Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence


Memorandum from Mother of a former member of the Armed Forces

  It is with the deepest of regret that I am writing to you regarding an appalling situation which occurred at the army training Centre at Winchester Barracks and I am led to believe is still carrying on.

  I am a very honest person and believe that those who are charged with the responsibility, of overseeing such matters ie the Defence Select Committee should firstly be made aware of the problem and secondly be given the opportunity to correct the injustices and ensure measures are put into place to prevent this re-occurring.

  My oldest son, has from a very young age always wanted to be a Soldier, and join the army, for my part I have to be honest, probably like most mums.I admit I was never very keen on the idea. Throughout the years, I have hidden the toy guns, Action man, and basically encouraged all kinds of other activities, football, rugby, swimming.

  All this to no avail.

  *** joined the Combined Cadet Force, where he was awarded Cadet of the year many times he represented the School Cadet Force shooting at ***, winning silver spoons and attended all camps, junior leaders courses at all manner of Army establishments throughout the country, all reports back to the school were exemplary, in short he thrived on it.

  During his time at University *** travelled and trekked around Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, alone with the help of locally recruited guides.

  *** did First and Second year, and then took a year out to run a new small Company I had just set up, this was a great opportunity, for industrial experience.

  *** excelled at this taking full responsibility for all the company decisions both operational and financial.

  The year out extended to two years, by which time *** did not want to return to University, but looked to join the Army.

  The University system in Scotland would allow him to "bank" his two years for up to 10 years, to finish off his degree at a later date if required.

  On his father's advice *** applied to Sandhurst to join the Army, He duly attended the entrance course and was referred for 1 year and recommended to finish his degree, and then re-apply, with the degree.

  *** was devastated. I was somewhat puzzled as a degree is not an entry requirement!

  We are now at September/October 2003.

  *** soon bounced back and attended the Edinburgh recruiting office and applied to join the Army with a view to becoming a Royal Scot Soldier and would work his way up through the ranks.

  During the recruiting process, and subsequent testing it became apparent to the recruiting staff ***'s level of education and he was advised, to join a more specialised Corps, which would be more appropriate to his interests and after trade training, promotion would be faster, also the type of work undertaken after training would be of a specialised nature with the opportunities to attended a wide variety of challenging courses.

  *** elected to join the Intelligence Corps.

  All testing, interviewing, courses etc . . . undertaken he was, accepted. *** was advised possibly January, but probably June 2004, would be his intake date, it turned out to be September 2004, roughly one year after acceptance.

  I again will be straight; I wasn't keen, but resigned to the envitable—*** left to join the September course.

  Two days in he called, nothing much was happening, administration, issuing kit, queuing everywhere but nothing that he wasn't expecting, these things take time.

  Three to four days into the Course, very little training had been done, but cleaning toilets, and polishing and re-polishing floors seemed high on the agenda.

  Ironing was a big nightly exercise! Lights out was around 11 pm, although this was a joke because the instructors knew that so many cleaning and ironing tasks had been handed out by them, none of which could be done during the day, had to be completed by morning, the recruits would immediately have to get up and work through the night to complete the tasks, getting only two to three hours, sleep nightly.

  The officers were totally unaware of this activity.

  Furthermore, although not a problem for young men, at lights-out female Corporals would be present in the rooms, whilst recruits were in various states of undress, and showers. Did this happen to the girls? With male corporals, not a major incident but never the less not best practice.

  Again Officers were unaware of this treatment.

  Room and Kit Inspections would take place, in the morning, where NCOs who were not satisfied with certain areals such as a shirt ironed incorrectly would verbally abuse recruits, throw the shirt on to the floor stand on it, etc.

  The recruits would finish lectures at 6-6.30 pm, then face an inspection at 7 pm whereby it would be impossible for the recruit to have the offending shirt washed, ironed ready for inspection, they would obviously fail the inspection and then have to go on "show parade".

  These "show parades" would take place at 10.00 pm these parades were outside despite the weather conditions the recruit would be subject to all kinds of abuse leaving some men in tears.

  With the constant humiliation, and subjecting their victims to fear. The instructors were free to do as they pleased.

  *** never failed any inspections because of his previous experience and training, however, it was impossible for anybody new to the army to have the skills to avoid failure, especially as the training was so poor!

