# HMCS Saskatoon - drug use trials



## Trinity (16 Apr 2007)

Usual caveats apply 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/04/16/bc-sailor.html#skip300x250

A second former sailor from a warship based at CFB Esquimalt has been given a suspended sentence and a fine after pleading guilty to trafficking in cocaine.

Sonya Robert, 27, was charged in January 2006 following an undercover operation aboard the minesweeper HMCS Saskatoon.

Last week, Robert pleaded guilty in military court to selling half a gram of cocaine to a military undercover drug officer. She was fined $500 in addition to a 30-day suspended sentence.

Last month, a military court gave 28-year-old Brenda Murley, a former deckhand on the Saskatoon, a 15-day suspended sentence and a $500 fine after she pleaded guilty to the same charge.

Two other former crew members from the minesweeper also face courts martial.

Next month, a former communications specialist on HMCS Saskatoon will be court martialled under the same charge. The ship's former chief petty officer also faces trafficking charges, but no date has been set for his trial.


MORE AT THE ABOVE LINK


----------



## geo (16 Apr 2007)

Some bigger fish still to fry

The westies will be in the news for a little while yet.


----------



## noneck (18 Apr 2007)

Do you mean the unit or those posted in the Pacific region?

Noneck


----------



## navymich (13 Aug 2007)

And here is #3




> Cocaine widespread on Canadian warship, court martial told
> 3rd sailor from HMCS Saskatoon convicted of drug charges
> Last Updated: Monday, August 13, 2007 | 8:27 AM PT
> CBC News
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (13 Aug 2007)

Cocaine widespread on Canadian warship, court martial told.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/08/13/bc-hmcscocaine.html

Cocaine was used regularly by about one-third of the crew members of a warship stationed at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt near Victoria, a military court has heard.

'In my 38-year-long career, I have never seen such an appalling sight.' 
—Chief Petty Officer Leonard Hern, sent to tackle drug problem on warshipThe details emerged Friday at the court martial of Jason Ennis, 24, one of four former sailors from HMCS Saskatoon who were discharged from the military after being charged with various drug offenses in 2006.

The court acquitted Ennis of trafficking but convicted him of cocaine use, levying a $2,000 fine.

Ennis told the court martial that 10 to 12 members of the 31-member crew on HMCS Saskatoon used cocaine regularly in January 2006.

The court also heard from Chief Petty Officer Leonard Hern, who was transferred to HMCS Saskatoon in January 2006 in order to deal with the drug problem.

"In my 38-year-long career, I have never seen such an appalling sight," Hern told the court. "The ship was disorganized, there was no discipline, and no trust among the crew.

More at link


----------



## navymich (13 Aug 2007)

Posted  here as a continuation of the situation.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Aug 2007)

Wow this is truly appalling. I wonder if this is the case in other ships in our Fleet....I hope not for the sake of safety if nothing else.


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Aug 2007)

I know Mr. Carlson, needless to say I am disgusted at the fact that a person in his position (is accused of) such disgraceful activities.  

Doesn't set a good example for many of the junior sailors out here. 

I hope they don't go easy on the guy, making a mistake is one thing, but this was just plain stupid.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Aug 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I know Mr. Carlson, needless to say I am disgusted at the fact that a person in his position (is accused of) such disgraceful activities.
> 
> Doesn't set a good example for many of the junior sailors out here.
> 
> I hope they don't go easy on the guy, making a mistake is one thing, but this was just plain stupid.



And does not your avatar glorify drug use? :








(Edited to add avatar picture referred to.)


----------



## geo (13 Aug 2007)

Well, fortunately for all, they have retired the "cat of nine tails" and felons are no longer "keel hauled" or made to "walk the plank".

Hope they dish out justice fairly and firmly.


----------



## mudrecceman (13 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hope they dish out justice fairly and firmly.



+1


----------



## kincanucks (13 Aug 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070814/ca_pr_on_na/bc_navy_drugs;_ylt=AubpgYsqHC3jJBJM1JfJtAOkz3wV


----------



## kincanucks (13 Aug 2007)

The Usual Disclaimer:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070814/ca_pr_on_na/bc_navy_drugs;_ylt=AubpgYsqHC3jJBJM1JfJtAOkz3wV

Third sailor from Canadian warship found guilty of cocaine trafficking by court martial SCOTT SUTHERLAND
1 hour, 58 minutes ago



VICTORIA (CP) - A third member of the crew of a Pacific-based Canadian warship has been found guilty of trafficking cocaine, telling a military court that about one-third of the crew were regularly using the illegal drug.

Jason Ennis, once a leading seaman, was one of four crew members of HMCS Saskatoon charged after the military launched an undercover sting operation targeting the ship in early 2006.

Canadian Forces spokesman Capt. Darin Guenette said Monday that Ennis was found guilty of one count of trafficking cocaine and fined $2,000.

At the court martial last week, the spokeswoman confirmed, Ennis testified cocaine was in regular use by up to a dozen sailors, or about one-third of the crew aboard the 55-metre coastal defence vessel.

Navy spokesman Gerry Pash said Canadian Forces has a no tolerance rule with regards to the use of drugs.

"There is no evidence that drug use among Canadian Forces members is any greater than that of the general population and, indeed, the nature of service may even suggest that it might even be lesser because the consequences include dismissal as well as fines and perhaps prison," Pash said.

"Any incident like this, of course, is significant, and where there was drug use, charges were laid."

The spokeswoman said Ennis also told the military court he never used cocaine while serving aboard the warship.

Ennis was a naval reservist and communications specialist. He had originally been charged with two counts of trafficking and two counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline under the National Defence Act.

Ennis and the other three charged in the case have been discharged by the Canadian Forces.

Pash said the undercover operation was the result of a tip.

"A sailor came forward and indicated that something was amiss with regards to some rumours. That was immediately acted upon in terms of the recipient of that information going to the military police and the National Investigation Service."

Pash would not say whether there is a continuing problem with cocaine or other drugs within the Pacific Fleet.

"I don't know, and of course, if there was any other investigation I couldn't comment on any ongoing investigation. That answer is not a Yes and it's not a No. It is can't comment, don't know."

Online records from the office of the Chief Military Judge show that earlier this spring, two former Saskatoon crew members, Brenda Murley and Sonya Robert, pleaded guilty in separate courts martial to trafficking in cocaine.

Each was handed a suspended sentence and fined $500.

The fourth person charged was the warship's senior non-commissioned officer. Petty officer Robert Carlson was the ship's coxswain at the time of his arrest and in charge of discipline aboard.

He faces one count of trafficking under the National Defence Act and another count of having "behaved in a disgraceful manner." 

A court martial has been set for Oct. 10. 

In June 2006 the vessel got a new skipper when Lt.-Cmdr. David Botting was promoted. 

HMCS Saskatoon is one of the navy's six maritime coastal defence vessels in the Pacific fleet, based at CFB Esquimalt.


----------



## geo (13 Aug 2007)

Hmmm.... old skipper got promoted outa the driver's seat?

Nice!


----------



## Springroll (14 Aug 2007)

Maybe they can start focusing on the stuff going on in the shacks for a bit....
Might help to set a better example by starting to enforce the CF's laws right from the moment they step foot into the shacks.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2007)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Maybe they can start focusing on the stuff going on in the shacks for a bit....
> Might help to set a better example by starting to enforce the CF's laws right from the moment they step foot into the shacks.



Ah yes!  I heard there was a prison located in Victoria.  Work Point Barracks sounds like one.  How many 'screws' run the place?


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Aug 2007)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Maybe they can start focusing on the stuff going on in the shacks for a bit....


Legends, Myths and Lore were created in 1091 and 1092 plus the minor hick up from time to time in Victoria's Vital Statistics. Aside of that for as long as I can recall the lock up at Work Points front gate was used exclusively for the mandatory rest periods of hard working COS's and BOS's. Bad boys were shipped down to Naden as an example for the Navy to aspire too. ;D


----------



## FSTO (14 Aug 2007)

There are cells located at Naden at the MP shack. As Base Duty Officer, I had to go there to inspect a prisoner once, not a nice place. 
The cells are very austere, and everything echos. If I remember correctly there are 6 cells ready to receive any and all defaulters.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Aug 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> There are cells located at Naden at the MP shack. As Base Duty Officer, I had to go there to inspect a prisoner once, not a nice place.
> The cells are very austere, and everything echos. If I remember correctly there are 6 cells ready to receive any and all defaulters.



You are correct I also visited there as Duty Chaplain. I agree with Springroll there should be more supervision of our folks in Nellie's Block and A Block here.....there has been a lot of vandalism in A Block here and general disorder which is unworthy of a military establishment.


----------



## hugh19 (14 Aug 2007)

Well disorder and vandalism are signs that someone is bored. Maybe some activities to keep the OD's busy would be good.


----------



## FSTO (14 Aug 2007)

sledge said:
			
		

> Well disorder and vandalism are signs that someone is bored. Maybe some activities to keep the OD's busy would be good.



We do, its called NEIP. The jury is still out on its effectiveness.

Maybe if the Military Judges would give out more than a 200 dollar fine and suspended sentence people would think twice before they do stupid things;
Maybe if the folks at BMQ were tougher at weeding out the bad ones before they get to the coasts;
Maybe if the folks at CFRG were more discriminating in their selection of recruits; or
Since I have no control of these groups, maybe if the admin process to release a person didn't take 6 to 8 months we could send a more pointed message to the hands (and a few officers)

my .02


----------



## Springroll (14 Aug 2007)

NEIP seems to be a wast coast program for now since we are the primary QL3 training base. 
Not that NEIP stops anyone from doing, selling or even over dosing on drugs...not sure how effective it is though. I found it quite a waste of time, but I am sure that for some, it is a great prelude to heading to the PFC.


----------



## Scott (14 Aug 2007)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Not that NEIP stops anyone from doing, selling or even over dosing on drugs...



Agreed, 100%.



> I found it quite a waste of time, but I am sure that for some, it is a great prelude to heading to the PFC.



We're not going down this road again, stick to the topic at hand.


----------



## GAP (14 Aug 2007)

Third of ship crew used cocaine, court martial told
Updated Tue. Aug. 14 2007 8:52 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The Canadian Navy has decided it will review its drug-testing process after a military court heard that as much as one-third of the crew on a Pacific-based Canadian ship were regularly using cocaine, according to a report. 

In total, three crewmembers aboard the HMCS Saskatoon have been found guilty of trafficking cocaine and a fourth charged with the same offence. 

Jason Ennis, 24, was one of four crew members of HMCS Saskatoon charged after the military launched an undercover sting operation targeting the ship. 

Ennis, who was convicted last week, told the court between 10 and 12 members of the 31-member crew used cocaine frequently during the time of the investigation, which took place in January, 2006. However, he denied using the drug on the ship himself. 

Earlier this year, two sailors were convicted of drug trafficking charges. Sonya Robert, 27, pleaded guilty to selling half a gram of cocaine to a military undercover drug officer. Brenda Murley, 28, pleaded guilty to the same charge and both were fined $500. A military court convicted Ennis last week of one count of trafficking cocaine and ordered him to pay a $2,000 fine.
More on link

Mods: Thanks for merging this into the proper thread...I didn't see it when I posted


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Aug 2007)

Five charged after RCMP nab drug boat in Ucluelet
Former Victoria fisherman among five charged with importing drugs-Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/news/story.html?id=5c601e65-9b0f-4689-aba2-e02c2c624bd9&k=77029


"The vessel will be towed to CFB Esquimalt where special equipment  will be used to check for drugs, Nadeau said. 

"We're dealing with some enclosed space inside the ship. It's under guard right now  ... where the search is going to be completed. The areas we're looking at are sealed with that expanding foam. There's also a certain amount of fish on board."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Aug 2007)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Maybe they can start focusing on the stuff going on in the shacks for a bit....
> Might help to set a better example by starting to enforce the CF's laws right from the moment they step foot into the shacks.



