• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF COMBAT UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT

2010newbie

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The labels looked just like all the other CF clothing kit labels, there was the membrane disclaimer, and I believe the description read "Coat Combat - ICE". It also didn't mention "Danger - Imitation CADPAT" on it anywhere.
 

AideMemoire

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Occam said:
If controlled goods were released onto civvie street, then someone broke the regs - therefore there was illegal activity.  Simple as that.  Someone didn't do their job, whether it was the person who was issued CADPAT selling it to a surplus store, or a supply tech selling a bin of stuff to a surplus store, or the person who was supposed to burn a bin of CADPAT clothing diverting it to a surplus store.  Someone broke the law.  There's no legal way for it to find its way onto civvie street.

Again, nice to be able to parcel it all up like that and tie with with a bow -- but mistakes occur, paperwork gets lost, stuff gets put in the wrong bin and it winds up on civvy street buried in a triwall of...DND pillowcases.  In fact, if you take the sheer scale of issue and just start factoring in the law of averages tempered with a bit of Murphy's Law -- you'd be forced to accept that the kit's going to make it out on civvie street.

You're also injecting a lot of...intent...in your reply which just isn't there.  "Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be attributed to stupidity"; i.e., never assume purposeful criminal activity when the background level of general cluelessness (or simple overwork/ understaffed/ overwhelmed) provides all of means, motive and opportunity.  MPs and Various Other Agencies have realized that too, which is why the de facto rule with regard to CADPAT has silently changed to, "not illegal to own - but illegal to very obviously flog on Ebay or in Airsoft forums and force us to do something about it given current written regs." 

So, now picture yourself as the MP having to go around and visit all these surplus dealers who are selling CADPAT to cadets or ravers or whomever else. 

"Where did you get this?" Mr. MP asks.
"Where I usually get it...CADC national sealed bid," answers the proprietor.
"Do you have a receipt?" the intrepid investigator continues.
"Why yes...yes I do...' One lot, scrap textiles, CFB Petawawa, 430 kgs," answers the surplus store owner.

And in that lot there were four triwalls of air force coveralls, one triwall of lingerie'd CF combats, one load of brand new ICES parkas etc. in green, and beneath a stack of fleeces in the remaining three triwalls was more arid and temperate CADPAT than you could shake a stick at.  All 'scrap textiles'. All legally purchased.  Did some ASU bin rat make a huge mistake? Sure. Was it a criminal mistake? Maybe. Was it the surplus store owner's criminal mistake - or perhaps CADC's?  Or ASU's?  Who gets to decide that? 

My scenario there happens several times a year despite best intentions and regulations because someone, somewhere in the supply chain will make a mistake. They have to. They're human. The Law of Averages demands it.

(I know of lots of stuff that got out that very way, though my specific example is a composite of a few of them.)


 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
AideMemoire said:
...

My scenario there happens several times a year despite best intentions and regulations because someone, somewhere in the supply chain will make a mistake. They have to. They're human. The Law of Averages demands it.

(I know of lots of stuff that got out that very way, though my specific example is a composite of a few of them.)

And mistakes are all well and good; that's why they are mistakes. Although, used cadpat "should" have been gone through by at least 3 different desks/sections by the time it "mistakenly" makes its way into a ROS triwall headed out the door via CADC. So still absolutely preventable if processing rule were followed for 100% vetting. Finding "an" item mistakenly in a triwall is one thing - finding a 1/2 triwall of it buried beneath other stuff only means some section somewhere isn't following processing guidelines to certify as that would have "found" that non-authorized stuff hidden below that other stuff. Exactly why they also aren't supposed to mix the triwalls at clothing, or R&D. In short, if those sections followed the procedures put in place, your above should not happen for craploads of items as you are insinuating it does. Now, as for intent, just how does a 1/2 triwall of unauthorized goods therefore become buried beneath other goods that are authorized if proper procedures had been followed at that triwalls 3 stops (clothing counter where return occured & items are first sorted, to clothing warehouse for processing the triwalls and counting to go to R&D, then R&D finally processing, vetting, inspecting and certifying those triwalls as scrap to go CADC)?? I'm curious. Or was someone's "intent" to avoid doing their job properly and save time/effort by simply burying it beneath other stuff?

