March the guilty b*stard in!

[Armymedic]

Hell take away black humour, or comments that would not pass the "Globe and Mail test", and you muzzle the primary way we medics in the CF deal with some of the crap we deal with...Black humour is the most effective way to vocalize things that are not only unspeakable, but unforgetable too.

Here is a saying, slightly newer then March in th Guilty Bastard, but no less true....

Common sense isn't that common.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Ghost, your very comment is an old Army gag.

In the South Alberta Regiment history, it is quoted (as said by WW II Canadian soldiers) as "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have signed up."  Very often said when someone had just gone through a life-threatening experience.

"They told us that the verges were cleared of mines;  - I pulled my carrier over and lost a track to an S-Mine.  What gives?"

"If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have signed up!"

Today it has evolved to become "Fuck him if he can't take a joke."  Can refer to someone in a desperate situation or even, gravely injured or even in rare cases, killed.

Hard to explain without sounding crass, but it is one of those things I suspect "you had to be there" in order to appreciate or understand.

"The OC wants loc-tite on the retaining screws on all our helmet liners.  He was jumping down from a Leopard and his helmet liner gave way; just about went under the tracks when his helmet fell in front of his face.  Now he wants the weapons tech to go over the entire company's helmets to make sure their retaining screws are secure."

"That'll take all weekend!  Fuck him if he can't take a joke!"

In all cases, the use of the expression doesn't imply a deliberate prank or gag, but is an attempt to laugh off a bad experience, serious or otherwise, usually one beyond the control of the person undergoing the experience.

 

[1feral1]

If you get offended by the phrase " march the guilty bastard in " you need to find a new line of work. Take the nearest exit off the pretentiousness highway.   Its just humour....get a life !!

WARNING, this post in this thread is a PC Free Zone fore the next few paragraphs. For those to limp wristed to handle it, quicky 'refresh' and move on.

I agree. Its all tongue in cheek stuff (and as old as the hills), and if anyone has a problem with that phrase, time to take a long look at yourself in the mirror, and consider McDonalds or maybe a florist (or better yet, how about a part time job with your local MP) for employment. If anyone is ever so fragile when it comes to 'that phrase', they got a problem.

To be honest, I find it really hard to phathom how anyone could take this differently.

BTW, once upon a time in 1983,   :warstory: I was a guilty bastard (for speaking to a civilian in a derogatory manner), and I was marched in   :warstory:, and I did pay the piper for my youthful stupidity.

I was asked how I plead, and I said 'guilty with an explanation Sir', and after I explained myself, after a good verbal spanking from the CO, I was let off with a warning. It pays to be honest, direct, and upfront.

That 'phrase' must be a Commonwealth thing, because it's quite commonly used here in Australia too, with the same humourous effect, and after serving almost 30 yrs in two armies, this is a first for me to see someone actually get offfended by it.   Bloody hell, get a life!

Cheers,

Wes

 

[TCBF]

Ach, George, this Canada is no stocked with REAL men no more.  I now deploy to safeguard GIRLYMEN, who should be denied use of their wee (and I do mean friggin WEE) willies out o' principle ALONE.  It makes me wan't to HURL.  Now, the 'Ghan had MEN walking around.  I should retire and set up a factory in Kandahar (I miss the place oh so dearly) WAVT (with a view to: thrown in for all you staff wienies)  dying all their shalwar-kameez (or whatever) tartan patterns.  Yes! Tartans for the Afghans!  Proper dress for the Dust Highlanders!  REAL men.  Not the ComSymp, sappy, cloying, spineless proto-jellyfish with a shotglass of quiche in one hand and a wee two tine fork in the other, we have slouching about today. 

I keep looking at the pictures I took of the Canadian graves at Dieppe, Vimy, etc, wondering if I can see the vibrations of 100,000 dead men rolling in their graves!

I miss the cold war "Kill a Commie for Christ" and all that.  Oh well, we lost.

"The old days are dead, the old men are dying, and the young men do not know what it means to be free."  - Gabriel Dumont 1885.

Tom

Tom

 

[RetiredRoyal]

"March the guilty b*stard in!" is usually followed by "Before I pronounce sentence, how do you plead?"

 

[fbr2o75]

"March the guilty b*stard in!" is usually followed by "Before I pronounce sentence, how do you plead?"

Just hearing those phrases brings back good memories!! I was always on the recieiiving end tho. I was picked once for escort duty for an Orders Parade, when I showed up the RSM told me to leave, didn't want to confuse the old man.

 

[josh]

"The nice part was we got to go to DQ for a blizzard! I had one with Oreo's in it! Tasty."

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=2031

Ah yes, the new Canadian Forces today .......... ;D

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

The phrase, â ?March the guilty ******* in.â ? reflects not just black humour but also an important principle (which I hope still exists) in military law: an officer empowered to award punishment (a command officer or a delegated officer â “ usually a company commander) is (was, anyway) required to investigate a charge before it was brought to trial.   

This is not true, a presiding officer is not to be involved with the investigation of a charge in any manner lest the trial be tainted and violate the members charter right to a fair trial. That said I have used and still use the phrase march in the guilty bastard, and the hatless dance. Keeping in mind that all summary tribunals are conducted IOT maintain good order and discipline, that is the reason the military justice system exists, the more serious stuff ie Sec 130 is best left for a court martial or the Civil court system to handle

 

[tank recce]

Just hearing those phrases brings back good memories!! I was always on the recieiiving end tho. I was picked once for escort duty for an Orders Parade, when I showed up the RSM told me to leave, didn't want to confuse the old man.

