# March the guilty b*stard in!



## George Wallace (26 Mar 2005)

I started this thread because it seems we have a few PC folk who take offence to the statement "March the guilty b*stard in!"

PCain, MdH and a few others don't seem to realize that this is an old phrase that is usually said in reference to a 'Legal' proceeding that is taking place, or may have the possibilities of taking place unless something is corrected immediately.  It is a phrase used in the military, dating back in time, and does have some significance, but today is most often just "BLACK HUMOUR".  To be taken as a serious indicator of a persons beliefs is a PC misconception.  Combat Arms Soldiers use many phrases that are Black Humour and totally taken out of context by the uninformed, unknowing outsiders.  In much the same fashion as the youth of today being illiterate and unable to spell and use grammar in the construction of their correspondence, the military uses phrases and acronyms that to outsiders may seem offensive, but are not.  Political Correctness has its limits.  Those who have PC tendencies would be well advised to seek educated debate elsewhere, if their sensibilities are so easily upset.


----------



## Pencil Tech (26 Mar 2005)

I missed the thread that caused the controversy but they obviously totally missed the point. "March The Guilty Bastard In" in is a classic army saying.


----------



## patrick666 (26 Mar 2005)

What exactly does it mean as I did not grasp a full definition from Wallace's post.. 

Also, what are some other "black humoured" sayings our military has? 

Cheers


----------



## pcain (26 Mar 2005)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I missed the thread that caused the controversy but they obviously totally missed the point.



People who want to understand this thread should read the one that it grew
out of - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28690.0/all.html - and form their own conclusions. 

MGBI is an earthy, to-the-point way of referring to the danger of convicting before the trial itself, turning the trial into a disgrace ritual preceding punishment rather than an open-minded attempt to establish facts. (In the immortal words of Col. Klink: â Å“You will have a fair trial, after which you will be shot.â ?)

Fantasizing about punishments for somebody who hasn't yet been brought to trial, let alone convicted, is a) unfair, b) irresponsible, c) defamatory, if the charges don't lead to a conviction. Once again, (c) is something the mods on this board should be more focused on than they seem to be - it's potentially very dangerous. 

(I'm familiar with summary trial folklore - I was an assisting officer, back in the day, for a soldier who was George Macdonald Fraser's Private McAuslan, from the McAuslan novels, brought to life. Three charge parades in the unit in one year, all with the same defendant, and yours truly was his troop leader.)


----------



## bossi (26 Mar 2005)

pcain said:
			
		

> ... Fantasizing about punishments for somebody who hasn't yet been brought to trial, let alone convicted, is a) unfair, b) irresponsible, c) defamatory, if the charges don't lead to a conviction. *Once again, (c) is something the mods on this board should be more focused on than they seem to be - it's potentially very dangerous. *



Thanks very much.  We do not necessarily endorse each and every post made here, and if we were to heavy-handedly censor every word that might possibly be construed as defamatory ... well ... there wouldn't be a hoot of a lot to read ...

So, exercising due diligence and uncommon common sense, we try ...
(keeping in mind that the media is allowed to quote defamatory remarks, since it's not actually the media outlet that's saying it ... but the person or organisation quoted - thus, as noted above, Army.ca is not implicitly endorsing the personal viewpoint of every single person or organisation quoted herein.

And, in the context of a heated discussion of "what should be done to an accused criminal if they're convicted" ... sure - sometimes people get a little hot under the collar ... that's why we have "due process" and not lynch mobs.


----------



## badpup (26 Mar 2005)

I totally concur with the ability of the posters to exercise the tight to free speech. All too often in this PC climate we are forced to shut up, and put up. While I may not agree with the observations, and comments of a number of posters, it is within their rights to post those comments.


----------



## pcain (26 Mar 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Army.ca is not implicitly endorsing the personal viewpoint of every single person or organisation quoted herein.



A forum designed to encourage debate could hardly endorse all of the different viewpoints expressed on it at once. 

(It's a civil liability issue, Badpup, not a Charter one.)