Agreed....what they need to do is stop having the new OS police themselves....its not working. Use someone that has nothing to gain and have no qualms in turning the screws.


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Aug 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Use someone that has nothing to gain and have no qualms in turning the screws.


That indeed is a rare creature given the military ethos/culture of "silence". I surmise in the haste to move people in and out of the blocks onto the local economy this is one of the results. The "CFL" types who used to compete for the record of longest continuous period of living in the shacks seem to have faded away with time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2007)

Apologies in advance; I’m so old and have been retired for so long that my questions may seem downright naïve, but:

*Where the hell were the officers?*  They are charged with *leading* and with keeping the people in their ships and units in _good order and discipline_.  Were I the four striper in Esquimalt I can guarantee that my pencil would be poised over the left hand (low score) column on the officers’ PERs; and

*Where the hell were the petty officers?*  I understand that Cox’n was a big (HUGE) part of the problem but surely, absent any effective leadership from the commissioned ranks, there was one petty officer willing to _do the right thing_; and

*Why should the most junior ranks have to police themselves?*  That’s why we have master seamen/master corporals.  The most important leadership rank has always been the first one – the one closest to the most junior people.  There’s a reason _master-jacks_ live with, mess with the junior ranks – they are the first level leaders and they are part and parcel of the team.

I understand that the military has changed over the past half century but maybe it needs to change back a bit.


----------



## geo (14 Aug 2007)

And Edward, just imagine, they promoted the outgoing CO
Incredible!, F?&*?ng incredible!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Aug 2007)

sledge said:
			
		

> Well disorder and vandalism are signs that someone is bored. Maybe some activities to keep the OD's busy would be good.



No they are signs of a COC that is not working. We don't have to entertain people because, God forbid, they might be bored. I get bored at home too but I don't go down to the corner and vandalise the mailbox or the corner store. the others who have commented on here are absolutely right we have abrogated responsibility to keep proper order and discipline by shaving down duty watches (to keep people who whined about the frequency of duty) to a bare minimum. Most of the damage in quarters happens on weekends when people come home stewed to the gills and do stupid things. 

Having said all, that there are very few people who live on board an MCDV if any...they would all live in Nellie's Block or Bernier Block (I think that's the name of the long term block in Esquimalt) or on the economy...their activities after working hours when the ship is alongside are not monitored by the ship's COC. Aboard the ship's manned by the Reg Force most of the crew live on the economy. Because the drug use was so wide spread on this ship it appears that this activity was being imported into the workplace.....especially seeing as the senior NCM was into it too. 

For the old timers, it was a lot different when most of our troops lived in barracks or on board....those days are long gone and today's problems are not unsolvable but it's not always possible to enforce things the old way due to the fact that we don't see folks for as much time in the course of a day. A lot of this stuff surfaces when the ship or the unit deploys and it's not possible for people to hide problems anymore.


----------



## navymich (14 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Having said all, that there are very few people who live on board an MCDV if any...they would all live in Nellie's Block or Bernier Block (I think that's the name of the long term block in Esquimalt) or on the economy...



The crew remains onboard only while in foreign ports.  While alongside home port, only the duty watch is allowed onboard after secure.  The barracks there are Nelles and Bernay's Block.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Aug 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> The crew remains onboard only while in foreign ports.  While alongside home port, only the duty watch is allowed onboard after secure.  The barracks there are Nelles and Bernay's Block.



I've been in Slackers too long....how could I forget how to spell those names??? I spent enough sleepless nights while on duty talking to those who lived there, who were "feeling blue."


----------



## navymich (14 Aug 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Apologies in advance; I’m so old and have been retired for so long that my questions may seem downright naïve, but:
> 
> *Where the hell were the officers?*  They are charged with *leading* and with keeping the people in their ships and units in _good order and discipline_.  Were I the four striper in Esquimalt I can guarantee that my pencil would be poised over the left hand (low score) column on the officers’ PERs; and
> 
> ...



Just to give a bit of background for people who are not aware as to the crew on an MCDV.  (note: this is not to provide excuses, suggestions or anything of that sort regarding the topic of this thread, just for background information)

The typical crew of an MCDV, with all positions filled by the recommended ranks:

Officers (including CO) - 2xLCdr, 3xSLt/Lt(N)
C&PO's (including coxn) - 1xCPO2, 1xCPO2/PO1, 6xPO2
Jr Ranks - approx.  6-8xMS.  The remainder of bunk space is 24-26  personnel (if the ship has an accomodations pod, if not subtract 6 pers) which would be filled with mostly LS, sometimes OS/AB.


----------



## geo (14 Aug 2007)

airmich,
While the crew of an MCDV is small, the Saskatoon is part of the West Coast fleet.  Plenty of Senior, intermediate and junior leaders coming and going all the time.  If this particular ship was such a disaster ready to happen, someone somewhere had to have noticed something.  Someone somewhere had to but didn't take action.


----------



## navymich (14 Aug 2007)

Geo, multiply the crew that I described times 5, and that is who would be around the MCDV jetty (the 6th ship is manned with a "custodial crew" of approximately 6-8 personnel).  This doesn't include anybody visiting from support and supply, or HQ.  As mentioned in my post, I wasn't insinuating or suggesting anything, simply giving a background for those that might be interested but not knowledgeable about the crew or ship.


----------



## Springroll (15 Aug 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed....what they need to do is stop having the new OS police themselves....its not working. Use someone that has nothing to gain and have no qualms in turning the screws.



This is EXACTLY what needs to be done!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Aug 2007)

Springroll said:
			
		

> This is EXACTLY what needs to be done!



That would mean increasing Duty Watch and having people around after hours and on weekends...I can hear the whining already!


----------



## navymich (15 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> That would mean increasing Duty Watch and having people around after hours and on weekends...I can hear the whining already!



My first summer that I was in Esquimalt (1992), the duty watch was huge.  When we fell in at the beginning of the night, we were in 3 ranks and filled a large portion of the front lobby area.  There were OS/AB posted in each corner on each floor throughout the night.  The front desk was always manned by at least 2 people, and the Duty PO and Duty O remained on the premises.  I know it went down to bare manning for awhile.  

When I was last at Nelles this past spring, I noticed there appeared to be more people around, especially at the front desk, but I don't know how many there are on each watch now.  I had the (un?) lucky fortune to be bunked at Nelles for a few days while I was there recently.  Quite the change from the first summer I was there, and not just the duty watch.  Between lack of respect for shift workers, noise, cleanliness and more.  I'm sure being on the outside looking in that we all have suggestions for improvement.  It would be interesting though to get the view from someone actually involved (accomodations staff, senior duty watch personnel etc) as to what the regulations are, and what is being done to ensure enforcement of them.


----------



## kincanucks (15 Aug 2007)

Send the Army in!!!


----------



## 3rd Herd (15 Aug 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> My first summer that I was in Esquimalt (1992), the duty watch was huge.  When we fell in at the beginning of the night, we were in 3 ranks and filled a large portion of the front lobby area.  There were OS/AB posted in each corner on each floor throughout the night.  The front desk was always manned by at least 2 people, and the Duty PO and Duty O remained on the premises.



You can go back a further 10-15 years with this airmich. We used to have to occasionally "visit" when doing Bn. duty driver and such. As to bring in the army, no, but the Snr Nco's did do regular walks through our blocks, the same as "morning strolls through the lines on exercises. On the official side we had regular weekly /semi weekly room inspections. Beginning with the usual round of pre-inspections by M/CPLs the Sgts, then... In part to ensure damage was held in check and in part to ensure the time honored "cleanliness next to holiness." There are a few tales floating around about personal trying to buy a particular shade of paint late on Sunday afternoons( for you young uns, no Sunday shopping back then). And to a certain extent there was a level of pride in making the "sparten" accommodations more like home. "Hell hath no fury" like returning to shacks after summer ex to find the "conditions' left by some of the short term summer guests.


----------



## geo (15 Aug 2007)

+1 3rd


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (15 Aug 2007)

It's really simple, (though never praticed) this little thing we have called the code of service discipline. Charges are few and far between amongst the residents of Nelles block, and throughout the fleet from my experience. It seems as if Sr NCO's and WO's are afraid or reluctant to either reccomend a charge, or lay it. Results of the few summary tribunals are very rarely published so there is no visable advertisement that the CSD is at work. Another issue is that very, very few people are auth as designated officers for hearing charges. (on a ship generally the CO/XO are the only presiding officers), this is also true of most base units. Take my employing unit for example. currently all of the officers rank Capt and above are designated officers and presiding officer qual. The BC's BK's and FOO's are hearing summary tribunals, leaving the more serious (read repeat) offenders are dealt with by the DCO/Regt Comd. Results are published and military bearing is truly maintained within regimental lines. perhaps if CO's delegated more than 1 officer, and maybe if Sr NCO's and WO's weren't so apprehensive about recommending a charge (and even the Jr NCO's for that matter) we wouldn't have these types of problems on this coast. And yes I am a graduate of the show parade/stoppage of lve/extra work and drill school.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Aug 2007)

It's honestly stunning that people in the CF even do/try these things, I think they should be shot---especially the senior ones.


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Aug 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I think they should be shot---especially the senior ones.



Once again, this isn't a viable solution. Gone are the days of putting a bullet in the head of a soldier for an offence. Honestly, why do people even think of this?

Yes, they should be seriously dealt with. Punishment should be harsh. Believe me, it would be very hard for someone released under item 1 for misconduct to find viable government employment, or to get bonded. Makes it a bit harder.

As mentioned, there is an environment that allows this type of misconduct to occur. This has to be addressed as well as punishment of offenders. Some of the posters here have given some good options, or possible reasons for why that environment has developed, and how to fix it.

Your "We should just shoot them" argument does not.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Aug 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> It's honestly stunning that people in the CF even do/try these things, I think they should be shot---especially the senior ones.



its truly scary you're in the the CF and have access to weapons.... :

Hopefully you will never have serious personal issues where your fellow service members will want to end up shooting you.


----------



## 3rd Herd (15 Aug 2007)

Yes, you do have the Code of Service Discipline but when that is brought in that is a last resort. It means that the chain of leadership has failled in some manner. Sometimes this is unavoidable but in the majority of circumstance it is not. Showing up with an unpressed uniform on Plt/Coy/ Bn parade was first greeted by the M/CPL exclaiming "What have we here, another RCR/VanDoo/PPCLI".(depending on regiment,editted for politically correct terminology) Okay first bit of discipline was just applied in the manner of "pride". Watching the aforementioned exchange from the distance is the next upward link. This usually results in a couple of quick words between the M/CPL and the Sgt, a couple of quick nods. The next level of discipline has been agreed on. Yes agreed on as the chain of command also has a an education function. Severity of infraction and punishment go hand in hand. Usually, to the relief of all those present in that they are going to get some extra sleep/off duty time and the usual "extra duties" are firmly/safe in the hands of the "guilty bastard".

Next if you see Pte Bloggins as Duty Dvr for the next week, M/Cpl Smith COS for a couple or days running or Lt. Jones the Bn Orderly Officer for a couple of weeks you know discipline has been applied. In most cases the last person to find out about the incident is the Officer Commanding/Commanding Officer because the chain of command has functioned. Discipline in the ranks is the one primary functions in the ranks. Officers are/should be too busy with the responsibilities of their position to be involved in rank discipline. Does that mean that they are out of the loop ? No, by all means in a good unit it is dealt with in a number of ways such as at the end of the day; "Oh by the way Sir, Pte Bloggins slept in his uniform prior to parade so he will be the Duty Dvr. for the weekend or in the case of a really good officer the reverse occurs " M/CPL/Sgt/WO, I noticed Pte Bloggins is the Duty Dvr for the next while, is there anything I should be aware of" (a rhetorical question).

