# The Matt Stopford Saga



## armdfist (22 Jun 2000)

Being new, I do not know if this subject has been discussed, but if it hasn‘t then it should.

The idea of Canadian soldiers poisoning a senior NCO is very disturbing to me.  Now the CDS has ordered that the findings by the NIS, to see if something more than facing a career board can be done.

Not only the fact (I say this knowing that nothing has been proven) that WO Stopfords‘ coffee was poisoned, but that no one has come forward is also disturbing.  Putting aside petty ideas like "buddy f#*king" this is a very serious matter.  Someone had to have seen WO Stopford drink the "allegedly" poisoned coffee.  That someone should come forward.

From all accounts that I have heard, WO Stopford was a very effective Sr NCO.  He also preformed brilliantly at Midac.  Now as some of us know, Sr NCO‘s on operations (especially the Balkans) play a very integral role in a soldiers life (as per usual, however more so due to the fact that you are in a hostile environment).  For some of his soldiers to attempt to "slow him down" is really counter-productive to the task at hand.

I hope more will come of this, and that whoever (if anyone) is responsible be taken to task.


----------



## bossi (22 Jun 2000)

This topic/discussion began on the "old War Diary", and now is being brought forward ...

I echo the sentiment - there is nothing worse than a "buddy-f***er".

Also, I‘m no lawyer, and my skin crawls when people start hiding behind "statutes of limitations" ...


Some of you will probably think I‘m warped (I‘ve spent many years in Recruiting ...), but when problems in the military come to the fore, I often wonder whether we‘ve been selective enough in our recruiting, as well as choosing and promoting our leaders ... (some food for thought):

I beseech you to be careful what captains of Horse you choose, what men be mounted:  a few honest men are better than numbers ... If you choose honest godly men to be captains of Horse, honest men will follow them ... I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.

Oliver Cromwell:  Letter to Sir William Springe, September 1643

Dileas Gu Brath
Mark Bossi, Esquire


----------



## the patriot (27 Jan 2001)

January 27, 2001


Former soldier sues Ottawa for $7.5-million
Compensation for Croatia: Claims superiors knew of his injuries but failed to act

James Cudmore
National Post

Tom Hanson, The Canadian Press

Matt Stopford says the military did not look out for him.


Matt Stopford, the retired warrant officer allegedly poisoned by his own troops, has launched a $7.5-million civil suit against the Department of National Defence, claiming it was negligent, incompetent and in breach of its statutory duty.

In a statement of claim filed with the Federal Court in Ottawa yesterday, Mr. Stopford alleged that while peacekeeping in Croatia in 1993, the Canadian Forces was aware of a bizarre plot by as many as six soldiers to poison him with eye drops, naphtha and engine coolant, and failed to prevent it.

The statement points to a military investigation that concluded earlier this month that the poisoning had taken place and that "the medical and tactical chain of command were aware at the time ... and that the plaintiff was not informed."

Mr. Stopford also alleged that following his return to Canada and the onset of a number of peculiar illnesses that eventually left him blind in one eye, depressed, suffering from sore joints and bones and an intestinal disorder, the Canadian Forces failed to adequately care for him.

"The defendant, her employees, servants and agents knew, or ought to have known, that the physical symptoms the plaintiff complained of following his return from Croatia were related to his experiences [there]," the statement of claim reads.

According to the court documents, Mr. Stopford was released from the military due to his ill health but was refused a disability pension, "because of insufficient medical evidence that his condition was caused by service in [Croatia]."

Central to the claim are allegations put forward by Mr. Stopford that while serving overseas, he and other soldiers were forced to work in an environment with a "pace and intensity unknown to Canadian soldiers since the Korean War."

"They were frequently caught in the crossfire between the warring Croats and Serbs. Sometimes they themselves became targets," the court documents state.

Mr. Stopford also alleged that the area in which Canadians were forced to work was poisoned with environmental contaminants and littered with human and animal remains.

"Animal remains had to be burned to prevent disease from spreading and human remains had to be gathered for burial trucks," according to the claim.

"There was no clean water available to the plaintiff to clean himself after performing these duties."

News of the legal action followed the release nearly two weeks ago of the final report in a series of almost a dozen separate military investigations into the Croatian deployment.

The controversy first erupted in July, 1999, when Mr. Stopford, who was decorated for his bravery in Croatia, held a news conference decrying the Canadian Forces laissez-faire attitude toward the complaints of as many as 383 sick veterans of peacekeeping in Croatia.

Days later, Brigadier-General Patricia Samson, then the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, announced that military police officers were investigating allegations that Mr. Stopford had been poisoned by his own troops.

Mr. Stopford denied the allegations and maintained the Canadian Forces had purposefully set out to embarrass him in response to his outspoken criticism.

But the decorated soldier changed his tune earlier this month when a Military Police Complaints Commission report declared that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Stopford had, in fact, been poisoned.

"I have to believe it, all of those investigations and inquiries, I have no other choice," he said in an interview. "The only option I have left is to take them to court."

Contacted in Ottawa, Captain Dale MacEachearn, a military spokesman, said the defence department had yet to receive the statement of claim.

"When we do we‘re going to send it to our legal services for analysis and action," he said.

But yesterday Mr. Stopford said the case was cut and dried and that the statement of claim was based entirely on military records, reports and documents.
***********************************

-the patriot-


----------



## Danjanou (29 Oct 2003)

Minister does right thing

Stops DND appeal of sick soldier‘s lawsuit

 http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/10/29/240167.html 

By PETER WORTHINGTON

Defence Minister John McCallum has personally entered the case of retired Warrant Officer Matt Stopford and sided with the severely sick and injured soldier. I last wrote about Stopford‘s case on Oct. 18, after Superior Court Judge Fred Gibson ruled that his $7.5-million suit against the government should proceed -- yet Department of National Defence lawyers filed notice of appeal, a process that could take years. 

Stopford believed -- and the facts lent credibility -- that DND was hoping he would die before a trial, thus letting DND off the hook. 

In a hand-delivered letter to Stopford in Peterborough from Mr. McCallum on Monday, the minister said DND had "agreed to withdraw its appeal of the judgment." 

Furthermore, Stopford would be sent to the Mayo Clinic for testing at government expense. 

McCallum added: "I wish to reiterate that your service to your country is very much appreciated." 

It seems a total reversal of policy towards Stopford, who was told in 1999 that his own troops in Croatia six years earlier, in 1993, were trying to poison him because he was too gung-ho. 

By that time, Stopford was blind in one eye and wracked with mysterious ailments that included acute intestinal pain, swollen joints, bleeding from orifices, teeth breaking and falling out. 

He was on 100% disability pension. 

Stopford believes contaminated soil in Croatia contributed to his and ailments of others in his regiment, the Princess Pats. 

"I‘m surprised and extremely grateful to Mr. McCallum," says Stopford. "Finally a minister who does the right thing and shows leadership that could be a lesson for others in Ottawa." 

Stopford had written to McCallum about his case, as well as to the PM, Paul Martin and Veterans Affairs Minister Dr. Rey Pagtakhan, who supports Stopford going to the Mayo Clinic. 

McCallum‘s letter noted that Stopford‘s MP, Peter Adams, also brought the case to his attention. 

I‘d written that judging from past actions, I felt McCallum didn‘t know details of Stopford‘s case, else he‘d have ordered the case be settled. 

Earlier this year, McCallum ordered lump-sum payments should go retroactively to soldiers who were blinded or lost a limb. Previously, the army‘s mandatory insurance plan refused such payments. 

In a letter thanking McCallum for support, Stopford recalled: "During my service I was taught many things about leadership and leading men in combat. All I know is that they all came back alive and that is the most any commander can hope for." 

Stopford was decorated for leadership under fire in the Medak Pocket fight. 

Stopford added: "I know you have never been a soldier but you, sir, can definitely march down to NDHQ and give every general a lesson in leadership." 

McCallum‘s letter was copied to the PM, Dr. Pagtakhan, Paul Martin and Peter Adams. It would seem a decision has been made to settle this case and close it. 

It‘s now probable that DND lawyers will confer with Stopford‘s pro bono lawyers, James Cameron and Paul Champ of the Ottawa firm of Raven, Allen, Cameron and Ballantyne to settle this suit. 

Stopford was especially incensed that in trying to prevent him from suing for negligence, DND lawyers argued the Crown has no legal duty to look after soldiers injured in service to their country. 

In his letter to Chretien, Stopford asked rhetorically: "Mr. Prime Minister, are you going to tell our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Bosnia that they don‘t have a contract with the federal government? That is exactly what your lawyers argue in court." 