----------



## George Wallace (26 Mar 2005)

pcain

You place way too much importance on yourself.   You are not the only one to have had this comment in a thread, but you are one of the most vocal in objecting to it.   Try looking up other threads where other poster have used the same phrase and give your ego a rest.   The world does not revolve around your gratuitus posts.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2374/post-26084.html#msg26084

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25695/post-153963.html#msg153963

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2262/post-25151.html#msg25151

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic=28783/post-190250#msg190250

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28783.270.html#quickreply

But if you truly feel it is only you ......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2005)

When it comes to being PC about something like this, or a phrase that's been around longer than the person that takes offence to it, to bad in my books. Someone needs a chill pill, but they may have to climb down off their podium to get it.


----------



## bossi (26 Mar 2005)

pcain said:
			
		

> A forum designed to encourage debate could hardly endorse all of the different viewpoints expressed on it at once.
> 
> (It's a civil liability issue, Badpup, not a Charter one.)



I see your point.

Accordingly, since I'm not as experienced as you are in these matters, nor am I a member of the bar like you, then I'm sure you'll agree that it's entirely acceptable to state personal opinions on generic situations 
(e.g. "... I'm in favour of child molesters suffering the same horrible terror they inflicted on their victims" ... or, how about "... personally, I think it's only fair that if a member of the CF is caught with child pornorgraphy on a DND computer then they should lose their security clearance ... forever ...")?

Do these meet with your approval?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2005)

The phrase, _â ?March the guilty bastard in.â ?_ reflects not just black humour but also an important principle (which I hope still exists) in military law: an officer empowered to award punishment (a command officer or a delegated officer â â€œ usually a company commander) is (was, anyway) required to investigate a charge before it was brought to trial.   If the officer felt that the charge was not well founded then he simply tore up the charge report and told Corporal X or Sergeant Y (including MP NCOs) that, effective immediately, there was no charge and that Private Z was to be released from whatever level (usual open) custody under which he was being confined and sent back to his duties a free, and innocent man.

Thus, when a soldier had been charged and did, finally, end up marking time in front of some officer's desk it was because the officer had, already, determined that there was a good case to be answered and there was every likelihood that Private Z had done, or failed to do, whatever Corporal X alleged he had done or said or whatever.

Now it happened that the _investigations_ were not always as thorough as they might have been and many officers listened to a statement of a charge, listened to Corporal X, the Private Z, asked a couple of questions and decided that there should never have been a trial and then dismissed the charges out of hand but, mostly, if you made it to the company commander's office you probably were guilty, even if your right to inherit daddy's estate and title was not in serious doubt.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2005)

Ifyou get offended by the phrase " march the guilty bastard in " you need to find a new line of work. Take the nearest exit off the pretentiousness highway.  Its just humour....get a life !!


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Mar 2005)

Thanks for this thread, George, I was beginning to think the army had lost all of its sense of humour.  The phrase itself is older than dirt, and goes well back beyond the days when ANY officer could have ANY NCO flogged for ANY indiscretion.  And, he IS a guilty b*stard, by his own admission, just a degree of guilt left to decide. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be fighting so hard to stay here, IMHO only.

CHIMO,  Kat

PS... This is re the US desrter thread, in case I lost anyone...CHIMO


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2005)

Its not just your opinion Kat...its mine too

CHIMO


----------



## Spr (27 Mar 2005)

Speaking from the perspective of being on both sides of a Summary Trial and/or RDP several times. The Military Justice system woks just fine, the phrase is appropriate because in 99% of cases the accused has had lots of other chances to improve his/her (must be PC) shortcoming or has done something so blatantly obvious that the RDP was just an exercise to ensure due process and dare I say precious  individual rights are observed.

Those of you that take offense to the phrase which started this thread need to grow thicker skin...something that seems to be a problem in the hyper sensitive PC society we have evolved into.

How about..."admit to the particulars and get quit wasting everyone's time".