Curiously too, 99.99% of the stuff that I'm seeing on e-bay doesn't have that big infamous "D" marked on to its label either ... another sign that it has not been through the above proper supply procedures, or, for that matter, through Base Supply at all. If you're getting triwalls of non-authorized items with no "D"s coming out of an R&D somewhere ... then it is a systemic failure to follow proper processing at that location --- not a mere "mistake" and that makes it "officially actionable" as those pers are therefore failing to comply with DND & CTAT disposal regulations.
 

bwatch

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/CANADIAN-CADPAT-GEN-ISSUE-COMBAT-PANTS-7338-NEW-LARG-LO-/390336366259?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae1dc46b3
 

bwatch

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When I left, I was able to keep my Uniform (CF GREEN's)but had to turn in everyting else but when the family home went up in flames, what I had, went with it. Be nice if I could get another set
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have started to see more civilians in my area wearing the combat pants or in one case a complete uniform set minus head dress.  Is there a civilian legal restriction to the wearing of cadpat  ie the combat pants mixed with civilian clothes?  Just checking.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
199
Points
730
There are various items of look-alike clothing available in surplus shops. They are legal to wear.

Personally, I do not care if civilians wear these items, so long as they have fresh haircuts, are cleanly shaven, have shiney boots, all draw strings and buttons are done up, they are not smoking as they shuffle along, and are not wearing any rank or qualification badges or any other insignia that they have not earned, or are attempting to pass themselves off as serving members.

The latter can set them up for Criminal Code charges.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
the cases I am seeing are civilians wearing combat pants for the sake of having"cool" cargo pants.  Are not clean shaven and are decidedly not trying in any way to pass as a serving member.  Just wondering if the cad pat was considered a restricted item still or if any Joe civi can wear now.  Just checking before i walk up to one and ask where they acquired them. The items I have seen are issue. Not look alike.
 

chrisf

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
shikenhaihiramatsu said:
not trying in any way to pass as a serving member

Unshaven civies have been wearing army surplus for years... see attached...

In all seriousness, unless they're trying to pass themselves off as a member of the Canadian forces, and assuming it's not stolen kit, how does it affect you in any way?

Why not enjoy the fact that cadpat is cool... or would you rather long for the days when the average citizen was only vaguely aware we had a military?

Did it look anything like these? http://www.cpgear.com/StoreBox/appa/1010_01.htm because anyone with $60 and desire for relish pants can get their hands on a set from these fine folks.
 

RememberanceDay

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I wear surplus gear on a regular basis. My winter coat? Surplus. Shoes/boots? Surplus. Pants, shirts, etc? Surplus. All my travelling gear (Rucks, duffles)? Surplus. Tent? Surplus. Warm headgear? Surplus. You get the idea. I don't EVER try and pass myself off as a serving member, infact, I've corrected more than one person (I usually wear my hair in a bun regularly, thanks to cadets...) that I am NOT a serving member of the CF, and explain how what I'm wearing, while representing uniforms that the CF may wear, distinctions from it (eg shoulder flashes, uniforms and civis mix-matched, etc.).
 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It does make for good work wear. I've seen plenty of construction types wearing surplus combats, some CADPAT, some in older pattern OD.

 
B

Boxtop22

Guest
My only question would be: Are police officers or civies allowed to wear official CADPAT or CADPAT-like gear as they want.
In the case of police officers, it seems like them wearing this uniform or any piece similar to the uniform, may have a negative impact on how the CAF are perceived by the public.
My true question being: are there any DND or Federal Laws preventing Civies from wearing CADPAT or CADPAT-like piece of uniforms?
If yes: which ones? If no: don't you think we should make sure that trigger happy, half-trained civ. police officers cannot wear our uniform as part of their "strike" apparel as it is the case in Montreal or other major cities in Qc.
 

Alberta Bound

Jr. Member
Reaction score
11
Points
130
Do you have any examples of police services that issue and wear cadpat as duty wear?