No doing the "hatless dance" or "standing before the mast" is the last resort. There are many ways of paying the piper whose tune is quickly known far and wide.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (15 Aug 2007)

No argument there, I recall the days when my MCpl would rain terror upon the Ptes for things like failing to shave, or showing up with last nights lipstick on thier forehead, or smelling like booze, and dealt with at the absolute lowest level. And of course decorum and military bearing went hand in hand with unit/regimental pride and a sense of duty. Unfotunately I think things in the shacks at Nelles have been permitted to degrade to such a point where disciplinary action is neccessary. Service offences are not being prosecuted on the first, or second, or third, or fourth offence. (agreed the first 2 can usually be taken care of with a one way conversation or extras). We have now digressed to a point where extras are the exception rather than the rule (depending of course on the unit, we had on one ship I sailed and ex infantry XO, extra dutie watches were the rule rather than the exception) I seem to recall years ago when, as school duty driver, I parked the duty veh accross the School RSM's parking spot. I spent the next 3 days painting the parking lot lines for the Comandants lot white, and then orange, with the smallest brush the RQMS could find. I have not in the last 7 years seen anything of the like around Esquimalt. I remember a young lad on course who did not shave (properly) he "exercised his upper body" until he could exercise no more, he shaved properly every day after that. But there has to be a line, once supervisors recognize a pattern of behavior that cannot be corrected by instilling discipline it must go to the Code of Service Discipline, otherwise you end up where Esquimalt is now. It is common to see sailors, and airmen for that matter to "walk-out" in ships ballcaps, a practice forbidden by CFP 265 and many margens, it is difficult to find a sailor who blackens they're boots, or presses they're NCD's, I'll use a phrase here, cheerfull and willing disobedience. The practices of blackening boots, wearing ballcaps as walking out dress and others are published in written orders and instructions, but purposely disobeyed due to a lack of military bearing. The lack of military bearing comes from allowing violations to go not only un prosectuted but not even dealt with at the unit/section level. 


Now the disclaimer, there are some sailors and airmen in the fleet who do maintain thier kit properly to the spirit of the instructions and wear the uniform with pride. These are also the ones taking the youngens for a walk to have a rather directed conversation to correct undesired behavior.


----------



## 3rd Herd (16 Aug 2007)

"Discussion of leadership is so often overloaded with vague but emotive ideas that is one is hard put to it to nail the concept down. . . . One comes to the simple truth that leadership is no more than exercising an influence upon others that they tend to act in concert towards achieving a goal which they might not have achieved so readily had they been left to their own devices. 

The ingredients which bring about this agreeable state of affairs are many and varied. At the most superficial level they are believed to include such factors as voice, stature and appearance, an impression of omniscience, trustworthiness, sincerity and bravery. At a deeper and rather more important level, leadership depends on a proper understanding of the needs and opinions of those one hopes to lead, and the context in which the leadership occurs. It also depends on good timing. Hitler, who was neither omniscient, trustworthy nor sincere, whose stature was unremarkable and whose appearance verged on the repellent, understood these rules and exploited them to full advantage. The same may be said of many good comedians."

Source:

Dixon, Norman. On the Psychology of Military Incompetence Pimlico; New Ed edition (6 Jan 1994)


----------



## 3rd Herd (19 Aug 2007)

Found a very interesting but some what lengthy article on the differences in command styles and the reasons for such, between the three services (Army, Navy, Air Force). As the article is geared toward Navy leadership is gives quite an excellent look at pro's/con's of "their" system. It also delves into the education leadership issues and different service philosophies.

Command Styles in The Canadian Navy; Principal Authors: Dr Allan English, Dr Richard Gimblett, Vice-Admiral (retired) Lynn Mason
Mr Mervyn Berridge Sills. http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/inbasket/ahawton.050331_1440.CR_%202005%20-096_final.pdf

Some quotes:

"The army is proud to proclaim, “The army equips its men, whereas the navy (and the air force) ‘mans’ its equipment.” In fact, the army has it exactly right. Whereas the army tends to focus primarily on the equipment needed by an individual soldier or a group of soldiers, the navy focuses on the capabilities of the ship or the submarine. The design of these fighting systems is driven by technological and doctrinal imperatives. The navy then trains its sailors to “man” and fight the ship or submarine."


"Like the army, and to a significant extent unlike the air force, the “warrior caste” of the navy encompasses all ranks. Unlike the army, however, support MOCs are equally on the front line (literally in the same boat) with the operational MOCs. This is perhaps the greatest single difference in the three main leadership systems of the Canadian Forces. The naval leader, isolated in command, does not have to motivate the crew to follow in the sense that the army leader must."

"A brief comment on the differing hierarchies of loyalty in the three services based on cultural differences may be appropriate here, because the order in which military personnel perceive their loyalties to lie may shed some light on differences in service leadership and command. It appears that because people change units (ships and squadrons) frequently in the navy and air force their hierarchy of loyalty is:1) service (navy or air force), 2) job/occupation (maritime engineer, pilot, etc), then 3) unit (ship or squadron). There is some culturally based evidence for this assumption, as in the pre-unification RCN and RCAF the officers’ cap badges were the same for all officers in each service.145 For the Canadian infantry, and to some degree the armoured corps, it seems to be 1) regiment 2) branch (infantry or armoured), then 3) the army as a service. For other army branches, because of their relatively high technical leadership
component, it may be: 1) job/branch 2) service 3) unit."


----------



## Private Parts (20 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... old skipper got promoted outa the driver's seat?
> 
> Nice!





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Where the hell were the officers?*



Not responsible, according to the powers that be:

(shared with usual disclaimer)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/08/20/bc-navy.html

Navy backs former commanding officer of HMCS Saskatoon despite scandal

The Canadian navy has not taken any disciplinary action against the former commanding officer of HMCS Saskatoon, despite the fact that cocaine use was occurring on the ship, CBC News has learned.

Lt.-Cmdr. Mark McIntyre, a spokesman for Marine Forces Pacific in Victoria, said *the navy had and has full confidence* in Lt.-Cmdr.Jeffrey White, who was the captain of HMCS Saskatoon in 2005 and 2006.

*"I think it's unreasonable to expect a commanding officer or any officer or leader on board a ship to know every detail about what goes on ashore among members of his or her crew," McIntyre told CBC News in an interview Friday.*

McIntyre said White brought in National Investigation Service officials as soon as a complaint about drug use was made.

White *should not be held responsible, despite the fact that cocaine use was rampant under his watch, McIntyre said.* Earlier this month, a military court heard that 10 to 12 members of the 31-member crew on HMCS Saskatoon used cocaine regularly in January 2006.

(emphasis added)

More on link.  Unbelievable.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Aug 2007)

Private Parts said:
			
		

> Not responsible, according to the powers that be:
> 
> (shared with usual disclaimer)
> 
> ...



So are we saying that the CO of an Army or Air Force Unit knows everything his troops are doing off Base? He called in the NIS when he found out there was a problem. These ships are often out of routine when they are alongside....in other words unmanned and people are working in shore offices or doled out to other ships. The crew all live ashore.


----------



## mudrecceman (20 Aug 2007)

I think, if you are looking for a neck to put the rope around, you should look at the ones who are actually guilty.

There's enough blame to go around, no need to start the "point the finger" game at people who weren't involved now is there?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Aug 2007)

I could be wrong but was there any mention of drug use while the Saskatoon was at sea?


----------



## Private Parts (20 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> So are we saying that the CO of an Army or Air Force Unit knows everything his troops are doing off Base? He called in the NIS when he found out there was a problem. These ships are often out of routine when they are alongside....in other words unmanned and people are working in shore offices or doled out to other ships. The crew all live ashore.



IHS, you've got a point about the MCDVs being out of routine.  But who is ultimately responsible for the Ship?  This wasn't an issue of one or two people - it was one-third of the Ship's Company.  I'm sorry, but there's no way he shouldn't be held responsible for something of this magnitude happening on his watch.



			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I think, if you are looking for a neck to put the rope around, you should look at the ones who are actually guilty.
> 
> There's enough blame to go around, no need to start the "point the finger" game at people who weren't involved now is there?



Agreed on the issue of self-responsbility.  But the question remains - who is ultimately responsible for the Ship?


----------



## mudrecceman (20 Aug 2007)

If I show up to work tomorrow wrecked, is that MY fault...or my COs?

The CO is responsible to "sort me out" sure...but he didn't pour the booze down my throat...I made that choice myself...


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (20 Aug 2007)

Agreed, and I hate to do this because Pte Parts is about as far out of line as he can get on this one but, when one or 2 persons are accused/convicted of drug related or any "common" offence they should be held individually responsable. When 1/3 of a small crew (think less than compnay strength) accused of using a controlled substance and 3 ar charged with Trafficing, including the ships Coxn, some of the responsibility has to lie on the leadership. Now to Pte Parts, you cannot hold a commander responsible for the actions of his when, upon hearing of the alleged (in cases so far Convicted) offences he called in the big guns showing his DUE DILIGENCE in exercising his command repsonsability. Don't be so quick to judge the Commanding Officer of a unit without looking at all the facts.


----------



## Private Parts (20 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Agreed, and I hate to do this because Pte Parts is about as far out of line as he can get on this one but, when one or 2 persons are accused/convicted of drug related or any "common" offence they should be held individually responsable. When 1/3 of a small crew (think less than compnay strength) accused of using a controlled substance and 3 ar charged with Trafficing, including the ships Coxn, some of the responsibility has to lie on the leadership. Now to Pte Parts, you cannot hold a commander responsible for the actions of his when, upon hearing of the alleged (in cases so far Convicted) offences he called in the big guns showing his DUE DILIGENCE in exercising his command repsonsability. Don't be so quick to judge the Commanding Officer of a unit without looking at all the facts.



Agreed, and point well taken.  I guess I'm getting hung up on the magnitude.


----------



## geo (21 Aug 2007)

Lt Cdr White was recently promoted... out of his position as CO of the Saskatoon.
Time will tell if he is ever given command of another ship.
While the Navy has not found him guilty, that does not mean they have found him to be a good and effective CO.
Time will tell, time will tell. ???


----------



## fbr2o75 (21 Aug 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> If I show up to work tomorrow wrecked, is that MY fault...or my COs?
> 
> The CO is responsible to "sort me out" sure...but he didn't pour the booze down my throat...I made that choice myself...



If it happens on a continuous basis, and I ignore it, it than becomes my problem.


----------



## mudrecceman (21 Aug 2007)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> If it happens on a continuous basis, and I ignore it, it than becomes my problem.



But the point is on "responsibility" of the actions happening, and whether you could prevent them, say, if you for whatever reason were unaware.

Knowing there is a problem with some person(s) and NOT doing something about, at ANY level in the CoC, is a different issue IMO.

Two separate issues.

1)  Some person(s) are committing service offences.
2) Superior's of theirs in the CoC "turning a blind eye".

I haven't seen anything concrete that the Captain of the vessel did #2.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Aug 2007)

If anytihng he did the opposite of #2 by contacting NIS


----------



## geo (21 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> If anytihng he did the opposite of #2 by contacting NIS


yeah - but wouldn't that be like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have bolted?
where was the situational awareness of the Ship's company's leaders?
despite the drugs, this couldn't have been a happy ship (pun intended)
these are people who have given up any and all aspects of their professionalism and have become - rank amateurs


----------



## navymich (21 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Lt Cdr White was recently promoted... out of his position as CO of the Saskatoon.
> Time will tell if he is ever given command of another ship.
> While the Navy has not found him guilty, that does not mean they have found him to be a good and effective CO.
> Time will tell, time will tell. ???



