PDA

View Full Version : RAF Odiham


Training Risky
21st Apr 2005, 02:54
Good luck mate, I have attended a few parties in your rooms, and I hope this all blows over soon.

TR

Hueymeister
21st Apr 2005, 05:27
What?????

Come on woz 'appened?

ORAC
21st Apr 2005, 06:50
I presume this relates to the story in the Daily Express?

teeteringhead
21st Apr 2005, 07:15
Indeed in the Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/) .

An Teallach
21st Apr 2005, 07:42
So slow work days all round: RAF PLOD, DLS and the Daily Sexpress.

rivetjoint
21st Apr 2005, 07:45
Isn't the headline on the newspaper what fairytales are made of? I hope he left a box of Milk Tray.


Just read the same story on The Sun's web site, ok perhaps a more serious tone to the story, not suggested by the Express headline.

Pontius Navigator
21st Apr 2005, 07:51
And in the Torygraph. Someone's career has just crashed.

I wonder though why the speed of justice is so slow.

Fg Off Max Stout
21st Apr 2005, 10:20
Knowing both parties involved rather well, and a few details that are not public domain, I hope justice is done and we see Stu back on the Sqn very soon.

I would say more but it's not appropriate while the CM is running. Also be aware that anything written here will probably find its way into the tabloids tomorrow.

FJ2ME
21st Apr 2005, 10:35
I just love the fact that, even though the verdict is not known and the case is still going on, the chap's name and photograph can be released to the press. I don't know any details about this incident apart from what I have read, but it does seem a little unfair as if it is disproved, his name and reputation will be irreparably damaged. Crazy.

Widger
21st Apr 2005, 11:00
I do not have first hand knowledge of this incident and am only commenting on what I have read in the tabloids.

If what is written is to believed, then I hope the Board take said FO aside afterwards and give her a good dressing down for being so stupid and leading this poor guy on!


;)

skybiggles
21st Apr 2005, 12:30
Let the law take it's course.
If he is guilty, hang him.
If not guilty, drinks all round in the Mess afterwards.

The Maintainer
21st Apr 2005, 14:46
As long as it's no more than 5 glasses of champers!
Concensus around here is that he's a lightweight and should be charged with bringing the RAF into disrepute...

teeteringhead
21st Apr 2005, 15:29
At least the alleged offence was with a female.........:rolleyes:

airborne_artist
21st Apr 2005, 16:31
At least the alleged offence was with a female.........

Was he too p!ssed to try taking a cab, or not p!ssed enough?

animo et fide
21st Apr 2005, 16:58
Come on boys, let's have faith in the system and hope the truth comes out and Stu is totally cleared of all charges. But as for describing him as dashing...... Who says the press don't bend the truth!!!

effortless
21st Apr 2005, 17:33
Come on boys, let's have faith in the system

Well we can but hope but I won't hold me breath. Hats are very keen on being seen to do something.

Amateur Aviator
21st Apr 2005, 19:04
Knowing more than I can let on, I echo all sentiments, and hope that Stu comes out of this in the clear. Here's hoping........

All the best mate

Feck
21st Apr 2005, 19:05
Good luck Stupot.

jayteeto
21st Apr 2005, 19:36
Its difficult to avoid names here when the BBC web site has names and photos. The comment about keeping him anonymous is valid, unfortunately everyone in the country goes by the same rules. What if Ian Huntley had been found not guilty?? I'll bet Wacko Jacko wishes the same hiding place in America. If this dashing fellow is found not guilty his career will not necessarily be affected, he may get promoted!!!

Scud-U-Like
21st Apr 2005, 21:47
It's serious alright, as this unsensationalised account in the Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/21/nhague21.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/21/ixhome.html) shows.

Widger
22nd Apr 2005, 08:00
Latest news was that he was trying to deliver a Pizza!



I'll get my coat.

effortless
22nd Apr 2005, 12:13
I hate to say it chaps but if the Torygraph is right he has pretty well admitted to it.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Apr 2005, 13:04
The Torygraph may have the correct story and Stupot may have admitted that the events were as described. What would seem evident, in that evidence is being given, is that he did not admit the charge.

I do not recall seeing exactly what he was charged with but as the offence being discussed seems to be a criminal offence but the court is a military one, maybe we are all barking up the wrong tree.

Sorry, forgot, it was a ground floor window.

teeteringhead
22nd Apr 2005, 13:39
I think the charge would be Indecent Assault under S70 AFA. IIRC from previous CMs I've been involved with (as a member!), the ingredients of the charge are "an assault" ie that actual contact took place and that it should be "indecent" ie to have a element which the average person would consider to be indecent.

Of course, consent would be an absolute defence -which it can't be in some cases - eg setting fire to people at Happy Hour.......

Scud-U-Like
22nd Apr 2005, 15:11
The allegation is patently false. Everyone knows an RAF pilot's head won't fit through a window....

rafloo
22nd Apr 2005, 16:29
It had to be an RAF Officer....he took his watch off. A naval Officer would never been seen without his watch...




Taxi for one please

GTNav
22nd Apr 2005, 16:51
Go Stu Go

Hopefully you are not too stressed about all this. It is good to see mates standing up for you. I hope the RAF is enjoying the crazy publicity where charcoal moustaches are the main exhibits!!