  *** witnessed these incidents on many occasions and never once was their just cause for the torrent of abuse. These men were subjected to a variety of comments relating to their person and or members of their families.

  The younger the victim the more abuse.

  On a similar occasion a young man was made to stand outside for a minor inspection failure, and yell, "I'm a kiddie fiddler" as people passed him. How. Did they even think of that one. This says much, much more about the instructor than the recruit.

  Again officers were unaware of this treatment.

  One young man, was asked did he intended inviting his mother to the passing out parade in December, he enthusiastically advised his NCO that he would be inviting, his mother, to which this particular bully replied good because he would slap her around the parade ground for giving birth to him, and continued to humiliate and taunt the boy in front of everybody until he cried.

  What I wouldn't give for five minutes with this excuse for a man. What a way to treat a young man who has volunteered to serve his country.

  Again officers were unaware of this treatment.

  At this stage of the course Physical Training was near none existent, a short one and a half mile run was undertaken, many of the platoon were physically unfit, so instead of assessing the situation, and building up a program, of physical development and dietary recommendations in consultation with specialists for the unfit members, the next PT Session was some four days later with no exercise in between, they were ordered to lift another person and run for 400 yards, any half decent instructor, could have seen certain members were not capable. However, this particular session ended in two medical injuries.

  Small wonder the compensation claims against the MoD are so high.

  The injury rate throughout the course was in the 20-30% range, most through ridiculous training practices.

  The dietary considerations were appalling, every morning full fried breakfast. Healthy options were so few in number, by the time the recruits attended fried food was all that was available! Physical training followed breakfast.

  In the short time *** was there he gained over one and a half stone in weight. Through lack of exercise and fatty foods.

  The days just became littered with incidents.

  Two recruits had cleaned a toilet/bathroom not to the satisfaction of the Platoon Sergeant who for some reason was carrying a coat hanger. He then proceeded in a rage to damage a tiled area with the coat hanger and followed this up by kicking the toilet cistern and damaging this following this by terrifying and humiliating two young recruits.

  Immediately after this incident, the recuits then attended a lecture from an Officer on equal opportunities in the Army, and basic rights, afforded to them the Officer described how years ago NCOs would react violently to failure NOT LIKE TODAY. The recruits laughed. He never asked why. Because he didn't want to know. Two minutes earlier his Sergeant was just doing what he described didn't happen any more.

  Had you been giving that lecture would you not have asked what was funny? What the joke was? Of course you would. Why didn't he?

  Simply because he didn't want to know. It's no use making the Army be politically correct!

  Another incident involved a young girl, who whilst the recruits were between training, sessions they were stood around outside chatting etc. a young girl was talking to a fellow recruit and had her arms crossed across her chest, a male officer, was walking past, glanced at her and said:

    "Uncross your arms you'll make your tits bigger!!"

  What other employment situation do you know where that man would not be fired/disciplined/up before a tribunal. What an example for an Officer to set!

  If you, as an MP, spoke to any of your staff in such a manner you would be on the front page of every newspaper in this country and forced to resign or sacked and quite rightly so.

  The incidents of abuse, are too numerous to mention individually, they were so common place, there was no point reporting them to Officers because they wouldn't believe the recruits and the retribution would have

been terrible. These young men had and still have no real avenue of protection open to them, there are in a situation of helplessness the Officers did not want to know or possible worse still were unaware of what was happening.

  Other non-violent incidents occurred which go to show the overall miss-management of this course and camp.

UNIFORM

  A Sweatshirt was required to be worn; green with the Winchester logo on all recruits were charged £21.00 for this. Why? If this is issue why are these recruits required to pay for this? If they need this to train then they should be supplied. Please advise.

NVQ EXAMINATIONS

  A test was undertaken payment was required or deducted from the recruit's pay of £25.00. The test was on security the recruits were seated given a copy of the answers and required to fill in the test paper! Fantastic! What is the point? Why are they charged for this?

VISIT TO THE BATTLEFIELDS IN BELGIUM

  A compulsory visit again the recruits had £150.00 deducted from their pay.

  If this is a requirement of training so be it, why are the recruits charged for this?