Cdr White is currently the  CO of HMCS Oriole.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> yeah - but wouldn't that be like closing the barn door AFTER the horses have bolted?
> where was the situational awareness of the Ship's company's leaders?
> despite the drugs, this couldn't have been a happy ship (pun intended)
> these are people who have given up any and all aspects of their professionalism and have become - rank amateurs


Indeed, but better than turning a blind eye, the key thing to remember is the ships coxn, the link between the NCM's and Command was as deep as the rest of them. Also just because one killick on his way out the door says 1/3 of the ships coy were actively using coke doesn't actually mean they were. There was an indepth investigation and only 4 charges were laid and made it to trial. The result of investigation just doesn't back up the young man's claim.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 Aug 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Cdr White is currently the  CO of HMCS Oriole.



And HMCS Oriole is our sail training vessel which trains young RMC officers and some other trades such as Bosn's who are just starting off in the outfit. I think the Admiral is showing that he has confidence in this man's ability to command and shape young hearts and minds.

There seems to be a lot of comments in the negative from folks who haven't served in the Senior Service which tend to be making the insinuation that the Navy is sweeping this under the carpet by not disciplining the Captain. I remember when I was in Petawawa in the early 90's and there was a huge drug bust in the shacks....I remember the CO of that regiment went on to be a General Officer. Those folks in shacks were the equivalent of "living aboard," unlike the folks on the MCDV who lived ashore in Nellies Block or on the economy. The CO and senior NCOs at the time took disciplinary action against the malefactors and life went on. That's why we have Edmonton and summary trials....why the dogpile on a senior Navy Officer folks??


----------



## mudrecceman (21 Aug 2007)

I guess the point I am trying to make here, well there are actually 2 of them.

1) While he, like any CO, is responsible for the "unit" under his/her command, there is the reality that they can't be responsible for each individual actions that are under their command when they "aren't on duty/at work/whatever you want to call it".  If this was the case, how many people get charged for assault, DUI, domestic violence, etc etc, in the CF per year...man would we ever be changing COs alot!

2) The only "fact" we know about what the Captain did/did not know for "however long" is that we don't actually know those facts.

My 2 bones.  Not the prosecution, not the defence, I am just sitting in the galley but...its believeable that the CO had it all "hidden" from him...and then when he got whiff of "something" and called in the guns, it was one of those big-*** waves at the beach...there is nothing you can do, its gonna go over your head...you start hoping it won't drag you back out with it....


----------



## SeaDog (21 Aug 2007)

Just to interject my take on this subject; take it, leave it or comment at will...
a)  The cox'n is traditionally the ears and eyes of the CO on a ship with regards to the morale, conduct and content/discontent of the crew.  The CO doesn't isn't mess-mates with his sailors  and therefore although he sees a great deal, and can form his own opinions on a great many things regarding his crew, it is generally the Cox'n he relies upon for advice et cetera with regards to these issues.  And rightfully so.  In any other circumstance we would be criticizing a CO who didn't have a healthy respect for the opinion of the senior enlisted man (for the types in green, that would be similar to a CO who didn't listen to the RSM I suppose.)  When said individual is PART of the problem it exposes a fundemental flaw in the CofC.  As Ad Hoc Signo iterated, there seems to be a lot of undue insuation as to the capacity and responsibility of LCdr White.
b) As an officer I've had to deal with a similar circumstance with one of my own sailors in my division and the matter is never cut and dry.  Although we eventually unmasked the issue, it was clouded behind a great many things...to make a long story short after months of trying to help my member with financial issues, my divisional team eventually discovered the true nature of the problem - his unfortunate addiction.  In subsequent investigations it was revealed that a not a small number of people were aware...but none came to the CofC to inform us of the true nature of the problem as we went through the many processes of arranging free financial counselling etc.  The member had a clean service record and excellent performance at work.  However his life "off-base" only came to our attention due to the eventual financial stress it placed him under.  Moral of the story is that these problems are not always evident to those in charge, control and command when on-job performance is good and those around turn a blind eye.
c) As for 1/3 of the ship's company being addicts - will believe that when I see the NIS report.  The testimony of an unfortunate addict, under the dark cloud of court-martial...well, I'm afraid that is not a stamped, sealed and delivered truth that I would swallow immediately.

And finally,
d)  What would you have done as CO if someone had confided in you that not only junior, but the highest level of command (in the Navy the Cox'n is considered part of the command triangle..) on your vessel were involved in alleged narcotic trafficing and abuse?  It must have taken alot for that CO to have swallowed the incredulous belief that this was not only possible, but that perhaps I should call for outside help.  It takes a brave commander to realize that when there is a problem beyond my scope I have to swallow my pride (and perhaps my future command prospects) and ask for help...

Just a few things to think about.  As said, fire at will lads if you disagree.  It's through dialogue like this that problems are fixed and new ideas introduced...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Aug 2007)

You would be surprised what can be kept from a CO if the wardroom or senior ncms do not want to bring it to the COs attention. Does the CO of each regiment know if Pte Bloggins is boinking so and so or Mcpl Ahole beats his wife? Sail sometime before you condemn....

Well said Seadog.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 Aug 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You would be surprised what can be kept from a CO if the wardroom or senior ncms do not want to bring it to the COs attention. Does the CO of each regiment know if Pte Bloggins is boinking so and so or Mcpl Ahole beats his wife? Sail sometime before you condemn....
> 
> Well said Seadog.



+1 to Seadog and Ex-Dragoon....not only does the CO not know....he is relying on his senior NCOs and Officers to look after discipline at the lowest level. If it comes to him it is extremely serious and he deals with it, as apparently Cdr White did. How could he have speculated in his wildest dreams that the Coxn (the RSM equivalent) was breaching the trust that the Navy and the CF had placed in him? From the evidence we have discussed here the Coxn should be busted down and his Warrant repealed...he is unworthy of the position of trust that said Warrant entrusts him with.


----------



## KevinB (22 Aug 2007)

I'm sorry - If this is indeed 1/3 of the crew, then the commander was derelict in his duties, and that is the price of command.
  



> In June 2004, he was appointed Commanding Officer of HMCS Edmonton.  In December of that year, he assumed command of HMCS Saskatoon when the ship’s company of HMCS Edmonton transferred to HMCS Saskatoon.
> 
> He assumed command of HMCS Oriole in June 2006



2 years.


----------



## navymich (22 Aug 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry - If this is indeed 1/3 of the crew, then the commander was derelict in his duties, and that is the price of command.
> 
> 
> 2 years.



I6, just trying to follow your thinking.  Are you saying that _if_ 1/3 of his crew was actually involved in the situation in some aspect, then over the 2 year span that he was in command, the CO should have noticed something/anything?


----------



## pbi (22 Aug 2007)

Never mind the drug use "ashore" or wherever it was. The CPO who was brought in to clean things up stated very clearly that the ship, as a military unit, was in very bad shape. Now, I've been around the block at least once and I know damned well that if the troops or the NCOs don't want the "sir" to know something, chances are that he won't know. I also understand that Reservists, once off duty and off base, are under virtually no control by the Code of Service Discipline. I get all that.

But the functional state of a military unit, whether it be a ship, a flying sqn or an infantry battalion, can't be hidden. It's evident, and it very clearly and indisputably IS the responsibility of the CO. So, how do we reconcile that with this fellow's promotion?

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (22 Aug 2007)

In the same way that a Pl Comd or a Pl WO may miss one or two troops in their Pl using drugs "recreationally", a small percentage of that ship could be understood -- heck the Canadian populace of which the CF does reflect has a drug problem.  However at the extent it is claimed to be, that does seem odd to miss.

  pbi - to a point, but I fully beleive that some will while bowing to peer pressure not to out those involved officially would drop the occassional hint to some of the unaffected Chain of Command.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (22 Aug 2007)

We have to keep in mind that this is an allegation made after an NIS investigation by a former killick trying to save his own arse, you know that whole spreading the blame game alot of folks in the Navy (based on 7 years experience as a sailor myself) seem to be adept at. His allegation may be no more than that an attempt to make everybody pay for his mistakes.


----------



## mudrecceman (23 Aug 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Never mind the drug use "ashore" or wherever it was. The CPO who was brought in to clean things up stated very clearly that the ship, as a military unit, was in very bad shape.



IMHO,he said that, for 2 reasons.  1, it probably WAS in very bad shape.  Let's say a Coy or Sqn had this fall down around them, how would morale and mlitary cohesiveness be affected from the newest Trooper right on up to the OC?  2, if the CPO said "oh things seem fine", how would that be taken, being there was a problem with drugs, and it went up as far as the Cox'n?  You would think he would almost HAVE to say it was in bad shape, to give it all the more "room to improve".   "Yes things were horrible but are MUCH better now".  It sounds better and appeases more people?  Maybe its way too late for my brain to be thinking about this.   ;D



> Now, I've been around the block at least once and I know damned well that if the troops or the NCOs don't want the "sir" to know something, chances are that he won't know. I also understand that Reservists, once off duty and off base, are under virtually no control by the Code of Service Discipline. I get all that.



Unless they are on Class B or C Service, in which case the CSD applies as it does to the Reg Force...24/7.  AFAIK, most of the positions on the MCDVs are or were Class C.



> But the functional state of a military unit, whether it be a ship, a flying sqn or an infantry battalion, can't be hidden. It's evident, and it very clearly and indisputably IS the responsibility of the CO. So, how do we reconcile that with this fellow's promotion?
> 
> Cheers



That is a good question.  I haven't sailed or been in the Navy...I just am not convinced that the Captain knew about the problem and called in the NIS when he figured the cat was outta the bag.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (23 Aug 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Unless they are on Class B or C Service, in which case the CSD applies as it does to the Reg Force...24/7.  AFAIK, most of the positions on the MCDVs are or were Class C.


The "core" crew positions are Cl C, the equiv of what the reg force crew on the pig boats was, the remainder are Cl B (this may have changed but thats the way it was a few years back)


----------



## navymich (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> The "core" crew positions are Cl C, the equiv of what the reg force crew on the pig boats was, the remainder are Cl B (this may have changed but thats the way it was a few years back)



That is correct.  All core crew members are Class 'C'.  As well, there are also 2 reg force members on board.  The remainder are Class B.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Aug 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry - If this is indeed 1/3 of the crew, then the commander was derelict in his duties, and that is the price of command.
> 
> 
> 2 years.



You weren't there and it has not been proven that it was 1/3 of the crew...the senoir leadership has given him command of another important Naval asset, I guess people at a higher pay grade and with a lot more information than you disagree. :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Aug 2007)

I6 and PBI sorry guys but you're off the bat... you definitely can't liken the naval hierarchy to the way the infantry runs things. Command hierarchies fail sometimes, this time it failed the navy, I am not one for tradition but the Naval Divisional system works. I echo everyone else IMO, that if the CO was not informed then how can he be held accountable.


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

I'm with pbi & I6 on this.
Based on the incoming coxn's comments, the ship company was non-functional as a military vessel.
Even if the CO was depending on his Coxn & his NCOs to keep him posted, he had to see the efficiency of his ship go down the tubes & THERE he shoulda been asking some questions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I6 and PBI sorry guys but you're off the bat... you definitely can't liken the naval hierarchy to the way the infantry runs things. Command hierarchies fail sometimes, this time it failed the navy, I am not one for tradition but the Naval Divisional system works. I echo everyone else IMO, that if the CO was not informed then how can he be held accountable.



Because he *IS* the *Commanding Officer*; he doesn't get a choice.  If the _command hierarchy_ fails then he fails, by definition - it's his damned _command hierarchy_.

