I would like to bring to your attention the way I feel you have let down soldiers who’ve been unfortunate enough to have been abused by other personnel and the system.
In November’s edition you wrote a piece about the court martial of Pte Samuel Hodgetts for sexual abuse of a female.
You put a small report on page 11 of the issue, hiding it away and making it look like another normal article.
Why did you not make more of your report? It should have been made into a larger, more in-depth investigative-style piece, covering a full page of editorial at the very least and placed on the front page.
Not only that but your first paragraph saying “Troops guilty of sexual abuse should expect no mercy” could have been much larger in size so that other soldiers would take note.
You should also have listed the many other abuse cases listed on the gov.uk page that included the report of this hearing.
– Name and address supplied
Steve Muncey, managing editor, replies: There are many factors that determine how much space we devote to any one article and the way we present it. These include – among many others – the volume of information we have at our disposal, image quality and balance of subjects within each edition.
We have a finite number of pages and a wide spectrum of topics to cover so we cannot write about everything in the army sphere in every issue.
In addition, when it comes to coverage of courts martial, we are legally obliged to ensure our reports appear in the next practicable issue.
This can sometimes leave us with very little time to add any sort of analysis or investigation between getting the information and our next deadline.
We certainly take the topic you mention very seriously, as I think is evidenced by our three-page report on the fall-out from the Gnr Jaysley Beck inquest in the March 2025 issue and numerous advice articles we’ve published around bullying, harassment and mental health in recent months and years.
Far from “hiding” this report on page 11 of the printed edition, it appeared in the leading Update section with an eye-catching red headline.
The editorial team always welcomes direct approaches from personnel on any subject and we do not shy away from writing about controversial issues, as our record shows.
If people contact us with their personal experiences, we will follow it up.
Why does the army not offer the cycle to work scheme?
I hear the nebulous argument that it pays an allowance for cycling to work but in reality how many people actually claim this? I am sure cyclists would prefer 40 per cent off a new bike.
If we are serious about getting fit, saving the planet and want a better lived experience for us all then let’s get on our bikes.
– Name and address supplied
It's widely known there is a retention and recruitment problem in the service.
Yet the Army Personnel Centre willingly posts people to jobs that aren’t on their preference proformas, thus sparking notices to terminate.
Units then have gapped posts that should have been filled by qualified and experienced persons.
What makes things worse is the fact these jobs will now be gapped for over a year when they could easily have been filled and the terminations prevented.
This is coupled with the absolute inflexibility of the boarding process within some desks, even when solutions are presented. Meanwhile, other desks can seemingly bend jobs and positions to their will, as no doubt many have witnessed.
It definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouth after dedicating decades to the country and establishment.
– Name and address supplied