  As MP's you are required to attend fact-finding tours, do you have your salary deducted?

IRONING BOARDS

  As can be expected a high standard of turnout is required from recruits, the supply of basics like irons and ironing boards, was limited so much so expected standards and requirements given the time restrictions and amount of ironing required could not be met therefore to avoid failure and punishment recruits can purchase ironing boards at a cost of £25.00, each.

  What a ridiculous situation.

  When they leave what happens to these re-cycled and sold again! All these things are small and trivial but important to the overall well-being of a recruit.

GLASSES

  When *** advised his immediate superiors of his intention to leave, all be it there was a question as to the departure date he was instructed to attend the optician to get Army Glasses, he respectfully advised his Corporal that he had just acquired Glasses and there was no point ordering Army glasses as he would probably be away by the time they arrived as he needs special lenses which are expensive hence the reason for the purchase prior to his attendance.

  *** was ordered to attend a civilian optician for an eye test even though he produced an up to date prescription (eight days old) and take an eye test, presumably the Army has to pay for this. What a waste of money. Glasses were to be ordered up, even though *** would be long gone by the time they were produced.

  The new recruit is paid very little money, their pay only improves after trade training, many of them have financial commitments, mortgage's, children etc . . . none of the deductions mentioned above are advised by the recruitment staff in advance to allow planning all this comes as a complete surprise.

  Again, there is no other employer in this country who would get away with this behaviour, nor should they, be honest ask yourselves would you like to be treated in this manner, or how would you feel if your family was treated in this way?

  Ten days into the course *** called to inform me he was leaving. At the time I was really shocked!! I couldn't believe it. (Although at this stage I was unaware of the above described incidents).

  I was extremely concerned, *** is a strong person both physically and mentally, although he has always been physically fit, when he was accepted by the army he increased his training regime for the year waiting to begin this course, he runs between 50-70 miles weekly.

  Mentally he has always been confident and strong; I previously mentioned he toured basic countries alone, and living in a very basic way to see the real country and not just the "tourist" scene.

  *** explained this was a definite decision he would seek, an interview the following day from a Senior Officer and begin the administration process.

  I advised him to go through the correct procedure, and not discuss his decision with other course members so as not to unsettle any other recruits.

  I was convinced, that *** was serious about his decision but still left somewhat reeling.

  The next day *** contacted me to state that he had been informed he couldn't leave.

  Nor could he begin any procedures until he had served at least 28 days. In other words request denied.

  I have enclosed three Copies of letters received by me.

  I refer you to the one from Major ***, with the information contained therein I contacted the Officer Commanding to discuss this situation; whilst I fully realise *** is not a minor. Any requests he made were all denied.

  I spoke to Major ***, I informed her who I was, and the problem I was faced with, and she explained that boy's get homesick.

  I explained *** was not a boy but a man and the reason for my call was to ascertain why! He was being refused his right to an interview with an Officer and secondly why he was being refused the right to begin the administrative procedure to discharge.

  I explained quite clearly that if *** had made his final albeit surprising decision for whatever reasons she or one of her Officers should interview him ascertain the reasons and take control of the situation.

  I also asked why the young men in that platoon had been denied access to SAFA services, a very necessary safety net.

  Major *** denied this was the case, (much later I discovered this was a direct untruth. Or more importantly she was unaware of what was going on which is even more worrying).

  I then requested formally that *** be interviewed as a matter of urgency, and he also attend a medical to ascertain any problems.

  Major *** advised me there was a rule that prevented her releasing ***, before the 28 days but as can be seen from appendix 1, this is not the case it merely refers to "normally".

  Major *** further advised that *** was doing extremely well, and should he leave, lots of others would also want to leave.

  This concerned me, why did lots of people want to leave? After all they are all volunteers! Not conscripts! Why 10 days in would they want to leave, after a long recruitment process?

  To be fair to Major ***, we had a very civilised discussion in which I stated my surprise and deep concern at Michael's decision.

  I put forward the view that if after an interview that was his final decision there would be no point prolonging the process; if necessary the medical could spark the process into life and release ***, basically tick the boxes and effect the discharge. I knew that *** would act professionally, and cause no fuss or embarrassment.

  I reiterated my view throughout the conversation many times, that if the Army was not to be for *** so be it. These things happen in life.

