HMCS Saskatoon - drug use trials
- Thread starter Trinity
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It's really simple, (though never praticed) this little thing we have called the code of service discipline. Charges are few and far between amongst the residents of Nelles block, and throughout the fleet from my experience. It seems as if Sr NCO's and WO's are afraid or reluctant to either reccomend a charge, or lay it. Results of the few summary tribunals are very rarely published so there is no visable advertisement that the CSD is at work. Another issue is that very, very few people are auth as designated officers for hearing charges. (on a ship generally the CO/XO are the only presiding officers), this is also true of most base units. Take my employing unit for example. currently all of the officers rank Capt and above are designated officers and presiding officer qual. The BC's BK's and FOO's are hearing summary tribunals, leaving the more serious (read repeat) offenders are dealt with by the DCO/Regt Comd. Results are published and military bearing is truly maintained within regimental lines. perhaps if CO's delegated more than 1 officer, and maybe if Sr NCO's and WO's weren't so apprehensive about recommending a charge (and even the Jr NCO's for that matter) we wouldn't have these types of problems on this coast. And yes I am a graduate of the show parade/stoppage of lve/extra work and drill school.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
It's honestly stunning that people in the CF even do/try these things, I think they should be shot---especially the senior ones.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
popnfresh said:
Once again, this isn't a viable solution. Gone are the days of putting a bullet in the head of a soldier for an offence. Honestly, why do people even think of this?
Yes, they should be seriously dealt with. Punishment should be harsh. Believe me, it would be very hard for someone released under item 1 for misconduct to find viable government employment, or to get bonded. Makes it a bit harder.
As mentioned, there is an environment that allows this type of misconduct to occur. This has to be addressed as well as punishment of offenders. Some of the posters here have given some good options, or possible reasons for why that environment has developed, and how to fix it.
Your "We should just shoot them" argument does not.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
popnfresh said:
its truly scary you're in the the CF and have access to weapons.... :
Hopefully you will never have serious personal issues where your fellow service members will want to end up shooting you.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yes, you do have the Code of Service Discipline but when that is brought in that is a last resort. It means that the chain of leadership has failled in some manner. Sometimes this is unavoidable but in the majority of circumstance it is not. Showing up with an unpressed uniform on Plt/Coy/ Bn parade was first greeted by the M/CPL exclaiming "What have we here, another RCR/VanDoo/PPCLI".(depending on regiment,editted for politically correct terminology) Okay first bit of discipline was just applied in the manner of "pride". Watching the aforementioned exchange from the distance is the next upward link. This usually results in a couple of quick words between the M/CPL and the Sgt, a couple of quick nods. The next level of discipline has been agreed on. Yes agreed on as the chain of command also has a an education function. Severity of infraction and punishment go hand in hand. Usually, to the relief of all those present in that they are going to get some extra sleep/off duty time and the usual "extra duties" are firmly/safe in the hands of the "guilty bastard".
Next if you see Pte Bloggins as Duty Dvr for the next week, M/Cpl Smith COS for a couple or days running or Lt. Jones the Bn Orderly Officer for a couple of weeks you know discipline has been applied. In most cases the last person to find out about the incident is the Officer Commanding/Commanding Officer because the chain of command has functioned. Discipline in the ranks is the one primary functions in the ranks. Officers are/should be too busy with the responsibilities of their position to be involved in rank discipline. Does that mean that they are out of the loop ? No, by all means in a good unit it is dealt with in a number of ways such as at the end of the day; "Oh by the way Sir, Pte Bloggins slept in his uniform prior to parade so he will be the Duty Dvr. for the weekend or in the case of a really good officer the reverse occurs " M/CPL/Sgt/WO, I noticed Pte Bloggins is the Duty Dvr for the next while, is there anything I should be aware of" (a rhetorical question).
No doing the "hatless dance" or "standing before the mast" is the last resort. There are many ways of paying the piper whose tune is quickly known far and wide.