I repeat: if I was the four striper in charge there would be a whole hockey sock full of below par PERs for the officers concerned. The ship was "bad" - who the hell, other than the CO and his officers, should be responsible?  We cannot blame senior NCOs - they don't get the glory, they cannot take (all of) the blame.  The Navy doesn't get the luxury of lousy leadership just because they have their own system.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Aug 2007)

Perfect Edward,

For all those who say that the CO is not responsible........just who would have had their smiling face in the write-ups [and promotion line] had this been receiving the "NATO Ship-o-The Year" award?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (23 Aug 2007)

Edward I'll go one step further, maybe not the sr nco's are to blame, but the Warrants are (for navy speak P1-CPO1), The warrant is like a commision it is a legislated position of trust and authority.


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

The Chiefs & POs certainly screwed the pooch - no doubt about it BUT, the Officers are the ones that are paid the big bucks and get all the glory ))  If the ship was such a sh!& pit, then please god, someone musta noticed and someone musta / shoulda been asking some hard questions.


----------



## navymich (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ...maybe not the sr nco's are to blame, but the Warrants are (for navy speak P1-CPO1)...



As noted in an earlier post of mine, on an MCDV there would be 2 personnel that would fit your criteria.  One of them is the coxn, the other is the Chief Engineer (typically a CPO2 or PO1).  Would you then look at it as "wow, only 2 people.  Not very many to shoulder the blame for a ship's company" or would you look at it as "There may only be 2, but given the small ship's company, that is on par with a reg force ship or (forgive me I'm not army literate) army company etc".  On top of that, you rule out the Coxn, as he was involved, leaving one member.  Not trying to put words in your mouth Arty....




			
				geo said:
			
		

> The Chiefs & POs certainly screwed the pooch - no doubt about it BUT, the Officers are the ones that are paid the big bucks and get all the glory ))  If the ship was such a sh!& pit, then please god, someone musta noticed and someone musta / shoulda been asking some hard questions.



IF the killick that was most recently charged IS correct in saying that 1/3 of the ship's company was involved, we don't know who.  It could very well be the exact people that everyone is saying should have noticed everything, or brought it to the CO's attention at least.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (23 Aug 2007)

Indeed I take your point, and the Coxn is being held repsonsible for his actions, the other if it is the case that 33% of the crew was using should be held accountable for thier inaction (again it is a big if, read my earlier post on the validaty of the killicks claim) If indeed 30% or more of the crew was activly using then (and this will bring outcry from the reserve world) RTU all of the crews (yes all) of the MCDV's and give new contracts for all positions, swap the reg force guys out with new reg force guys to provide a transparent process. This would cost a ton of money and is liekly not feasable, but the only way to gaurantee an untainted talent pool. This option however would look poorly upon pers that had nothing to do with the drug use. The question we have to ask now is not who to blame, the military justice system has done that, it is how do we prevent it from happening again.

PS Mich I agree that the very people who should have brought the CO in on things could very well be involved themselves (in one case he was)


----------



## kratz (23 Aug 2007)

To fire all MCDV crews (approximately 384 reserivists) and replace those positions with available, trained, suitable sailors would not be feasable as noted in the earlier suggestion. To do so affects roughly 17% of Naval Reservists currently working on the MCDVs and an additional 17% of the Naval Reserve in backfilling those postions.

Of the entire Naval Reserve, an average of 38% are known to be employed in established year-round Class B or Class C postions. To change over the MCDV crews would affect manning in all other areas of responsibility for the Naval Reserve.


----------



## navymich (23 Aug 2007)

Not to mention the fact that if the MCDV's are still running as short-manned as they were this time last year, replacing the people currently onboard would be next to impossible.

As to how not to have it happen again?  I'll live in a dreamworld and say that hopefully everyone has been scared enough by the releases and charges of the current personnel involved that they will keep themselves out of any similar incidents.  Others might say that this will only give some a better idea of how to keep themselves out of the notice of future prying eyes and ears.  I'm sure we could all come up with numerous ways to have it not happen again.  Sadly, I doubt this is the end of drug use in the CF.  Whatever the position that we all currently hold, we can help out by educating our peers and our subordinates.  Every little bit helps.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (23 Aug 2007)

Hence why I said it would be costly and likely not feasable, the other option is to go back to the way the system worked with the pig boats. The core crew provided by the regular force and augmented by the naval reserve. That is the Naval Reserve area of responsability... to force generate and augment the regular force, as it is for all reserve branches, it's just that due to manning shortages since the early 90's the NavRes has had to stand up and do a wee bit more than augment, as in recent times the militia, med reserve, and commres has had to do since 9/11. but remember I did say not likely feasable, and very costly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Indeed I take your point, and the Coxn is being held repsonsible for his actions, the other if it is the case that 33% of the crew was using should be held accountable for thier inaction (again it is a big if, read my earlier post on the validaty of the killicks claim) If indeed 30% or more of the crew was activly using then (and this will bring outcry from the reserve world) RTU all of the crews (yes all) of the MCDV's and give new contracts for all positions, swap the reg force guys out with new reg force guys to provide a transparent process. This would cost a ton of money and is liekly not feasable, but the only way to gaurantee an untainted talent pool. This option however would look poorly upon pers that had nothing to do with the drug use. The question we have to ask now is not who to blame, the military justice system has done that, it is how do we prevent it from happening again.
> 
> PS Mich I agree that the very people who should have brought the CO in on things could very well be involved themselves (in one case he was)



That's the same thinking that gets a whole Regiment CB'd because little Billy snuck off and got drunk. Find the lawbreakers and punish them. Collective punishment of people who have done nothing wrong is the cheap, easy, lazy and disgusting way of dealing with it. Highly unfair and breeds nothing but contempt for the people that should be ( and getting paid for) making the right decisions, but take the easy way instead.

You want to find and punish the offenders? Start with random drug tests on a regular basis. From the Captain down.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (23 Aug 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's the same thinking that gets a whole Regiment CB'd because little Billy snuck off and got drunk. Find the lawbreakers and punish them. Collective punishment of people who have done nothing wrong is the cheap, easy, lazy and disgusting way of dealing with it. Highly unfair and breeds nothing but contempt for the people that should be ( and getting paid for) making the right decisions, but take the easy way instead.
> 
> You want to find and punish the offenders? Start with random drug tests on a regular basis. From the Captain down.


You have to remember I'm going on the basis of 33% of a ship's coy activly using cocaine, IF that is the case, which I highly doubt. don't get me wrong, I'm not a reserve hating reg force lifer, I started my career in the commres. What I'm saying is that the last time discipline was this poor in a unit it was disbanded, I'm not one to say disband the unit, or the MCDV's but maybe a crew swap even on the affected unit is not a bad Idea, or take all the mcdv's by trade throw thier names in a hat shake em up and start crewing the ships by name draw. That way you are spreading the bad apples and the good througout the nest. That may solve the problem there. Mix them up a little. heres a way tidbit it is alleged 33% of ONE UNIT was or is activly using drugs, in a recent drug test for TFA 1-08 16 of near 2500 mbrs tested positive for drug use (0.64%) do the math, if former LS Ennis is correct there are big problems in MOG 4.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> You have to remember I'm going on the basis of 33% of a ship's coy activly using cocaine, IF that is the case, which I highly doubt. don't get me wrong, I'm not a reserve hating reg force lifer, I started my career in the commres. What I'm saying is that the last time discipline was this poor in a unit it was disbanded, I'm not one to say disband the unit, or the MCDV's but maybe a crew swap even on the affected unit is not a bad Idea, or take all the mcdv's by trade throw thier names in a hat shake em up and start crewing the ships by name draw. That way you are spreading the bad apples and the good througout the nest. That may solve the problem there. Mix them up a little. heres a way tidbit it is alleged 33% of ONE UNIT was or is activly using drugs, in a recent drug test for TFA 1-08 16 of near 2500 mbrs tested positive for drug use (0.64%) do the math, if former LS Ennis is correct there are big problems in MOG 4.



I think that you're getting carried away a little with your analogy to the Airborne being disbanded as the same thing as this case...apples and oranges (I never agreed with that approach to the problem and neither did a lot of other people...it was all political). They didn't disband the Artillery Regiment in Pet when they busted a bunch of guys in the shacks for drugs, nor did the CO get shyte-canned...they sorted the problem, some people went to jail and the Regiment carried on...what exactly is everyone's major problem with doing the same in the this case? the problem has been sorted and new leadership installed in both the Captain and the Coxn's cabin. The Navy dealt with it and presumably the Admiral is happy with it or else he wouldn't have approved the promotion or the new command for the Captain.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> You have to remember I'm going on the basis of 33% of a ship's coy activly using cocaine, IF that is the case, which I highly doubt. don't get me wrong, I'm not a reserve hating reg force lifer, I started my career in the commres. What I'm saying is that the last time discipline was this poor in a unit it was disbanded, I'm not one to say disband the unit, or the MCDV's but maybe a crew swap even on the affected unit is not a bad Idea, or take all the mcdv's by trade throw thier names in a hat shake em up and start crewing the ships by name draw. That way you are spreading the bad apples and the good througout the nest. That may solve the problem there. Mix them up a little. heres a way tidbit it is alleged 33% of ONE UNIT was or is activly using drugs, in a recent drug test for TFA 1-08 16 of near 2500 mbrs tested positive for drug use (0.64%) do the math, if former LS Ennis is correct there are big problems in MOG 4.



Isn't the crew size on an MCDV about 30-35 personnel?

Your analogy is a little weak once you water it down to "platoon" rather than talking about the disbanding of "units" for comparison.

Ever hear of a "bad" section in a platoon within a unit? Perhaps that is a little more realistic than comparing it to an entire task force.  Of that task force, were they any groups of drug test failures within a single sub-unit or sub-sub-unit?  If you had that data, it might change the perspective somewhat.


----------



## 3rd Herd (23 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> pig boats



As I am old school and just a poor grunt I am confused.

Term: pig boat  
Definition: Slang for submarine. 
The Dictionary of English Nautical Language Database: Search Results 
http://www.seatalk.info/cgi-bin/nautical-marine-sailing-dictionary/db.cgi?db=db&uid=default&FirstLetter=p&sb=Term&view_records=View+Records&nh=3

or it the boat the carires the pigs ?

Urban Dictionary: Boat Pig
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boat+Pig

1. boat pig  

 A term used to describe police officers (excludes the Coast Guard) who patrol the waters.

example:

The boat pig's caught us for dumping beer cans in Lake Erie


----------



## hugh19 (23 Aug 2007)

The pigs are the old Gate vessels. I did 5 years on t hem and they where pigs.


----------



## navymich (23 Aug 2007)

"pig boat" was the nickname for the old Gate Vessels aka Porte Boats (Dauphine, De la Reine and Quebec on the West, St. Louis and St. Jean on the East)







Off topic I know, but I can't resist some  naval history:

 HMCS Porte de la Reine was one of five Canadian navy auxiliary gate vessels (the others being HMCS Porte Québec, HMCS Porte-Saint- Jean, HMCS Porte-Saint-Louis, and HMCS Porte Dauphine). They were affectionately christened "pig boats" probably due to the fact that they were built of the pig iron. The pig boats were brought into service in 1951 and 1952, right in the middle of the Cold War. They were designed to slide through the anti-submarine nets protecting the entries to the ports of Halifax and Esquimalt. They were particularly instrumental, however, in the training of reservists on Canada's East and West Coasts, as well as on the Great Lakes. They were also used in border and Fisheries patrols, and in the war on smuggling. Their characteristic silhouette became familiar not only to the regulars of the Halifax and Esquimalt ports, but also to several generations of naval reservists who sailed aboard the vessels. HMCS Porte de la Reine was decommissioned in 1996.


----------



## 3rd Herd (23 Aug 2007)

Interesting, used to see them around Esquimalt harbour. Thanks airmich for expanding this poor grunts lack of naval knowledge.


