A lederhosen-clad Regimental Sergeant Major tasked with making sure his men didn’t drink too much at an Oktoberfest party got so drunk he fell into a lavatory, a court martial has heard.

       RSM Michael Ransley, a decorated veteran, was supposed to be responsible for “setting and maintaining standards” at the German-themed event at the Infantry Battle School in Brecon, Wales.

       However, the soldier of 24 years became so intoxicated at the party on October 16 last year that he fell in a lavatory, emerging with his long Bavarian socks soiled by excrement.

       The 40-year-old, who had previously been awarded medals including one for service in Iraq, admitted disorderly behaviour and was demoted after the incident.

       'Alcohol policy holder'

       He appealed to overturn the demotion, but the judge dismissed the appeal after a hearing at the Bulford Military Court in Wiltshire.

       RSM Ransley was described in court as the “epitome” of what a commander should be - yet guests described their horror at the “smell and sight” of him, the court martial heard.

       The hearing was told that the soldier’s position at the event “held authority” and that he was the “alcohol policy holder”.

       After RSM Ransley fell in the toilet, the court heard that he “continued to return to the function despite being physically escorted to a private room” twice.

       Sergeant was 'deeply remorseful'

       Matthew Bolt, defending, told the hearing that the soldier was “deeply remorseful” for the “isolated incident”.

       Mr Bolt told the court: “He was not on duty. It was not an active deterrent role, but rather if all the seniors were there that their presence would have a deterrent effect.

       “The man who stands before you is deeply remorseful, the most evidence of that is his immediate guilty plea in front of his commanding officer.”

       Although Judge Advocate Robert Hill accepted that the father-of-three was mortified by the event, he dismissed his appeal.

       Judge Hill told the hearing that the appellant “got plainly very drunk” and that “it is accepted that he was the person in charge who would have been expected to deal with the behaviour he was indulging in."