  I did not then and still do not believe now that there was any benefit to anyone be it ***, our family, the Army, the Trainers, the Taxpayer, the Government in pursuing this if his decision to leave had been made. In the real world many Companies release Personnel immediately, so as to avoid any conflict, indeed many Ministers go directly, for this very same reason.

  Whilst privately I was unhappy, and nervous of the whole situation, I did not see the point of alienating any help Major *** could offer.

  It was during this conversation that Major *** informed me that on the last course they had problems!!

  I can assure you that alarm bells were now ringing and I was extremely worried. Major *** expanded her explanation to inform me they had some problems with a young girl, and her mother was upset and went to her local MP to obtain her daughters release, which sparked a Ministerial enquiry.

  It has subsequently been brought to my attention that at this same establishment some two years ago a "rape" allegation was the subject of an enquiry.

  I ended the conversation on the understanding or at least my understanding (obviously retrospectively I was very wrong) that ***'s best interests would be served.

  After this conversation the next day *** was interviewed by his Corporal who then pushed the interview up the line to his Officer 2nd Lft *** who informed *** he could not leave! He could not even put in papers until day 28 and even then they had the right to keep him up to three months as they wished.

  However, a medical was arranged for three days later, *** saw a civilian doctor, and expressed truthfully on what he had observed, the treatment handed out to people, this made him feel angry and ready to explode he was struggling to keep his outrage contained in the face of this unjust and unnecessary treatment, he explained how little sleep that was available to them on top of that he couldn't sleep, and he had begun experiencing panic attacks, as a result of this and the constant strain of not allowing himself into being goaded into retaliating, which would result in a prison, sentences a real possibility.

  The doctor discussed the situation with ***, and agreed the following action, he would give *** a medical certificate for 21 days and allow him to return to Edinburgh, on the understanding he would return and be discharged because the 28 day rule had been more than met and the paperwork/administration could be ironed out meantime.

  In my view a practical solution, tick the boxes the 28-day rule is met, best solution all round, job done.

  The doctor told *** to wait in the room, whilst the paperwork was attended to.

  After a period of time the Doctor returned and told *** that his decision had been denied and refused by a sergeant and he could not help him.

  Request denied.

  What is going on? A medical decision overturned.

  This outraged me.

  *** was being denied all rights to sort this situation out for himself.

  Disgraceful!

  I had taken Major *** at her word, however, this obviously meant nothing. There was no point contacting her again as this was now the second untruth she had told.

  So what course of action was open to me?

  I sought legal advice from a QC who specialises in employment and has advised on many cases relating to the MoD. I was advised the 28-day rule is not legal and is very capable of challenge in the courts.

  In short *** was being unlawfully detained.

  The problem for me now was. Am I really going to take legal action against the Army?

  For reasons that will become apparent later in this document this course of action although quite justified was abhorrent to me.

  Inadvertently the Major had given me the answer.

  I went to see ***'s local MP; again another right not afforded to serving soldiers, and advised him of the situation and requested his help.

  Mr Mark Lazarowicz was indeed sympathetic and helpful he faxed an immediate letter to the MoD, unfortunately this was a Thursday afternoon, quite late in the week for immediate action, however he followed this up with a phone call on the Friday, he also promised to make contact with Adam Ingram on the Monday as he knew he would be in the Houses of Parliament on that day, whether this happened or not I am unsure, because this Monday was the end of the 28 day nightmare!!

  *** was still not allowed to leave, after the 28-day period but spent another three days hanging around being messed about so people could prove a point and play silly games whilst constantly trying to goad him!

  *** was finally released on the Wednesday, around 10.30 am, the next train to Edinburgh was 12.30 pm but he was advised no transport would be available to the station until after 1.00 pm.

  Whilst in the Provost's office where you are not allowed to speak, he asked could he phone a taxi, they advised him he could but he couldn't use the phone and they did not have any taxi numbers. Again another totally unnecessary childish action!

  *** walked out of the camp to the nearest phone available and telephoned me in Edinburgh so I could call a taxi in Winchester, as he had no access to numbers arrange a taxi to the station.

  I arranged for a taxi to collect him and take him to the station for the 12.30 pm train.