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2005)

And having recently been on the receiving end of a summary trial......i agree with the fact that you are usualy guilty before you walk in.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Mar 2005)

Been on the messy end of that stick a few times too  ;D.  In my younger days, when someone asked for my SIN, I'd reply "too numerous to list." And by the way, I was guilty every time... just a little youthful exuberance..

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Spr (27 Mar 2005)

My point exactly....the ST is there to address "youthful exuberance"...if its more serious then that its now electable or under the the CCC, and the Military Justice system as it is now addresses that requirement quite well, in fact probably better then civil justice system...I'm not sure the exact stats but I think repeat offender in the Military is something like 2% where as there are pers on the civvie side that are career criminals. 

As Wayne Fox (Retired Spr) used to say..."If you're going to hoot with owls..be ready to soar with the eagles in the morning or pay the price"


----------



## Franko (27 Mar 2005)

PCain,

I actually took the time to read through all the clap trap tripe you spouted and agreed with some of the points you have posted.....

However,_ "March the guilty b*stard in"_ is black humour that is very common in the CF at the NCO level....

If you don't like it, don't join the CF or be a member of the site....plain and simple.

The saying has been around a lot longer than you or I have been alive....it's not going to go away, no matter how loud you scream the PC slogans....   :

Loosen up.

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2005)

Great post Franko.

I don't know how many times we've commented on this forum that to be a soldier (and keep sane) you need a sense of humor. To someone unacustomed with military lifestyle or culture it might seem a little crass.

If you can't take a joke, seriously, don't join. It'll be hell for you.
If you want to be a crusader and change the CF culture, well good luck.

If your going to get upset anytime someone makes a rude comment here that you don't agree with, be ready to be treated like the fat girl at the highschool dance.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Mar 2005)

Hell take away black humour, or comments that would not pass the "Globe and Mail test", and you muzzle the primary way we medics in the CF deal with some of the crap we deal with...Black humour is the most effective way to vocalize things that are not only unspeakable, but unforgetable too.

Here is a saying, slightly newer then March in th Guilty Bastard, but no less true....

Common sense isn't that common.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Mar 2005)

Ghost, your very comment is an old Army gag.

In the South Alberta Regiment history, it is quoted (as said by WW II Canadian soldiers) as "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have signed up."  Very often said when someone had just gone through a life-threatening experience.

"They told us that the verges were cleared of mines;  - I pulled my carrier over and lost a track to an S-Mine.  What gives?"

"If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have signed up!"

Today it has evolved to become "Fuck him if he can't take a joke."  Can refer to someone in a desperate situation or even, gravely injured or even in rare cases, killed.

Hard to explain without sounding crass, but it is one of those things I suspect "you had to be there" in order to appreciate or understand.

"The OC wants loc-tite on the retaining screws on all our helmet liners.  He was jumping down from a Leopard and his helmet liner gave way; just about went under the tracks when his helmet fell in front of his face.  Now he wants the weapons tech to go over the entire company's helmets to make sure their retaining screws are secure."

"That'll take all weekend!  Fuck him if he can't take a joke!"

In all cases, the use of the expression doesn't imply a deliberate prank or gag, but is an attempt to laugh off a bad experience, serious or otherwise, usually one beyond the control of the person undergoing the experience.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Mar 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> If you get offended by the phrase " march the guilty bastard in " you need to find a new line of work. Take the nearest exit off the pretentiousness highway.   Its just humour....get a life !!



WARNING, this post in this thread is a PC Free Zone fore the next few paragraphs. For those to limp wristed to handle it, quicky 'refresh' and move on.

 I agree. Its all tongue in cheek stuff (and as old as the hills), and if anyone has a problem with that phrase, time to take a long look at yourself in the mirror, and consider McDonalds or maybe a florist (or better yet, how about a part time job with your local MP) for employment. If anyone is ever so fragile when it comes to 'that phrase', they got a problem. 

To be honest, I find it really hard to phathom how anyone could take this differently.

BTW, once upon a time in 1983,   :warstory: I was a guilty bastard (for speaking to a civilian in a derogatory manner), and I was marched in   :warstory:, and I did pay the piper for my youthful stupidity. 

