Abusive remarks result in Army dismissal

lg123

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0531/donoghuen.html

was this not a bit harsh? their is probably more to the story? is this guy the highest ranking officer to be dismissed from irish forces?

Delancey

Sounds harsh but I agree there could well be more to the bare details reported by RTE.
Maybe someone here has the ' inside story ' :rolleyes:

PeterIanStaker

If this was a guy, say, in an insurance company, who got fired for calling his boss a pr1ck, it wouldn't even make the news. But the Irish media never passes up the chance to make the DF look bad. :mad:

gizmo555

delancey42 wrote: »

Sounds harsh but I agree there could well be more to the bare details reported by RTE.
Maybe someone here has the ' inside story ' :rolleyes:

Here's some relevant background:

Comdt Donohoe acknowledged he had made 180 “redress of wrong” complaints during his service and that former chief of staff of the Defence Forces Lieut Gen Dermot Earley had written to him in February 2009 describing his complaints as “vexatious and an abuse of process”.

Donny5

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

If this was a guy, say, in an insurance company, who got fired for calling his boss a pr1ck, it wouldn't even make the news. But the Irish media never passes up the chance to make the DF look bad. :mad:

Well, the Defence Forces are held to higher standards than an insurance company, if only because they are public servants. I don't think this shows the Defence Forces in a bad light at all. Rather it seems to me to show that professionalism and discipline are paramount and that no one, even occifers, can flaunt military justice.

PeterIanStaker

Having read up a bit, the "prick" incident was probably the last straw for the guy.

I am using the example of an insurance company because it was the first thing that came into my head. Its the media's anti - public service (and anti - DF) slant that has this in the news.

Donny5

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Having read up a bit, the "prick" incident was probably the last straw for the guy.

I am using the example of an insurance company because it was the first thing that came into my head. Its the media's anti - public service (and anti - DF) slant that has this in the news.

Do you really think the DF are shown in a bad light by the media? I would have thought the opposite, to the extent that I've always felt that the media is heavily biased towards good news regarding the Defence Forces.

There are often human interest stories about missions overseas, troops returning home or big training exercises, but very rarely any analysis of our effectiveness with E.U. and U.N. missions, the current state of the nation's defences or any issue where criticism of the Defence Forces could be found.

This story is about the dismissal of an officer for breaking regulations, which is a good story for the Defence Forces, in that, whilst no-one expects soldiers to behave perfectly at all times, it is expected that once regulations are broken, soldiers are held to account.

As it is, the facts were reported fairly in any of the articles I've read, and I didn't see any pro- or anti-Defence Forces spin either way,

PeterIanStaker

Your post is valid. I stand corrected on numerous points. However, I still think it contains an anti - public service bias, due to the nature of the incident. If the headline was "Comdt with long history of disciplinary issues dismissed" I think that would've been a fairer treatment of the situation.

SlabMurphy

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Your post is valid. I stand corrected on numerous points. However, I still think it contains an anti - public service bias, due to the nature of the incident. If the headline was "Comdt with long history of disciplinary issues dismissed" I think that would've been a fairer treatment of the situation.

" I still think it contains an anti - public service bias, " Geting a bit off topic, but I'll tell you one thing matey, you wouldn't get 18 chance of redress of wrong for bad behaviour in the private service, more like 2 or 3 and then it would clear your desk and be don't bang the door when your going out. Obnoxious as$hole deserved to be fired. Lets see how many chances he'll get for redress of wrong with Ryanair :cool:

It wasn't me!

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" I still think it contains an anti - public service bias, " Geting a bit off topic, but I'll tell you one thing matey, you wouldn't get 18 chance of redress of wrong for bad behaviour in the private service, more like 2 or 3 and then it would clear your desk and be don't bang the door when your going out. Obnoxious as$hole deserved to be fired. Lets see how many chances he'll get for redress of wrong with Ryanair :cool:

Those were complaints that *he made*, not that were made against him.

SlabMurphy

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Those were complaints that *he made*, not that were made against him.

I stand corrected. My apologies to the public service

Delancey

He sounds like a professional pain in the arse

SuperInfinity

You know what?

I came into this thread to talk about how much of a disgrace the people in charge of the defence forces are and the court martials are etc.