  I am absolutely certain that *** was only released because his local MP had taken action on his behalf. I know of other young men who had handed their papers in at the same time were not released, for another seven to 10 days.

  What a way to treat a thoroughly decent young man.

  I am proud of my son, it would have been easy for him to see all and say nothing!!

  He could have quite easily sat back and passed this course, inspections were no problem for him. Even when he made it clear he would be leaving come what may, he continued to help the guys that were struggling with their inspections and tasks.

  *** would never wear the Uniform again.

  You managed to achieve in 10 days what I had been trying to do for 21 years.

  *** was fully versed in what to expect from the army partly because of his previous experiences CCF/OTC and the very many courses and camps he attended, but mainly for two very important reasons.

  Firstly because his grandfather served in the Royal Scot's for 22 years until the 1970s, he was responsible for the training of recruits, he never lost one recruit.

  Not one.

  He is proud of his record. Although he readily admits training was tough and hard it was not cruel and humiliating.

  He also served time in the Edinburgh Recruitment office as the person responsible for recruiting Royal Scots. Therefore, I would consider his tuition and advice to be worthwhile.

  I have discussed this whole situation throughout this difficult time with my father-in-law and he is thoroughly disgusted with the treatment of *** and indeed of all the recruits. He feels responsible, and guilty, as he has always encouraged *** to serve his country. He considers the actions of these so-called trainers to be that of cowards and bullies, hiding behind the uniform he was so proud of.

  What a huge disappointment for him in his advancing years.

  The second reason is my husband, ***'s father is currently a serving Officer, Lt Colonel in the ***, and as you are aware unable to voice his opinion on this subject!!!!!

  After his many years of service from being 17 years old as a young recruit on a similar course basic training course, to present day.

  What an excellent way to treat his son. Thank you.

  My family has always been loyal and supportive of our country, and proud to serve in the armed services.

  My father-in-law and my husband are tremendously proud of their Army service, and defend the organisation at all costs. This has been a terrible shock to both of them!!

  Perhaps now you can begin to understand my anger and disgust at the way my son has been treated!!

  The treatment of all these recruits is wrong!

  These instructors are behaving without fear of impunity.

  Given the huge public and press interest in the now notorious camp Deepcut, subject of a recent Sky News report, and Channel 4 report and court appearance and subsequent jailing of an instructor, it really is time to call it a day on these training centres.

  I am aware through research that Catterick is not much better, and I already know Winchester is no different.

  These incidents reflect on all members of the Army, and I will not have my husband and the many many decent men and women in the Army I personally know classed, with these bullying, perverted, thugs!!

  These decent men and women are also disgusted and want action but are prevented from voicing their opinion for seeming to be disloyal.

  Needless to say I have discussed this situation with many people currently serving, and all without exception are appalled.

  I always feel, it is easy to criticise a system, especially a large organisation, which are by there nature difficult to run. I accept this.

  However, these Training Centres are little more than borstals and are breeding grounds for brutish behaviour, which if unchecked as is the case now!! Create a cycle of abuse, which is seen as acceptable behaviour.

  I have therefore come to the conclusion, that the basic training should be undertaken by the host unit, the recruit is intending joining, ie Royal Scots or the Intelligence Corps etc, this forges an early link, and a sense of belonging, the trainer will be from the same Regiment or Corps training will just be another posting for a Senior NCO, a home posting which will be much sought after!!!

  So only the best applicants will be accepted as Trainers.

  After the training period the trainers are likely to meet the recruit many times, and will be in dangerous situations when serving together and will need to rely on each other, this will foster a spirit of co-operation and care and will also ensure a high standard of training.

  This type of training used to be carried out, and was the type of recruit training both my father-in-law and my husband and his colleagues underwent.

  Whilst, tough and strict the trainers had a vested interest in you, because six months later, they were all serving in Korea or Northern Ireland under difficult circumstances together.

  The situation at these Training Centres is unacceptable, and an affront to human rights! Let alone common, basic decent behaviour.

  We now live in a modern progressive society where all people should be treated with respect, as the employer of these young recruits how do you justify their treatment.

  I implore you to take these matters seriously and urgently; failure to do so will only continually result in more misery for these young men and women.

***





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 March 2005