----------



## hugh19 (23 Aug 2007)

Actually they had pig iron for ballast. They were not made of pig iron.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Aug 2007)

sledge said:
			
		

> Actually they had pig iron for ballast. They were not made of pig iron.



And I always thought it was because they wallowed like pigs in any kind of a sea!  ;D


----------



## pbi (24 Aug 2007)

I'm not talking about the drugs, per se. I'm not talking about switching out the crews. I'm not talking about whether the Res pers were Class C, B or Z. I'm talking about this statement from an experienced CPO:



> The court also heard from Chief Petty Officer Leonard Hern, who was transferred to HMCS Saskatoon in January 2006 in order to deal with the drug problem.
> 
> "In my 38-year-long career, I have never seen such an appalling sight," Hern told the court. "The ship was disorganized, there was no discipline, and no trust among the crew."



Unless the CPO's word is not to be trusted (then why, pray tell, was he brought aboard...?) there was something sadly wrong with this little boat as a military unit. If that was true, then I do not understand how naval authorities were able to make a separation of the issue from the selection and promotion of the one person who can and must be held responsible for the state of the ship as a military unit.

If there is a logical explanation, good. It would be interesting to hear. If not, the message that this incident sends could not be better calculated to damage the trust of both the public and the CF in the officer promotion system. This is NOT a "private matter": it is a matter of public record, so let us not say anything silly like "we shouldn't  be talking about this because LCdr X is a jolly good fellow..."

Cheers.


----------



## navymich (24 Aug 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> Unless the CPO's word is not to be trusted (then why, pray tell, was he brought aboard...?)



I've been trying for the last couple of days actually, to find a link to background on Chief Hearns, for those that don't know him.  But I've had no luck on the internet and haven't had recent access to the intranet, which I'm sure would have info on him.

I do know though that he is a CPO1 and some people may recognize his name, as he was the Chief of BRT school for many years in Borden.


----------



## Cronicbny (24 Aug 2007)

To be clear the CO of SAS was not promoted out of his job. He is still very much a LCdr and the CO of ORI.

I think it's important we maintain some perspective here as well - the courts martial have not concluded for all of the accused. Until then, I would suggest, It's premature to level any sort of condemnation on anyone short of those already proven (or pleaded) guilty. 

Once the final shoe drops, then I think we'll all be in a better position to decide if, in our OPINIONS, justice was served. 

In my own opinion, the CF has a pretty vested interest in at least appearing to be doing something about drug/alcohol abuse. Fact of the matter is, if the entire fleet was subjected to mandatory testing I think we'd have many, many ships tied up alongside.

NEW POST EDIT: CPO1 Hearns, I can attest, is an excellent person. I cannot, and would not, speak to his experience in KINGSTON class ships


----------



## Stoker (5 Sep 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> NEW POST EDIT: CPO1 Hearns, I can attest, is an excellent person. I cannot, and would not, speak to his experience in KINGSTON class ships



Chief Hearns is old school ex reg force, spent a number of years in the BRT school. I believe his last reg posting was Coxswain of the PROVIDER.  He just finished as Coxn of the HMCS Shawinigan for the coordinated OJT program. He is a no nonsense individual and has no problem laying a charge (that's why they sent him to the Saskatoon ).


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Sep 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Chief Hearns is old school ex reg force, spent a number of years in the BRT school. I believe his last reg posting was Coxswain of the PROVIDER.  He just finished as Coxn of the HMCS Shawinigan for the coordinated OJT program. He is a no nonsense individual and has no problem laying a charge (that's why they sent him to the Saskatoon ).



I hope he's not a dying breed. With the kinds of problems we have now and the ops we are engaged in we need some folks who are not afraid to use the code of service discipline as it was intended.


----------



## Stoker (5 Sep 2007)

From what I have seen, P1 coxswains on the ship are not the way to go. Usually they're too inexperienced or are not willing to lay a charge. Usually if a charge does get laid, a couple of hundred dollars for a fine is not a deterrent. Kids make a lot of money these days.


----------



## mudrecceman (5 Sep 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> From what I have seen, *P1 coxswains * on the ship are not the way to go. Usually they're too inexperienced or are not willing to lay a charge. Usually if a charge does get laid, a couple of hundred dollars for a fine is not a deterrent. Kids make a lot of money these days.



Just curious why you said the bolded part...wasn't the Coxn 'during the time service offenses were committed" a CPO1?  ie CPO1 Carlson?

Maybe I missed something...again...


----------



## Stoker (5 Sep 2007)

Actually quite a few Coxn's are PO1's, as Carlson was. I believe he was promoted to Chief just before he got busted.


----------



## chiquita (6 Sep 2007)

He was promoted to CPO2 before he got charged, and immediately demoted after, he was still around the jetty as a PO1 for a bit, and he wasn't a happy guy.  Apparently the  time for the crime isn't very fun.


----------



## Stoker (6 Sep 2007)

I believe the reason he was "demoted" was he put up his Chiefs before the effective date which was in a few weeks. As soon as he was charged the powers to be told him to take them down and held his promotion, not a problem if he wasn't doing anything, but an embarrassment once he got charged.


----------



## navymich (6 Sep 2007)

This doesn't appear to be associated with HMCS Saskatoon, however it is still Esquimalt which is why I posted it within this thread.  Mods, not sure if you want to keep it here and maybe change the subject?

 News Release
Esquimalt Sailors Charged With Trafficking
CFNIS 2007-07 - September 4, 2007

CFB ESQUIMALT, BC – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged two sailors stationed at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt today, in relation to allegations of drug trafficking.

Ordinary Seaman Christopher Ellis, attached to the Canadian Forces Fleet School (Esquimalt) was charged with two counts of trafficking, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and two counts of drug use, contrary to Section 129 of the National Defence Act.  Theses charges are in relation to alleged trafficking and use of cocaine.

Ordinary Seaman Mathew Lee, also attached to the Canadian Forces Fleet School (Esquimalt) was charged with one count of trafficking, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  This charge was also in relation to alleged trafficking in cocaine.

"The CFNIS is very proactive in drug investigations and in conjunction with the Base Military Police will continue to agressively investigate these incidents," said Lt. Col. William Garrick, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.  "The Military Police take all allegations of drug abuse seriously and work closely with the CF chain of command to ensure a drug free environment." 

The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad.


----------



## KevinB (6 Sep 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> "The CFNIS is very proactive in drug investigations and in conjunction with the Base Military Police will continue to agressively investigate these incidents," said Lt. Col. William Garrick, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.  "The Military Police take all allegations of drug abuse seriously and work closely with the CF chain of command to ensure a drug free environment."




:rofl:

My ass


----------



## FSTO (6 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> My ***



What is the basis of this?


----------



## KevinB (6 Sep 2007)

17 years in the Army...


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Sep 2007)

I knew Hern when he was a MS, then PO2. In both cases, I worked for him and I would agree that if he was sent over to Sask, it was probably to adjust a few attitudes. Couldn't think of a better guy for the job.


----------



## Cronicbny (7 Sep 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> "The CFNIS is very proactive in drug investigations and in conjunction with the Base Military Police will continue to agressively investigate these incidents," said Lt. Col. William Garrick, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.  "The Military Police take all allegations of drug abuse seriously and work closely with the CF chain of command to ensure a drug free environment."



This is how that SHOULD read:

"The CF is very proactive in drug investigations and in conjunction with Base Health Services will start to conduct 100% drug screening of all personnel, regular force and reserve, employed in CANFLTPAC."

Sadly, we know that won't happen... though it would certainly put this issue to bed and make the CF look much more accountable.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## NavComm (7 Sep 2007)

I wish I could say I was surprised when I read this in the paper yesterday...


----------



## KevinB (7 Sep 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> This is how that SHOULD read:
> 
> "The CF is very proactive in drug investigations and in conjunction with Base Health Services will start to conduct 100% drug screening of *all* personnel, regular force and reserve.


Fixed it for you...


----------



## Kamaro (7 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Fixed it for you...



Agreed. Nothing to hide, nothing to lose.

Only problem of course is the chance of a false positive...   But then again, if you use the testing as a basis for genuine investigations then you're going somewhere.


----------



## Springroll (11 Sep 2007)

We already received word of random testing at the school, so this should be quite interesting.

I also know the two OD's in question. One of them is not ever at CFFSE anymore...he is out east.
They were both under investigation for sometime though.


----------



## navymich (10 Oct 2007)

Former navy chief faces court-martial

 By SCOTT SUTHERLAND 
The Canadian Press

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 – Page A9

VICTORIA -- The Canadian sailor once in charge of discipline on HMCS Saskatoon faces court-martial today for allegedly being part of a cocaine-trafficking ring aboard the warship.

The military trial of former chief petty officer Robert Carlson comes on the heels of two more unrelated drug arrests at CFB Esquimalt early last month involving training personnel.

Mr. Carlson was the Saskatoon's coxswain and was the senior non-commissioned officer aboard at the time of his arrest.

He faces one count of trafficking under the National Defence Act and another count of having "behaved in a disgraceful manner."

A navy spokesman said Mr. Carlson has been released by the Canadian Forces.

"He will be court-martialled as a civilian, but he is still subject to the charges under the National Defence Act," said navy Lieutenant Paul Pendergast.

Mr. Carlson was the most senior of four crew members of HMCS Saskatoon charged after an independent military police unit launched an undercover sting operation in early 2006.

Former leading seaman Jason Ennis, 24, told his court-martial in August that about one-third of the crew were using cocaine and that cocaine was in regular use.

Mr. Ennis also told the military court he never used cocaine while serving aboard the warship. One charge of trafficking was stayed and he was found not guilty of the other and fined $2,000.

Mr. Ennis was released by the Canadian Forces, as were former Saskatoon crew members Brenda Murley and Sonya Robert.

Ms. Murley and Ms. Robert pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking in the spring. Each was handed a suspended sentence and fined $500.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service began looking into a suspected drug ring aboard the ship in the first days of January, 2006.

HMCS Saskatoon is one of the navy's six Kingston-class multitasking maritime coastal defence vessels in the Pacific fleet, based at CFB Esquimalt.

The base is also home to one destroyer, five frigates, a submarine and an ocean-going supply ship.

On Sept. 4. the National Investigation Service announced two more B.C. sailors, both attached to the Canadian Forces Fleet School at CFB Esquimalt, had been charged with selling cocaine.

Ordinary Seaman Christopher Ellis was charged with two counts of trafficking and two counts of drug use.

OS Seaman Matthew Lee was charged with one count of trafficking.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2007)

I am surprised that the two females got off with only fines and discharge, especially for trafficking...

While this probably falls into line with the civilian courts, I, and probably most people, tend to think the military is harsher in it's sentencing than civilian system.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

Ya woulda thought....


----------



## PO2FinClk (10 Oct 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> former chief petty officer Robert Carlson


And yet you look at the JAG website, they have him listed as PO1 Carlson, not CPO2.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/cmartials_and_appeals/default_e.asp
ACCUSED LOCATION
PO1 Carlson CFB Esquimalt, Building 30-N, second floor, Victoria, BC.
Charges
Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, trafficking (s. 5(1) CDSA).
Charge 2: S. 93 NDA, behaved in a disgraceful manner.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

If you go back a couple of pages you will find a comment to the effect that the promotion was coming down the pipe, that he actualy started to wear em, but that it was "kayboshed" & rescinded when the feces hit the ventilator.


----------



## navymich (10 Oct 2007)

Court martial of sailor in drug case delayed because of lawyer's conflict

Last Updated: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 | 4:38 PM ET 
The Canadian Press 

The court martial of a former navy petty officer at a navy base near Victoria was adjourned Wednesday after his military lawyer withdrew over a conflict of interest.