It would seem that John McCallum, who may get confused between Vimy Ridge and Vichy France, has no difficulty in distinguishing right from wrong. 

He is to be congratulated. 


_All I can add is it‘s about time._


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2004)

Now this,    http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/07/15/543069.html


----------



## Gunnar (16 Jul 2004)

See his next article, on his vote for Defense Minister:  McCallum.

My opinion:  McCallum is a Liberal bureaucrat who really doesn't understand the military.  He would not stand up to the government on a matter of military principle, BUT:

He is dilligent, believes in doing the right thing and honestly tries to do his best on the job.  For example, he didn't know his history all that well, but made a concerted effort to learn.  He told the military to stop bugging this veteran, when it was obvious that needed to be done.  He wasn't allowed to make any changes that mattered, cuz that would involve money, but he tried to administrate correctly.

I think, in a minority government situation, with the Conservatives nagging them to make the right policy decisions, that McCallum could be counted on to carry them out once Martin and the boys are shamed/coerced into it.

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what Worthington thinks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2004)

Troops don't poison their WO's for no reason even if they are gung ho.   Tends to be stupidity.   One of the guys on the first Roto's to Afganistan had a list.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jul 2004)

Do we (the public) know anything about the privates and corporals that served under this WO?  Were they good troops, or bad apples?  Poisoning someone isn't something I would expect just anybody to enter into lightly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2004)

For me somthing is very wrong here in the sense that _WHY_ won't they just pay and get it over with? They throw around money at a lot of stupid things that outrage us, why not pay here on something that I'm sure most Canadians would agree with?  Well lets see,
1. not isolated incident and don't want to open that can of worms?
2. involves a "name" or fast-tracker and must be hushed
3. believe all the evidence is wrong :-X
It must be something besides just being vindictive.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jul 2004)

Why will the military pay for some wog to get a sex change operation and yet refuse to send a decorated NCO to get treatment for a serious ailment.   This defies all logic, and I am sure when presented to many senior brass, they would agree as well.   I think this a perfect example of how bureaucratic management, as opposed to genuine leadership, is wracking the Forces in a way that lets everybody direct blame to somewhere else when the problem is right infront of us (bloated NDHQ with shaky and muddled command liines dominated by self-serving careerists in suits and uniforms).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2004)

You said WOG.   Ohhhhhhh.  

I think they reversed their decision on the sex change thing.


----------



## Military Brat (16 Jul 2004)

this is sad. buddy gave many years of his life in service to his country that he loves so dearly and now he is being jerked around because he suffers from being poisoned by the men he led?

why is the government prolonging his suffering? poisoning by his fellow soldiers or poisoning by the surrounding environment, the bottom line is that he was poisoned in a combat zone and the government should be him as comfortable as possible in this last years of his life.


----------



## Scott (17 Jul 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why will the military pay for some wog to get a sex change operation and yet refuse to send a decorated NCO to get treatment for a serious ailment.   This defies all logic, and I am sure when presented to many senior brass, they would agree as well.   I think this a perfect example of how bureaucratic management, as opposed to genuine leadership, is wracking the Forces in a way that lets everybody direct blame to somewhere else when the problem is right infront of us (bloated NDHQ with shaky and muddled command liines dominated by self-serving careerists in suits and uniforms).



I could not agree more!!!!!!

All that I can add is that I think it is f***ing A-well about time.


----------



## patt (17 Jul 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> You said WOG.     Ohhhhhhh.
> 
> I think they reversed their decision on the sex change thing.



ive herd theres another dude going for a sex change


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2004)

Oh he's a Western Oriental Gentlman?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (17 Jul 2004)

Perhaps that by paying whatever amount is required would be the same as an admission to guilt and culpability. If they were to admit to guilt this would never end. Things like honour, ethics, dignity are so much to us but to these bureaucrats (civvies in uniforms) they are just words to throw around and the profession of arms is but a dusty memory from staff college to most of them.

I've been bitter to some clowns who were put in a positon of leadership over me while overseas but I just sucked it up. I wonder what kinda of slackers would poison someone who they did not feel meet their idea of a leader. And what about his mess mates? Do they share any of the blame if they knew about it? Soldiers who take things into their hands in this way are nothing but a bunch of punk cowards who should not be wearing the same uniform as me.

As much as McCallum seemed to not fit the role of Min of Def he did much more for the line doggie than many before him and seemed to take what the NDHQ spin doctors said with a grain of salt. He preferred to look into things for himself. I'd rather have him back here but maybe he rocked the boat too much.

Slainte,


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Jul 2004)

None of us were there so we can't really asertain as to why they did what they did.   However serving the time I have, troops don't take that kind of thing lightly and suck it for a long time before acting.   If your WO is a fuck up doing things that are needlessly unsafe and your OC and CO are not going to do anything about it you are limited to what you can do.  they could have rolled a confiscated grenade into his bunk.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Aug 2004)

From today's Sun ... and the heartache and BS just goes on... it is time for this to stop:

Wed, August 11, 2004 

'Disgusting' offer from defence dept.

By PETER WORTHINGTON

Remember Matt Stopford -- the Princess Pat's warrant officer who was being poisoned by his own troops in Croatia in 1993 and is now blind in one eye and wracked with crippling internal injuries? 

When he was defence minister, John McCallum intervened and sent Stopford to the Mayo Clinic for analysis and treatment, and ordered department of national defence lawyers to settle the case to avoid Stopford's legal case. 

The June 28 election changed everything. McCallum went to revenue, Bill Graham took over defence, and the shafting of Stopford began again. Frustrated, Stopford has written to Prime Minister Paul Martin, blaming the Liberal government. 

Here, slightly edited, is some of what he wrote to Martin: "Sir, it is with a heavy heart and total disgust in your government that I am forced yet again to correspond to seek action to settle this on-going travesty of justice. 

"I believe you have been fully briefed on my predicament and are well aware of proceedings that took place before the general election. 

"Sir, upon my return from the Mayo Clinic late last year, members of the Liberal party, and members of the Canadian defence department and serving members of the forces have approached me to express disgust and horror at the poisoning and threats to my life by certain members of the forces during my peacekeeping tour in Yugoslavia in 1993. 

"They said they were disgusted by not only what had happened but also at the way the government had dealt with this matter, until you took over the reigns of power last year. Like a fool, I again believed them and thought this whole matter would soon be rectified, and whatever life I have left could go on quietly and peacefully. 

"I was told the Liberal government and the defence department were well aware of the tragic and disgusting way this gruesome episode was dealt with by those in power. It was suggested that the matter would be dealt with in a positive way as soon as the general election was over, and that I should remain quiet during the campaign. Mediation would proceed immediately after the election -- set for the 29th of June, 2004, in Ottawa. 

"Like an ignoramus, honourable sir, I believed in your government and proceeded to mediation. To say I was outraged, disgusted, and destroyed by that meeting would be an understatement. What transpired that day by your justice department under direction from the department of national defence broke all bounds of humanity and what is considered just and moral in Canadian society. 

"So shocked and frustrated was I at your government's lack of concern, that I required medical intervention from my team of doctors. 

"Mr. Prime Minister, to find out exactly what happened in Ottawa that day you just have to read the mediation brief of the defendant (Crown). Despite the claim of DND, I am in no way better off now then when I was when serving in the military. 

"I was forced to sign a non-disclosure form and have since been threatened with legal action and possibly jail if I break that agreement. I assume, as prime minister, you can find out what happened and your government's disgusting offer on June 29. 

"Like a fool, sir, I allowed myself to get bitten yet again by your Liberal government when I should have been shouting at the top of my lungs during your election campaign, as my supporters asked me to do. Instead I remained silent believing the Liberals under your direction would seek justice for me, not betrayal. How wrong I was. 

"On July 20-22, I went to Hamilton for disclosure to the Crown -- again to be treated as the criminal not the victim. 

"Rest assured, the hearing was negative and damning for the Crown's case -- discredited with evidence from government sources and DND from the top to bottom. 

"I was hoping to avoid a trial and save embarrassment for the government and the military, but I see this is a fruitless endeavour. 

"I am well aware what a trial will do to my health, but despite warnings from my medical team I must proceed for my sake as well as for those who are still serving in Canada's military. 

"My only choice left is to proceed with the trial and allow the country to learn the truth of this matter. I regret the mess this will cause to my regiment and to the military as well as to Canada, but I no longer see any alternative. 

