Two CF members arrested in Petawawa over Cpl Bloggins Facebook page

[Edward Campbell]

Two loosely connected points:

    An old chum, MGen (ret'd) Clive Addy (late of the RCAC), explained, some years ago, that we had a problem with what he called "macho thuggery." The CAF, he suggested, needs "tough guys" but the toughness needs to be both
    of a certain, cheerful type and well focused.

    Some tie later I adapted one of my own thoughts (from the 1970s) into a notion that said we might want to consider the business of soldiering by describing the attributes of a soldier. The "good soldier," I suggested, was six things:
    four of them had to be in a certain order and the other two could be "bookends."

My six things that a good soldier must be are:

    Well led;
          Tough;
          Superbly disciplined;
          Well trained;
          Adequately equipped; and
    Properly organized.

The four attributes: tough, superbly disciplined, well trained and adequately equipped, I argued, needed to be in that specific order because toughness is an innate quality, we, the military, can hone and shape and focus it but we cannot teach it. But toughness, especially Clive Addy's "macho thuggery," is only useful to us when it is paired with discipline. I always used the term "superbly disciplined" because I remember it from a long lost magazine article about the change of command (control, actually) of the Canadian Army circa 1960; the article referred to "the small but superbly disciplined Canadian Army." I heard similar words again and again when I was under training in the UK and the US. Those countries may have thought that we could have done "more" in terms of numbers of soldiers, tanks, guns, etc but they were certain that we were the "best," the ne plus ultra in the quality business. And their definition of quality was, essentially: discipline. Training is, I hope, obvious, but the other qualitative attribute upon which foreign officers always  commented was the high standards to which we were trained. Another thing I saw, in my own service, was that good equipment helps, but the best equipment in the world is less than useful if it isn't in the hands of tough, superbly disciplined, well trained soldiers. Again and again I saw Canadians, and others, produce the desired results with only barely adequate equipment while others, with more and better kit, failed.

The other two attributes deserve a word each:

    I have dealt with "properly organized" el;sewhere. There is no "right" answer but there are wrong ones and I believe we are less than adequately organized now.

    "Well led" means, in my mind, that the leaders are tougher, even better disciplined and even better trained than their subordinates and they, the leaders are 'equipped' with the right administrative tools to help the soldiers do their very best.

My  :2c:

 

[ModlrMike]

All very good and valid points Edward and the ideal we should be working for. That being said, you can't prevent people making bad decisions; you can only give them the tools to make good ones.

This issue is not done with, and some folks are in for a rude awakening once their activities are made public.




Edit: spelling

 

[wx_watcher]

I made this account just so I could reply to this post. I'm happy they're getting shit on. I went on their page once because a friend of mine had a picture of herself used (without her consent) on that page in an attempt to put women in the military down. She was a good sport about it, I was more upset then she was.
It was disgusting seeing some of the hateful comments serving members were posting, it was embarrassing.

Even if nothing comes of them being arrested at least it will send a message.

 

[Strike]

I was just reading comments on the Bloggins page and this one stood out in my mind:

"The funny thing is Cpl bloggins is every Roudy member of the cf. So why do they think they can end it...." 

Now the guys spelling may suck but he does have a point.  I said it in an earlier post in the other Bloggins thread, this page is merely an extreme representation of "combat arms machismo" that exists and has always existed within the army.  Contrary to popular belief, the combat arms aren't filled with a bunch of nice, pleasant people that hand out teddy bears to kids.  Disagree with me all you want but I've been an assisting officer enough, seen enough summary trials and read enough police and court reports to know better.

Here's the thing though.  The page that was put up on FB was an open page.  So, with that, how many of these people making the rude comments and posting some very insulting memes would show these to their mothers?

I try using that as a general rule of thumb (especially since my mom is on my friends list).  If I don't think my mom would want to see it or read it I won't post it, certainly not on an open site.  A closed group is a different beast altogether and, if these people wanted to beak off, then that's where it should have been done.

 

[Journeyman]

Even if nothing comes of them being arrested at least it will send a message.

The last news report I'd read, they'd not yet been charged.  If there's no follow though, the message will be "all bark but no bite -- have at 'er boys."

 

[muskrat89]

Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to see how sturdy these internet tough guys are, moving through the process. Maybe someone can post memes of them blatting in front of the Judge

 

[RCDtpr]

The fact of the matter is if people don't want their pictures used in any manner, don't post them on Facebook.

As for buddy being arrested, I highly doubt he will learn much of a lesson.  His arrest probably consisted of nothing more than being told he's under arrest, searched, and then (since it appears they would have no grounds to hold the person) released on the spot after being told their CoC would receive the report recommending charges.

The elements of the offence for criminal harassment are not really met from the Facebook page alone so (unless there's a lot more to this) he's  probably looking at nothing more than a 129.

Everyone giving the page this much attention is actually worse than the page itself.  The guy wants/wanted attention...and he succeeded.

 

[wx_watcher]

The last news report I'd read, they'd not yet been charged.  If there's no follow though, the message will be "all bark but no bite -- have at 'er boys."

A bark is better then nothing. Would you rather it be ignored and nothing be done at all?
Anywho, I'm procrastinating. Have fun picking this topic apart! Bye.

 

[FJAG]

Yes, that's nice.

Belly up to the bar and pull your cash out.  Are you willing to bet on the outcome of these two arrests?

  op:

Sorry. No bet there yet. Over the years I've learned not to predict the eventual outcome of a case until I have a pretty good handle on the facts. Other than that I've seen the crappy web site once, I have no insight as to what the facts re these two individuals are. That might sound mealy-mouthed but in my mind a rush to judgement in either direction would just be presumptuous.

While I maintain that the military justice system is not broken, I do agree with much of what has been said above regarding discipline and leadership. I always thought that our attitude towards leadership went down the tubes in the early seventies at the time that the infamous recruiting add for officers came out showing a nattily dressed-in-greens officer stepped off the steps to a Boeing 707 carrying an attaché case.

From that point forward the officer corps (and to an unfortunate extent the senior NCO corps) started concerning themselves more with administration and management than with true leadership. Our policies became more civil service in nature and unfortunately much of our ethos followed suit.

As to our troops, I've always believed that they are reflective of the society that they come from. We're a cross section of that - the good and the bad. Unfortunately society in general has gotten meaner and less self-disciplined. Our high schools are filled with the unruly (just take a look at bullying there and their negative use of social media) and many of them have joined the CF where we no longer "indoctrinate" our people. What we mostly do is issue orders and directives on social behaviour and expect that they will be absorbed by osmosis.

We have a problem (not a general one but a large enough, and I think growing one to be of concern) with how some of our troops act out. Unfortunately our leadership (neither upper officer corps nor upper senior NCO corps) have the skill sets to handle many of these issues.

All that said, for those who believe that I yearn for the old pre-sixties army, all I can say is that I was there. IMHO, today's soldiers are better trained, better equipped and generally all around more capable of warfighting. Their numbers are down and therefore the force as a whole is less effective, but man-for-man and unit-for-unit they're a heck of a lot better today then in the "good old days".

:stirpot:

:cheers:

 

[Halifax Tar]

We have a problem (not a general one but a large enough, and I think growing one to be of concern) with how some of our troops act out. Unfortunately our leadership (neither upper officer corps nor upper senior NCO corps) have the skill sets to handle many of these issues.

Powerful words there FJAG. 

I sometimes wonder if our upper officer and NCO corps hasn't become too far removed from the people they are meant to lead. 

Kind of builds into your statement:

As to our troops, I've always believed that they are reflective of the society that they come from. We're a cross section of that - the good and the bad

Perhaps like the troops this too happens to our CoC and they become a reflection of the society they are built from.  If you ever want to know how disconnected some CEOs are from their organizations just watch those shows where they plant the CEO as a worker for a day or two. 

I dunno perhaps I'm reading too much into what your saying but I find it interesting.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Two loosely connected points:

    An old chum, MGen (ret'd) Clive Addy (late of the RCAC), explained, some years ago, that we had a problem with what he called "macho thuggery." The CAF, he suggested, needs "tough guys" but the toughness needs to be both
    of a certain, cheerful type and well focused.

    Some tie later I adapted one of my own thoughts (from the 1970s) into a notion that said we might want to consider the business of soldiering by describing the attributes of a soldier. The "good soldier," I suggested, was six things:
    four of them had to be in a certain order and the other two could be "bookends."

My six things that a good soldier must be are:

    Well led;
          Tough;
          Superbly disciplined;
          Well trained;
          Adequately equipped; and
    Properly organized.

The four attributes: tough, superbly disciplined, well trained and adequately equipped, I argued, needed to be in that specific order because toughness is an innate quality, we, the military, can hone and shape and focus it but we cannot teach it. But toughness, especially Clive Addy's "macho thuggery," is only useful to us when it is paired with discipline. I always used the term "superbly disciplined" because I remember it from a long lost magazine article about the change of command (control, actually) of the Canadian Army circa 1960; the article referred to "the small but superbly disciplined Canadian Army." I heard similar words again and again when I was under training in the UK and the US. Those countries may have thought that we could have done "more" in terms of numbers of soldiers, tanks, guns, etc but they were certain that we were the "best," the ne plus ultra in the quality business. And their definition of quality was, essentially: discipline. Training is, I hope, obvious, but the other qualitative attribute upon which foreign officers always  commented was the high standards to which we were trained. Another thing I saw, in my own service, was that good equipment helps, but the best equipment in the world is less than useful if it isn't in the hands of tough, superbly disciplined, well trained soldiers. Again and again I saw Canadians, and others, produce the desired results with only barely adequate equipment while others, with more and better kit, failed.

The other two attributes deserve a word each:

    I have dealt with "properly organized" el;sewhere. There is no "right" answer but there are wrong ones and I believe we are less than adequately organized now.

    "Well led" means, in my mind, that the leaders are tougher, even better disciplined and even better trained than their subordinates and they, the leaders are 'equipped' with the right administrative tools to help the soldiers do their very best.

My  :2c:

Too bad we seem to promote the 'Warrior' ethos these days, which has a negative influence on the way our troops behave in public, and elsewhere, as well as perceive themselves. The differences between a 'Warrior' and a 'Soldier' are vast, and it's important to maintain a focus on the latter and get eliminate efforts to extoll the virtues of the former viz:


Soldiers and Warriors

I am a Seventh Cavalry officer. I commanded in that most famous of American units, and my regimental affiliation and affections will always be with the men who wear the upturned horseshoe crest of that regiment. As a historian, and as perhaps the de facto regimental historian (since there is no such thing as a de jure position for this function), I am also very well acquainted with our legacy. The Seventh Cavalry was created to man the outposts of the frontiers in the wake of the Civil War, and to fight against the warrior cultures of the Native American tribes as need be. But in doing so they were not then, and are not now, warriors themselves. The men of the 7th Cavalry were and are soldiers. There is a significant difference between the two.

Unfortunately, and I cannot nail down when this started, a trend started to take hold in the Army and the Marine Corps which blurred that distinction. Sometime in the mid-90s we started to hear senior officers (defined in my head as "Colonels and Up") calling us "warriors."

At first the appellation was rare enough. Now and then you might hear it creep into a speech at a Change of Command ceremony, or perhaps at a Dining In (a formal dinner for the officers of a battalion or brigade). But slowly the term began to come into more common usage, even as it leaked into print in professional journals and in speeches coming from Air Force officers. This is a bad sign, and it does not seems to be stopping. I wish it would, because calling us warriors is not only inaccurate, it displays an ignorance about what a warrior is all about. The bottom line is that a real "warrior" is really just about himself.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html


Soldiers As "Warriors"? A Myth That Doesn't Translate to Reality

written by Arthur Varanelli
on January 27, 2010


It strikes me that more and more these days, the military's leadership seems to want to convince soldiers that they are "warriors," people who are distinct from the rest of society by virtue of their courage and aggressiveness. The goal is to make the soldier more effective at killing the enemy by stoking the psychological fires of combat. But promoting this kind of ideology, along with the amazing technology available to the military today, creates a sort of mythical and futuristic landscape that is more pop fiction than real life. And unfortuntely, encouraging the Warrior concept among soldiers can only exacerbate the gap between soldiers and society.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/conversations/coming-home/soldiers-as-warriors-a-myth-that-doesnt-translate-to-reality.php

 

[AirDet]

forget that he's combat arms, infantry etc etc.  The only explanation is that he is an idiot.

:goodpost:

 

[dimsum]

Too bad we seem to promote the 'Warrior' ethos these days, which has a negative influence on the way our troops behave in public, and elsewhere, as well as perceive themselves. The differences between a 'Warrior' and a 'Soldier' are vast, and it's important to maintain a focus on the latter and get eliminate efforts to extoll the virtues of the former viz:


Soldiers and Warriors

I am a Seventh Cavalry officer. I commanded in that most famous of American units, and my regimental affiliation and affections will always be with the men who wear the upturned horseshoe crest of that regiment. As a historian, and as perhaps the de facto regimental historian (since there is no such thing as a de jure position for this function), I am also very well acquainted with our legacy. The Seventh Cavalry was created to man the outposts of the frontiers in the wake of the Civil War, and to fight against the warrior cultures of the Native American tribes as need be. But in doing so they were not then, and are not now, warriors themselves. The men of the 7th Cavalry were and are soldiers. There is a significant difference between the two.

Unfortunately, and I cannot nail down when this started, a trend started to take hold in the Army and the Marine Corps which blurred that distinction. Sometime in the mid-90s we started to hear senior officers (defined in my head as "Colonels and Up") calling us "warriors."

At first the appellation was rare enough. Now and then you might hear it creep into a speech at a Change of Command ceremony, or perhaps at a Dining In (a formal dinner for the officers of a battalion or brigade). But slowly the term began to come into more common usage, even as it leaked into print in professional journals and in speeches coming from Air Force officers. This is a bad sign, and it does not seems to be stopping. I wish it would, because calling us warriors is not only inaccurate, it displays an ignorance about what a warrior is all about. The bottom line is that a real "warrior" is really just about himself.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html


Soldiers As "Warriors"? A Myth That Doesn't Translate to Reality

written by Arthur Varanelli
on January 27, 2010


It strikes me that more and more these days, the military's leadership seems to want to convince soldiers that they are "warriors," people who are distinct from the rest of society by virtue of their courage and aggressiveness. The goal is to make the soldier more effective at killing the enemy by stoking the psychological fires of combat. But promoting this kind of ideology, along with the amazing technology available to the military today, creates a sort of mythical and futuristic landscape that is more pop fiction than real life. And unfortuntely, encouraging the Warrior concept among soldiers can only exacerbate the gap between soldiers and society.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/conversations/coming-home/soldiers-as-warriors-a-myth-that-doesnt-translate-to-reality.php

I remember that topic in my Ethics OPME.  I guess I actually learned something 

 

[Jarnhamar]

There were just as many CS, CSS, CIC and retired members acting like assholes right along side combat arms types.

 

[armyvern]

The fact of the matter is if people don't want their pictures used in any manner, don't post them on Facebook.

As for buddy being arrested, I highly doubt he will learn much of a lesson.  His arrest probably consisted of nothing more than being told he's under arrest, searched, and then (since it appears they would have no grounds to hold the person) released on the spot after being told their CoC would receive the report recommending charges.

The elements of the offence for criminal harassment are not really met from the Facebook page alone so (unless there's a lot more to this) he's  probably looking at nothing more than a 129.

Everyone giving the page this much attention is actually worse than the page itself.  The guy wants/wanted attention...and he succeeded.

There's been some defamation occurring on that site.  For example, when a female asked for something to be removed they searched her out and posted about her being a female Captain with words to the effect of "Fk off Captain C^&(*" in their response to her request.  Given the commentary they have on their site accompanying the print screen of my post, they seem to like utilizing the C-word to describe us serving females (or any female).  100% not acceptable conduct - 24/7.

Defamation is  a service offence under the NDA. I have also seen that utilized while deployed due to a facebook post someone made.  I, personally, have also been involved in 129s for sexual harassment under the NDA where a member (deployed) was afforded and elected CM (because someone told the member "they'd never CM someone for 129s for harassment").  He was wrong.  He was CMd - & pleaded guilty.

That site is not just about LGBT bashing --- they target anyone. Cadets, CIC, underage females, anyone.  Although the CCC may not be able to do much, the CF is held to a higher standard than the average population of Canada (because we need to remain a disciplined force) for just reasons and therefore the NDA and CSD come into play.




Edited to add:  Their crackbook page has probably been taken down - yet again - due to it being reported again ... I certainly reported it again and do so each time I see it re-appear.  Despite that, they've now branched out to another domain (that I will not post), but am also tracking for updates/printscreens.

 

[RCDtpr]

There's been some defamation occurring on that site.  For example, when a female asked for something to be removed they searched her out and posted about her being a female Captain with words to the effect of "Fk off Captain C^&(*" in their response to her request.  Given the commentary they have on their site accompanying the print screen of my post, they seem to like utilizing the C-word to describe us serving females (or any female).  100% not acceptable conduct - 24/7.

Defamation is  a service offence under the NDA. I have also seen that utilized while deployed due to a facebook post someone made.  I, personally, have also been involved in 129s for sexual harassment under the NDA where a member (deployed) was afforded and elected CM (because someone told the member "they'd never CM someone for 129s for harassment").  He was wrong.  He was CMd - & pleaded guilty.

That site is not just about LGBT bashing --- they target anyone. Cadets, CIC, underage females, anyone.  Although the CCC may not be able to do much, the CF is held to a higher standard than the average population of Canada (because we need to remain a disciplined force) for just reasons and therefore the NDA and CSD come into play.




Edited to add:  Their crackbook page has probably been taken down - yet again - due to it being reported again ... I certainly reported it again and do so each time I see it re-appear.  Despite that, they've now branched out to another domain (that I will not post), but am also tracking for updates/printscreens.

Agree with you 100% that the conduct falls under 129.  The point I was making is that outside of the CSD/NDA the page, or anything on it, isn't illegal.

He will be charged, whether he goes summary or CM is up to him, but as you well know there are legal precedents in place for just how serious the punishment can be.  While I agree he probably be found guilty (if he elects summary), I don't think the punishment is going to be as great as people seem to think he's going to receive.

Just my .002

 

[armyvern]

Agree with you 100% that the conduct falls under 129.  The point I was making is that outside of the CSD/NDA the page, or anything on it, isn't illegal.

He will be charged, whether he goes summary or CM is up to him, but as you well know there are legal precedents in place for just how serious the punishment can be.  While I agree he probably be found guilty (if he elects summary), I don't think the punishment is going to be as great as people seem to think he's going to receive.

Just my .002

You neglect that Admin actions can also be taken ... and they can be quite serious.

Election or not would depend upon what charges actually end up being laid and is not, necessarily, at the member's choice.  If they are laid, that will be because there is a preponderance of "evidence" supporting the charge. The Summary Trial or Court Martial process would then occur and findings would remain to be seen as would any punishment pending that outcome.

The CF has come a long way since the days when we "marched the guilty bastard in". And, there's not anything wrong with that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Unless they boot him on some charge and then the RCMP take over and charge him with something else civie side.

And as much as I hate Human Rights and their tribunals, it would be fitting to see someone lay a complaint there also. Especially with a female adjudicator.

Don't forget, the person laying the complaint doesn't have to pay a cent. However, he will, and big time, if he has to defend himself in civie court or\ and HA tribunal. Even more so if found guilty, but even a tossed case is going to cost him big legal fees.

I think that social ostracizing and financial destitution would be fitting. If he had to scrape out a living the rest of his life, maybe he'd be too busy to waste time at his computer.

If he can afford one.

 

[DAA]

Agree with you 100% that the conduct falls under 129.  The point I was making is that outside of the CSD/NDA the page, or anything on it, isn't illegal.

He will be charged, whether he goes summary or CM is up to him, but as you well know there are legal precedents in place for just how serious the punishment can be.  While I agree he probably be found guilty (if he elects summary), I don't think the punishment is going to be as great as people seem to think he's going to receive.

Just my .002

It's entirely possible.  But the problem is proving they were responsible for it.  Cyberspace and the Internet is virtual in nature.  There is nothing to stop anyone from creating a FB account using your name and then posting comments.  So, hypothetically, these people could sit back and say "Nope, wasn't me!" or my favourite "I decline to answer that question based on advice provided by legal counsel".  The onus is now on the CF to obtain sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.  Which, I can only assume would involve acquiring "internet account logs/access, etc" information from not just commercial "ISP service providers" but also from "Facebook" themselves.

On the internet, you can be whomever you want to be.  Unless of course you draw the attention of special interest groups like "Anonymous".

 

[armyvern]

... "Anonymous".

Who could really "out" these pers instantaneously. 


Steubenville anyone?