CO of Hal relieved

[Jarnhamar]

[/QUOTE]

Come on! That Island was uncharted! It jumped out of nowhere in front of that ferry!

What are you doing, step-ferry?

 

[Underway]

The ship’s internal daily schedule.

So called, because it ends up being pretty flexible…

I thought it was supposed to stand for Fleet Exercise, but your interpretation has long supplanted that acronym. I don't think people know it as an acronym anymore its been used so much as a label.

What could the man have done that would have him lose his job but isn't criminal? I would think it would have to be something pretty serious.

There are a large number of things that it could be. Financial discrepancies, unreported relationships, non-military civil/criminal investigation, abuse of authority, odd/unusual behavior that raised concerns, inability to perform duties, and other things I can't think of right now.

At the end of the day, a Command appointment is about the trust the Admiral has in that Commanding Officer. Anything that could cause the loss of that trust can be cause for removal of that Command. And since trust is subjective it varies between relationships the reasons for removal vary as well.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Lots of money and resources go into making a Navy Captain (as well as other COs +).

There is an epidemic of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), non-transparency, and covering behavior up in the CAF. The sexual misconduct has cost taxpayers at least $2Billion.

Do tax payers have a right to know why us highly paid government employees would lose our job?

 

[dapaterson]

At least the RCN is announcing; the Army quietly pushes people out without mentioning it.

 

[OldSolduer]

Lots of money and resources go into making a Navy Captain (as well as other COs +).

There is an epidemic of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), non-transparency, and covering behavior up in the CAF. The sexual misconduct has cost taxpayers at least $2Billion.

Do tax payers have a right to know why us highly paid government employees would lose our job?

I think they do.

 

[Ostrozac]

At least the RCN is announcing; the Army quietly pushes people out without mentioning it.

The Army used to officially define its own centre of gravity as “institutional credibility” — many interpret that as doing anything you can to avoid airing dirty laundry in public.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Army used to officially define its own centre of gravity as “institutional credibility” — many interpret that as doing anything you can to avoid airing dirty laundry in public.

Arbour described it nicely:

“The long-established way of doing business in the CAF is anchored in operational imperatives that are often nothing more than assumptions. One of the dangers of the model under which the CAF continues to operate is the high likelihood that some of its members are more at risk of harm, on a day to day basis, from their comrades than from the enemy. This must change.” Canada’s military a ‘broken system’ that’s a ‘liability’ to the country, report finds - National | Globalnews.ca

Which kind of reminded me of this movie:

 

[Underway]

Lots of money and resources go into making a Navy Captain (as well as other COs +).

There is an epidemic of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), non-transparency, and covering behavior up in the CAF. The sexual misconduct has cost taxpayers at least $2Billion.

Do tax payers have a right to know why us highly paid government employees would lose our job?

He hasn't lost a job, he's lost a position. Is that the same thing? There haven't been any charges laid. Until then investigation is ongoing.

In order to do this properly they will need to make another announcement when the investigation reports its findings and if there are any charges/remedial action to follow.

I'm reminded of Cmdr Eric Lehre's situation where everything was done in public once the offences were known.

 

[OldSolduer]

Who wad the submarine captain who was IMO railroaded? 1994 or so?

 

[FSTO]

Who wad the submarine captain who was IMO railroaded? 1994 or so?

Dean Marsaw (sic)
I’m good friends with one of the officers abused. Dean wasn't railroaded.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Dean Marsaw (sic)
I’m good friends with one of the officers abused. Dean wasn't railroaded.

Yah, I think the sick prick was the one doing the railroading.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yah, I think the sick prick was the one doing the railroading.

I see what you did, there…

 

[Good2Golf]

I see what you did, there…

Shhhh, SKT. It’s all about him at the moment…



HB:

 

[OldSolduer]

Who wad the submarine captain who was IMO railroaded? 1994 or so?

Roger gotcha thanks for setting me straight

 

[KevinB]

Yah, I think the sick prick was the one doing the railroading.

Was that the guy putting cigar tubes up folks rectums?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Was that the guy putting cigar tubes up folks rectums?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Was that the guy putting cigar tubes up folks rectums?

 

[Jarnhamar]

He hasn't lost a job, he's lost a position. Is that the same thing?

That's true, he still has his a job. That point might be lost on the the public though. A Captain of a navy ship was fired from being a Captain of a navy ship, so what are we going to pay him $130,000 a year to do?

The Navy has come a far way transparency wise, but is it far enough? Do they need to go father?

I'm not sure we need to communicate everything we do to the public just so Joe Dirt from Twitter can get their two cents in on how we should do our business.

Then again, there seems to be some times where the CAF's response has been "it's not a big deal" and the public said "yes, actually it is a big deal". Cue senior leaders apologizing for not getting it. So maybe we do need to be babysat by the public.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

That's true, he still has his a job. That point might be lost on the the public though. A Captain of a navy ship was fired from being a Captain of a navy ship, so what are we going to pay him $130,000 a year to do?

The Navy has come a far way transparency wise, but is it far enough? Do they need to go father?

I'm not sure we need to communicate everything we do to the public just so Joe Dirt from Twitter can get their two cents in on how we should do our business.

Then again, there seems to be some times where the CAF's response has been "it's not a big deal" and the public said "yes, actually it is a big deal". Cue senior leaders apologizing for not getting it. So maybe we do need to be babysat by the public.

This is one thing that doesn't make sense in the CAF. If you screw up so bad that you lose Command, you probably shouldn't be collecting that big fat salary anymore and should be shown the door.

 

[SupersonicMax]

This is one thing that doesn't make sense in the CAF. If you screw up so bad that you lose Command, you probably shouldn't be collecting that big fat salary anymore and should be shown the door.

Disagree. Some folks are damn good staff officers but sucked/would suck as CO. Sometimes, the system pushes those great staff officer onto the succession plan to their detriment.