As for the half trained trigger happy comment, I will leave that as your assessment based on your extensive military experience.

AB
 

KerryBlue

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Police do not wear CADPAT. RCMP Emergency Response Team  wears Multi-Cam when the situation calls for it. I.e manhunt in a forested area. Most local police ERT teams do not wear camo at any time, sticking with either a gray black scheme or the blue back scheme. The wearing of camo by police officers really has little bearing on how the CAF is perceived rather it has bearing on how the police are perceived.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
135
Points
780
Boxtop22 said:
My true question being: are there any DND or Federal Laws preventing Civies from wearing CADPAT or CADPAT-like piece of uniforms?
If yes: which ones?

The legality of civilians wearing CADPAT is a popular topic of discussion.

Sale of Canadian military uniforms on internet sparks investigation 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/16339.0/nowap.html

Question re: Military Law/Cadpat 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25680.0

Military issued cadpat allowed to be sold to civvies?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/35975.0

Difference between military isue CADPAT uniform and civi CADPAT uniforms 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/107160.0

Army Cadets and CADPAT- The Final Word 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/68738.0

Wearing Cadpat 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/86964.0

Edit to add:

Going hunting.. cadpat?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85882.0

CF issued kit use for civi purposes
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/162.0.html

As well as other threads about wearing CADPAT for paint-balling etc.

Boxtop22 said:
In the case of police officers, it seems like them wearing this uniform or any piece similar to the uniform, may have a negative impact on how the CAF are perceived by the public.

I don't know about out of town, but Toronto ETF Police ( and ETF Paramedics ) wear solid gray. Not likely to be confused with CADPAT.





 
B

Boxtop22

Guest
Sorry for my lack of clarity. I will take back the trigger-happy part of my comment as it is not essential to my argument - I was referring to the fact that Montreal's SPVM has been involved in multiple shootings which resulted in preventable losses of lives.

The example I can provide is the following: The Montreal Police has been on strike for months, and a way for them to express the fact that they're on strike is not to wear their full regular uniform. They will replace their trousers with (most of the time) military trousers  (EROL / MARPAT / CADPAT) etc. I find it odd that individuals (which are technically supposed to represent law and order) are allowed to use cadpat/ or cadpat-like uniform (or part-of) as a way to protest, while it is supposed to be something you must earn and something you respect...

As for the comment regarding my experience, I think it was avoidable. My question does not relate to my experience, and the reason why I am here is to obtain answers from more experienced and knowledgeable individuals, but let us not make that the point of interest and pass on.

 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
2
Points
410
Although not part of the answer to your question, I can find no link between the type of uniform that a Police officer wears and their involvement in shootings.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
80
Points
530
CADPAT like items are available on the civilian market (CP Gear being just one supplier). Quit sweating this and do some research here. There's already past discussions on this subject.
 
B

Boxtop22

Guest
I do not want to draw this conversation towards the trigger happy part. I will attempt to make a final clarification.

My argument is not against all police forces, nor police officers in general. I respect their job and I would assume most of them are respectable individuals doing a very difficult job, in very difficult settings.

The point I failed to emphasize on was the public perception of our local police force. I believe they are perceived in a very negative way, more-so than it would be expected in other cities across Canada. Their excessive use of firearms, which has sometime resulted in preventable deaths has greatly contributed to that reputation of them being "unprofessional" and "trigger-happy" - Recent examples include a bystander who was shot by a constable in 2011, a non-threatening 70 yo suicidal man was shot in the abdomen by another constable, and I personally ended between a constable's sight and her suspect because she had not even attempted to look at her surroundings before drawing her weapon. Was "trigger-happy" the proper term? Maybe not, and if it wasn't I do apologize.

How is this relevant to my point? I firmly believe that this behaviour (among others) has given the Police force a very bad reputation, and when they decide to wear CADPAT/CADPAT-like pieces of uniform, they transpose that perception on the piece of uniform they are wearing (which represents the CAF in the mind of many). I am not simply debating or inquiring about the legality (answers were given to me) but also about how comfortable people feel about that.

Thank you for your answers, and I will quit sweating it, as it is probably becoming too much for nothing.
 
Top