I was asked how I plead, and I said 'guilty with an explanation Sir', and after I explained myself, after a good verbal spanking from the CO, I was let off with a warning. It pays to be honest, direct, and upfront.

That 'phrase' must be a Commonwealth thing, because it's quite commonly used here in Australia too, with the same humourous effect, and after serving almost 30 yrs in two armies, this is a first for me to see someone actually get offfended by it.   Bloody hell, get a life! 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

Ach, George, this Canada is no stocked with REAL men no more.  I now deploy to safeguard GIRLYMEN, who should be denied use of their wee (and I do mean friggin WEE) willies out o' principle ALONE.  It makes me wan't to HURL.  Now, the 'Ghan had MEN walking around.  I should retire and set up a factory in Kandahar (I miss the place oh so dearly) WAVT (with a view to: thrown in for all you staff wienies)  dying all their shalwar-kameez (or whatever) tartan patterns.  Yes! Tartans for the Afghans!  Proper dress for the Dust Highlanders!  REAL men.  Not the ComSymp, sappy, cloying, spineless proto-jellyfish with a shotglass of quiche in one hand and a wee two tine fork in the other, we have slouching about today.  

I keep looking at the pictures I took of the Canadian graves at Dieppe, Vimy, etc, wondering if I can see the vibrations of 100,000 dead men rolling in their graves!

I miss the cold war "Kill a Commie for Christ" and all that.  Oh well, we lost.

"The old days are dead, the old men are dying, and the young men do not know what it means to be free."   - Gabriel Dumont 1885.

Tom

Tom


----------



## RetiredRoyal (26 Jun 2007)

"March the guilty b*stard in!" is usually followed by "Before I pronounce sentence, how do you plead?"


----------



## fbr2o75 (26 Jun 2007)

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> "March the guilty b*stard in!" is usually followed by "Before I pronounce sentence, how do you plead?"



Just hearing those phrases brings back good memories!! I was always on the recieiiving end tho. I was picked once for escort duty for an Orders Parade, when I showed up the RSM told me to leave, didn't want to confuse the old man.


----------



## josh (26 Jun 2007)

"The nice part was we got to go to DQ for a blizzard! I had one with Oreo's in it! Tasty."

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=2031

Ah yes, the new Canadian Forces today .......... ;D


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (26 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The phrase, _â ?March the guilty ******* in.â ?_ reflects not just black humour but also an important principle (which I hope still exists) in military law: an officer empowered to award punishment (a command officer or a delegated officer â â€œ usually a company commander) is (was, anyway) required to investigate a charge before it was brought to trial.



This is not true, a presiding officer is not to be involved with the investigation of a charge in any manner lest the trial be tainted and violate the members charter right to a fair trial. That said I have used and still use the phrase march in the guilty bastard, and the hatless dance. Keeping in mind that all summary tribunals are conducted IOT maintain good order and discipline, that is the reason the military justice system exists, the more serious stuff ie Sec 130 is best left for a court martial or the Civil court system to handle


----------



## tank recce (26 Jun 2007)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> Just hearing those phrases brings back good memories!! I was always on the recieiiving end tho. I was picked once for escort duty for an Orders Parade, when I showed up the RSM told me to leave, didn't want to confuse the old man.


There was one year, rather a while back, that this buddy and I seemed to be regulars in front of the OC. Never a charge, just a good snarling at.

"Why are you two in front of me again?!" "It's Tuesday, sir..."  ;D


----------



## GUNS (26 Jun 2007)

Been there,done that,heard that. If you are up before the man, your punishment has been decided on and your guilty. 

Also was up on charges but never got to see the man. The investigation determinded that I was not at fault.

In my days(60's,70's) you usually knew your punishment before going up to see the man and could plan for it.