What I find extremely vile is the judge saying he was lucky to escape a sentence in jail. The Defence Forces has nothing to do with personal life, but legally you can call anyone anything you want because it's an opinion. It's one thing to say that he should suffer in his career for it - he pretty much let himself in that position by signing up for the first place. But this going to jail because you called a "superior officer" a bad name... come on... how ridiculous.

I call the military judge a wanker and a disgrace for saying that he's lucky not to go to jail. It's not like he was making allegations against him such as calling him a Nazi, he was giving his opinion. It's loopy and I think that military judge has made remarks that are contrary to freedom of speech.

But after reading the whole thing... there are few lower people on the face of the earth* that feel the need to complain formally about everything, abusing the stupid processes that are in place to begin with.

I still don't condone such nonsense, but if the man himself was a complainer then **** it, what goes around comes around.

* May be an exaggeration.

oncevotedff

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

If this was a guy, say, in an insurance company, who got fired for calling his boss a pr1ck, it wouldn't even make the news. But the Irish media never passes up the chance to make the DF look bad. :mad:

In the insurance industry it isn't a crime to call your boss names. In the DF, it is.

Donny5

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The Defence Forces has nothing to do with personal life, but legally you can call anyone anything you want because it's an opinion.

Officers in the Defence Forces are always subject to military law, and can never engage in conduct contrary to good military discipline. Although it's not the case here, as the Commandant was in uniform and at work when he made the comments, officers (and enlisted personnel in the Permanent Defence Forces) are not free to express their opinions to superiors in their personal life. Legally, saying they cannot call anyone anything they want is a fallacy.

They do not enjoy the same freedoms as the ordinary citizen, as the rigour of military discipline would not allow for it. This is not limited to the Irish Defence Forces, but is pretty much in line with how the rest of the Western militaries operate.

Avgas

But one of the odd things for me to come out of the whole saga was the meeting where the disputed incident took place was held with no witnesses...just the OC and the Cmmdt. I think the rationale is to protect the privacy of the officer, especially if its bad, and I suppose reinforce the relationship the superior has with the junior officer......but if that relationship is bad.....maybe having a witness would

(a) be wise
(b) cool things down a bit and make people think twice about what they say.

My question is...what do other armies do? In the BA or US Army (or Air Force/RAF for that matter) do they have an equivalent annual appraisal and scoring....and is it held in private....?

Also should annual evaluations be private....why make them semi-public perhaps in some modified format...?

SuperInfinity

Donny5 wrote: »

Officers in the Defence Forces are always subject to military law, and can never engage in conduct contrary to good military discipline. Although it's not the case here, as the Commandant was in uniform and at work when he made the comments, officers (and enlisted personnel in the Permanent Defence Forces) are not free to express their opinions to superiors in their personal life. Legally, saying they cannot call anyone anything they want is a fallacy.

They do not enjoy the same freedoms as the ordinary citizen, as the rigour of military discipline would not allow for it. This is not limited to the Irish Defence Forces, but is pretty much in line with how the rest of the Western militaries operate.

That doesn't sound very fair to me: more like a method of control and instilling fear in troops as well as a general superiority complex. Only in a time of war might that make sense. At the end of the day, it's probably the people like him who would be one of the last to dessert in a time of actual war.

I mean the man was a brave and honourable soldier, he was upset at this decision by someone probably decades younger than him, who he probably disapproved of. He just let his tongue get the better of him ONCE. He didn't even use foul language (IMO "prick" is just slang, not foul language).

I think it's a terrible shame. When we see what the soldiers of other armies get up to when they're actually deployed.... you think they can somehow weed out those soldiers by picking out the ones who are probably really calling it as it is? Are they really being "rigorous" or just extremely petty and self-righteous?

Donny5

SuperInfinity wrote: »

That doesn't sound very fair to me: more like a method of control and instilling fear in troops as well as a general superiority complex. Only in a time of war might that make sense. At the end of the day, it's probably the people like him who would be one of the last to dessert in a time of actual war.

I mean the man was a brave and honourable soldier, he was upset at this decision by someone probably decades younger than him, who he probably disapproved of. He just let his tongue get the better of him ONCE. He didn't even use foul language (IMO "prick" is just slang, not foul language).

I think it's a terrible shame. When we see what the soldiers of other armies get up to when they're actually deployed.... you think they can somehow weed out those soldiers by picking out the ones who are probably really calling it as it is? Are they really being "rigorous" or just extremely petty and self-righteous?

I don't know either parties or the full story, so I won't comment. In my experience, for what it's worth, military discipline has been both extremely rigourous and extremely fair.

You would have to speak to others about standards in foreign armies for any depth. There are quite a few boards members who post in this forum who who be better qualified to answer those questions.

Poccington

Donny5 wrote: »

I don't know either parties or the full story, so I won't comment. In my experience, for what it's worth, military discipline has been both extremely rigourous and extremely fair.

Extremely fair? Not a chance. What's fair about your superior being able to turn around to a court martial and say "That man called me a prick", with no witnesses to the alleged incident and you end up out of a job? Military "discipline" is far from fair.

It's fairly obvious that the comment was merely a culmination of bad blood between both parties. The fact that the officer is being discharged and was facing 12 months prison time is just plain outrageous.

A charge brought forward, no witnesses to the actual incident and someone loses their job? Try that in any other workplace and see what happens.

The fact that his stress related illness, the number of times he has redressed something was brought up in the court shows that the court martial was nothing more than a witch hunt. That information had no place in a court martial that was focused on a completely different incident and charge.

Disgraceful carry on and shows just how easily power can be abused.

This is all just my opinion of course.

gizmo555

Poccington wrote: »

Extremely fair? Not a chance. What's fair about your superior being able to turn around to a court martial and say "That man called me a prick", with no witnesses to the alleged incident and you end up out of a job? Military "discipline" is far from fair.

According to the press report, "Comdt Donohoe . . . claimed that he used the expression 'this is a little prickly'."

Have to admit I laughed out loud at what seemed to me the lamest excuse since Bart Simpson.

Same report says:

The judge agreed to a defence application to have 11 outstanding charges against Comdt Donohoe heard as five separate trials and put the matter back for mention on June 29th.

Poor fellow's troubles aren't over yet . . .

Local-womanizer

Poccington wrote: »

Extremely fair? Not a chance. What's fair about your superior being able to turn around to a court martial and say "That man called me a prick", with no witnesses to the alleged incident and you end up out of a job? Military "discipline" is far from fair.

It's fairly obvious that the comment was merely a culmination of bad blood between both parties. The fact that the officer is being discharged and was facing 12 months prison time is just plain outrageous.

A charge brought forward, no witnesses to the actual incident and someone loses their job? Try that in any other workplace and see what happens.

The fact that his stress related illness, the number of times he has redressed something was brought up in the court shows that the court martial was nothing more than a witch hunt. That information had no place in a court martial that was focused on a completely different incident and charge.

Disgraceful carry on and shows just how easily power can be abused.

This is all just my opinion of course.

Sure it wont be the first time the DF have failed to follow any fair procedures in cases against their members,and it would'ent surprise me in the least when he appeals that the civilian judge will reverse the judgment.

Sure there is a case on-going up here involving a contract renewal,or rather lack of it. Its been pointed out that the lack of renewal is a result of a previous case involving said member in which the DF and DOD were severely lambasted for lack of any fair procedure.

Zambia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I mean the man was a brave and honourable soldier, he was upset at this decision by someone probably decades younger than him, who he probably disapproved of. He just let his tongue get the better of him ONCE. He didn't even use foul language (IMO "prick" is just slang, not foul language).

Calling someone a prick is foul language. Don't even try that excuse out for size.

Delancey

Zambia232 wrote: »

Calling someone a prick is foul language. Don't even try that excuse out for size.

Clearly a Freudian influence here

Zambia

delancey42 wrote: »

Clearly a Freudian influence here

You could be on to something the term was little prick

rightwingdub

Zambia232 wrote: »

Calling someone a prick is foul language. Don't even try that excuse out for size.