Robert Carlson is charged with drug trafficking and disgraceful behaviour as the officer in charge of discipline and morale aboard the HMCS Saskatoon.

But before the proceedings could begin, his lawyer said he had to withdraw because of a conflict involving another Saskatoon crew member who was to appear as a prosecution witness at Carlson's trial.

Carlson was the most senior of four crew members of the Saskatoon charged after a military police unit launched an undercover sting operation in early 2006.

Two other crew members pleaded guilty and were given suspended sentences and fines, while the third was cleared of one charge and had a second one stayed.


----------



## navymich (10 Oct 2007)

Court martial of sailor in drug case delayed because of lawyer’s conflict

By Scott Sutherland, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

CFB ESQUIMALT - Navy petty officers packed a small military courtroom where an officer was to be court martialled Wednesday, only to see the trial at the home base of the Pacific fleet adjourned until early next year.

A military official who did not want to be named said the contingent was there to "shame" former Petty Officer 1st Class Robert Carlson of HMCS Saskatoon, charged with trafficking cocaine and disgraceful behaviour under the National Defence Act.

Carlson is one of four Saskatoon crew members charged after a military police undercover sting targeted the small coastal patrol ship in early 2006.

But before the court martial began in front of military Judge Mario Dutil, Carlson’s lawyer withdrew from the case, citing a conflict of interest.

Maj. Edmund Thomas said his office, Defence Counsel Services, had also defended another member of the Saskatoon’s crew in August.

Thomas said he has been notified that the other member will be called as a prosecution witness at Carlson’s court martial.

Even though Thomas said he wasn’t personally involved in the previous case, his office was and privileged communications between lawyer and client could be breached.

Victoria lawyer, Robert Mulligan, hired under contract by the Canadian Forces, then took over as Carlson’s new defence lawyer and asked for an adjournment.

"I would need a few weeks to contemplate a full assessment of the case," Mulligan told the judge.

The court martial was put off until Feb. 5.

Carlson is the last and most senior crew member aboard the warship to face court martial.

Like the other three, he has been released from the Canadian Forces and is now a civilian. The military will not comment on whether the releases were voluntary or mandatory.

Carlson, a blond, heavyset man in his early 30s, wore a black suit and sported unmilitary sideburns and a patch of hair beneath his bottom lip.

His former commanding officer was among the senior ranks attending.

Outside court, Lt. Cmdr. Jeff White said the cocaine scandal had been hard on everyone aboard Saskatoon.

"It’s been two years of trauma," said White, who initiated the drug probe after getting a tip from an outside source in the fall of 2005.

He said when arrests were made after the undercover investigation by the military’s National Investigation Service, the crew was shattered.

"The facts came out like a hammer," he said.

"On a small ship, it’s a family, and when you fracture a family . . . you have to go into crisis-management mode."

White said even though they lost members of the team, the crew pulled together to complete its missions.

He said there was never any indication that drugs were being used on the warship.

"From what I understand, it wasn’t being used on board ship, it was an extracurricular thing that was happening either in foreign ports or in their homes," said the navy officer, who has since been reassigned to another ship.

Earlier this spring, another Saskatoon crew member pleaded guilty to trafficking and a second pleaded guilty to selling a small amount of cocaine to an undercover officer. Both were handed suspended sentences and fined.

In August, a third crew member was found not guilty of trafficking, but guilty of a bad conduct charge.

The Canadian Forces maintains a strict anti-drug policy for all members and all branches of the military.

"The policy is zero tolerance for drugs," said navy Lt. Paul Pendergast.

"It does extend to their off time, it’s included in the zero tolerance."


----------



## navymich (10 Oct 2007)

I've got a few legal questions regarding this latest about the postponement of this court martial, and I hope that someone with knowledge in the area can help me out.

Is there a time limit that a member who has been released can still be charged under the NDA?

How much notice must the defense be given about who the prosecution calls for a witness?  If there had been more notice, would the defense lawyer have been allowed to step down earlier, or is this only done once the court martial has commenced?

And is court that busy that even though the new defense has asked for "a few weeks" that it would be rescheduled for 4 months later?  I guess this leads back to my first question, if there is a time limit, as to what this delay might cost the prosecutor.


----------



## garb811 (11 Oct 2007)

1)  You remain liable for any act you committed even after release, but if you're being charged with a criminal offence etc pursuant to the NDA, then the statute of limitation for the non-NDA offence applies.  Since most non-NDA charges are Criminal Code ones, in most cases there is effectively no statute of limitations unless it's a very minor offense. 

2)  I'm not sure of a formal time limit.  They are supposed to disclose the witnesses, although there is provision to allow the prosecution to call a witness without notification.  As far as I know, the lawyer can change at any time, they don't have to wait until the court is in session.  Perhaps this happened in order to obtain the adjournment to gain time for the new lawyer?  Seems an awfully expensive course of action to have to take if that is the case. 

3)  You only have to be charged to meet the requirements of the statute of limitations, the trial does not have to be completed.  There is the issue of unreasonable delay but in this instance, considering the defence was the one who asked for the delay, I suspect they would be hard pressed to have the charges dismissed due to unreasonable delay unless they were able to prove it was due to some egregious fault of the prosecutor.

Are you worried he is going to walk on a technicality as a result of this adjournment?  If so, he won't.


----------



## navymich (11 Oct 2007)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Are you worried he is going to walk on a technicality as a result of this adjournment?  If so, he won't.



No, just curious about some of the legal aspects.  Trying to make myself smarter for watching Law&Order.   Thank you for the responses.


----------



## PO2FinClk (11 Oct 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Is there a time limit that a member who has been released can still be charged under the NDA?





			
				NDA Sec 60. said:
			
		

> 60.   (1) The following persons are subject to the Code of Service Discipline:
> (a) an officer or non-commissioned member of the regular force;
> (b) an officer or non-commissioned member of the special force;
> (c) an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force when the officer or non-commissioned member is
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> And is court that busy that even though the new defense has asked for "a few weeks" that it would be rescheduled for 4 months later?  I guess this leads back to my first question, if there is a time limit, as to what this delay might cost the prosecutor.



More than likely the delay is due to the availability of the judge; we have a very limited pool of military judges available.

Delays due to the system lacking sufficient resources can sometimes be seen as a mitigating factor in sentencing.  Usually that applies to delays of a year or more (based on my readings of court martial transcripts).

Just for the record, IANAL - and before anyone makes any accusations, it's an abbreviation for "I Am Not A Lawyer".


----------



## Cronicbny (12 Oct 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More than likely the delay is due to the availability of the judge; we have a very limited pool of military judges available.
> 
> Delays due to the system lacking sufficient resources can sometimes be seen as a mitigating factor in sentencing.  Usually that applies to delays of a year or more (based on my readings of court martial transcripts).
> 
> Just for the record, IANAL - and before anyone makes any accusations, it's an abbreviation for "I Am Not A Lawyer".



Whatever the case may be the delay here is unacceptable, both for the accused and for the military as a whole. All this means is that we have to put up with more media coverage in February... it just goes on and on. I'm at the point where I'm torn between two schools of thought:

1) Military justice is neither swift nor effective - let him off because it's been too long and let the media chew on it. Perhaps that'll wake the CF up to the reality that we have a problem or;

2) Throw the book at him, he'll appeal and win due to the time.

Either way we come out of it with egg on our face... I say, let's get the egg happening quickly - drop the charges, it makes the news, boo hoo... we reform the system.

It's that or:

07 Feb - News of trial the next day
08 Feb - News of conviction/dismissal etc etc
09 Feb - Article about the reaction in MARPAC
10 Feb - CBC News special documentary on drug use in the CF
11 Feb - Calls for a public commission into the CF justice system
15 Mar - Commission assigned, Jack Layton as head
15 Mar 09 - Commission will release report in a year (all military courts martial have been on hold for a year)
15 Mar 10 - Report issued, hundreds of courts martial are allowed to proceed only to be dismissed due to the length of time
16 Mar 10 - Article in the Times Colonist reliving SASKATOON - THE DARK DAYS OF DRUG USE IN THE NAVY

Let's just get it over with. Justice hasn't been served in this case... let's put it all out there now and test everyone.

Blargh

***Sorry, just a little frustrated with the whole debacle***


----------



## navymich (9 Apr 2008)

R 041615Z APR 08
FM MARPACHQ ESQUIMALT//J02 ADMIN//
TO MARPACGEN
BT
UNCLAS MARPACGEN 020/08 J02ADM 3010
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: NOTIFICATION OF TRIAL - STANDING COURT MARTIAL (SCM) - 14 APR 08

1. THE SCM FOR EX-PO1 CARLSON, HMCS SASKATOON, WILL RESUME AT 1000 ON 14
APR 08 IN THE COURTROOM BLDG 30(N) (SECOND FLOOR) CFB ESQUIMALT 
2. PO1 CARLSON HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH THE FOLLOWING OFFENCES UNDER THE NATIONAL
DEFENCE ACT (NDA):
A. CHARGE 1 SECTION 130 NDA, TRAFFICKING (S. 5(1) CDSA) 
B. CHARGE 2 SECTION 93 NDA, BEHAVED IN A DISGRACEFUL MANNER 
3. SPECTATORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND. MILITARY SPECTATORS ARE TO WEAR 
THE DRESS OF THE DAY AND ARE TO BE SEATED BY 0950.
4. THE TRIAL WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH PAGE 2 RCWEWLA5038 
UNCLAS 
END OF ENGLISH TEXT 
#5038
DRAFTER:  COMMCEN WKR CIV 3-4815
RELEASER: COMMCEN WKR CIV 3-4815
RELEASER ADDR: /DOCKYARD//COMMCEN ESQ//


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2008)

Interesting.



> 3. SPECTATORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND. MILITARY SPECTATORS ARE TO WEAR
> THE DRESS OF THE DAY AND ARE TO BE SEATED BY 0950.



Most places I have been the Dress was DEU 3.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2008)

3B for participants - spectators dress of the day is fairly common for court martials.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Apr 2008)

> spectators dress of the day is fairly common for court martials.


Since court martials are open to the public, the dress requirements are kept fairly informal so as to not encourage military personnel to avoid spectating.

At least that's who it was explained on my presiding officers course


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Apr 2008)

Court martial reveals surprise military drug test
Updated Thu. Apr. 17 2008 7:57 AM ET

The Canadian Press

CFB ESQUIMALT -- Hundreds of Canadian Navy personnel were targeted with a surprise, mandatory drug test at the home of the Pacific fleet in December but the results have not been released. 

The revelation came Wednesday at the cocaine-related court martial of a former petty officer, caught up in an undercover military "sting" operation in late 2005 and early 2006 that focused on crew members of HMCS Saskatoon at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. 

The court martial heard of the base's efforts to combat drug and alcohol abuse. 

The massive "blind test" was conducted as a new component of the Canadian Forces drug enforcement policy, according to a base spokesman. 

"There were several units tested. . . a team goes in and the whole unit, all members of the unit, are tested," said Navy Lt. Paul Pendergast. "That would have involved several hundred people." 

He said buildings and ships at the base, near Victoria, B.C., were involved. 

"It's urine testing. All exits would be blocked and the team would go in and before anyone can leave, all members would be tested." 

Pendergast said the testing for the use of marijuana, cocaine and several other drugs was anonymous and no names were attached to the samples taken. 

The purpose is to give Navy leadership what he called a "snapshot of drug use in a unit." 

But he was in the dark about the results. 

"I am not privy to the reason why the results have not been released," he said. 

Lt. Pendergast's comments followed the first full day of proceedings at the long-delayed court martial of former Petty Officer 1st Class Christopher Carlson, the warship's coxswain, and one of four Saskatoon crew members to be charged in an undercover operation involving the military's National Investigative Service. 