Next if you see Pte Bloggins as Duty Dvr for the next week, M/Cpl Smith COS for a couple or days running or Lt. Jones the Bn Orderly Officer for a couple of weeks you know discipline has been applied. In most cases the last person to find out about the incident is the Officer Commanding/Commanding Officer because the chain of command has functioned. Discipline in the ranks is the one primary functions in the ranks. Officers are/should be too busy with the responsibilities of their position to be involved in rank discipline. Does that mean that they are out of the loop ? No, by all means in a good unit it is dealt with in a number of ways such as at the end of the day; "Oh by the way Sir, Pte Bloggins slept in his uniform prior to parade so he will be the Duty Dvr. for the weekend or in the case of a really good officer the reverse occurs " M/CPL/Sgt/WO, I noticed Pte Bloggins is the Duty Dvr for the next while, is there anything I should be aware of" (a rhetorical question).
No doing the "hatless dance" or "standing before the mast" is the last resort. There are many ways of paying the piper whose tune is quickly known far and wide.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
No argument there, I recall the days when my MCpl would rain terror upon the Ptes for things like failing to shave, or showing up with last nights lipstick on thier forehead, or smelling like booze, and dealt with at the absolute lowest level. And of course decorum and military bearing went hand in hand with unit/regimental pride and a sense of duty. Unfotunately I think things in the shacks at Nelles have been permitted to degrade to such a point where disciplinary action is neccessary. Service offences are not being prosecuted on the first, or second, or third, or fourth offence. (agreed the first 2 can usually be taken care of with a one way conversation or extras). We have now digressed to a point where extras are the exception rather than the rule (depending of course on the unit, we had on one ship I sailed and ex infantry XO, extra dutie watches were the rule rather than the exception) I seem to recall years ago when, as school duty driver, I parked the duty veh accross the School RSM's parking spot. I spent the next 3 days painting the parking lot lines for the Comandants lot white, and then orange, with the smallest brush the RQMS could find. I have not in the last 7 years seen anything of the like around Esquimalt. I remember a young lad on course who did not shave (properly) he "exercised his upper body" until he could exercise no more, he shaved properly every day after that. But there has to be a line, once supervisors recognize a pattern of behavior that cannot be corrected by instilling discipline it must go to the Code of Service Discipline, otherwise you end up where Esquimalt is now. It is common to see sailors, and airmen for that matter to "walk-out" in ships ballcaps, a practice forbidden by CFP 265 and many margens, it is difficult to find a sailor who blackens they're boots, or presses they're NCD's, I'll use a phrase here, cheerfull and willing disobedience. The practices of blackening boots, wearing ballcaps as walking out dress and others are published in written orders and instructions, but purposely disobeyed due to a lack of military bearing. The lack of military bearing comes from allowing violations to go not only un prosectuted but not even dealt with at the unit/section level.
Now the disclaimer, there are some sailors and airmen in the fleet who do maintain thier kit properly to the spirit of the instructions and wear the uniform with pride. These are also the ones taking the youngens for a walk to have a rather directed conversation to correct undesired behavior.
Now the disclaimer, there are some sailors and airmen in the fleet who do maintain thier kit properly to the spirit of the instructions and wear the uniform with pride. These are also the ones taking the youngens for a walk to have a rather directed conversation to correct undesired behavior.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
"Discussion of leadership is so often overloaded with vague but emotive ideas that is one is hard put to it to nail the concept down. . . . One comes to the simple truth that leadership is no more than exercising an influence upon others that they tend to act in concert towards achieving a goal which they might not have achieved so readily had they been left to their own devices.
The ingredients which bring about this agreeable state of affairs are many and varied. At the most superficial level they are believed to include such factors as voice, stature and appearance, an impression of omniscience, trustworthiness, sincerity and bravery. At a deeper and rather more important level, leadership depends on a proper understanding of the needs and opinions of those one hopes to lead, and the context in which the leadership occurs. It also depends on good timing. Hitler, who was neither omniscient, trustworthy nor sincere, whose stature was unremarkable and whose appearance verged on the repellent, understood these rules and exploited them to full advantage. The same may be said of many good comedians."
Source:
Dixon, Norman. On the Psychology of Military Incompetence Pimlico; New Ed edition (6 Jan 1994)
The ingredients which bring about this agreeable state of affairs are many and varied. At the most superficial level they are believed to include such factors as voice, stature and appearance, an impression of omniscience, trustworthiness, sincerity and bravery. At a deeper and rather more important level, leadership depends on a proper understanding of the needs and opinions of those one hopes to lead, and the context in which the leadership occurs. It also depends on good timing. Hitler, who was neither omniscient, trustworthy nor sincere, whose stature was unremarkable and whose appearance verged on the repellent, understood these rules and exploited them to full advantage. The same may be said of many good comedians."
Source:
Dixon, Norman. On the Psychology of Military Incompetence Pimlico; New Ed edition (6 Jan 1994)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Found a very interesting but some what lengthy article on the differences in command styles and the reasons for such, between the three services (Army, Navy, Air Force). As the article is geared toward Navy leadership is gives quite an excellent look at pro's/con's of "their" system. It also delves into the education leadership issues and different service philosophies.
Command Styles in The Canadian Navy; Principal Authors: Dr Allan English, Dr Richard Gimblett, Vice-Admiral (retired) Lynn Mason
Mr Mervyn Berridge Sills. http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/inbasket/ahawton.050331_1440.CR_%202005%20-096_final.pdf
Some quotes:
"The army is proud to proclaim, “The army equips its men, whereas the navy (and the air force) ‘mans’ its equipment.” In fact, the army has it exactly right. Whereas the army tends to focus primarily on the equipment needed by an individual soldier or a group of soldiers, the navy focuses on the capabilities of the ship or the submarine. The design of these fighting systems is driven by technological and doctrinal imperatives. The navy then trains its sailors to “man” and fight the ship or submarine."
"Like the army, and to a significant extent unlike the air force, the “warrior caste” of the navy encompasses all ranks. Unlike the army, however, support MOCs are equally on the front line (literally in the same boat) with the operational MOCs. This is perhaps the greatest single difference in the three main leadership systems of the Canadian Forces. The naval leader, isolated in command, does not have to motivate the crew to follow in the sense that the army leader must."
"A brief comment on the differing hierarchies of loyalty in the three services based on cultural differences may be appropriate here, because the order in which military personnel perceive their loyalties to lie may shed some light on differences in service leadership and command. It appears that because people change units (ships and squadrons) frequently in the navy and air force their hierarchy of loyalty is:1) service (navy or air force), 2) job/occupation (maritime engineer, pilot, etc), then 3) unit (ship or squadron). There is some culturally based evidence for this assumption, as in the pre-unification RCN and RCAF the officers’ cap badges were the same for all officers in each service.145 For the Canadian infantry, and to some degree the armoured corps, it seems to be 1) regiment 2) branch (infantry or armoured), then 3) the army as a service. For other army branches, because of their relatively high technical leadership
component, it may be: 1) job/branch 2) service 3) unit."
Command Styles in The Canadian Navy; Principal Authors: Dr Allan English, Dr Richard Gimblett, Vice-Admiral (retired) Lynn Mason
Mr Mervyn Berridge Sills. http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/inbasket/ahawton.050331_1440.CR_%202005%20-096_final.pdf
Some quotes:
"The army is proud to proclaim, “The army equips its men, whereas the navy (and the air force) ‘mans’ its equipment.” In fact, the army has it exactly right. Whereas the army tends to focus primarily on the equipment needed by an individual soldier or a group of soldiers, the navy focuses on the capabilities of the ship or the submarine. The design of these fighting systems is driven by technological and doctrinal imperatives. The navy then trains its sailors to “man” and fight the ship or submarine."
"Like the army, and to a significant extent unlike the air force, the “warrior caste” of the navy encompasses all ranks. Unlike the army, however, support MOCs are equally on the front line (literally in the same boat) with the operational MOCs. This is perhaps the greatest single difference in the three main leadership systems of the Canadian Forces. The naval leader, isolated in command, does not have to motivate the crew to follow in the sense that the army leader must."
"A brief comment on the differing hierarchies of loyalty in the three services based on cultural differences may be appropriate here, because the order in which military personnel perceive their loyalties to lie may shed some light on differences in service leadership and command. It appears that because people change units (ships and squadrons) frequently in the navy and air force their hierarchy of loyalty is:1) service (navy or air force), 2) job/occupation (maritime engineer, pilot, etc), then 3) unit (ship or squadron). There is some culturally based evidence for this assumption, as in the pre-unification RCN and RCAF the officers’ cap badges were the same for all officers in each service.145 For the Canadian infantry, and to some degree the armoured corps, it seems to be 1) regiment 2) branch (infantry or armoured), then 3) the army as a service. For other army branches, because of their relatively high technical leadership
component, it may be: 1) job/branch 2) service 3) unit."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
geo said:
E.R. Campbell said:
Not responsible, according to the powers that be:
(shared with usual disclaimer)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/08/20/bc-navy.html
Navy backs former commanding officer of HMCS Saskatoon despite scandal
The Canadian navy has not taken any disciplinary action against the former commanding officer of HMCS Saskatoon, despite the fact that cocaine use was occurring on the ship, CBC News has learned.
Lt.-Cmdr. Mark McIntyre, a spokesman for Marine Forces Pacific in Victoria, said the navy had and has full confidence in Lt.-Cmdr.Jeffrey White, who was the captain of HMCS Saskatoon in 2005 and 2006.
"I think it's unreasonable to expect a commanding officer or any officer or leader on board a ship to know every detail about what goes on ashore among members of his or her crew," McIntyre told CBC News in an interview Friday.
McIntyre said White brought in National Investigation Service officials as soon as a complaint about drug use was made.
White should not be held responsible, despite the fact that cocaine use was rampant under his watch, McIntyre said. Earlier this month, a military court heard that 10 to 12 members of the 31-member crew on HMCS Saskatoon used cocaine regularly in January 2006.
(emphasis added)
More on link. Unbelievable.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Private Parts said:
So are we saying that the CO of an Army or Air Force Unit knows everything his troops are doing off Base? He called in the NIS when he found out there was a problem. These ships are often out of routine when they are alongside....in other words unmanned and people are working in shore offices or doled out to other ships. The crew all live ashore.
M
mudrecceman
Guest
I think, if you are looking for a neck to put the rope around, you should look at the ones who are actually guilty.
There's enough blame to go around, no need to start the "point the finger" game at people who weren't involved now is there?
There's enough blame to go around, no need to start the "point the finger" game at people who weren't involved now is there?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I could be wrong but was there any mention of drug use while the Saskatoon was at sea?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
IN HOC SIGNO said:
IHS, you've got a point about the MCDVs being out of routine. But who is ultimately responsible for the Ship? This wasn't an issue of one or two people - it was one-third of the Ship's Company. I'm sorry, but there's no way he shouldn't be held responsible for something of this magnitude happening on his watch.
Mud Recce Man said:
Agreed on the issue of self-responsbility. But the question remains - who is ultimately responsible for the Ship?
M
mudrecceman
Guest
If I show up to work tomorrow wrecked, is that MY fault...or my COs?
The CO is responsible to "sort me out" sure...but he didn't pour the booze down my throat...I made that choice myself...
The CO is responsible to "sort me out" sure...but he didn't pour the booze down my throat...I made that choice myself...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Agreed, and I hate to do this because Pte Parts is about as far out of line as he can get on this one but, when one or 2 persons are accused/convicted of drug related or any "common" offence they should be held individually responsable. When 1/3 of a small crew (think less than compnay strength) accused of using a controlled substance and 3 ar charged with Trafficing, including the ships Coxn, some of the responsibility has to lie on the leadership. Now to Pte Parts, you cannot hold a commander responsible for the actions of his when, upon hearing of the alleged (in cases so far Convicted) offences he called in the big guns showing his DUE DILIGENCE in exercising his command repsonsability. Don't be so quick to judge the Commanding Officer of a unit without looking at all the facts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
ArtyNewbie said:
Agreed, and point well taken. I guess I'm getting hung up on the magnitude.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Lt Cdr White was recently promoted... out of his position as CO of the Saskatoon.
Time will tell if he is ever given command of another ship.
While the Navy has not found him guilty, that does not mean they have found him to be a good and effective CO.
Time will tell, time will tell. ???
Time will tell if he is ever given command of another ship.
While the Navy has not found him guilty, that does not mean they have found him to be a good and effective CO.
Time will tell, time will tell. ???
M
mudrecceman
Guest
fbr2o75 said:
But the point is on "responsibility" of the actions happening, and whether you could prevent them, say, if you for whatever reason were unaware.
Knowing there is a problem with some person(s) and NOT doing something about, at ANY level in the CoC, is a different issue IMO.
Two separate issues.
1) Some person(s) are committing service offences.
2) Superior's of theirs in the CoC "turning a blind eye".
I haven't seen anything concrete that the Captain of the vessel did #2.
