The Student Room Group

HMS Astute Shooting

In the news at the moment is that there was a shooting of some sort aboard the nuclear submarine HMS Astute.

Got me thinking "I wonder what the living conditions are like on board a submarine". Must be pretty awful and if it emerges the the murderer is suffering from PTSD it would not surprise me. Apparently though this rating hadn't been in Afghanistan or Iraq which suggests there was some other reason for his firing upon his own people.

The forces do so much for our country but we only ever hear about it if they've screwed up or if someone has died. 'Tis a great shame. What's everyonelse's thoughts on this tragedy? Does this surprise you / do we do enough for our forces? Should we be more military friendly like the US?
Reply 1
Sounds like the guy just cracked. Life on a submarine can't be a picnic but surely it could not be bad enough to make you want to kill people?

Very odd. Wonder why he did it
Original post by Aj12
Sounds like the guy just cracked. Life on a submarine can't be a picnic but surely it could not be bad enough to make you want to kill people?

Very odd. Wonder why he did it


I can't imagine being told that you have to spend another month or two under the sea in claustrophobic conditions after being denied leave and just finishing a tour is going to have a good effect on anyone.
Reply 3
Very sad news. Astute's having a very bad time - hopefully she can shake her bad luck soon.


Original post by Aphotic Cosmos
I can't imagine being told that you have to spend another month or two under the sea in claustrophobic conditions after being denied leave and just finishing a tour is going to have a good effect on anyone.


They hadn't just finished a tour - they'd been at sea for six weeks (the longest Astute's ever been at sea), and patrols can last anything up to six months. He was hardly suffering excessive hardship. If he can't take a joke he shouldn't have joined.
Reply 4
Original post by CurlyBen
Very sad news. Astute's having a very bad time - hopefully she can shake her bad luck soon.




They hadn't just finished a tour - they'd been at sea for six weeks (the longest Astute's ever been at sea), and patrols can last anything up to six months. He was hardly suffering excessive hardship. If he can't take a joke he shouldn't have joined.


To be fair though six weeks with less than 90m to play with underwater isn't exactly my idea of fun!
Reply 5
Original post by fascination
To be fair though six weeks with less than 90m to play with underwater isn't exactly my idea of fun!


No, but then hopefully you're not planning to join the submarine service. He's not exactly had a hard time of it - Astute's relatively luxurious for a sub, they've not been at sea for a particularly long period of time, they've not been deployed... many thousands of submariners have endured a hell of a lot more without feeling the need to start shooting onboard their own boat. If he'd been that desperate to get off the boat a couple of unaimed rounds let loose would have seen him placed under arrest, he didn't need to kill to get off.
Reply 6
No matter how well you try to screen for people like this some will always get through.

People aren't perfect, **** happens.
Reply 7
Here's more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13029539.
Isn't this a case of mutiny? Or at least a matter for naval discipline (a court martial), considering they were on active service? So why is it being handled by the crown prosecution service?
And how did he manage to get a gun onto a nuclear submarine? I didn't even think that was allowed (and security should have been far too tight to sneak it in). Any guns on the submarine should at least be safely locked away with only the captain and perhaps other senior officers having access. Is this a failure of security, or one of policy?
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by rmanoj
Here's more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13029539.
Isn't this a case of mutiny? Or at least a matter for naval discipline (a court martial), considering they were on active service? So why is it being handled by the crown prosecution service?
And how did he manage to get a gun onto a nuclear submarine? I didn't even think that was allowed (and security should have been far too tight to sneak it in). Any guns on the submarine should at least be safely locked away with only the captain and perhaps other senior officers having access. Is this a failure of security, or one of policy?


The sentries on the gangway are armed with SA80 rifles (they're also used for boarding operations, though those aren't really common from subs) - that's why it was onboard. They're not just there to be taken when you like though - the murderer was about to go on sentry duty and that's why he had it (it was issued to him). For what it's worth, officers and particularly the captain are pretty much the last people likely to carry weapons.
As for why it's not being dealt with by court martial, it's such a serious incident that civvy police are better equipped to deal with it and handling it at a court martial wouldn't give much benefit. Also I think it would only be a mutiny if he'd disobeyed a direct and lawful order.
Reply 9
Original post by CurlyBen
The sentries on the gangway are armed with SA80 rifles (they're also used for boarding operations, though those aren't really common from subs) - that's why it was onboard. They're not just there to be taken when you like though - the murderer was about to go on sentry duty and that's why he had it (it was issued to him). For what it's worth, officers and particularly the captain are pretty much the last people likely to carry weapons.
As for why it's not being dealt with by court martial, it's such a serious incident that civvy police are better equipped to deal with it and handling it at a court martial wouldn't give much benefit. Also I think it would only be a mutiny if he'd disobeyed a direct and lawful order.


Ah, fair enough. It probably doesn't come under mutiny, but I think it is still a matter that should be handled internally - attacking your superior officers whilst on active service is surely not an issue for civilian justice (he's going to be appearing at Winchester Crown Court).
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 10
Original post by rmanoj
Ah, fair enough. It probably doesn't come under mutiny, but I think it is still a matter that should be handled internally - attacking your superior officers whilst on active service is surely not an issue for civilian justice (he's going to be appearing at Winchester Crown Court).


Have a look at this info bowt military law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_against_military_law_in_the_United_Kingdom
Reply 11


Thanks. So the closest military offence is "Misconduct towards a superior officer"? That seems to be a bit of an oversight, but fair enough. I guess this must just come under "criminal conduct" then?
Reply 12
Well criminal charges from the civilian world such as murder can laid against servicemen but they are investigated by civilian police due to the resources available to them. Plus it adds that extra security of there being no bias.
If found guilty he will be dismissed with disgrace
Reply 13
Original post by fascination
Well criminal charges from the civilian world such as murder can laid against servicemen but they are investigated by civilian police due to the resources available to them. Plus it adds that extra security of there being no bias.
If found guilty he will be dismissed with disgrace


You can pretty much guarantee he'll be dismissed from the service regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings.

In cases of murder the civilian police always hold precedence over affairs, hence why they were brought in for the Deepcut investigations.


As for whether it was a failure of policy...? No, just a guy with problems. If you've got a guy who you've punished for whatever reason and denied him shoreleave, the best thing you can do as a leader is then to entrust him with an important task - prove to him that he's still a valued member of the crew and needed on board. Whatever went wrong in this case was in the guy's head.

Sad day, that boat's getting a reputation and the fish-heads are a superstitious lot.
Reply 14


Annoyance by flying Flying an aircraft so as to annoy any person

How does one annoy another by flying?

Lot of life sentences on there would not want to be on the wrong side of military justice
Reply 15
Original post by Aj12
Annoyance by flying Flying an aircraft so as to annoy any person

How does one annoy another by flying?

Lot of life sentences on there would not want to be on the wrong side of military justice


Low flying. There have been so many claims against the MoD for low flying, both in and out of registered low flying zones, stereotypically from horse owners who can't judge height to save their lives.

Quick Reply

Latest