"On a different note, we can now prove the soldiers were trying to kill me. I did indeed ingest those poisons. This can be proven through various government inquiries and military police reports as well as medical reports from the Mayo Clinic, where the consulting physician stated had I come to the Mayo in 1993-94, 'we could have fixed it.' 

"I will be approaching the opposition parties to pass on all materials. Not only about the attempts on my life but materials on the hundreds of sick soldiers who have been tossed out of the military over the past decade. Unfortunately, this is the only way for me to seek justice for myself and other soldiers who gave so much for their country only to be betrayed." 

...............

None of the following is to be taken as legal advice:
In my opinion, here is what I think is going on [and I am coming at this by way of professional experience] .... the good WO's claim is worth about 7.5 million plus punitive damages and costs, which will be significant in this case ... probably about 10 million. If he dies before trial, all his estate gets is Famliy Law Act damages ... about 300 thousand plus change and costs. I have has the disturbing experience of dealing professionally with several people who currently serve with the DOJ, and unfortunately for Mr.Stopford, his sacrifices as a soldier for his family and country probably count for squat with those people, and in any event such sacrifices are unlikely to be grounded as any sort of aggravating circumstances in his favour. Remember, civilian managers regularly suffer injury from their employees, and when they sue in damages, they are compensated for the harm suffered, not for the fact they were loyal to the company. [yes, i know it seems a weak analogy, but that is the sorry state of the law right now.] 

"Bye the bye", I am somewhat troubled by the portions of the article suggesting election considerations influenced this case. If those allegations can be substantiated, a separate cause of action has arisen, not to mention the potential criminal charges that ought to be laid.  In short, justice will have failed Mr. Stopford,[and it may have  seriously done so already without that little bit of connivance], and it only goes to further illustrate the class bias built into the justice system. This would not have happened, in my personal opinion, if Mr. Stopford was an Admiral or a General,  or for that matter a DOJ lawyer.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Aug 2004)

I am unable to express my feelings on this subject without expletives....

 :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage: :rage: :rage: :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage:   :rage:


----------



## Slim (6 Feb 2005)

*An ex-soldier's frustration*
Sun, February 6, 2005 


CANADIAN ALLEGEDLY POISONED BY TROOPS TO TAKE CASE TO UN COURT, PETER WORTHINGTON SAYS

By PETER WORTHINGTON, TORONTO SUN

FRUSTRATED, ANGRY and feeling betrayed, retired Warrant Officer Matt Stopford is trying to take his case against the Canadian army before the International War Crimes Court at the Hague. He feels that a war crime was in the making when his soldiers in Croatia were trying to poison him, plotting to kill superior officers and had dug symbolic graves for them. 

Stopford was first told in 1999 that his troops in Croatia had been trying to poison him in 1993, yet the Canadian army did nothing to warn him earlier. The army still does not acknowledge error. 

Stopford's is an act of frustration. His $7.5-million suit against the army is scheduled to be heard this year. He says offers to settle out of court have been more insulting than sincere. 

He can't believe the government will put the army through what promises to be a nightmare trial -- the chain of command refusing to tell a non-commissioned officer his men were poisoning him because he was too gung-ho. 

In 1999 the provost marshal informed Stopford by letter that his troops were lacing his coffee with bootblack, naphtha gas and battery acid. 

An investigation led by then RCMP Insp. Russ Grabb (now superintendent) showed soldiers talked of planting a landmine in front of the major's tent, and that foreign ammunition was acquired to kill superiors in a future firefight. 

The Grabb investigation found that some 30 individuals in the chain of command knew of the poisoning but never told Stopford. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham have ignored his e-mail queries, Stopford says. 

When he was finally sent to the Mayo clinic in Minnesota for analysis, he was beyond treatment and is now blind in one eye, his internal organs are a mess, the pain in his joints is excruciating, he suffers from internal bleeding, and his life expectancy is poor. 

Stopford and others feel toxic soil in Croatia contributed to the illnesses many veterans of that mission endure today. The military blames post-traumatic stress disorder -- a catch-all excuse. 

DND has screwed up Stopford's case. He was even denied a full disability pension until the media got involved. DND also sought to prevent his lawsuit. 

Stopford says sworn testimony to the effect that reserve troops were plotting to kill him, the company commander and sergeant major should constitute "mutiny and treason, and a war crime." 

He'd likely settle his suit for $2 million but says he hasn't been offered enough to even cover expenses. 

Ironically, the Princess Pats have been honoured for their steadiness during the Medak Pocket fight, in which Stopford's leadership got all his men out safely and earned him a decoration. 

MOSTLY RESERVISTS 

Stopford doesn't blame "regular" soldiers of the Pats, but partially trained reservists. He says 31 of 36 men under his command were from the reserves. 

If his case goes to trial, the damage to the army is incalculable. Here, slightly condensed, is part of what Stopford e-mailed to the PM and defence minister: 

"This is mutiny and treason, not to mention cowardliness in the face of the enemy ... these soldiers, every 10 days or so, met to discuss how what they were giving me was affecting my health and watching me puke behind the command post ... perhaps they should triple the dose. 

"They even asked the company medic what would kill me. They dug graves for each of us and kept foreign weapons and ammunition to use in my back if given an opportunity, as well as using anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. This is attempted murder and assault ... You have said that due to the passage of time you cannot charge these cowards with any crime. 

"Indeed, while I suffer, some of these men are now in the regular force and have even been promoted, while you fight me every step of the way to not be held accountable for your actions. 

"Due to my health ... I am forced to approach the World Court at the Hague to try to find justice, as this attack on myself happened in a war zone during an operation of the United Nations. I guess I'll see you in court in the fall and take care of the forces' discipline myself." 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/02/06/922228-sun.html


----------



## Big Foot (6 Feb 2005)

I am still shocked by what WO Stopford is being forced to endure. If the story told by "The Ghosts of Medak Pocket" are true, as I believe them to be, WO Stopford should not have to fight for compensation. He was working to fulfill the orders given to him from his superiors and in the process, brought all his men back safely. Yet his superiors failed to tell him his men were plotting to kill him? Shameful. But not quite as shameful as blaming his litany of ailments on PTSD. Give the man the credit he deserves. He faithfully served his country and his government abandons him. Utterly appalling.


----------



## childs56 (6 Feb 2005)

well if what he says is true, i think a hanging of the individuals would be appropraite. It is appaling that he has suffered thrue these matters.The fact that our goverment  does what it does is real appalling. I am second guessing my descsion to have gone regular force right now, due to numerous things that are going on. Although I do not know his details in general, (WO Stopfords) I do beleive that the CF should hav estepped up to the plate to have compensated him nonthe less, even if they say "it is only PTSD" he still deserves a fair and equal recouperance of cost, and then of a way to live his life in general. It is like everything else in the Cf they need to let some people fall, it is to bad they have let him fall. it is a shame and a disgrace in how our soldiers sailors and airmen are treated by the CF, and how it is an uphill battle to get what they deserve. WO Stopford I hope your out come in the end is what you want and need to live your life out.  For the scum that did this to him I hope the yardarms are full with your dangling bodies.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Feb 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> well if what he says is true, i think a hanging of the individuals would be appropraite. It is appaling that he has suffered thrue these matters.The fact that our goverment   does what it does is real appalling. I am second guessing my descsion to have gone regular force right now, due to numerous things that are going on. Although I do not know his details in general, (WO Stopfords) I do beleive that the CF should hav estepped up to the plate to have compensated him nonthe less, even if they say "it is only PTSD" he still deserves a fair and equal recouperance of cost, and then of a way to live his life in general. It is like everything else in the Cf they need to let some people fall, it is to bad they have let him fall. it is a shame and a disgrace in how our soldiers sailors and airmen are treated by the CF, and how it is an uphill battle to get what they deserve. WO Stopford I hope your out come in the end is what you want and need to live your life out.   For the scum that did this to him I hope the yardarms are full with your dangling bodies.




I think even WO Stopford would agree that it would be a mistake to let what happened to him cause you to have regrets about your present form of service. If anything, this whole ordeal should cause you to be an advocate for increased professionalism in the military and you are in the position of making that happen by demonstrating professionalism in the face of your own personal feelings. 
What happened to Stopford happened because of a breakdown in discipline in the field and then made worse by a failure in leadership in Ottawa.  Cheers.


----------



## bossi (6 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> What happened to Stopford happened because of a breakdown in discipline in the field and then made worse by a failure in leadership in Ottawa.



To quote one of my favourite lines (from the movie "The Right Stuff"):  F'ing "A", Bubba!


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2005)

The allegations are a pretty big deal.  Why no names?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (8 Feb 2005)

Disturbing to say the least, the whole thing. Another example of the CF ignoring the health problems of a veteran. 

That being said, there's alot of experience here. I don't know a thing about this guy. Is there anyone on this forum who worked with / for him either in FYR or during their careers, who could shed some light on his personality, leadership style and why on earth anyone would want to do this to a fellow soldier?


----------



## garb811 (8 Feb 2005)

With respect, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to line by line Mr Stopfords personality and leadership style so if you wish to answer HH's request, please do it privately.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (8 Feb 2005)

Garb,

I can understand your point. The thing is, the reason I ask is because this is now a public case. If it were a private matter, your concerns would be more than applicable. I should have qualified my post by mentioning that I am not looking for a means of publicly lynching the guy by any means.

Since it's public domain (as in it's gone to media and court), and there may be some people who could shed some light on his unfortunate situation, I'd be curious. 

He obviously feels strongly that he did not do anything to deserve what happened to him (and there is nothing which in my mind would justify it, poisoning someone is a cowardly act).

There has to be both good and bad experiences with this man, and I was simply asking for a better view of the big picture. What could he possibly have done to warrant his being poisoned by his troops? THATS my question.


----------



## garb811 (8 Feb 2005)

I see where you are coming from as well but even this far on emotions surrounding this issue are extremely raw and my concern would be having Mr Bobbitt vulnerable to possible legal action from Mr Stopford and others if someone were to use this as an opportunity to unload and tell "their side of the story".   Even though this is apparently going to trial, much is still not in the public domain.



> What could he possibly have done to warrant his being poisoned by his troops? THATS my question.



You've already answered this yourself, nothing could.   This occurred over a period of what...weeks, months?...and it is obvious the primary motivation was to avoid being caught as opposed to ensuring their physical safety.   The truly ironic thing is that as this plot progressed they probably increased their physical danger by interfering with his ability to carry out his leadership duties, mentally and physically.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (8 Feb 2005)

All valid points. Of course there was nothing that could reasonably warrant poisoning someone, but again, my rationale is to determine what kinds of things could he have done to justify in the minds of those who participated in this, their acts. 

As for the legal ramifications of this topic altogether, I am not a lawyer (thank God) and I will leave it up to people who are versed in this type of thing to make that call. If my question is inappropriate, then this topic should have been locked at the earliest of stages. 

I would expect that the conduct of people posting on this topic would be professional and informed, so hopefully we can maintain a sense of that with the replies on either side of the spectrum.

Just so anyone who has any thoughts on my interest in this, I am disappointed that another soldier is being left to suffer because of his gov't. I have a good friend who was abandoned by the system as well and I have seen it's toll on him, so I do feel bad for this man. 

I dont know Stopford and to the best of my knowledge, never had any dealings with him, which is why I am curious.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Feb 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> You've already answered this yourself, nothing could.   This occurred over a period of what...weeks, months?...and it is obvious the primary motivation was to avoid being caught as opposed to ensuring their physical safety.   The truly ironic thing is that as this plot progressed they probably increased their physical danger by interfering with his ability to carry out his leadership duties, mentally and physically.



But these troops obviously had some issues - always been curious to know what they were, or why they felt the need to do something like this.  You are correct it may not be appropriate for open forum - hopefully any responses (if any) will be regulated accordingly.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2005)

I haven't exactly been following this closely.  The proof of deliberate poisoning is... ?


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Feb 2005)

He was poisoned, that much is not questionable.
How else does boot blackener and naphtha end up in your coffee..
There is more stuff to, but I would rather let the individuals directly involved speak on the issue.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2005)

Just read Peter Worthington's ( http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/02/06/922313.html )   article of 6 Feb 2005 and found it rather upsetting that this is being drugout for so long.   The Government should have the moral fortitude to address this matter and get over with it.   If that involves finding the guilty parties and charging/imprisoning them, then so be it.

GW


----------



## Long in the tooth (11 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Do we (the public) know anything about the privates and corporals that served under this WO?   Were they good troops, or bad apples?   Poisoning someone isn't something I would expect just anybody to enter into lightly.


I too would like to know the full story.   What was the Platoon Commander's role in all this?   With all due respect to Mr. Worthington, he's been known to be discriminating with the facts.   I find the governments' stand in this incomprehensible.   Obviously WO Stopford is hurt badly.   There should be no question of causality here - healthy soldier goes overseas, comes back all messed up.   I'm not in favour of throwing money away (Bombardier), but in this case the government should give 'til it hurts.


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Feb 2005)

Yes or no it may of happened but Canadian Troops are known since the Boer War for taking care of those who lets say "endanger" the whole for their own or the Regiments Aggrandisement how ever you wish to call it.

From Modern Military History as I understand it we Canadians invented Fragging.
Yet it has happened for Millennium's with in alll Armies of all Nations.

I accuse no one but lets all sit back and not accuse.
If it happened,those who did it will be found out even at this late of date.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Feb 2005)

Spr Earl
The military investigators know who did it. Its a matter of legal technicalities that they have not been charged.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (12 Feb 2005)

I echo the sentiments of not placing blame.Without actual getting those involved to clarify the incident I think the issue here is the governments reaction to a veterans claim.

 As for the fragging comment, I think quite a few out there have heard of an incident where a person in charge has made a decision that could have resulted in seriouse injury or death if the orders were followed, but I will reserve comments on that one.


----------



## DFW2T (12 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Do we (the public) know anything about the privates and corporals that served under this WO?   Were they good troops, or bad apples?   Poisoning someone isn't something I would expect just anybody to enter into lightly.


Dorash   you are a TWIT!
     I have been trying to bite my tongue for two days now..........................................I can't do it any longer.
     
 It's that kind of (I know my civil rights,   attitude) that destroying the military today!   You have no idea what it take to be LEADER (A#####E).   WO Stopford is a CDN hero..Full Stop!!!!!
Who gives a   s#$t   to the statement of what kind of troops he lead! or what kind of leader he was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     He lead a bunch of bad apples through the worst crap CDN forces seen since Korea..........................And you ask ,      what kind of troops were they? You should be asking why theses a'holes would do that! And for those troops that were not involved....why did they let it happen!
     Today's army is to blame for letting people think above their chain link........ it's the attitude of todays military! (new commers)   
   Those gutless piss ants should be sought out and persecuted to the full extent of our legal   abilities.   Hung from the highest tree!   WO Stopfords' character should not be in question! 
      If I'm not banned already I will end this by saying... you are PATHETIC like the ones that poisoned him.            
  20 Years ago your thread   and the F'n Liberal government would be tantamount to treason!
 As an ex soldier.... I tell you ,     I am glad that I never had to serve with you........and I feel for those who do!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Feb 2005)

DFW2T said:
			
		

> Dorash  you are a TWIT!
> I have been trying to bite my tongue for two days now..........................................I can't do it any longer.
> 
> It's that kind of (I know my civil rights,  attitude) that destroying the military today!  You have no idea what it take to be LEADER (A#####E).  WO Stopford is a CDN hero..Full Stop!!!!!
> ...



First off, personal insults are not permitted here.  I'm also one of the moderators, so naturally that makes your insults even more foolish. If you're not capable of acting like an adult, you will be formally warned, after which, if your behaviour doesn't improve, you'll simply be banned.

Secondly, do you honestly think that troops just go around trying to kill their superiors for no reason?  Whether it was a good, bad or indifferent reason, these guys didn't simply do this in a vacuum.  Would be good to know the entire story.

Thirdly, you speak of bad leadership - I've served under some extremely bad leaders.  Never wanted to kill any of them, but can relate to the frustration felt when no one in authority is paying attention to complaints, and have been made to feel like complaining would bring recriminations on myself as "bad leadership" is hard to prove.  Things have changed a lot in the military since then, but there will always be cases of bad leaders.  I don't know if that is the case here, but if someone is so desperate to change their situation that it means they are poisoning their boss, it means there is a lot going on that needs to be investigated.

Did you have anything intelligent to say in response?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2005)

DFW2T,

Knock it off with the over the top personal attacks, stop assuming things that are not there, he asked a legitmite question that any investigator would be asking in this situation looking for places to start, so he could   ....._persecuted to the full extent of our legal   abilities.   Hung from the highest tree!   WO Stopfords' character should not be in question_


 Please do not display your ignorance of investigating concepts by hiding behind an assault on another.
He did not now, or ever, question WO Stopfords charactor, but like he stated, attempted murder of a superior is just not something that happens out of the blue,..........,.....unless your saying it does to you.......

...and sunshine, I was in 20 years ago and I think the "sharp" end is a lot sharper today than we were so :-X

EDIT: cause I skipped a couple of small words


----------



## big bad john (12 Feb 2005)

Hear Hear!!!! Mr Monkhouse. Insults denigrate everyone in the forum.


----------



## DFW2T (12 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> DFW2T,
> 
> Knock it off with the over the top personal attacks, stop assuming things that are not there, he asked a legitmite question that any investigator would be asking in this situation looking for places to start, so he could   ....._persecuted to the full extent of our legal   abilities.   Hung from the highest tree!   WO Stopfords' character should not be in question_
> 
> ...


----------



## winchable (12 Feb 2005)

I think Michael was playing devils advocate and simply doing what any investigator would do exploring the issue from any and all angles.
To assume that he thinks the accused have an out is inaccurate.
If we were to all sit here and agree that the accused should be drawn and quartered then there would not be much point to the forum at all, so don't take it to heart when someone brings up a point of view that may in fact not sit well with you.

Bruce was enforcing forum guidelines against personal attacks.
Which you levied in the first place against Mr. Dorosh, which in itself is a breech of forum guidelines.
If you think your service record puts you above and beyond the forum guidelines you perhaps should talk to Jungle, Big Bad John, or any of the many members of the forum with long and distinguished records who still manage to behave in a civil manner.

Knock it off and take it to PM like Bruce said.
Persuing this any further in the open forum will undoubtably lead to your removal from the forum, which I feel would be a shame given your reported service and experience.


----------



## DFW2T (12 Feb 2005)

You are right!  Thank you and my apologies to all.

DFW2T


----------



## S McKee (12 Feb 2005)

Should Mr Stopford get a pension? Yes. Was he a "hero" and were his troops "cowards"? That's another story. Being somewhat familiar with the case, and I'll go no further than that, the issue is not as black and white as it seems. J


----------



## HollywoodHitman (15 Feb 2005)

There is noone posting in this who is saying what happend to Stopford is excusable. I think there are lessons to be learned here, and if we manage to get away from the rhetoric and emotion, there might be some interesting discussion on HOW or WHY this happened. 

Leadership style, soldiers attitudes, there is so much.

WO Stopford got handed the *****y end of the stick, as do so many of our soldiers who become casualties in one way shape or form. There is no excuse for that either. 

I am still curious as to the reasons some of these people may have had, as ridiculous as they may come across. I don't think anyone would have done this sort of thing, thinking that it wouldn't hurt the intended victim. I think it was deliberate and slow...Which gets back to the question, WHY would someone/someones do this? 

It's a public case, WO Stopford deserves medical care and the support of VFA and the military. But the root causes  are still a mystery. There are always people who know people who know the real deal. Are we likely to see this in the media? I don't know. 

Cautiously interested,

TM


----------



## superB (17 Feb 2005)

No matter who did what or who's at fault the fact remains that Stopford is sick now and wasn't before he left.
He deserves a pension.  He deserves compensation to cover his medical needs and to live what's left of his life in peace and whatever comfort he can (for one suffering as he is).  Whether it was a well known big battle, or a small battle, he fought for his country in the Medak pocket and was decorated for it.  The CF needs to acknowledge this and the fact that they have let him down.  Steps need to be taken to rectify this whole situation.
What does it say to civilians who depend on CF to protect them when there is mutiny within the ranks?  And how are possible new recruits going to view this when they are thinking about signing up?  It doesn't exactly spell out "join the army we'll take care of you" does it?
Also, I'd like to point out (from peter worthington's article) that most of the soldiers serving with Stopford were reservists who, in all likelihood, just didn't want to be there.  Afterall, they are not used to regularly participating in battles.  
At any rate, Stopford deserves dignity and justice.  He is a hero.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (17 Feb 2005)

Lets get one thing straight about reservists. If we didnt WANT to be there, we wouldnt volunteer to go along. We're not required to serve overseas. Knock of the reserve soldier crap and just leave it as 'soldiers'. 

Good and bad, professional and slackers......The Regs AND Reserves have their fair share of both. To me, the word hero implies something above and beyond the call of duty. Like the word love, it seems to be thrown about too often without much substance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Feb 2005)

HH,
Sorry missed that one,.... hey "SuperB", think about the stupidity of what you said.._.Also, I'd like to point out (from peter worthington's article) that most of the soldiers serving with Stopford were reservists who, in all likelihood, just didn't want to be there_. 

.....what they just got drafted? :

 ...and this gem.... _Afterall, they are not used to regularly participating in battles_.......and everyone in the reg's is, right? :

Good post, except where you swerved out of your lane,.........stay in it.....


----------



## dutchie (17 Feb 2005)

I agree with HH that the term 'hero' seems to be thrown around a lot here, especially by: 1-those who haven't served a day or 2-those with empty profiles (I assume #2=#1). He was doing his job. Is there a record of him acting heroically? Or is he a hero merely because he was poisoned by his own men? If he's a hero, then every soldier who does his job is a hero. 

I wasn't in Medak and I don't know the Warrant, but I do know a FEW of the guys who were there. None of them (that I know) are 'bad apples' or otherwise malicious individuals. I won't pass judgement on them, or the Warrant, but there HAS to be some reason these otherwise solid troops would continuously poison him. Not to say he deserved it, but it couldn't have been an unprovoked attack.

But what do I know, I'm just a reservist not used to battle. :


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Feb 2005)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Lets get one thing straight about reservists. If we didnt WANT to be there, we wouldnt volunteer to go along. We're not required to serve overseas. Knock of the reserve soldier crap and just leave it as 'soldiers'.
> 
> Good and bad, professional and slackers......The Regs AND Reserves have their fair share of both. To me, the word hero implies something above and beyond the call of duty. Like the word love, it seems to be thrown about too often without much substance.



Brilliant HH 

Could not have said it better.

I was wondering when the first "neck down" post was going to be added, that, just had to attack a reservist.

tess


----------



## pbi (17 Feb 2005)

A good point has been raised that this case is in the public record, and has been for some time. I agree fully with the suggestion that this case should be used as a study in leadership issues. What happened, and why, and how was it dealt with? As well, I would also include a study of the war crimes in Somalia, as well as the surrender of Canadian soldiers in FRY. We need to understand why bad things happen in operations, and why otherwise good people go off the rails. More importantly, we need to know what we can do to prevent or at least reduce such incidents in the future.

I do not think that what I am suggesting is particularly new or radical. When I took the Presiding Officers' Certification Course a few years ago, some of the cases we looked at were those from Somalia. None of these things were secret (indeed the last thing we want is secrecy where military justice is concerned).

I know that for a number of people these cases will be uncomfortable, and will provoke angry reactions. That is to be expected, but those personal reactions can't be an obstacle to us trying to learn from what happened. It's all very well to say "go and read the inquiry reports" but the amount of study required is beyond the average person and so will not happen. Instead, I suggest executive summaries, or narratives, that can be used in leadership training, or ethics training, etc.

Cheers.


----------



## superB (18 Feb 2005)

I need to apologize to all the reservists.  I did not intend to make any of you feel less trained or capable than the regs or to offend you in any way.  You all do our country a great service and for that I thank you.   

I agree that lessons can be learned by this.  But when?  Stopford was poisoned in 1993.  That's 12 YEARS ago!  His life expectancy isn't very good and his quality of life is extremely poor.  When is the DND/CF/Canadian Gov't going to step up and help him? ???

Do any of you feel worried that if in the future something like this were to happen to you CF wouldn't take care of you?  I know that Stopford always thought CF would take care of him especially if something happened to him while he was serving (no matter what it was or who/what caused it). :


----------



## Ex_2_PPCLI (29 Mar 2005)

I first met Matt Stopford when I came to 2nd Bn in 1988 through Bush Thornhill (now I am dating myself). And I served in 'A' Coy in Yugo (1993) when he was in 'B' Coy. As much as I liked Matt I heard that he had endangered his troops several times unnecessarily (and this is from guys I know to be otherwise level headed). Alot of this had to do with weapons cache drag nets (in the end the OC got charged for similar things). All this is to illustrate that how people act in-country does not necessarily illustrate how they act in-theatre. In the end almost everyone I talked to while on-tour thought Matt was doing as good a job as could be expected: not exemplary but not bad (especially <<<moderator edit for PERSEC>>>). 

However, knowing Matt, and the soldiers who liked and disliked him, the idea of poisoning him is utterly unacceptable and unprofessional. First, not only are there chains-of-command to go through but many of the Sr NCO's would have been friends of Matt, and friends that Matt would have listened too had things actually gone 'too' far (a subjective line if ever there was one). Second, the idea of 'fragging' (or any of its variants) is one that may be discussed-out of frustrations or stress more often than naught-but isn't one carried out...at least in Canadian situations. The 'fragging' story is, in my opinion, just that: a story. It is, unfortunately, one that has reached mythic proportions.

This is not to say that Matt wasn't poisoned. Rather it is just a comment on the quick resort to these things as happening as relatively commmon occurrences. If Matt was poisoned, even this late in the game, medical inquiry could narrow thie likelihood of this down or not. Now why this isn't being investigated medically, and, admittedly, this may be due to my own ignorance, is the question I find vexing.

On a different note: One responder wrote wondering whether incidents like these would affect soldier's confidence in their hierarchy. The answer to this is quiote simple: it utterly undermined it. Anyone who was around for the year following Yugo (and the hushing up of Medak) knows this. As RegF soldiers (no offence to the PRes but it is different in this regard) we absolutely HAVE to believe in our leadership. When you are asked to take human life, as we were in Medak (and in other incidents seemingly forgotten on that tour), you NEED to believe that why you did so-as determined by those who make the decisions-are making sound judgements. We didn't question this so much in Medak or on the tour but, because of how we were (mis)treated by our own people, in Battalion and higher, many of us were left wondering about our actions on that tour. In this regard when the pitch came to our senior staff in Battalion no one was at, or went to, bat for us-we were left to our own devices. The moral in the unit plummeted and I don't think it was recoverable-at least not in the foreseeable future.

The PRes pers we received were not of the higst calibre. Before biting my head off or thinking I am pro-RegF and anti-PRes allow me to say that this is a genralisation and woefully misrepresents the many excellent PRes guys we did have (and many of them got f****d over when we got back). The level of trg was poor and disorganised and, to be perfectly clear, I dont think this was the fault of the PRes. For example, many good soldiers from the East Coast were sent back due to politics (a certain rich Colonel from Alberta helped alot in this regard-to name but one). When we were trg the PRes guys it was incredible how many failed their basic wpns handling drills. What also shocked many of us was the Marine style 'gung-ho' or 'hoowah' attitude of the PRes guys (and, yes, this did exist elsewhere in the forces but not in this unit at this time...perhaps just luck and timing). Again, this is not the fault of the young guys coming to us. 

Another aspect of the PRes issue was the sheer amount of them that we HAD to take (some one's pet project or so it was told to me). No matter how well trained attachment soldiers may be they cannot represent a larger number than the core of a unit or you lose unit integrity. This isn't an insult to the PRes it is just common, perhaps tactical, sense. 2 PPCLI had to take close to 50% (the exact number eludes me at this point-my apolgies). The lack of unit cohesion began to show when we deployed to Fort Ord and Fort Hunter-Ligget in California. This was discussed and sent up through the chain-of-command and all we got back was silence. During the tour this mish-mash was made apparent in even how the companies were manned. 'A' Coy, during the planning phase, was going into the hottest area at the time (Pakrac). Now before individuals serving with the other Coy's bite my head off please note that this was a planning decision. I enjoyed serving with 'A' Coy but I do not think it was some form of Spec Ops or Super Coy-that's BS. But we were 'stacked' none-the-less. This was told to many by not only the OC but the CO (and it caused some consternation amongst, well, everyone...and justifiably so!).

I want to reiterate once more that this is not a slag against the PRes guys who were with us-many of them were excellent but many more were not (and our own in-house problems were not of the calibre of the problems we had seen with the PRes nor with the problems seen elsewhere in the CF...in fact, we had many ex-2 CDO guys come back to us that year BECAUSE of the BS that was going in the Airborne). Finally, many of these commments on the PRes issue (only for this tour and 2nd Bn) are a matter of public record-see the inquiries that occurred afterward (SCONDVA I believe they were called).



So, when we returned, went through the heck that was post-Op life for the more or less abandoned and left to our own devices 2 Bn, we then received a warning order stating that we were going back to Yugo AND that, because the PRes augmentation worked so well, we would do it all over again the same way. Whther this turned out to be the case many 2nd Bn guys never found out. I, like many, many others, decided enough was enough. The system had failed us miserably (and the poor ******* PRes guys who served with us and were subsequently and unceremoniously dumped upon our return-that was BS) and it was clear our chain-of-command even within the Bn had also failed. How can you go into another combat zone (we didn't know it was going to settle down as much as it did then) knowing this? How can you see what you see and act as you act-both necessarily violent in places liek Yugo- all while never being sure if what you are doing is the right thing because you can see little or no reaosn to trust or respect those who are making the decision...you can't.

Perhaps the decision I made was just as much a statement on what I needed to do-which was leave the CF-as it is an idictment of that system. but, in the end, the idictment stands, in my opinion. The CF leadership (read: officers) failed us then as it is failing Matt now.

It is a sad and sombre state-of-affairs that has left me, and others, questioning their actions...then and now.

Cheers guys-apoligies for the length...guess I had some 'issues' bottled up      

(MODERATOR EDIT - Altered one reference of "f-stick" - this isn't the place to be slagging others; Infanteer)


----------



## Only One Left (29 Mar 2005)

Matt was in 11Pl, D Coy, I was in 10 Pl.  My Pl WO was Weird Harold McKay.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Mar 2005)

Only One Left said:
			
		

> Matt was in 11Pl, D Coy, I was in 10 Pl.   My Pl WO was Weird Harold McKay.



...and the point is?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Mar 2005)

Don't apologize for length; that was a very good and interesting read.  Hopefully the case will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion in a timely manner.


----------



## Ex_2_PPCLI (29 Mar 2005)

RE: Matt Stopford in 'D' Coy. 

You're correct, my mistake. It's been some time since I thought about this stuff. It was the 'B' Coy OC who was charged with disobeying a direct command regarding the destruction of belligerent weapons. I got the two confused.

'Weird' Harold was my Battle School Pl WO...a strange, strange man to say the least. 

Thanks for the correction


----------



## Gunner (29 Mar 2005)

I think the entire Matt Stopford situation shows:

a.  proper medical support must be provided in a timely manner for our veterans;  and

b.  Proper post deployment activities must be adhered to.  We have come a long way since the days of coming off a plane and everyone dispersing back across Canada. This has manifested itself recently when 3 PPCLI used the third location decompression initiatives after their tour on Op APOLLO as well as the post deployment activities other Battle Groups undergo when returning from Bosnia and Afghanistan.  It seems like it took us a long time to realize that their are five phases to any operation (warning, training, deployment, employment and redeployment).  We usually did the middle three well but felt that redeployment ended once the wheels hit the ground back in Canada.

Cheers,


----------



## Ex_2_PPCLI (30 Mar 2005)

Indeed. The medical community in the CF-at least as it was when I was in-was not so much unprepared or incapable of dealing with the Post-Op issues as much as they refused to look elsewhere.

For example, after the 1993 Yugo tour some soldiers were identified as suffering from PTSD. After looking into (then) the symtpoms for PTSD (see the DSM IV  for more information) it became readily apparent that PTSD was not, at least in many cases, the proper diagnosis. I tried discussing this with the Med-Psych people and they basically refused to acknowledge the shortcomings in using this diagnosis. In Israel a more appropriate diagnosis, known as Combat Stress Reaction (CSR), seems applicable. And the Israeli's ought to know given the conditions they send their troops into (whatever your opinion of ths situation). 

The thing with CSR that differs from PTSD (and its variants) is twofold. On the one hand, PTSD requires there to be a 'traumatic' incident that acts as a catalyst or precursor to the Post Traumatic condition (These criteria are well explained in the DSM). However, the DSM also notes that the trauma occurs very differently, if at all, in and among certain high risk occupations-i.e. police, fire fighters, medical personnel (It does not include the military most likely because it is a civilian organisation) Back to the point. The reason why these groups are effected differently (warranting a different diagnosis) is simple: for trauma to evolve into a PTSD diagnosis and condition the initial event must be traumatic. In this case a traumatic environment is not the one that these high risk occupations are trained and experienced to exist in. For example, a paramedic. Although a paramedic may be 'shocked' by what he or she sees at a bad crash site they wont (normally) suffer PTSD from what they have seen. Why? Because this environment is not a 'traumatic' one to them. Another example closer to home: a Clerk may suffer PTSD from witnessing or taking part in the grave's registration duties we had to deal with in Yugo or the fighting in Medak. However, it is highly unlikely that an infanteer will because we are trained to exist and live in these very circumstances. This is NOT to say PTSD cannot occur only that it is highly, highly, unlikely.

On the other hand, CSR speaks directly to anger. And, for those who served with either 2 PPCLI up north in Yugo or 2 RCR down south (c.1993) they'll know, upon return, how the experiences overseas were manifest in the soldiers when they returned: anger. And lots of it. As the distance from the events widens the ability to cope with and locate the anger is limited and deepens in regards to CSR. In PTSD, which is a rare diagnosis in reality, the condition tends to sort itself out. In fact, many experts (real and experienced experts-i.e. those who dealt with Columbine) are saying that immediate intervention (often called Critical Incident Stress Debriefing or CISD) may worsen the problem. Why? BECAUSE we humans are a tough lot in the end and traumatic incidents are often, more or less, satisfactorily dealt with on their own. That is to say, it tends to deal with itself. Furthermore, as the person moves away from the events and environment the stress tends to decline as well. These experiences are COMPLETELY the opposite of CSR and in contrast to my experiences and those of my peers after Yugo (having been a facilitator).

But, and again, the military Med-Psych world did not want to discuss this. I went even as far as discussing it with the Ombudsmen and a member of the SCONDVA commision (the latter called once in regards to that tour and our opinions of the 'follow-up' actions. To which my response was: What follow-up?).

Sending troops to a happy middle ground before they return from a tour IS a great idea (that's why the long boat home from Europe allowed WW II soldier's to deal with alot of their grief). However, one of the major failures of the Medical branch was in MIS-diagnosiing soldiers. Soldiers who, by their very soldierly nature, will try and fit the diagnosis, a diagnosis given by a superior, and a superior supposedly only interested in that soldiers best intersts!

Many soldiers tried very hard to understand why their lives were falling apart and, especially here, the medical system (specifically the Med-Psych people) failed by virtue of conscious ignorance.

Add this to our leadership problem and soldiers are now left with very few avenues of support...

...I have ranted again it would seem...      :-\


----------



## S McKee (4 Apr 2005)

Ex 2 PPCLI I'm assuming you are a psychiatrist or some sort of mental heath worker with years of experience working in the mental health field. Or are you just someone who pursed the DSM and came up with your own conclusions? The idea that soldiers will suffer from PTSD because their "soldierly nature" compels them to obey a "misdiagnosis" from a military psychiatrist because he/she is superior officer is the most outlandish thing I've ever heard. Does that mean if the doctor tells a perfectly healthy soldier that he has a broken leg he'll immediately fall down? PTSD does not just sort itself out because we are a "tough lot". This attitude harkens back to the old days when after a traumatic incident "therapy" consisted of downing a 40 oz.


----------



## Acorn (4 Apr 2005)

Jumper, I think Ex-2VP's points make a certain sense. Is PTSD simply another name for Critical Incident Stress (CIS) or Combat Stress reaction (CSR)? What about long-term stress and its effects (overwork in bad conditions, with no definable "incident")? That was my problem, I knew I had some symptoms that were consistent with PTSD, but I couldn't reconcile that with my experiences - I couldn't identify combat or a single (or even multiple) incident as a cause. In many ways I see it like trying to get something from VAC because one's knees are shot, but there is no CF98 defining the moment of injury. It's a long-term thing.

The fact is that even the "mental health workers" are trying to sort out what these injuries entail, and it isn't any further far fetched to believe they have made mis-diagnoses than it is to believe a medic diagnosing a stress fracture as muscle inflamation (a personal experience, BTW, which I "toughed out" including patrolling and an advance to contact on foot, because it didn't seem serious enough). Perhaps what is truly PTSD does sort itself out, and it's the other injuries that do not. 

Maybe Ex2VP IS a mental health worker. Even if not, his posts are clear and well-thought-out as far as I can see. At least worth consideration. If you have a dispute, voice it to the issue, not the individual.

Acorn


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

Ex_2_PPCLI said:
			
		

> This is not to say that Matt wasn't poisoned. Rather it is just a comment on the quick resort to these things as happening as relatively commmon occurrences. If Matt was poisoned, even this late in the game, medical inquiry could narrow thie likelihood of this down or not. Now why this isn't being investigated medically, and, admittedly, this may be due to my own ignorance, is the question I find vexing.



Occurrences, as in plural? Can you elaborate, or are you referring to these types of incidents over a protracted measure of time across different operations?


----------



## Ex_2_PPCLI (5 Apr 2005)

Jumper:

I understand where and how you might come to think that I was making such a suggestion. Allow me to try and summarise this in a different way. What I was suggesting, and this applies to _some _ soldiers certainly _not all_, is that many soldiers will (and did) try and make the diagnosis fit their predicament. Unfortunately, for some soldiers, the diagnosis itself was not given much consideration. PTSD(S), as described in the DSM (IV in particular because it is the newest), does NOT take into account high risk occupations. It is documented, quite soundly, that these high risk occupations deal with events differently than those who are not part of that, particular, high risk occupation. Mere exposure to some traumatic events would, in most or all other circumstances, be considered grounds to observe those people for symptoms of PTSD(S). However, because of their training and familiarity with otherwise extra-ordinary events (i.e. car accidents, fires, arrests gone bad, or combat), these trained individuals are very UN-likely to have the negative effects of those exposures manifest into a condition like PTSD(S).

Now, ALL of this would be forgiveable if, and only if, information was not available to the (Psych) med people previous to our deployment in, for example, the former Yugoslavia (1993). But, as documented in SCONDVA (see, especially, Lt. Cmdr G. Passey's testimony and Capt. (padre) Mike Brown's), this information WAS, in fact, reasonably well known in the professional med and pysch-world. In addition to this information I, myself, talked to Lt. Cmdr Passey. Upon leaving the forces, and returning to Halifax, I  followed this issue up because I had met some friends/members who had been medically released from the CF for these very grounds. Upon discussing the matter with a med-psych person at CFB Stadacona (Maj. Jetli, if memory serves me) I was, as you can imagine, quite shocked to find out that the information I had found out, by amateur research (no I am not a health worker I was a corporal in 2 PPCLI and am now a secondary school teacher in Vancouver), was known by the med-psych people but was not given much consideration-ironic given that the Israelis themselves began looking into the issue some 30 years ago BECAUSE the (then) diagnosis of stress reactions did not seem to help their soldiers. When I asked why this was the case I received alot of BS. Unofficially, I was told, and yes you can take this for what it is worth, that PTSD(S) was the 'diagnosis-of-the-day.' This was due, in part, to the findings made by Lt. Cmdr Passey's investigations in 1994 inquiring into both my unit-2 PPCLI- but also the RCR (2nd Bn) who were in Sarajevo. Alot of public pressure to do something 'for our boys' was the result of this inquiry (for better or for worse).

The point was that there *was *  other information available but it wasn't utilised-even in the face of a commissions inquiry into the problems our unit, and the CF in general, faced. 

I was not trying to condemn soldiers nor was I suggesting that soldiers would blindly follow a doctors orders. Having been a RegF (031) trained and operationally experienced soldier, I know better. But I also know, from first hand experience, how many of my friends and peers felt because I (among with others) disucussed this with them...some of my opinion is formed from their very personal responses and experiences. Again, not all, but some. And it is the 'some' who were inexcusably overlooked that I was, and am, concerned with.

Finally, PTSD(S) does, quite often, 'sort itself out.' That is well documented within the medical field. As you noted, and here you are quite correct, 'you do not 'tough it out.' But, if you are to seek out help don't you think we, who have served, sacrificed and those who continue to do so, deserve to be 'helped' by medical professionals who, then, act as the professionals we did?

And, to some degree, this suggests that we may NOT have come much further than the 40 oz'er days...at least, perhaps, not as far as we could, or should, have... food for thought... 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Whiskey601'

What I meant by staing that "it is just a comment on the quick resort to these things [fragging, poisoning call it what you will] as happening as relatively commmon occurrences" was merely that a single incident can often become endemic or pervasive merely by the mention of that event. In reality, these events rarely occur and tend to be started as a prank, a bitch, or a rumour. 

I was trying to suggest, and forgive me if I wasn't clear, that alot of 'fragging' incidents are urban myth. Yes, I know that they have occurred. What I was trying to get at is that often the stories of their occurrences are taken in and spread by people without any critical thought put into it or evidence sought-but I also do not want to suggest that this is done so maliciously. More often than not it is passed around through simple out-of-boredom conversations.

Someone once told me that somebody had intentionally left two rounds in the CSM and Stopford's jeep. I later found out, from someone in the company, that this was done as a joke. No doubt, if it did occur, Matt or the CSM may have taken it serious. The point being it became a kind of legend around the unit as a 'warning' when, in fact, it was a joke (if it occurred at all).



Acorn: FYI: CISD is the system or method used, by 'trained' facilitators as a means of debriefing immediately upon the occurrence of an event. CSR is a medical method that is employed in regards to trained members (in this case combat and Israeli) who have faced traumatic situations. It deals with the most common response of soldiers to things like civilian deaths (aka 'collateral damage'), terrorist attacks, or graves registration duties, for example. Here, the most common expression of stress is anger. If left undiagnosed (or if diagnoised incorrectly-i.e. as, say, PTSDS  ) the anger can become debilitating and dangerous.

Thanks for you words. Much appreciated.

Cheers,
       Will


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2005)

Thanks Will. I was just wondering.


----------



## S McKee (5 Apr 2005)

Ex_2_PPCLI said:
			
		

> Jumper:
> 
> I understand where and how you might come to think that I was making such a suggestion. Allow me to try and summarise this in a different way. What I was suggesting, and this applies to _some _ soldiers certainly _not all_, is that many soldiers will (and did) try and make the diagnosis fit their predicament. Unfortunately, for some soldiers, the diagnosis itself was not given much consideration. PTSD(S), as described in the DSM (IV in particular because it is the newest), does NOT take into account high risk occupations. It is documented, quite soundly, that these high risk occupations deal with events differently than those who are not part of that, particular, high risk occupation. Mere exposure to some traumatic events would, in most or all other circumstances, be considered grounds to observe those people for symptoms of PTSD(S). However, because of their training and familiarity with otherwise extra-ordinary events (i.e. car accidents, fires, arrests gone bad, or combat), these trained individuals are very UN-likely to have the negative effects of those exposures manifest into a condition like PTSD(S).
> 
> ...



Thanks for your responce and clarification. I in no way intended to personally attack you or your views. However being diagnosed with PTSD myself (Bosnia 93/94 Warcrimes Tribunal) my hackles get a little raised whenever I hear or read the old "Tough it out because of your training mantra". Over my career I have been involved in more than a few homicide investigations, however nothing prepared me for what I experienced in Bosnia. I realize that this is not what you were trying to say though. Are there alternative diagnosis out there? Yes. Is psychiatry an exact science? No. Is PTSD the end all be all? I don't know? Whatever the diagnosis whether it be PTSD or CSR I know that the military medical system has been a great help to me. J


----------



## Ex_2_PPCLI (6 Apr 2005)

Jumper: Thanks for being even-handed. I know these things can be both provocative and emotinal even if brought across fairly (and we know that it is just as often, unfortunately, brought across in an accusatory or dismissive manner).

You did, in your second reply, manage to point out something I did overlook in my original post: I did not pay due respect to all of the medical community who do _*excellent * _ work. You are right-most of the med-staff are both professional and committed. 

An oversight on my part. My bad.


Thanks,
      Will


----------



## Jason38 (26 Sep 2005)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/09/25/1234558.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jun 2006)

sorry to drag up an old thread, but its finally settled:

News Release
DND and former soldier Matt Stopford agree on settlement
NR– 06.028 - June 20, 2006

OTTAWA – The Department of National Defence (DND) has reached a settlement with former Warrant Officer Matthew Stopford regarding injuries he allegedly received as a result of military service.  This settlement reached is to the satisfaction of both parties.

The terms of the agreement are confidential; both parties have agreed not to discuss the settlement or negotiations leading to it.

-30-

Note to Editor: This is a joint news release between the Department of National Defence and counsel for Mr. Stopford, James Cameron, from the law firm of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck Barristers & Solicitors in Ottawa (613-682-3871).


----------



## theoldyoungguy (22 Jun 2006)

Im glad to see it settled, and stopford defenitely never deserved to be poisoned. 

Moderator edit - Let's leave the speculation to the newspapers.  Bottom line is a soldier is suffering and he should be taken care of by the government that sent him overseas.  End of storey.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Mar 2008)

This may open some old wounds but here goes. (Emphasis mine).

Article Link

A Canadian soldier poisoned by his own men in Croatia in 1993 was awarded $625,000 in a deal with the federal government, records show.

Matt Stopford's out-of-court settlement was not disclosed when the agreement was reached in June 2006, but the figure was contained in recently released public-accounts records.

It was listed as an ex-gratia — or kindness — payment, which recognizes *no legal liability*.

More on link.


----------



## matthew stopford (27 Mar 2008)

Just a short note on the release. If i had release what D.N.D. did yesterday, I would be in jail tonight. They (the DND) have breached the court orders to not discuss anything during and after the settlement. I have been legally gagged from providing any statement or disclose the details since the settlement, so after so many warnings and threats from D.N.D. and the legal beagles I was stunned at their public release and am considering my options. 

Two things for now, though there are no heroes in this story, the only heroes are the complete unit and every soldier who ever participated in the Medak Pocket. The heroes are any soldier who has ever fired his weapon for his country, but not individual soldiering because it is a team effort and will always be so. 
Second, what they (the DND) released has nothing to do with what D.N.D. was supposed to do for any suffering veteran and they still have not done what they said they would to look after all soldiers who need help and assistance. 

Whenever I tried to push them the past two years, I was constantly warned not to bring up the court case or settlement. I feel now that they have breached the court order, I am free to discuss the issues and points but if their are current soldiers and veterans having issues with Veterans Affairs, I need to know so that I can prove all over again to the Army who still insists that there is no problem.

Thanks, while I am sick I will attempt to respond to any questions on this disgusting matter.

-Matt Stopford.

edited to clarify the post, because I feel it is important that this post is clear to all considering who the poster is and what insight he brings to this matter.
WO Stopford, I hope my editing did not lose any of the meaning you wished to put in your post.

-HF, Army.ca Staff


----------



## geo (27 Mar 2008)

> but the figure was contained in recently released public-accounts records.



Matt,
While I have no intention of stepping in and try to defend the CF in this breach of your confidentiality agreement, I would venture to say that Treasury Board public account records are the problem here.  Financial transactions are a matter of public domain (though the reasons behind the transaction might be private).

CHIMO!


----------



## matthew stopford (28 Mar 2008)

Thanks for the edit I am having trouble posting messages I finish try spell check and my correspondence gets kicked out don't even know if I'm in the right forum but will keep trying. I spoke with government today who are assuring myself the release came from D.N.D. if it was just financial matter it would have been release last year. Was warned by military legal people this morning not to discuss the settlement but feel I must as you will see why. I took a lot less monetary gain at the settlement because was promised that radical new ways of looking after soldiers vets and family's would be put in place if I accepted the offer. part of it was veterans affairs ombudsman but the rest of the forth coming help for all soldiers has not occurred and not been acted on by the defence department so due to their breach of the agreement i feel i can now openly discus these problems though I fully expect rocket's from N.D.H.Q. but what else is new? I will keep trying to figure out this system and pass on more asap. Matt


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2008)

The CF is suddenly being forced to deal with a large number of seriously injured people... something to do with no longer sticking to the late '60s model of world constabulary / peacekeeper notion that the country has had a fixation on..

From personal experience at an area HQ we regularly receive Access to information requests for financial transactions DND has put through.  While some / most of it is protected by "privacy" legislation, media can do a lot of dedective/deduction work with the info that does eventualy get released.

WRT forcing the CF to meet committments they have made to you - by all means, I wish you well and hope you get satisfaction - because whatever battles you fight are battles that the next injured soldier won't have to fight.

Cheers!


----------



## matthew stopford (28 Mar 2008)

Yes i know about this release but it was a discussed with the judge two years ago. She warned all parties that absolutely nothing would become public i have received a letter from the crowns legal dept that said exactly what you have said but if this was the case they would have released the information last year or even in 2006. This is mute point anyway as they said i could not discuss any matter on the closed proceedings other than what they released to the press effectively leaving me defenceless so for my own protection had to talk to the media about all the issues. Interesting part is the minister called me from the U.S. and said this should have never happened and when he is back in Ottawa on Monday he will make it a priority and look into the matter for me. He will then bring me up to the capitol to try once again to sort this whole mess out cheers.


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2008)

Matt,
I am glad that you were able to light a match and get such a quick response from our leaders.
I hope that you receive everything that you have been promissed along with a few heartfelt appologies.

Good luck & keep in touch

Cheers!


----------



## downhillslide (30 Mar 2008)

Matt, keep standing tall for all soldiers. You have put up with plenty of crap for way too long. Hang in there.


----------

