Navy's drinking culture must stop, submarine shooting inquest rules

Gillian Molyneux speaking after the inquest

Lieutenant commander Ian Molyneux and his wife Gillian

Captain Phil Buckley speaking after the inquest

Ryan Donovan

First published in Shipping Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Education Reporter

THE Royal Navy's culture of heavy drinking must stop, if the scenes like the fatal shooting of a senior officer on a submarine in Southampton are to never be repeated, an inquest found today.

As part of a narrative verdict, cornoner Keith Wiseman said that the culture of heavy drinking in the Royal Navy must stop if events like the tragic shooting of an officer onboard the nuclear submarine are to be avoided in trhe future.

Mr Wiseman called for the rules to be changed to prevent any sailior drinking within 24 hours of going on duty.

He said he was entirely satisifed that able seaman Ryan Donovan was "drunk" when he began firing his SA80 rife, killing Lt Cmdr Ian Molyneux, in April 2011.

The cornoer also said he believed there should be mandatory tests for the presence of alchol rather than the sysmte that was in place at the time by which senior officers had to judge whether someone was fit for duty.

The inquest into Lieutenant Commander Ian Molyneux's death on board HMS Astute that Donovan had been drinking heavily in the 48 hours before he went on his shooting spree.

The hearing has previously heard he had drunk 20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle.

Police investigating the murder were so concerned about binge drinking by the crew while ashore, that the senior officer wrote to his chief constable to highlight the issue and it was passed to military authorities.

The Royal Navy has since tightened its rules on alcohol consumption before duty.

Donovan had also told colleagues he intended to shoot someone.

Father-of-four Lt Cdr Molyneux, 36, was shot in the head at point blank range as he attempted to confront Donovan, after he began firing his semi-automatic SA80 rifle.

He died at the scene from his injuries.

Donovan, who was 22 at the time of the incident, is currently serving a life sentence for murder and attempted murder, after admitting carrying out the shooting.

The navigator yeoman also pleaded guilty to attempting to murder Lieutenant Commander Christopher Hodge, 45, who was shot in the stomach.

The court heard that his real targets, whom he also admitted to attempting to murder, were Petty Officer Christopher Brown, 36, and Chief Petty Officer David McCoy, 37.

Southampton coroner Keith Wiseman told the end of the inquest into the death of Lieutenant Commander Ian Molyneux that he would write to the Navy with 18 areas it should look at.

He said it was ''a miracle'' no-one else had died during the gun rampage during a civic visit by Southampton's mayor and also schoolchildren who had just left when Donovan started firing.

He said he would incorporate recommendations from Lt Cdr Molyneux's widow Gillian, which included the random crew breath testing, the use of a breathalyser for all those going on armed sentry duty, a look at alcohol allowances while onboard ships and, in particular, on submarines, work to tackle the culture of binge drinking in the navy and the issuing of handheld breath testing devices to all personnel.

Recording a narrative verdict, the coroner said the officer was unlawfully killed and he will now write to the Navy citing the issues under what is called a Rule 43 letter.

''Random testing has some value. Anyone being drunk, or anywhere near drunk, on duty has, in my view, got to stop.

''It is an unfair responsibility to be given to someone carrying out little more than a spot check. In my view the routine use of the appropriate machinery to at least establish the absence of alcohol in the system is necessary as I'm not convinced that the concept of heavy drinking on leave periods is likely to alter very much.

''On an intense personal note this criminal action has left one family bereaved in the most appalling circumstances.''

 

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:25pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Bagamn says...

Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible. Bagamn
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Niel says...

Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
Considering the amount drunk by skate's in smuff, the fights and all the rest of their antics whilst 3 sheets he's probably right, the drinking culture needs addressing.

The same can be said of the Merchant Navy, where officers and ratings can and are breath tested, and there is a strict no-alcohol rule on ship whilst at sea or 'on-duty'. Ashore they 'enjoy' their booze too much to... Unlike the R.N. however they'll loose their job if unfit through drink on returning to ship.

