone to say that in a statement they suddenly develop alcohol selective amnaesia.

Bravado is one thing; admissible evidence is another. And if it was not mentioned in the published evidence the it is likely that it could not be obtained, rather than dismissed or ignored.
 
#40
Lingyai said:
Good news, weed the scum out (pardon the pun).
Drug and alcohol testing is becoming more widespread in the offshore industry as well.
In my opinion, drug testing should not be random but routine, the trouble with druggies is that they are chancers by their nature and keep thinking they will get away with it.
Drug takers are a liability and a disgrace to the service and should be dismissed immediately.
I also completely agree :)
But I feel the same way about booze to a certain extent. Don't touch the stuff onboard myself, even when alongside. But I have no problem with going ashore for a few (not shitfaced though, i'm too old these days for that feeling of not being in control).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
slim Blue Jokes 0
higthepig The Fleet 100
B Submariners 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top