UNFIT TO COMMAND

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10565, 19 April 1928, Page 5

UNFIT TO COMMAND

ADMIRALTY DEALS WITH AD AURAL COLLAR l>. PLACED ON RETIRED LIST. ROYAL OAK COURT-MARTIAL DECISION REVERSED. CAPTAIN AND' COAIMANDER. TO BE REbEMPLOYED. United Press Assn, by El. Tel. Oopyrieht Australian Press Assn.—United Service. LONDON, April 17. The special meeting of the Admiralty Board held that Rear-Admir-al Collard Avas primarily responsible for tlie incident on the" Royal Oak Avhich led to the . court martial and sentence of Commander Daniel and Captain D'eAvar. The board’s, decision practically reverses the decision of the court martial. A statement to this effect was made in the House, of Cbmmons by the First Lord, Air AV. C. Bridgeman.. The Admiralty, he .stated, considered that Admiral Collard avus initially tlame worthy. Captain DeAvar and Commander Daniel would be •suitably re-employed as vacancies occurred. Admiral Collard, he-added, already had been relieved of Jiis command, and Avould he placed on the retired list. (British Olficial Wireless.) RUGBY, April 17. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Air AV. C. Bridgeman, in the House of Commons, after reviewing the proceedings in the courts martial on Captain DeAvar and Commander Daniel, at Avhich Rear-Admiral Collard gave evidence, said the Board of the Admiralty Avas of the opinion that the initial blame t'oi what happened lay A\(itli Rear-Admiral Collard in dealing Avith trivial causes of dissatisfaction in a manner unbecoming to his position, and showing himself .unfitted for a high command. ! In the case of the other two officers, AA'ho Avere sentenced to be severely reprimanded and dismissed their ships, the hoard had decided to confirm their sentences, though they • were of the- opinion that in Commander Daniel’s case no offence against the King’s Regulations was proA'ed under the second charge. . As it had keen suggested that the : offences committed by these officers were more or less technical in character, the board thought it necessary to say it had taken a grave vieAV of their conduct. Commander Daniel, having been ordered to give a report to Captain D’eAvar on certain events connected Avith the departure of Rear-Admiral Collard from his ship, supplemented it by an additional paragraph, partly containing unnecessary comment on Rear-Ad-lniral Collard, based on hearsay, and partly making criticisms of an improper nature. The board Avas of the opinion that officers of their experience must have been atvare of the procedure for making a complaint, and that the making of a complaint must not be used for the subversion of the discipline -of a supcrini officer. Captain DeAvar should have deterred lus junior officer from going beyond a formal report of the facts A\"hich he, had been ordered to prepare. He did. not discourage Commander Daniel, but accepted his report, Avhich was contrary to tradition and prejudicial to naval discipline, and the board had therefore confirmed the sentences on these two officers, but had decided that these sentences should not preclude them front further employment.

Air Bridgeman added that the Board of the Admiralty was making a careful review of the regulations in order to ascertain whether there were any grounds for the suggestion that officers and meu might be uncertain hoAV to act if they had any complaint to make against, any officer of superior rank. Commander J. AI. Kemvorthy (Labor) asked whether further employment in the case of Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel men/ further employment at sea. Air Bridgeman said he could not give an. undertaking that they would be employed at sea, because the number of vacancies was limited and he must wait until a suitable vacancy occurredADAGE AL- S HEAVY* PUNISH - AIENT. SEVERE MONETARY LOSS. United Press Arsn. by El. Tel. Copyright (Australian Pres* Association.? LONDON, April 17. Admiral Collard’-s punishment is heavy, both professionally and financially. A flag officer on full pay receives from £1715 for a rear-admiral up to £2401 for a full admiral. In addition there are considerable IoAA r ances often reaching £ISOO free' 1 of income tax. Noav be is retired he will receive £9OO, plus £22 for each year of 27 years’ service, or a total of £1142. ADMIRALTY - STATEMENT APPROA r ED BY PUBLIC C-OMAIENT TN COMMONS PR AG- . TIOALLY DISARMED United Prees Assn, by El. Tel. Copyright (Australian Press Association.) (Received April 18. 7.45 p.m.) LONDON, April 17. Air Bridgman’s -statement -so complete and so apparently- in accord Avith public feeling inside and outside the House that it practically disarmed comment. The Daily Telegraph -says that though the statement does not endorse the opinion of those Avho Avould like to-make Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel martyrs, nevertheless, . on the whole, it is a reflection of public opinion: The lesson of the whole affair is that naval discipline cannot lie maintained without an equally rigorous code-. of self-discipline.