Though with P&O Captians like Mi**er treating crew members **** it's not surprising they seek refuge in a bottle, just like skate.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]Considering the amount drunk by skate's in smuff, the fights and all the rest of their antics whilst 3 sheets he's probably right, the drinking culture needs addressing. The same can be said of the Merchant Navy, where officers and ratings can and are breath tested, and there is a strict no-alcohol rule on ship whilst at sea or 'on-duty'. Ashore they 'enjoy' their booze too much to... Unlike the R.N. however they'll loose their job if unfit through drink on returning to ship. Though with P&O Captians like Mi**er treating crew members **** it's not surprising they seek refuge in a bottle, just like skate. Niel
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Mon 14 Jan 13

southy says...

Niel wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
Considering the amount drunk by skate's in smuff, the fights and all the rest of their antics whilst 3 sheets he's probably right, the drinking culture needs addressing.

The same can be said of the Merchant Navy, where officers and ratings can and are breath tested, and there is a strict no-alcohol rule on ship whilst at sea or 'on-duty'. Ashore they 'enjoy' their booze too much to... Unlike the R.N. however they'll loose their job if unfit through drink on returning to ship.

Though with P&O Captians like Mi**er treating crew members **** it's not surprising they seek refuge in a bottle, just like skate.
What about the rest of the arm forces, they are just as bad in there drinking habits
[quote][p][bold]Niel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]Considering the amount drunk by skate's in smuff, the fights and all the rest of their antics whilst 3 sheets he's probably right, the drinking culture needs addressing. The same can be said of the Merchant Navy, where officers and ratings can and are breath tested, and there is a strict no-alcohol rule on ship whilst at sea or 'on-duty'. Ashore they 'enjoy' their booze too much to... Unlike the R.N. however they'll loose their job if unfit through drink on returning to ship. Though with P&O Captians like Mi**er treating crew members **** it's not surprising they seek refuge in a bottle, just like skate.[/p][/quote]What about the rest of the arm forces, they are just as bad in there drinking habits southy
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
I agree with you Bagamn.

One bad apple, and the coroner goes overboard.

However, I do think that before a rating is entrusted with a loaded rifle, he should be checked by a responsible officer, and this should take place when another rating takes over guard duty.

Mr Wiseman did not live up to his name when he stated that the rules should be changed to prevent any sailor drinking within 24 hours of going on duty.

As soon as a sailor returns onboard, he is considered to be 'on duty.'

If Mr Wiseman thinks that Royal Naval ships are going to be manned by sailors who have 'signed the pledge', he should think again.

This was a tragedy that should not be repeated, but the preventative measures suggested are way over the top.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]I agree with you Bagamn. One bad apple, and the coroner goes overboard. However, I do think that before a rating is entrusted with a loaded rifle, he should be checked by a responsible officer, and this should take place when another rating takes over guard duty. Mr Wiseman did not live up to his name when he stated that the rules should be changed to prevent any sailor drinking within 24 hours of going on duty. As soon as a sailor returns onboard, he is considered to be 'on duty.' If Mr Wiseman thinks that Royal Naval ships are going to be manned by sailors who have 'signed the pledge', he should think again. This was a tragedy that should not be repeated, but the preventative measures suggested are way over the top. Linesman
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Mon 14 Jan 13

george h says...

Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
It fits a pattern all too common in modern life.

One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them.

Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form.

At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns.

Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]It fits a pattern all too common in modern life. One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them. Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form. At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns. Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better. george h
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Mon 14 Jan 13

TimTam says...

Cannot hold his drink! According to the report he drank "20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle". It would be humanly impossible for anyone to hold that amount of drink and be fit for duty in any work situation, let alone while on a nuclear submarine moored in the centre of Southampton.
Cannot hold his drink! According to the report he drank "20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle". It would be humanly impossible for anyone to hold that amount of drink and be fit for duty in any work situation, let alone while on a nuclear submarine moored in the centre of Southampton. TimTam
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Mon 14 Jan 13

george h says...

