SAS soldiers under investigation after weapons turn-in "amnesty"

[okie john]

Rumor has it that one time something like that happened the raiding force instead found the (unguarded) vehicles that transported the double-arm interval troops and performed surgery on the engines, which meant that everyone had to walk home. Some raiding forces have also resorted to hijacking the mess trucks bringing breakfast.

I'm sure that you wouldn't know anything about that, though, because your old organization would never dream of doing such a thing--committed as it's members are to always doing things precisely by the book.

I'm sure I don't know who or what you're talking about.


Okie John

[Stephanie B]

Announcing an amnesty and then trying to hang people who turn stuff in for the amnesty is a serious dick move.

And against a bunch of guys who are well-trained to sneak in, kill people and then get away without detection? That's some flag-officer-grade stupidity.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Announcing an amnesty and then trying to hang people who turn stuff in for the amnesty is a serious dick move.

And against a bunch of guys who are well-trained to sneak in, kill people and then get away without detection? That's some flag-officer-grade stupidity.

What could go wrong?

[redbone]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/694...034.1470122714
SAS soldiers believe they have been betrayed after military police were called in over a huge haul of ammunition, grenades and guns handed in during a weapons amnesty.

Senior commanders became alarmed by the vast stockpile despite “no questions asked” assurances given to members of the elite special forces regiment to encourage them to dump souvenirs collected during missions.

The thousands of rounds of illegal ammunition and the weapons, mainly thought to have been brought back from campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, prompted top brass to task the MPs with probing how the illegal haul was smuggled into Britain.

However, the decision to break the amnesty has infuriated rank and file soldiers, who have reacted bitterly to the “betrayal of trust”.

Admittedly, I didn't read through all six pages, but it seems like I'm reading this a little differently than everyone else.

So the amnesty turned up more ammo and guns than expected. Command wants to know how this huge amount got into the UK. At least in what I quoted above, there's no indication that they are going after the individual soldier. Instead, the way I read it, they are trying to see how the guns were smuggled in, presumably so they can stop it in the future.

That seems reasonable and not a 'betrayal of trust" so perhaps I'm missing something.

There's a reason why amnesty boxes are meant to be used for anonymous turn-in, and the only way they get any prohibitive items in the first place. The idea being that its better to get the stuff turned in with no punishment meted out than to have Joe hide it in the trash.

But if a live grenade turns up in the amnesty bin at boot camp, you can bet there will be an investigation back at the grenade range into how it the accountability system failed. How is this any different (except it's the SAS and therefore they are above the rules)? The amnesty bin is for past 'sins', not a guaranty that no one will try to get you to stop sinning in the future.

[Duelist]

I love this place. Where else can I go on a daily basis and have this kind of conversation? Screwed up command staff, down range bs, do what you have to do and don't tell people about it back home.

Maybe that's the Percocet talking.

[Jeep]

Admittedly, I didn't read through all six pages, but it seems like I'm reading this a little differently than everyone else.

So the amnesty turned up more ammo and guns than expected. Command wants to know how this huge amount got into the UK. At least in what I quoted above, there's no indication that they are going after the individual soldier. Instead, the way I read it, they are trying to see how the guns were smuggled in, presumably so they can stop it in the future.

That seems reasonable and not a 'betrayal of trust" so perhaps I'm missing something.

There's a reason why amnesty boxes are meant to be used for anonymous turn-in, and the only way they get any prohibitive items in the first place. The idea being that its better to get the stuff turned in with no punishment meted out than to have Joe hide it in the trash.

But if a live grenade turns up in the amnesty bin at boot camp, you can bet there will be an investigation back at the grenade range into how it the accountability system failed. How is this any different (except it's the SAS and therefore they are above the rules)? The amnesty bin is for past 'sins', not a guaranty that no one will try to get you to stop sinning in the future.

As I understand it they will be asking the men who turned in stuff how they got it into the UK, and if those questions are honestly answered they will be confessing to a crime. If they don't answer they will be disobeying an order.

Now, in fact, everyone knows how they got the stuff in. They shipped it with the mass of "kit" and other stuff they were returning to the UK and no one in the unit was too inquisitive because everyone knew that the men were bringing back things they might need if ISIS starts hunting them in the UK.

But the higher ups want names--they want to know who turned a blind eye.

[redbone]

Ano one in the unit was too inquisitive because everyone knew that the men were bringing back things they might need if ISIS starts hunting them in the UK.

If they were bringing it back for self-protection, then why are they turning it in? Especially now that the threat seems to be higher every week?

But you are right. Everyone knows how it got in.

[Jeep]

If they were bringing it back for self-protection, then why are they turning it in? Especially now that the threat seems to be higher every week?

But you are right. Everyone knows how it got in.

My guess is that they turned the stuff in because command made clear that the risk from keeping the stuff was much greater than the risk from ISIS. And, of course, command can make that happen.

Why the Brits see personal possession of 9mm pistols and ammunition by guys as well trained as the SAS to be a problem is beyond me--but it is pretty clear to me that while the UK authorities see good guys with guns to be far worse of a problem than terrorists with guns. The latter merely kill some innocent people, while the former threaten the authorities' sense of Britain being a place without guns.

[GardoneVT]

It's also a level of blatant careerism . ISIS wasting half the building doesn't damage a careerist officers ambitions. Operators with "undocumented firepower" does.

Somewhere , in a promotion board not so far away .......

"Major Mitchell is a squared away leader. Squadron has top notch shooting scores. I do see a black mark here about an NCO not filing Form 92-5906 with his Declaration of Loaded Chamber Form 17-VP9226. Bad sport , that.

Let's go with Major H. Clinten. Candidate has taken the lead to educate the troops on progressive practices such as empathizing with OPFOR, no black marks with document issues, and showed brave leadership in that prepared statement after the workplace violence incident some years back."

[Jeep]

Yep--got to go with what's important, and my guess is that a lot of the SAS lads missed their scheduled diversity training and were unable to correctly answer a pop quiz on how many recognized genders there are.