There was one year, rather a while back, that this buddy and I seemed to be regulars in front of the OC. Never a charge, just a good snarling at.

"Why are you two in front of me again?!" "It's Tuesday, sir..."  ;D

 

[GUNS]

Been there,done that,heard that. If you are up before the man, your punishment has been decided on and your guilty.

Also was up on charges but never got to see the man. The investigation determinded that I was not at fault.

In my days(60's,70's) you usually knew your punishment before going up to see the man and could plan for it.

Still love that phrase.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

I've done the hatless dance a few times myself, sometimes it is most definately better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't (not to mention reduced powers of punishment)

 

[geo]

Heh,.... the good old days - before I left the unit

 

[Blackadder1916]

This is not true, a presiding officer is not to be involved with the investigation of a charge in any manner lest the trial be tainted and violate the members charter right to a fair trial. That said I have used and still use the phrase march in the guilty *******, and the hatless dance. Keeping in mind that all summary tribunals are conducted IOT maintain good order and discipline, that is the reason the military justice system exists, the more serious stuff ie Sec 130 is best left for a court martial or the Civil court system to handle

Some things have changed (and not always for the better).  E.R.C. was correct when he said "an officer empowered to award punishment (a command officer or a delegated officer (usually a company commander) is (was, anyway) required to investigate a charge before it was brought to trial".  Not sure exactly when , but if I recall correctly the changes started sometime around the mid 90s.  Prior to that (IMO only) the goal of a summary trial was to ascertain the 'facts' of a case.  Having then determined the facts (something sometimes different than the evidence) the CO (or delegated officer) could then deal with it summarily.

From my collection of old mil pubs.  Extracts From Manual of Military Law 1929 - Reprinted for use in the Canadian Army 1941

Ch. IV  (ii) .. Investigation by Commanding Officer
19.  The object of the report referred to in para. 18 is to enable the commanding officer of the accused, without delay, to institute an investigation of the case.  There is some difference in the procedure in the case of an officer and in that of a soldier.
20.  The case of an officer may be referred to a court of inquiry, and need not, unless the officer requires it, be formally investigated before his commanding officer; but the commanding officer, in the case of an officer as well as a soldier, is by s. 46 of the Army Act made responsible for dismissing the charge, if it ought not to be proceeded with; and, if it ought to be proceeded with, for taking the proper steps under that section.
21. A case of a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or private soldier should in the first instance be investigated by the company, &c., commander.  Where the accused is a private, this officer, if he decides that the case is a minor offence or a case of drunkenness, or of absence without leave, with which he can deal under the powers delegated to him under s. 46 (9) of the Army Act and the Kings Regulations, will either dispose of the case himself or leave it to his commanding officer to deal with.  The case of a non-commissioned officer must always be left to dealt with by the commanding officer, except where the company, etc., commander has power to admonish or reprimand (but not severely reprimand) a non-commissioned officer not above the rank of corporal.  A case left to be dealt with by a commanding officer must be investigated by the commanding officer himself. He can dismiss the charge; remand the case for trial by court-martial; refer it to superior military authority; or in the case of a private soldier, award punishment summarily, ........
22.  The duty of investigation requires deliberation, and the exercise of of temper and judgment, in the interest alike of discipline and of justice to the accused.  The investigation usually takes place in the morning, and must be conducted in the presence of the accused; but, in the case of drunkenness, an offender should never be brought up until he is sober.

25.  During the investigation, the officer conducting it must be careful not to let fall, before he disposed of the case, any expression of opinion as to the guilt of the accused, or one which might prejudice him at a subsequent trial.  It frequently happens that officers who have been present at the inveatigation are detailed as members of the court convened in consequence of it;  therefore nothing should be said or done which might, though unconsciously, bias their judment beforehand. Conduct sheets should be examined by the commanding officer when, and not before, he has satisfied himself as to the guilt of the accused.

Now it appears that the system requires commanding/delegated officers to be completely impartial (like a magistate) and to take into account only the rights of the individual (and the letter of the law), rather than the rights of the individual with the need to maintain discipline in his unit.  Presiding officers now need to be certified (take a course) before they can hold summary trials.

A summary conviction on your conduct sheet now seems to be a greater concern than it was decades ago.  I recall a CSM telling me the first time I did the hatless dance (about 30 years ago) that he didn't trust any NCO who hadn't spent at least one night in the digger so I shouldn't worry about being awarded seven days extra duty.  He also bemoaned the changes he noticed in soldiers of that time and that there was nothing wrong with a soldier's tendency to get into "harmless" trouble; but they should grow out of it by the time they were ready for promotion.

 

[fbr2o75]

There was one year, rather a while back, that this buddy and I seemed to be regulars in front of the OC. Never a charge, just a good snarling at.

"Why are you two in front of me again?!" "It's Tuesday, sir..."  ;D

Back iin the late 70"s I was on course in Borden, after coming out of the school commanders office "again" the CSM at the time Billy Buckles if i remember correctly, made the comment that me and the ol' man must be personal f%^*&^ freinds. Me being the young niave Pte was stupid enough to ask why. His comment was " Soldiers get posted to this base for 3 years the only time they get to se the Ol' Man is on parade, you have been here five weeks and have been in his office three f%$%^$% times,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you must be his best f%^%&^^%&^ freind! Needless to say I straightnened up after that.