TimTam wrote:
Cannot hold his drink! According to the report he drank "20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle". It would be humanly impossible for anyone to hold that amount of drink and be fit for duty in any work situation, let alone while on a nuclear submarine moored in the centre of Southampton.
Exactly. An idiot as the first poster correctly described him. And consumed with hatred for two of his shipmates who he planned to murder.

Drink was only an aggravating factor, as it often is. But even stone cold sober that sailor was a ticking time-bomb.

Not the best example on which to base new rules to regulate the majority; who are not ticking time bombs.
[quote][p][bold]TimTam[/bold] wrote: Cannot hold his drink! According to the report he drank "20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle". It would be humanly impossible for anyone to hold that amount of drink and be fit for duty in any work situation, let alone while on a nuclear submarine moored in the centre of Southampton.[/p][/quote]Exactly. An idiot as the first poster correctly described him. And consumed with hatred for two of his shipmates who he planned to murder. Drink was only an aggravating factor, as it often is. But even stone cold sober that sailor was a ticking time-bomb. Not the best example on which to base new rules to regulate the majority; who are not ticking time bombs. george h
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Mon 14 Jan 13

george h says...

TimTam wrote:
Cannot hold his drink! According to the report he drank "20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle". It would be humanly impossible for anyone to hold that amount of drink and be fit for duty in any work situation, let alone while on a nuclear submarine moored in the centre of Southampton.
And not in "the centre of Southampton" either from a brief glance at a map.

38 berth is a far away from the centre of Southampton as it's possible to get, and still be berthed in the docks.
[quote][p][bold]TimTam[/bold] wrote: Cannot hold his drink! According to the report he drank "20 pints of cider and lager, cocktails and double vodkas in the 48 hours before he was put on a guard duty with the SA80 rifle". It would be humanly impossible for anyone to hold that amount of drink and be fit for duty in any work situation, let alone while on a nuclear submarine moored in the centre of Southampton.[/p][/quote]And not in "the centre of Southampton" either from a brief glance at a map. 38 berth is a far away from the centre of Southampton as it's possible to get, and still be berthed in the docks. george h
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then!
Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then!
What difference do you think that would make?

No room for passengers on a submarine.
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then![/p][/quote]What difference do you think that would make? No room for passengers on a submarine. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Georgem says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then!
Are you trying to use up the EU 'negatives' surplus?
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then![/p][/quote]Are you trying to use up the EU 'negatives' surplus? Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Georgem wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then!
Are you trying to use up the EU 'negatives' surplus?
Just because he don't talk like what we does is no excuse for you to confuse the situation.

Whether or not it was the Queen's English, it was 'communication' and I imagine that you understood the gist of the message.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then![/p][/quote]Are you trying to use up the EU 'negatives' surplus?[/p][/quote]Just because he don't talk like what we does is no excuse for you to confuse the situation. Whether or not it was the Queen's English, it was 'communication' and I imagine that you understood the gist of the message. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:19am Tue 15 Jan 13

sarfhamton says...

Motorway and railway workers have random drink and drugs test, so why not sailors?

There is a massive drink culture in many professions and the Navy has one of the worst.

That said this guy had mental health problems and his drinking was only part of the issue.
Motorway and railway workers have random drink and drugs test, so why not sailors? There is a massive drink culture in many professions and the Navy has one of the worst. That said this guy had mental health problems and his drinking was only part of the issue. sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Tue 15 Jan 13

B. L. says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then!
No, not in submarines.

On submarines they are the Coxswains. Hope that clears it up.
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dont this set up have a Master at Arms no more then![/p][/quote]No, not in submarines. On submarines they are the Coxswains. Hope that clears it up. B. L.
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Tue 15 Jan 13

B. L. says...

Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
Totally agree. All my years in boats we never had a problem, and, we knew how to hold our drink. Not saying we were angels but you worked hard and you played hard, and never the twain would meet.

As a piece of information to all the uninformed out there. Under the rules we were allowed to drink at sea, but we had our own code of conduct which we took seriously and abstained from doing so, it's called a sense of responsibility.