It is foul language I agree but sometimes you have to stand up for yourself using unprofessional language:D

I've done it before in a previous job to an obnoxious boss and she never picked on me again, I called her a knacker and a filthy piece of "white trash".

globemaster1986

From all I've read of this case it seems the guys has form as a whinger. Was on "sick leave" for the majority of the previous year and called his CO "a little prick" when told his performance was "unsatisfactory" in a performance review. He was looking for a promotion and wasn't going to get it so he was p*ssed off, his own fault. I mean working 70 odd days in the year what did he expect? And if his "illness" was stress related is a promotion with, one can only assume, more responsibility really a realistic expectation? He is an experienced officer and knows well the discipline involved in the DF. Got what he deserved if you ask me, the gulag would have been harsh but after an incident like that he had to be dismissed! Just my opinion....

globemaster1986

rightwingdub wrote: »

It is foul language I agree but sometimes you have to stand up for yourself using unprofessional language:D

I've done it before in a previous job to an obnoxious boss and she never picked on me again, I called her a knacker and a filthy piece of "white trash".

Nice! I'll try it on my boss:D

SuperInfinity

You know what might have happened? He might indeed have said that it was "a little prickly", but emphasizing the "little prick" part of it. So technically he didn't say it, he said "a little prickly", with the suspected intent of placing the "little prick" on the officer. Either way, it's was ridiculously over the top anyway.

Nobody is suggesting that soldiers should be allowed to routinely curse at superior officers or each other when in an official capacity. We know that the Defence Forces is big into "disciplined soldiers" and all that, we know that they're strict. Being suspended for two weeks over cursing would be strict. There's going to be no outbreak of cursing and swearing tomorrow in the DF tomorrow if you are instead "only" suspended for two weeks over it. :rolleyes:

I also don't see why it should make a difference whether it's to his "superior officer" or to his peers or to one of his "inferior" soldiers. As long as it's in an official capacity he shouldn't curse, it doesn't matter how high up the person is. Certainly you would feel more scared if you let out a curse at a higher up officer, but that shouldn't be their story, their story should be that it's the same punishment no matter who you curse to. I just don't see where the pettiness comes in, how it could be allowed to get so out of control and what they're trying to "prove". It's bizarre.

SuperInfinity

I also don't understand how the court martial can say that his previous 25+ years of good service made it "all the more reprehensible".

That couldn't make it all the more reprehensible, that doesn't make any sense. People are allowed to show evidence of their good previous character in cases like these, that's a well-established tenet of how court works. The judge could take that into account or else disregard it as being irrelevant, but I've never heard of a judge using a person's previous good character and good service AGAINST him. I think the court martial/judge is bang out of order.

Examiner wrote:

But Judge McCourt said the fact that Comdt Donohue had 28 years’ service made the offence "all the more reprehensible".

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/air-corps-officer-dismissed-over-comments-to-superior-121270.html

A previous good character and good reputation helps you sometimes, then other times when the judge feels like it he said it makes your offence all the worse? Is that not a load of ****e?

I don't really like the concept of using "previous good character" as evidence in courts most of the time, but if he had the previous good character, behaviour and reputation surely it can't be used against him....?

Craigsy

Perhaps a case of he should have known better

Zambia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You know what might have happened? He might indeed have said that it was "a little prickly", but emphasizing the "little prick" part of it. So technically he didn't say it, he said "a little prickly", with the suspected intent of placing the "little prick" on the officer. Either way, it's was ridiculously over the top anyway.

Nobody is suggesting that soldiers should be allowed to routinely curse at superior officers or each other when in an official capacity. We know that the Defence Forces is big into "disciplined soldiers" and all that, we know that they're strict. Being suspended for two weeks over cursing would be strict. There's going to be no outbreak of cursing and swearing tomorrow in the DF tomorrow if you are instead "only" suspended for two weeks over it. :rolleyes:

I also don't see why it should make a difference whether it's to his "superior officer" or to his peers or to one of his "inferior" soldiers. As long as it's in an official capacity he shouldn't curse, it doesn't matter how high up the person is. Certainly you would feel more scared if you let out a curse at a higher up officer, but that shouldn't be their story, their story should be that it's the same punishment no matter who you curse to. I just don't see where the pettiness comes in, how it could be allowed to get so out of control and what they're trying to "prove". It's bizarre.

In the first case saying little prick as you described is the act of a 12 yr old. So I would still can his ass.

As an officer he should know full frontal assaults can end badly.

Craigsy said it best, he should have known