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.
***
| 