Different Navy now I guess, and who in their right mind authorises the issue of a loaded weapon, to a known alcoholic/mentally unstable excuse for someone who should never have been in submarines in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. All my years in boats we never had a problem, and, we knew how to hold our drink. Not saying we were angels but you worked hard and you played hard, and never the twain would meet. As a piece of information to all the uninformed out there. Under the rules we were allowed to drink at sea, but we had our own code of conduct which we took seriously and abstained from doing so, it's called a sense of responsibility. Different Navy now I guess, and who in their right mind authorises the issue of a loaded weapon, to a known alcoholic/mentally unstable excuse for someone who should never have been in submarines in the first place. B. L.
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Tue 15 Jan 13

B. L. says...

george h wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
It fits a pattern all too common in modern life.

One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them.

Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form.

At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns.

Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.
Wouldn't be anywhere near Winchester in the 50s would it ?
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]It fits a pattern all too common in modern life. One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them. Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form. At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns. Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't be anywhere near Winchester in the 50s would it ? B. L.
  • Score: 0

2:15am Wed 16 Jan 13

george h says...

B. L. wrote:
george h wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
It fits a pattern all too common in modern life.

One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them.

Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form.

At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns.

Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.
Wouldn't be anywhere near Winchester in the 50s would it ?
No.
[quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]It fits a pattern all too common in modern life. One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them. Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form. At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns. Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't be anywhere near Winchester in the 50s would it ?[/p][/quote]No. george h
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 16 Jan 13

B. L. says...

george h wrote:
B. L. wrote:
george h wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.
It fits a pattern all too common in modern life.

One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them.

Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form.

At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns.

Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.
Wouldn't be anywhere near Winchester in the 50s would it ?
No.
Then they must be all be about the same because yours has a familiar ring to it. :)
[quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]B. L.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george h[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: Thes comments by the coroner are totally out of order. I am an ex-matelot and becaause one idiot cannot take his drink, there is no need to stigmatise the rest of H.M. Navy. They did away with the rum ration because of the technical controls in the latest ships.The ration of beer ratings are allowed to buy is two cans. This is nothing like the amount consumed by the local populace at week-ends. The comments issued by this man that has never served at sea, are totally wrong and out of order. As a matter of interest, there is no limit to dfrink in the Wardroom of any ship, the Officers are treated as responsible.[/p][/quote]It fits a pattern all too common in modern life. One idiot who cannot hold his drink and all other drinkers are penalized. One undisciplined mentally ill fool with a police licence to own a gun goes berserk, and all other law-abiding shooters are penalized. Including Olympic champion marksmen. One drunk sailor who goes berserk with a gun and the whole Navy has further restrictions put on them. Only one thing is certain. New rules won't prevent another occurrence, possibly in a slightly different form. At grammar school in the 1950s, as a 14 year-old I could and did shoot with Service rifles almost every weekday evenings on a school range. No one shot the bullying Games Master or the bas*ard of a Physics Master. Because we were well trained, well supervised, and knew right from wrong. Yet on a recent visit to the old school, a teacher expressed his shock and horror at the very idea of permitting a pupil to have access to guns. Times certainly have changed; and not all for the better.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't be anywhere near Winchester in the 50s would it ?[/p][/quote]No.[/p][/quote]Then they must be all be about the same because yours has a familiar ring to it. :) B. L.
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Wed 16 Jan 13

TimTam says...

If you really know right from wrong you wouldn't post implied profanities!
If you really know right from wrong you wouldn't post implied profanities! TimTam
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Wed 16 Jan 13

B. L. says...

TimTam wrote:
If you really know right from wrong you wouldn't post implied profanities!
Quite right TimTam, and we are supposed to believe that he went to a grammar school ? Must have missed an awful lot of the curriculum, just shows what he's really like. Don't see any insulting language in my post, but then I did have a proper education.
[quote][p][bold]TimTam[/bold] wrote: If you really know right from wrong you wouldn't post implied profanities![/p][/quote]Quite right TimTam, and we are supposed to believe that he went to a grammar school ? Must have missed an awful lot of the curriculum, just shows what he's really like. Don't see any insulting language in my post, but then I did have a proper education. B. L.
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree