British Military Current Events

[Blackadder1916]

I'm usually impressed by the thoughts that come from The Wavell Room but this suggestion smacks of a nostalgic yearning for a time when a misunderstood yout* only needed the discipline of service life to put him on the straight and narrow. And while there will be those who either exclaim that they are one of those who benefited from the jail or army option or know of an outstanding SNCO who came in that route, I'll admit I've heard of some success stories, but I also know of just as many or more who skated on the line outside the service and were as bad or worse when in uniform.

To carry forward from some of the quoted figures, particularly . . . "around 29,000 are between the ages of 18 and 29, the recruiting age range for the Forces. 10,000 of the total population are being held on sentences of 2 years or less. You can be awarded a 2-year sentence just for carrying a knife and this is not uncommon amongst an urban youth fearful of violence."

So the target prison population that would benefit from such a program (and likewise HM's Armed Forces) would ideally be a non-violent first-time petty offender. But are those individuals actually in prison in the numbers suggested?

First-time offenders?

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoestoprison.pdf

First time offenders account for less than 8% of prison sentences

Fewer than one in twelve prisoners are there for a first offence. A prisoner is much more likely to have at least 46 previous convictions or cautions than to be a first time offender.

As above, with the overwhelming majority of prisoners serious or repeat offenders – or both – there are very few who are neither. Non-custodial sentences are far more likely to be imposed than prison unless the offence is serious or the defendant has already committed a substantial number of previous offences.

It is especially rare for the Magistrates’ Courts to impose a custodial sentence on first-time offenders. Of the 249,000 individuals convicted or cautioned for a summary offence, only 521 (0.2%) were first-time offenders who received a custodial sentence.

Non-violent petty offenders?

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf

1.3 Sentence length and offences

As at the end of March 2020 the most frequent length of sentence being served was a determinate sentence of over 4 years. Around 48% of the sentenced population were serving this length of sentence. About a quarter of prisoners were serving sentences ranging between 1-4 years and around 13% had indeterminate sentences.

Prisoners in custody for violence against the person (VATP) offences accounted for the highest proportion of prisoners at the end of March 2020 (28%). Sexual, theft and drug offences each accounted for between 12% and 18% of the reason offenders were in prison. As shown in the chart below, VATP accounted for the largest share of adult and juvenile offenders in custody. However, a smaller proportion of juvenile offenders were in prison for sexual offences and a larger proportion were in for drug offences, robbery, and possession of weapons.

I think, on closer examination of the data, the numbers as suggested in the Wavell Room piece aren't really there.


* a reference to "My Cousin Vinny"

 

[Weinie]

I'm usually impressed by the thoughts that come from The Wavell Room but this suggestion smacks of a nostalgic yearning for a time when a misunderstood yout* only needed the discipline of service life to put him on the straight and narrow. And while there will be those who either exclaim that they are one of those who benefited from the jail or army option or know of an outstanding SNCO who came in that route, I'll admit I've heard of some success stories, but I also know of just as many or more who skated on the line outside the service and were as bad or worse when in uniform.

Haven't met a lot of folks who fit this category, with one notable exception. When I was going through basic in Cornwallis in 1983, during week 6 we received a recourse from one of the courses ahead of us. He was a 6'5" 260 lb. Haitian Canadian from Montreal who advised us (he may have been BS'ing) that the only reason he was there was to avoid incarceration. He then proceeded, in the next week, to beat the living shit out of 6 of our platoon members, including a Newfie that had the audacity to ask him "Howzit goin bye"

Our Pl MCpl made a suggestion, that we accepted. About 15 of us descended on his bunk, and over the next 20 minutes we sort of "gently"
convinced him that beatings would stop, or else. He seemed to take it to heart, once he could see and walk again.

In week 8 he was again re-coursed. The last I saw him, he was on our grad parade as part of a YTEP course.

 

[tomahawk6]

When I enlisted in 1972 judges were offering offenders prison time or enlist in the military. Then in Basic I saw one of the guys shooting up. Sheltered life I had led up to that time. The DI decided to ween him from his drug habit by locking him in the arms room until the drugs left his system and withdrawals. Funny thing a few years later I was at the NCO Academy and I saw the soldier again. He appeared to be a model soldier. Today he would have been discharged.

 

[FJAG]

Change of direction. This from the Thin Pinstripe Line:

The Numbers Game - Why Reducing the British Army May Be A Good Thing​

Reports in the media this week suggest that the British Army faces a possible reduction in headcount, from a nominal target of 82,000, down by about 10,000 soldiers to closer to 70,000 troops. This will be delivered by natural wastage, and not redundancies and the savings used to fund enhanced equipment for the force.
The plans are already being attacked, with complaints focusing on the idea that this is too small to be credible as a force, and that in the eyes of the world, the UK will no longer have an effective army. Do these plans make sense, or do the numbers not add up?
The argument for a smaller army can be made relatively easily. Although during the Cold War the UK maintained a larger standing army, this was drawn initially a large pool of conscripts (until 196o), and then the maintenance of a large fixed force based in Germany primarily to deter Soviet attack.

This was a force fixed in place with a known main threat, static garrisons and no need to deploy on short term expeditionary operations on a regular basis. On paper the larger army seemed extremely capable – and certainly by the end of the 1980s, had the Soviets come, then it would have given them a very bloody nose.

But, this is also an Army that was not intended for, or equipped for, large scale deployments around the world. Outside of a small range of fixed missions, it was fairly unusual to see the Army deployed on difficult operations at the end of a long logistics tail.

The 1991 Gulf War showed the difficulties of supporting a deployed Division, which meant that even with an army of 150,000 people, it was hard to sustain a force outside of some very predictable areas of operation.

The intervening 30 years have seen the British Army refocus itself as an expeditionary force, dedicated to global operations, and able to send a force, at up to Divisional strength, abroad and fight in high intensity wars. This is an achievement very few armies are capable of – for all the talk of the numbers game, the reality is that most armies cannot really go far beyond their own borders in any meaningful way. The British Army is a notable exception to this.

As we look to the next 30 years, we can see the emergence of a wide range of technology and equipment that will fundamentally change how land forces operate. The future battlefield will be more complex, it will have less clearly defined boundaries between peace and war, and it will involve working across multiple domains at ever lower levels of the organisation. ....

See rest of article here: https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-numbers-game-why-reducing-british.html

 

[FJAG]

Save our army! Four top generals band together to demand Boris Johnson calls a halt to troop cuts... as they warn that ploughing ahead will damage Britain's standing in the world​

• Commanders say cuts mean UK will no longer taken seriously as a military power
• They say reduction would damage our relationship with US and position in Nato
• The Army is expected to be reduced to 72,000 regular troops over next decade

By MARK NICOL DEFENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 17:03 EST, 21 February 2021

Four generals have issued an unprecedented plea to Boris Johnson to withdraw plans to axe 10,000 soldiers from the Army.

The commanders, with decades of frontline service behind them, say the UK will no longer be taken seriously as a military power if the numbers are cut.

The Army is widely expected to be reduced to 72,000 regular troops over the next decade as the Ministry of Defence looks to cut its manpower budget so it can afford the latest battlefield technology. ...

See full article here.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Haven't met a lot of folks who fit this category, with one notable exception. When I was going through basic in Cornwallis in 1983, during week 6 we received a recourse from one of the courses ahead of us. He was a 6'5" 260 lb. Haitian Canadian from Montreal who advised us (he may have been BS'ing) that the only reason he was there was to avoid incarceration. He then proceeded, in the next week, to beat the living shit out of 6 of our platoon members, including a Newfie that had the audacity to ask him "Howzit goin bye"

Our Pl MCpl made a suggestion, that we accepted. About 15 of us descended on his bunk, and over the next 20 minutes we sort of "gently"
convinced him that beatings would stop, or else. He seemed to take it to heart, once he could see and walk again.

In week 8 he was again re-coursed. The last I saw him, he was on our grad parade as part of a YTEP course.

See full article here.

I'm sure Boris will listen closely to a 'brick' of old age pensioners who served when the army exceeded 120,000 and 52 Infantry Battalions, and 1BR Corps was deployed on the Central Front because: threat of Soviet Invasion.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Fair one as they are pretty leery of nuclear submarines roaming around those parts

Falklands defined as British Independent Overseas Territory by US Navy triggers reaction in Buenos Aires​

The Argentine government expressed deep concern following a report in the official twitter from the United States Commander Submarine Force Atlantic, (Comsublant) in which it reveals that it had recently operated in the South Atlantic, “with British support” from the Falklands, “in a display of the global reach of both nations.”


An official release from the Foreign ministry points out that “the presence of vessels susceptible of carrying or employing nuclear weapons in the South Atlantic, contradicts UN General Assembly Resolution 41/11 referred to the South Atlantic as a Zone of Peace and Cooperation, which calls on States from other regions, particularly those militarily important, to scrupulously respect the South Atlantic as a region of peace and cooperation, particularly through the reduction and eventual elimination of their military presence in the region, the non introduction of nuclear weapons or other arms of massive destruction.”


The release refers to US Navy Vice Admiral Daryl Caudle, Commander of Submarine Forces tweets revealing that a UK aircraft from the British Independent Overseas Territory, Falkland Islands, recently collaborated with USS Greenville SSN 772 in the South Atlantic open ocean, “demonstrating the global reach of both nations' forces submarine Force.”


V/A Caudle added that “our undersea forces rely on alliance and partnerships to deter maritime aggression, defend our national interests, and dominate the undersea domain”


The ministry underlines it is not the first time that “Argentina has exposed the presence of a British military base in the Falklands, which is also contrary to the different UN resolutions such as 31/49, which calls on Argentina and the UK to speed negotiations relative to the sovereignty dispute and calls on sides to abstain from adopting unilateral decision referred to the introduction of unilateral modifications in the situation, while the Islands are involved in the negotiation process.”


“Appealing to those forces, illegally established with global geostrategic objectives, are a complete demonstration that the arguments from the UK nothing have to do with the bilateral relation with Argentina.”


Finally, Argentina calls on all States signatories of the Treaty Proscribing nuclear arms in Latin America and the Caribbean (Tlatelolco Treaty), and its additional protocols to respect its provisions and abstain from all those activities which endanger the military denuclearization statute of the region. Argentina regrets that following on half a century since the nuclear non proliferation treaty, international relations continue to be built on the construction of the extension of military capacities.


The US embassy in Buenos Aires said that USS Greenville was on a routine trip in international waters and did not make any logistics calls in the region. “And while navigating in international waters USS Greenville collaborated with an aircraft from the UK.”


Tierra del Fuego governor Gustavo Melella described the situation as extremely serious and an unprecedented incident, particularly since the tweet refers to the Malvinas as a British independent territory, which contradicts UN resolutions and the US government official position on the issue


Senator Jorge Taiana, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee condemned the presence of a US nuclear powered submarine in the South Atlantic, “with support from British aircraft,” and involved in “military exercises, a flagrant violation of the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation Zone, according to UN General Assembly resolution 41/11.


Taiana added that the presence of the US Navy not only is a way ”of legitimizing the occupation of the Malvinas Islands, but also underlines the relevance of Antarctica and the global display of naval powers“


Argentine analysts point out that the USS Greenville presence is the second incident of the Biden administration with the Government in Buenos Aires. In effect the first was the frustrated US Coast Guard ”Stone“ Atlantic tour, Guyana, Brazil, Uruguay, which had to cancel the visit to Argentina for ”logistic issues.”


USCGC Stone was on the Southern Cross tour with the purpose of reinforcing regional maritime security alliances and to offer support to combat Illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing (IUU), in the Atlantic. Apparently USCGC Stone was invited to dock in Mar del Plata, but unexpected “logistic operational issues” finally convinced the US they were not welcome, besides the fact that Argentina is not interested in the IUU proposal.


The press office of the US Embassy in Buenos Aires said: “many unexpected logistical challenges emerged that led to the visit not being successful. Joint planning with the national government contributed to continuing to build relations between the two governments. Together again for a future visit.“

Falklands defined as British Independent Overseas Territory by US Navy triggers reaction in Buenos Aires

The Argentine government expressed deep concern following a report in the official twitter from the United States Commander Submarine Force Atlantic, (Comsublant) in which it reveals that it had recently operated in the South Atlantic, “with British support” from the Falklands, “in a display of...

en.mercopress.com

 

[FJAG]

Just wait until the UK fishing fleet in response to Brexit starts looking for new fishing grounds.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just wait until the UK fishing fleet in response to Brexit starts looking for new fishing grounds.

I'm sure you must be alluding to the ongoing Falkland Islands Squid War, correct?

"In the months before the thirtieth anniversary of the Falklands War the Argentine government were keen to place additional economic and social pressure on the Falklands Islands, and by extension Britain. One of the ways they could do this was by disrupting the Falkland’s fishing industry which makes up a huge proportion of the Falkland’s economy. As much as half of this £45million industry is made up of the capture of ilex squid (Illex argentinus) – a small but highly commercial squid species which is in massive demand in parts of Asia and the far east where it is seen as a delicacy."

Falkland Island Squid War | Britishseafishing.co.uk

The Falklands Squid War is an ongoing dispute over the rights to catch squid in the waters of the South Atlantic. The issues revolve around ilex squid – a short-lived species which migrates past the Falkland Islands as part of its life cycle.

britishseafishing.co.uk

 

[Kat Stevens]

Can't someone just send the Argies a runner up medal so they can finally STFU?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Can't someone just send the Argies a runner up medal so they can finally STFU?

Someone (who greatly outranked me) once suggested - half jokingly - that the Royal Navy was probably bribing the Argies to keep the pressure on so that their 'second eleven' would still have a crack at Admiral

 

[medicineman]

I always laughed at how UNPROFOR stuck the ARGBAT and one BRITBAT in the same sector in Croatia at one point...WTF were they thinking?


Just answered my own question, - I remember I used to call the command STUNNEDPROFOR for a reason.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I always laughed at how UNPROFOR stuck the ARGBAT and one BRITBAT in the same sector in Croatia at one point...WTF were they thinking?


Just answered my own question, - I remember I used to call the command STUNNEDPROFOR for a reason.

we had been in Vukovar about a week when a Brit med platoon and their siggies moved in with us. Me being the Sqn HQ DR/dogsbody was voluntold to take the the Brit sigs sgt to the sector HQ in Erdut and make all the applicable introductions. On the way back there was an Argie convoy pulled over and I went wide to pass them. As we approach the head of the column, the sgt asked me to slow down. he poked his head out and yelled "hey, were any of you lads in the Falklands?" A few raised their hands in reply. So he yells back "One-nil! One-nil! One-nil!" I drove away quickly, giggling like an idiot.

 

[Weinie]

I always laughed at how UNPROFOR stuck the ARGBAT and one BRITBAT in the same sector in Croatia at one point...WTF were they thinking?


Just answered my own question, - I remember I used to call the command STUNNEDPROFOR for a reason.

I have posted before on here how SFOR HQ Sarajevo brought an ARG MP platoon to Banja Luka to act as the security element on a BDF ex, using off-duty Brit squaddies as the rioters/enemy force, and how the Brit Major planning the Ex expected me to invite/garner local and international media attendance. He still, 21 years later, would probably question my response. "Is this a joke? Are you fucking kidding me? As you can well imagine, the Ex very quickly descended into utter chaos.

 

[CBH99]

I have posted before on here how SFOR HQ Sarajevo brought an ARG MP platoon to Banja Luka to act as the security element on a BDF ex, using off-duty Brit squaddies as the rioters/enemy force, and how the Brit Major planning the Ex expected me to invite/garner local and international media attendance. He still, 21 years later, would probably question my response. "Is this a joke? Are you fucking kidding me? As you can well imagine, the Ex very quickly descended into utter chaos.

This sounds like a good story

care to expand?

 

[OldSolduer]

I always laughed at how UNPROFOR stuck the ARGBAT and one BRITBAT in the same sector in Croatia at one point...WTF were they thinking?


Just answered my own question, - I remember I used to call the command STUNNEDPROFOR for a reason.

I had never heard of it that til now. Fitting.