# Issues with Enforcement and Maintenance of Discipline



## FastEddy (10 Jul 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> [/color]



CTD, thank you for your extensive commentary on the Subject matter of this Thread. 

However, to answer some of your concerns or questions, I would need a bit more information on certain
Statements or Questions you have posed.

You have stated that you have had conciderable dealings with the MP, in what capacity ?.

You have also mentioned the occurrence of a Theft, what was stolen ? where was it stolen from ?
 what time of day ? and why the assumption that it was stolen.


----------



## childs56 (10 Jul 2005)

Dealing  with the MP's into matters of harassment investigations to which they picked me up asked a few questions then handed me off to NIS, x4 of those.

A few times of speeding tickets, of which i wasn't speeding, 110km/hr in an MLVW. Hmm intresting.

A few times putting  people in the drunk tank.

 A few thefts that had occurred of military equipment

 Lectures on take downs and stuff (those were excellent training a job well done by the instructors)

Dealings with after RCMP handing out a ticket to a military member, then telling the Member that he was wrong in not willfully showing the Police his civie drivers licence, even though on the 404 it clearly states not to. Any ways an apologies was sent later by the Police on the matter once they found out the Military diver was correct and their procedures were not on par as to the rules of DND Vehicles. 

Few times driving DND vehicles th rue gates at military establishments and having them ponder what it was i was doing their. 
Threatening to tow a Gun Tractor and  Howitzer because it was parked in the parking lot where i was told to park. 
Halled out of the shower because i was parked in a reserved parking spot, even though it was reserved from 0700hrs to 1630 hrs Mon to Fri. It was now 0620 hrs. once i got dressed and went outside to point this out to them they quickly apologized for this miscommunication, even though they had themselves told me they had went up to the vehicle and looked inside of it to see if any one was their. They had not seen the big sign that said reserved between the following hours. 

I will say this not every MP I have met has been bad rude or in polite. a few have but that is life. The ones that have, had been forth comming with an apologies once the chain of command was informed of their behaviour. This has happend a couple of times. For the most part they have been friendly and very helpfull.

As for the recent theft of my property. Well I had a dirt bike which was located at CFB Borden in one of the parking lots where the school required all other vehicles and trailers to be.  It went missing Between 1300hrs June 30th and 1200hrs 01 July from the said location. How do i know it was a theft, well it was my property, and i never authorized any other persons to move touch or other wise replace the said dirt bike. So i think my assumption of it was a theft is not an assumption but a fact. The milk crate the bike was sitting on was moved to the back of the trailer it was next to. Placed neatly beside the Propane tank that had also been moved. So these two objects which were in a different location from the day prior were probelly moved by the perpentraitors as to gain more and easy access to the above item. Hence why maybe a finger print or two may have been able to been extracted. who really knows that was a week ago now. The fact that the MP's did not really disply the want or the need to go see where the bike was stolen is what really set me off as to how they respond. 

This topic was on the RCMP replacing the MP's on base. Why not send the MP's to depot and have them trained as RCMP, then carry out their duties as MP's but also be able to carry out all other police functions as the locals can. Good bad idea. who knows.


----------



## FastEddy (10 Jul 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> D
> 
> This topic was on the RCMP replacing the MP's on base. Why not send the MP's to depot and have them trained as RCMP, then carry out their duties as MP's but also be able to carry out all other police functions as the locals can. Good bad idea. who knows.




Thanks CTD for the follow up. As for your some what more than usual encounters with the MP it seems that 
they all went down quite smoothly and satisfactorily. Agreed, the number and freqency could be annoying.

Concerning the loss of your property, vehicular theft is a very common occurrence and handled by all agencies in
all most the sameway. The basic information is gathered by Uniformed officers Time,Date,Place,Description and
any pertinent facts. A Report is completed, A Case File Nr. is assigned, the Vehicle Particulars and Licence Nr.
are Put on a Hot Sheet and the B&W's Network. Even though the location where your Property was taken
from could be classified as a Crime Scene (but only in a very remote sense). The responding Uniform Officers
are not equipped to carry out any Forensic procedures. Nor would they call for Detectives who after evaluating
the Scene call for Forensics, in this matter. Now if this property was found to be used in the commission of
another crime, heres where the ball starts to roll. It may seem unfair or insufficient at the outset but their are
SOP's and Protocols.

With regard to your suggest that the MP should/could receive additional training at the RCMP Depot, I fully
agree and have mentioned it a few replies back, good thinking.

In reply to Micheal Shannon, it would provide them with additional how, when and why tools. Remember
Police Officers have specific Rolls and Duties, Detectives and Investigators are a field appart.
With regard to LEO's doing 6 to 8 times more than the MP, that basically depends where their assigned.
But then, judging from my expreience, at the outside I'd say 2 to 3 and thats going some.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jul 2005)

"At that time we did not have the mandate to investigate civilians (cadets) who committed a crime on DND property."

- And the local Mounties did not show any interest?  Odd...

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jul 2005)

Quote from CTD,
_But i do know this if i had something stolen off the base and i called the Police they would have come to look at where the object was  and then also looked to see if their were any finger prints, this small but major detail was omitted from my last dealing with the MP's. How do you expect to catch any one if they didn't even look or try to gather any evidence. guess it was another Axe to grind on my part. No this is real life and the expectations on my part would have to had a police officer come over look at where the object was, maybe see if it was possible to take prints, or even foot prints. Yet they failed to do this, the rudimentary of police work done when a theft has occurred. Maybe i am wrong i am not sure. But that is what the city and RCMP have done when things have been stolen_.  

...you are dreaming if you think that to be true, they just don't have the resources. Bring us a picture and the serial numbers, thank you.

Quote from TCBF,
-_ And the local Mounties did not show any interest?  Odd..._

...showing interest and having to prioritize those interests are two different ball games.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jul 2005)

..".showing interest and having to prioritize those interests are two different ball games."

The crime in question was Sexual Assault  I guess it wasn't Rape, as we used to call it.

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jul 2005)

Apples and oranges there......


----------



## S McKee (11 Jul 2005)

Bruce is right TCBF, it is a matter of priorities and unfortunately money. If you have X amount of dollars in your   budget you are going to use that money to combat major problems that effect the citizens in your   community, not on a transient population of young offenders (in this case cadets) who may or may not show up for court. Remember the crown also has allot of say on what does or doesn't make it to court, and usually unless there is a reasonable chance of conviction they turf it.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jul 2005)

Seen.    So, how did we fix that problem?  Other than kid's parents sueing each other?

Tom


----------



## childs56 (12 Jul 2005)

I am not going to get into a match here. Where i come from if your car, motorcycle or other object of such size is stolen the police will shall and have come by the crime scene, Usually within the Hour, They usually take pictures and try to go for finger prints, One reason for this is that the thief population is usually small and thus they have a better chance of finding the person, at the very least they had those prints and other clues on file for in the future. that way of similar incidents were to appear they may have some way to have connected or even determine if this is an ongoing problem. 

The lack of response by the Detachment where i am is what is of concern to me. They never even came by to look. I may not be from the big city or such, but i am sure that with the over abundance of MP's as has been stated they surly could have come on by and at least taken a look, maybe even a picture of two and maybe even a finger print, i mean the oil that was on the object suspected to have been moved by the perpentrater should have resulted in some form of print. 

But it is gone and i guess their is nothing i can do about it.  But please don't say that i am dreaming. 

Maybe i am dreaming that the MP's would have carried out an analysis of the area. I will be away for a while and so wont be able to post back on this subject for some time, Hope you guys and gals have fun take care


----------



## FastEddy (13 Jul 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> I am not going to get into a match here. Where i come from if your car, motorcycle or other object of such size is stolen the police will shall and have come by the crime scene, Usually within the Hour, They usually take pictures and try to go for finger prints, One reason for this is that the thief population is usually small and thus they have a better chance of finding the person, at the very least they had those prints and other clues on file for in the future. that way of similar incidents were to appear they may have some way to have connected or even determine if this is an ongoing problem.
> 
> The lack of response by the Detachment where i am is what is of concern to me. They never even came by to look. I may not be from the big city or such, but i am sure that with the over abundance of MP's as has been stated they surly could have come on by and at least taken a look, maybe even a picture of two and maybe even a finger print, i mean the oil that was on the object suspected to have been moved by the perpentrater should have resulted in some form of print.
> 
> ...




I have no answer as to why a B & W (MP Patrol Veh.) was not dispatched to your location and a report taken.
in person, maybe that could be best answered by a Serving MP. It does sound irregular.

I detailed the S.O.P for such a incident a little way back. Nothing more can be gained at the scene, other than
maybe if there was a witness who might offer descriptions etc. CTD, give it up, you really have a weak case.


----------



## childs56 (13 Jul 2005)

My point is that people on here have said that the MP's are over worked in one statement  due to lack of people and stuff, yet in another they have the luxery to carry out deeper or lesser investigations due to more resources. It just sounds as if people are trying to fight for a cause that isnt really their. 

The facts are crime on some of the larger military bases is higher then the local area, for what ever reason, it is their. It may only be petty crime such as theft under 5000 and such but it is their. ATV thefts on CFB Borden has always been high, why is that and how can that be abolished is the question. Really short of manning gates and such very little. Manning gates would involve doing random vehicle checks. 

The US have MP's manning gates. Not to combat thefts as much as security of the base it self. God help if one day some lower then life scum drives a big old  truck on base full of explosives and plants it between accomadation buildings. What a shame and kick in the nuts that would be. I am all for base duty schedules to assit the MP's at the front gate if they need it. But we really need to start doing something. Our lives may depend on it one day. 

The comment on having a weak case is kinda funny as people here have responded previously that the MP's respond in full and have more ability to investigate petty crimes much easier then the LP's. Now that they didnt it is intresting how people come up and say you have a weak case. The bottom line is that it is more then a Dirt bike stolen. It is a base wide security issue. We have members living un protected in a place that is prime location for an attack. Very easily accessed by all. I mean trying to do an attack down town Torornto would be much harder as the Police would be telling you to move along and come over if you didnt. Yet here on a military installation peopel come and go as they please, no challanging from any one. Ahh have to love it.  

A comment was made that MP's will step up patrols around the base as securtiy issues are on the rise(comment made elsewhere). 

DO YOU FEEL SAFE


----------



## GO!!! (13 Jul 2005)

Part of the reason my spouse and I left the PMQs was to get away from the vandalism and theft that exists there, in addition to the borderline harassment you must endure when operating a motor vehicle on the base. 

Why I was pulled over 4 times in as many weeks for "spot checks" is beyond me, I was never issued a ticket, or even a warning, they are always "just checking". 

Yet certain wings of the shacks are blue with marijuana smoke some weekends - too bad they are never "checked" <that is what a "hotbox" is>.

While your defence of your trade and duties are commendable, my opinion in this matter remains unchanged and even more solidified. The RCMP would provide the CF with better, cheaper personnell, and allow the MPs to concentrate on securing our PWs/detainees, defence establishments at home and abroad, and the routes we use. The use of special vehicles, uniforms, and pay only seperates the MPs further from their duties on the Military side of the house. Soldier first, cop second.

OUT


----------



## S McKee (13 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Part of the reason my spouse and I left the PMQs was to get away from the vandalism and theft that exists there, in addition to the borderline harassment you must endure when operating a motor vehicle on the base.
> 
> Why I was pulled over 4 times in as many weeks for "spot checks" is beyond me, I was never issued a ticket, or even a warning, they are always "just checking".
> 
> ...



GO If the MP were limited to base security and they stopped your vehicle at the maingate everyday for a security check or to see your ID card I suppose that would be harassment too.  I've heard the same line of reasoning from members when they see MP walking through the shacks "Your harassing us" yet the people who complain the most are usually the very same people who are making the air blue with marijuana smoke as you put it. Individuals with the mindset of "get rid of the MP" will never be happy with the MP no matter what role they perform. The bottom line is immature and cocky young soldiers (yourself excluded) just don't like being told what to do by their peers, especially ones they see in their own minds as not being "real soldiers".


----------



## KevinB (13 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Yet certain wings of the shacks are blue with marijuana smoke some weekends - too bad they are never "checked" <that is what a "hotbox" is>.



A quick check of a few rooms left me appraised that one of the worst rooms was in fact habitated by a MP M/Cpl !


----------



## FastEddy (14 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> A quick check of a few rooms left me appraised that one of the worst rooms was in fact habitated by a MP M/Cpl !




Ahhh! KevinB, are you saying that the room was littered with empty liquor bottles, ashtrays full of roach's and used syringe's or just untidy and messy ?.


----------



## FastEddy (14 Jul 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> My point is that people on here have said that the MP's are over worked in one statement   due to lack of people and stuff, yet in another they have the luxery to carry out deeper or lesser investigations due to more resources. It just sounds as if people are trying to fight for a cause that isnt really their.
> 
> The facts are crime on some of the larger military bases is higher then the local area, for what ever reason, it is their. It may only be petty crime such as theft under 5000 and such but it is their. ATV thefts on CFB Borden has always been high, why is that and how can that be abolished is the question. Really short of manning gates and such very little. Manning gates would involve doing random vehicle checks.
> 
> ...




Well it seems by your Posts that the Army has degenerated into a sad state of affairs and that our Army Bases have turned into Ghetto's.

Further, Civilian Criminal elements are targeting CF's Personnel and their Dependents and freely enter Military Bases unimpeded. If this is not the case, then this out break of crime is being committed by Service Personnel. Then if this is the case, then it is really a sad state of affairs.

You go on to say that there is less crime in the surrounding Communities. This further indicates that CF's Bases are the hub of Criminal activity. To add to all this, there is no MP presence.

If all of the above situations exist are common knowledge to the OR's and Jr. NCO's, whats going on with the people running the show ?.

Shacks, someone correct me if I'm wrong, They are storeage containers outside the Base Main Gate for the use of personnel to store unnecessary gear or prohibited items ?. ( there like shipping containers in appearance).


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Ahhh! KevinB, are you saying that the room was littered with empty liquor bottles, ashtrays full of roach's and used syringe's or just untidy and messy ?.



Nope - I was just wondering why some troops complaints abotu drug use keeps getting ignored and I went and looked over at the Barrack Wardens office at who inhabited three rooms - and one happened to be...




FWIW - I have gone to the MP complaint commission -- circa 2002 - my room was searched due to my discharge of a Police CN TearSmoke Grenade (public record) in the shacks - The MP's took several items out of my room items they had no authourity to do so (If they had not been just incredibly stupid it woudl have been theft...)   However they opened my roommates kit and found a bag of weed.   - They put it back -- I have the two MP's names BTW

I still have not received all my property back even after they where ordered - since they stated a weapons tech (who had no authority under the criminal code) claimed on the items was CF property (okay three incredibly stupid people).

Four people went and complained to the unti MP's about drug stuff.   - Nothing happened

I went to the NIS - with a few names etc.   Nothing happened

 Heck one of the NIS guys was a MP who put Pte T's bag of dope back...     And The NIS MCPL fucked up a investigation about cocaine smuggling in Afghan.

You want to know why no one want to go down to the MP's shack - is WE DONT FUCKING TRUST YOU.
   Show me MP drug testing sheets and a level of competant investigation and someone will come talk to you.


I've talked to Base Drug Addictions guys too -- I have a raport with them due to my Alcohol issues of the mid 90's -- Sad thing is they have repeatedly told the Brigade Commander about the problem.
 I bug the EPS guys to bring a Dog Team in for trainign ans if they "accidentally" find stuff in the shacks so be it  

Kevin.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Jul 2005)

Ok, I split this off from the MP Roles thread and left it here for a bit.  This is starting to get personal and the fingers are pointing everywhere, so don't be surprised if it disappears for the sake of not having the forums denigrate into a clearing-house for this kind of stuff.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> A quick check of a few rooms left me appraised that one of the worst rooms was in fact habitated by a MP M/Cpl !



Mother of God - is it really that bad?


----------



## Slim (14 Jul 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Mother of God - is it really that bad?



Jesus...Beginning to sound like the US army in the '70's!

This needs to be cleaned up...The problem that is.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Jesus...Beginning to sound like the US army in the '70's!
> 
> This needs to be cleaned up...The problem that is.



Ok - how?  Without resorting to mandatory testing, how do we go about fixing it?

How about testing for cause, whenever there is doubt?  How about professional soldiers "narcing" on the unprofessional ones?

Dave


----------



## Slim (14 Jul 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Ok - how?   Without resorting to mandatory testing, how do we go about fixing it?
> 
> How about testing for cause, whenever there is doubt?   How about professional soldiers "narcing" on the unprofessional ones?
> 
> Dave



I'll be the first to admit that I have no clear idea what to do about this issue...Nor, I think, does anyone else...

Is it that drugs are such a part of our route culture now that its inevitable? What is the roote cause of drug abuse in the service, or drug abuse period?

I do know that I would never willingly serve with someone who is a drug user and would not feel safe with them while training on the range or what-have-you, never mind on the line in some operational theatre.

Slim


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jul 2005)

Mandatory monthly drug tests ought to fix it in the short term.   Do that for a year then start doing random tests.   Send the dogs in the shacks, hell send them through the PMQ's.   Oh BTW have the RCMP conduct the above.   Any offenders put them in DB for 6 months min.


----------



## S McKee (15 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Mandatory monthly drug tests ought to fix it in the short term.   Do that for a year then start doing random tests.   Send the dogs in the shacks, heck send them through the PMQ's.   Oh BTW have the RCMP conduct the above.   Any offenders put them in DB for 6 months min.



 You forgot the black Mercedes Benz that arrives in the middle of the night...Although I like your idea about mandatory drug testing sending the dogs through the shacks we do have this thing called the Charter of Rights.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Jul 2005)

The Charter of rights does not prohibit the Chain of command from entering your room without you present, and yes, it happens - Sgts and up do it when they want to. So how could it possibly protect you from a dog search - which is done in High Schools?


----------



## JBC (15 Jul 2005)

If drug usage is as serious a problem with the CF as one may be led to believe, I suggest a one week force wide period of grace to turn oneself into ones chain of command so that treatment can begin and recovery to becoming an effective...drug free... member again, without fear of release. 

After that, these people in white lab coats mysteriously begin to pop up without warning at bases across the nation. The idea is you never know when you will get a shake down so you are forced to stop, or risk loosing your job and perhaps receiving a nice trip to Edmonton. Correct me if Im wrong but the military will send you to jail for using drugs?

I know its simplified but it can be built on...


----------



## McG (15 Jul 2005)

EXNovie said:
			
		

> If drug usage is as serious a problem with the CF as one may be led to believe, I suggest a one week force wide period of grace to turn oneself into ones chain of command so that treatment can begin and recovery to becoming an effective...drug free... member again, without fear of release.


This is always available.  A service member can approach the chain of command or seek help through the CF medical system.


----------



## S McKee (15 Jul 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The Charter of rights does not prohibit the Chain of command from entering your room without you present, and yes, it happens - Sgts and up do it when they want to. So how could it possibly protect you from a dog search - which is done in High Schools?



That is correct, room inspections are covered under regulations "maintenance of kit and quarters", however they cannot be used to search for drugs or evidence of a crime "fishing expeditions" any evidence gathered as a result would be thrown out of court. In order to search a room, a search warrant must be obtained. The dog searches done in public schools are done as a preventable measure with the express permission of the school. Also public schools are just that; public, they are not classified as a residence so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, as is the case in Barracks Rooms.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jul 2005)

Okay, so we can't use drugs found in a "snap inspection" as evidence, but we sure let the chain know who is not playing by the rules, can't we?

Are manadatory, unit-wide piss-tests possible?


----------



## garb811 (15 Jul 2005)

It's obvious people's minds are made up regarding MP competence because of their perceptions regarding MP actions (or inactions), however I'll point a couple of things out as I think some of the issue here revolves around ignorance of the law and constraints which are placed upon ALL police and then I'll ask a simple question that I'm just waiting to see the answer on:

What your chain of command is conducting is an inspection in the custom of the service as opposed to a search for evidence of an offence.  These are authorized via the Inspection and Search Defence Regulations and there are very strict parameters under which evidence of an offence which is found during one of these can be used.  For example, if there is even the slightest hint that one of these inspections was targeted to find evidence, that evidence will not be admitted into court.  

Kevin, I'm sorry that stepping forward has left a bad taste in your mouth but just because you don't see an outcome doesn't mean nothing has happened with the information you provided.  This obviously isn't the place to discuss the details of it but there are strict requirements as to what is required to take certain types of action.  Giving names is great input for the Criminal Int programme but depending on what other information you provided there maybe isn't anything we can do immediately (although if you were to inform the CofC they could arguably order a drug test for cause...).  As for your roommate's baggie, that's a classic fruit of the poison tree scenario.  For legal purposes, it was never found and it never existed.

There is also a huge difference between what police can do in a public place as opposed to a private dwelling.  The hallway of a school is considered to be a public place so it's not a problem for the police to bring a dog in and run it down the lockers with the invitation of a competent authority at the school.  As I previously pointed out, rooms in the shack are legally considered to be private dwellings so EPS can't be invited up for "training" and have the dogs run through the rooms.  They could, however, run the dogs through the halls but to be honest, this would be useless and a waste of their time unless someone had their stash hidden under the garbage can.  I won't go into details here but since you guys seem to be "in" with your local civie force, next time you see a dog handler have a discussion with them about the limitations of the dogs.

Cocaine smuggling...yeah, you're right, only the MPs get that one wrong, that's why there's no coke available in Canada anymore and everyone has to try to get by on the home grown and meth produced in their basement lab.  The reality is police work is not Law and Order or CSI: Miami.  Crimes happen and don't get solved, even the best â Å“tipâ ? can lead to a dead end, even the most obviously guilty person can walk on a technicality no matter how much it disgusts the public and not every cop has the equipment or training to effectively lift prints at each and every crime scene.  We see threads on here which are discussing the Revolution in Military Affairs and the impact it is having on the CF, I'll just point out for the Police, the Charter and the subsequent case law, is an ongoing Revolution in Police Affairs and it has totally changed how all police need to operate.  Unfortunately it appears some people's perception on effective policing is shaped by Hollywood, high profile cases out of the States and fond remembrances of the days when the RSM ordered everyone to open up their lockers when a theft occured in unit lines...

So, my question is:  Please explain to me how exactly the RCMP, or any other civilian police force, would suddenly clean up the problem when it is apparent they are unable to police their current jurisdictions to the standard you seem to demand of the MP?

PS - Bah...this is what happens when you start a post and not finish it right away.  Rather than re-write it to remove the stuff Jumper covered I'll leave it as is.  Unfortunately unit wide, or even random, drug testing is not possible at this time even though it remains on the books.  Testing may be ordered for individuals but it must be for cause.  Anyone else remember the blind testing that was done in the early 90's in an attempt to set a baseline for drugs use and the problems that caused?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jul 2005)

Can the Canadian Forces not gain a Charter Exemption (on account of National Security) to use extraordinary measures to weed out drug use?


----------



## garb811 (15 Jul 2005)

We could but that would mean invoking the Notwithstanding clause of the Charter which the Federal Government will probably never do.  The courts have made it very clear that just because you join the CF doesn't mean you give up any of your Charter Rights.  My foggy memory tells me the blind and random drug testing programme was restricted to "for cause" testing in order to avoid a Charter challenge to the entire CF Drug program.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jul 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> The courts have made it very clear that just because you join the CF doesn't mean you give up any of your Charter Rights.



Perhaps it could be written into the CF contract that a member automatically agrees to give random samples when required - hell, the contract allows for the principle of unlimited liability, so I'm sure getting someone to piss into a cup couldn't be hard.


----------



## garb811 (15 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> heck, the contract allows for the principle of unlimited liability


Well, nobody has mounted a Charter challenge against that yet though, give it some time!   >


----------



## FastEddy (15 Jul 2005)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Shacks, someone correct me if I'm wrong, They are storeage containers outside the Base Main Gate for the use of personnel to store unnecessary gear or prohibited items ?. ( there like shipping containers in appearance).
> 
> Before anyone dies of laughter, my presumption was based on "CTDs" description of the location of the theft of his ATV, "Olly container - milk crates - ATV - shacks" ( in my day we referred to our quarters as the Hut, Re: "H" Huts and later the Banting Blocks).
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (15 Jul 2005)

MP 00161,

taken to PM  

People know my thoughts I'm done here.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2005)

Sounds like they wore you down Kev.  They won't catch me though I'm the Gingerbread Man.


----------



## KevinB (15 Jul 2005)

Not at all.

 I figured my point was made and there was no sense continuing.


----------



## McG (15 Jul 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> The courts have made it very clear that just because you join the CF doesn't mean you give up any of your Charter Rights.


True, however the Supreme Court has also ruled that certain curbs on those rights are demonstrably justified for service members (one such curb being the CSD applied exlusivly to service pers).





			
				MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Infanteer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This principle would be upheld.   Without it, the CF does not function.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jul 2005)

Dang..... of course, I live in the US, and am now a civvie, but -

Agreeing to our Drug and Alcohol Policy is a condition of employment with my company. They review and sign the policy before becoming an employee. The policy includes pre-employment testing, random testing, testing for cause, and post-injury testing. If they don't agree with the program, they don't have to become an employee. I guess it's not that easy to implement "up there"....


----------