Still love that phrase.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (26 Jun 2007)

I've done the hatless dance a few times myself, sometimes it is most definately better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't (not to mention reduced powers of punishment)


----------



## geo (27 Jun 2007)

Heh,.... the good old days - before I left the unit


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Jun 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> This is not true, a presiding officer is not to be involved with the investigation of a charge in any manner lest the trial be tainted and violate the members charter right to a fair trial. That said I have used and still use the phrase march in the guilty *******, and the hatless dance. Keeping in mind that all summary tribunals are conducted IOT maintain good order and discipline, that is the reason the military justice system exists, the more serious stuff ie Sec 130 is best left for a court martial or the Civil court system to handle



Some things have changed (and not always for the better).  E.R.C. was correct when he said "_an officer empowered to award punishment (a command officer or a delegated officer (usually a company commander) is (was, anyway) required to investigate a charge before it was brought to trial_".  Not sure exactly when , but if I recall correctly the changes started sometime around the mid 90s.  Prior to that (IMO only) the goal of a summary trial was to ascertain the 'facts' of a case.  Having then determined the facts (something sometimes different than the evidence) the CO (or delegated officer) could then deal with it summarily.

From my collection of old mil pubs.  Extracts From Manual of Military Law 1929 - Reprinted for use in the Canadian Army 1941 


> Ch. IV  (ii) .. Investigation by Commanding Officer
> 19.  The object of the report referred to in para. 18 is to enable the commanding officer of the accused, without delay, to institute an investigation of the case.  There is some difference in the procedure in the case of an officer and in that of a soldier.
> 20.  The case of an officer may be referred to a court of inquiry, and need not, unless the officer requires it, be formally investigated before his commanding officer; but the commanding officer, in the case of an officer as well as a soldier, is by s. 46 of the Army Act made responsible for dismissing the charge, if it ought not to be proceeded with; and, if it ought to be proceeded with, for taking the proper steps under that section.
> 21. A case of a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or private soldier should in the first instance be investigated by the company, &c., commander.  Where the accused is a private, this officer, if he decides that the case is a minor offence or a case of drunkenness, or of absence without leave, with which he can deal under the powers delegated to him under s. 46 (9) of the Army Act and the Kings Regulations, will either dispose of the case himself or leave it to his commanding officer to deal with.  The case of a non-commissioned officer must always be left to dealt with by the commanding officer, except where the company, etc., commander has power to admonish or reprimand (but not severely reprimand) a non-commissioned officer not above the rank of corporal.  *A case left to be dealt with by a commanding officer must be investigated by the commanding officer himself*. He can dismiss the charge; remand the case for trial by court-martial; refer it to superior military authority; or in the case of a private soldier, award punishment summarily, ........
> ...



Now it appears that the system requires commanding/delegated officers to be completely impartial (like a magistate) and to take into account only the rights of the individual (and the letter of the law), rather than the rights of the individual with the need to maintain discipline in his unit.  Presiding officers now need to be certified (take a course) before they can hold summary trials.

A summary conviction on your conduct sheet now seems to be a greater concern than it was decades ago.  I recall a CSM telling me the first time I did the hatless dance (about 30 years ago) that he didn't trust any NCO who hadn't spent at least one night in the digger so I shouldn't worry about being awarded seven days extra duty.  He also bemoaned the changes he noticed in soldiers of that time and that there was nothing wrong with a soldier's tendency to get into "harmless" trouble; but they should grow out of it by the time they were ready for promotion.


----------



## fbr2o75 (27 Jun 2007)

tank recce said:
			
		

> There was one year, rather a while back, that this buddy and I seemed to be regulars in front of the OC. Never a charge, just a good snarling at.
> 
> "Why are you two in front of me again?!" "It's Tuesday, sir..."  ;D



Back iin the late 70"s I was on course in Borden, after coming out of the school commanders office "again" the CSM at the time Billy Buckles if i remember correctly, made the comment that me and the ol' man must be personal f%^*&^ freinds. Me being the young niave Pte was stupid enough to ask why. His comment was " Soldiers get posted to this base for 3 years the only time they get to se the Ol' Man is on parade, you have been here five weeks and have been in his office three f%$%^$% times,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you must be his best f%^%&^^%&^ freind! Needless to say I straightnened up after that.


----------