Charges under the National Defence Act of trafficking and disgraceful behaviour were dropped Wednesday, replaced with a lesser charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 

Carlson immediately pleaded guilty, which was accepted by the court. 

Following Carlson's guilty plea, the court martial heard the base was trying to tackle problems of alcohol abuse and increasing drug use. 

"The incidence of alcohol abuse was higher in the past than at present," testified Chief Petty Officer Paul Helston, who added that abuse of "hard drugs" appeared to be on the rise. 

Documents put into evidence revealed that since 2004, 39 drug related summary convictions had been won against 27 members of the Canadian Forces at CFB Esquimalt, 11 involving marijuana and 16 involving cocaine. 

There have also been five drug-related convictions obtained at courts martial. 

Pendergast said 36 members from the Esquimalt base had been sent to "residential treatment in the last year," but he could not be specific about how many were being treated for alcoholism and how many for drug problems. 

Cmdr. Craig Baines, the current commanding officer of the frigate HMCS Winnipeg who spent more than two years aboard the smaller Saskatoon, said as coxswain of the 55-metre warship Carlson's responsibilities were discipline, morale and ethics. 

He said it was considered a law-and-order position aboard 

"We consider the coxswain as the sheriff, he lays the charges. If he is breaking the rules, then there are no rules," said Baines 

Carlson's former commanding officer on Saskatoon, Lt.-Cmdr. Jeffrey White, spoke highly of his former coxswain before becoming aware of the drug issue involving his crew. 

"He performed very well," he testified. "At the time I was impressed, and he knew it". 

In fact, White testified he had no suspicions about Carlson or any other member of the crew until he was approached by a senior officer with a tip. 

White testified the National Investigative Service put a female undercover operative aboard Saskatoon in the role of a clerk as part of a sting operation, adding that everyone involved felt a woman would fit in more smoothly and be more easily invited to parties. 

Carlson was released by the military and faced the court martial before the Canadian Forces chief military judge, Col. Mario Dutil, as a civilian. 

Pendergast said punishment and penalties for the new charge can include the possibility of a permanent "dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service." 

Last August a second former crew member from HMCS Saskatoon had his trafficking charge dropped in return for a plea of guilty of bad conduct. 

In the spring of 2007, a third crew member pleaded guilty to trafficking and the fourth pleaded guilty to selling a small amount of cocaine to an undercover officer. 

Both were handed suspended sentences and fined.


_© 2008 CTVGlobemedia  All Rights Reserved._

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080417/military_drugtest_080417/20080417?hub=Canada

dileas

tess


----------



## Yrys (17 Apr 2008)

Court martial reveals surprise military drug test



> CFB ESQUIMALT -- Hundreds of Canadian Navy personnel were targeted with a surprise, mandatory drug test at the home of the Pacific fleet in December
> but the results have not been released.
> 
> The revelation came Wednesday at the cocaine-related court martial of a former petty officer, caught up in an undercover military "sting" operation in late 2005 and
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2008)

Re: the surprise urine tests, AFAIK, this also happened to one of the ships on the East Coast in early 2008 as well, in the same type fashion.  Team went on, no one left, everyone got to take a bathroom break.  And when I say AFAIK, I was told it by a member of the ships company and was done IAW the new drug enforcement policy.  Why is it news that the CF is doing this, unless it is being colored as *positive* news?

IMO this is the media trying to make apples into oranges.


----------



## garb811 (18 Apr 2008)

Blind testing happened in the early 90s as well when the current policy was first implemented.  I had to line up and provide.  There was plenty of media attention about the process at that time as well.


----------



## Ropeburn (18 Apr 2008)

Just talked to someone who just left the sentencing phase of Carlsons trial apparently $2000 fine and dismissal with disgrace. Still not sure what that is or the ramifications but havent looked it up yet either. Once again another interesting outcome as he also had his charges changed to only 129, not trafficing or disgraceful conduct.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Apr 2008)

Sounds like a plea bargain.  $2000 fine?  That's ridiculous!


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Apr 2008)

April 18, 2008 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

ESQUIMALT, B.C. - A former navy petty officer originally accused of drug smuggling aboard a Canadian warships has been found guilty of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and fined $2,000.


Former Petty Officer Christopher Carlson has also been formally dismissed from the navy for misconduct.


In sentencing Carlson, Canada's chief military judge said the case was a prime example of blatant disregard of Canadian Forces drug policy and an absolute abdication by a non-commissioned officer of his roles and responsibilities


But the judge noted that there was no evidence that Carlson was ever involved in cocaine trafficking on board the HMCS Saskatoon, a charge that was dropped at the start of his court martial earlier this week.


There was no evidence that Carlson ever used cocaine aboard HMCS Saskatoon but that he was involved in drug use with subordinates on his days off.


Four members of the small warship faced court martial as a result of a military sting operation in early 2006 - the one was simply fined and two were handed suspended jail sentences as well as fines.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/356432


----------



## geo (18 Apr 2008)

booted out with disgrace....
not 100% certain but I don't think the fella gets anything from the CF xcept return of his pension contributions ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> booted out with disgrace....
> not 100% certain but I don't think the fella gets anything from the CF xcept return of his pension contributions ...



My understanding is he is/was Nav Res...


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Apr 2008)

He was Nav Res.

I think this is a slap on the wrist (considering what the others received), but then again I don't know all the evidence.  I do find it hard to believe that the young reservists were able to get their COXN to do coke with them.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2008)

The Cox doing drugs would be like the RSM doing drugs.....it sends the wrong message.....
Is dismissal with disgrace still a punishment? It should have been in this case....and I don't care if he was Naval reserve....this behavior is irresponsible and unethical.
Toss his a$$ onto the streets. He can deal drugs there.


----------



## Monsoon (18 Apr 2008)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I think this is a slap on the wrist (considering what the others received), but then again I don't know all the evidence.  I do find it hard to believe that the young reservists were able to get their COXN to do coke with them.



I knew Chris Carlson. He was (before all this) regarded as a hard worker and respected by his peers, subordinates and superiors. He gave the best years of his life to the navy, but he screwed up and got booted out for it. I don't think any time in prison would make him feel any worse than a disgraceful discharge and the loss of a lifetime of goodwill. In any case, the trafficking charge was trumped up and would have been tossed out of a civvie court as entrapment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The Cox doing drugs would be like the RSM doing drugs.....it sends the wrong message.....
> Is dismissal with disgrace still a punishment? It should have been in this case....and I don't care if he was Naval reserve....this behavior is irresponsible and unethical.
> Toss his a$$ onto the streets. He can deal drugs there.



I agree 100% but IMO this punishment is a joke.  He probably made $2000 a day selling his crap.  Disappointing is the word that comes to mind.


----------



## Yrys (18 Apr 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> He probably made $2000 a day selling his crap.



You think he had THAT many customers ?!?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2008)

I don't know and I suspect no one will ever know exactly.  From what I gather a user can go thru $200 a day of the junk...so thats only 10 people.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Apr 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I knew Chris Carlson. He was (before all this) regarded as a hard worker and respected by his peers, subordinates and superiors. He gave the best years of his life to the navy, but he screwed up and got booted out for it. I don't think any time in prison would make him feel any worse than a disgraceful discharge and the loss of a lifetime of goodwill. In any case, the trafficking charge was trumped up and would have been tossed out of a civvie court as entrapment.



I played hockey with the guy, and we were the same trade for a while, yes he was very well respected by all.  

Sure prison would not have made him feel any worse, but isn't it about punishment and not making him feel worse?  I am sure that guy in Merritt feels pretty bad too, so considering his feelings the charge should be less?  

I know the disgraceful discharge is pretty serious, but I feel that some prison time would have been warranted given his position and that the others were each given time.

At least its all over with.  

The entrapment thing is a joke, if he sold he sold, regardless how he was setup.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Apr 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I knew Chris Carlson. He was (before all this) regarded as a hard worker and respected by his peers, subordinates and superiors. He gave the best years of his life to the navy, but he screwed up and got booted out for it. I don't think any time in prison would make him feel any worse than a disgraceful discharge and the loss of a lifetime of goodwill. In any case, the trafficking charge was trumped up and would have been tossed out of a civvie court as entrapment.



Its not often I agree with "hamiltongs" but did the Judge not say there was "no evidence" that the accused was ever involved in dealing drugs, but was just a user? [not downplaying the seriousness of that but hold on]

Maybe the man became hopelessly addicted and was no longer in control of his own actions? Gee, I sure hope none of you ever start having a few more drinks more often than you should, or maybe expect any help/leeway if you start showing any symptoms of PTSD............naw, lets just toss ya out on the scrap heap with the rest of the carcass's.

Now, just so we are clear, I'm not defending this man as I am not privy to his thoughts and actions beforehand, however, I will also not condemn a man until I am privy to those same thoughts and actions beforehand when regarding an addictive substance. Hey, if he was doing coke just for the thrill every once in a while then he played the game and deservedly lost and can wander off into the lowlight, however if he had an addiction problem that possibly might have came out of one bad decision then shouldn't we take that into consideration before we tar and feather someone?

I know the wolves will howl but.........


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2008)

Bruce,

I hear what you are saying but I have ZERO sympathy for him.  Drugs are drugs.  HE made the choice to use, sell, allow subordinates to use, whatever he was doing.  If he had of NEVER used the crap in the first place, he would never had become and addict.  His decision.  NO sympathy from this corner.


----------



## Ropeburn (20 Apr 2008)

Agreed, partly. He made a choice he deserves what he gets, but if i interpret the regs right he has/had the choice to seek help. Wether he did or didnt, i dont know but again he made a choice. i believe the consequences of your actions should be comensurate with the harm you've done and as i see it due to rank and position the harm he did was cause the navy to lose 4 if not more "good" sailors and irreperably damage the respect/authority given to those in similar ranks and positions. Pretty sure jail time would not have fixed the damage but at least it would have been seen to punish those who make the choice to follow that way of life.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2008)

Part of punishment is the idea of a deterrent is it not?

Members who are using drugs can request help with addictions services, which is then considered medical treatment and confidential.  I do not see where this member has ever attempted to do this.  He got caught plain and simple and IMO should have had the most severe of punishments available given IAW the limitations of the charge(s) under the NDA.

In terms of the harm he has done, what about the harm done to the CF and the Naval Service?  The WO/PO rank?  The ship he sailed with?  The people who sailed under him, who he partied with?  People who were an acquaintance to him who might now be given a closer look just because of an innocent association with him?

So he gets a job at a call center or something, pays his fine and live goes on.  BS.


----------



## Ropeburn (20 Apr 2008)

Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline
Prejudicing good order or discipline

129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment. 

He got the harshest sentence for the charge. For some unknown reason they plead down the drug charges. So it is the best the prosecuter could get. 
Wonder how he got he lesser charge?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2008)

No jail/DB time = lesser punishment (IMO)...


----------



## garb811 (20 Apr 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Its not often I agree with "hamiltongs" but did the Judge not say there was "no evidence" that the accused was ever involved in dealing drugs, but was just a user? [not downplaying the seriousness of that but hold on]


I'll have to wait until the transcript comes out to figure out what actually transpired in the CM because I'm a bit confused due to the Military Judge's alleged comments.  If the charge of trafficking was dropped at the start of the trial then no evidence would have been introduced supporting the charge of trafficking, because he was no longer being tried on that count.  But, if that was the case, why did the Military Judge see fit to comment on that issue in what I presume was the sentencing phase?


----------



## geo (21 Apr 2008)

Ropeburn said:
			
		

> Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline
> Prejudicing good order or discipline
> 
> 129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment.
> ...



Charge was the least difficult to prove IMHO
The Judge was probably irritated with the lesser charges being prosecuted and went with the heavier charge....


----------