Pub User
22nd Apr 2005, 22:05
Of course, consent would be an absolute defence -which it can't be in some cases - eg setting fire to people at Happy Hour.......
Are you sure? I've known several people who have consented to ignition at Happy Hour, including two who actually set themselves on fire (in fact one of the two was me).

Whipping Boy's SATCO
23rd Apr 2005, 06:00
Somewhat confused about the bit where he "put on his flying suit and longjohns". In that order? If so, was this some sort of reverse Superman trick?

Joking aside, I hope this all goes away. The whole issue, regardless of 'blame', is not exactly putting the Services in good light.

Fg Off Max Stout
23rd Apr 2005, 15:03
Pileup Officer,
Yes and yes, you are a idiot. Save that kind of rubbish for jetblast. Read the articles and have a think about the gravity of the situation for the pilot concerned.

teeteringhead
23rd Apr 2005, 16:08
I've known several people who have consented to ignition at Happy Hour I was referring to the specifics of the (?) Chivenor case which finished up as GBH and is in fact used in legal textbooks as an example.

P'raps it's only GBH (and above) you can't consent to; IIRC there was another case with some strange blokes who liked drilling holes (with a Black and Decker) in each others dangly bits ( :ooh: )

Consent not a defence there either....

The Helpful Stacker
23rd Apr 2005, 16:19
IIRC there was another case with some strange blokes who liked drilling holes (with a Black and Decker) in each others dangly bits

The 'Scanner' case I believe.

Gay men who believed consensual abuse during S&M activities should be covered by the same rules that allow boxers to knock lumps out of each other.

The film 'Preaching To The Perverted' was based on the case.

Ginseng
23rd Apr 2005, 17:53
Your sentiments about Pile Up's inappropriate addition to the thread are shared and yes, it is a grave situation for the Officer concerned. Let us also not forget that it is at least an extremely unpleasant situation for the other Officer concerned. It is hardly surprising that, since the accused appears to accept that he was in the room, and that he had not been directly invited, he should pursue a defence based on the claim that he had every reason to believe his presence would be acceptable. That may well be his belief, but it is for the Court to decide whether his defence stands up to examination. Perhaps it will, perhaps not. Either way, I think he will not come out of this entirely unscathed. As for the alleged victim, she has had to suffer unwarranted intrusion as a result of pursuing this, which takes a lot of courage.

Ginseng

Biggus
24th Apr 2005, 08:39
I can't find Pile Up's comment. Therefore I have to assume that either; I am losing my grip and it is staring me in the face (a distinct possibility), or he was suitably shamed into removing it at some later stage.

I assume the latter is correct?

Since it would appear to have been considered inappropriate I am not, repeat not, asking anyone to repeat it's contents.

Safeware
24th Apr 2005, 15:56
I don't know the parties involved, or the case - other than that in the media. I noted though that in one of the tabloids, the complainant's name was 'withheld for legal reasons'. I understand the pressures females are put under in such cases - I have a friend who was afraid to make a complaint because of the turmoil and distress it would cause her.

However, I think the opposite should also apply. If he is found innocent, she walks away 'anonymous' (save everyone at Odiham and everyone who has a friend at Odiham etc). He however, will always have the case hanging over him - 'Did he or didn't he' regardless of the verdict. And that is the travesty of our legal system.

Anonymity for all is what I'd like to see, and may justice be the winner.

sw

Amateur Aviator
24th Apr 2005, 16:54
The incident is known about the SH world, not just at Odiham. And of course within that, the names as well. Anonymity is only in the press I would suggest.

Nevertheless, once again Stu, all the best

SmilingKnifed
25th Apr 2005, 20:39
Safeware,

Couldn't agree more!

6Z3
26th Apr 2005, 09:21
So, the lady was totally legless (Daily Telegraph report on the C/M)- that must make her the perfect target for a re-attack later. Military Ethos, or what?

Icarusthesecond
26th Apr 2005, 11:02
I read these posts with great interest and delight in the support that fellow Officers give to the accused.

Innocent until proven guilty is not really the case in the CM system and to suggest that he will come out of this unscathed is naïve. If this case falls down due to a legal issue, it will still not cover up the fact, (according to the papers), that the accused admitted to breaking into to someone’s room, hopping into bed and so on etc.

Is this not conduct unbecoming of an Officer? I think so and I think the system will see it as that.

Send Clowns
26th Apr 2005, 14:35
Good luck Stu.

We shared a few beers when I was in Cranwell with the RN, we were in ground training, a decent lad then and I doubt you've changed that much.

An Teallach
26th Apr 2005, 15:18
Icarus 2

With an attitude like that, here's hoping you are never called to sit on a CM!

Icarusthesecond
26th Apr 2005, 20:40
Here's hoping you're never on one;)

Taffwales
26th Apr 2005, 21:16
Icarusthesecond,

Very well said, about the act of climbing into a room via a window, etc, but in my experience of dealing with such stupid behaviour, that comes under the guise of, ''high spirits'' if committed by some ranks, whereas other ranks would be charged with breaking and entering and locked up, and the key thrown away. :*
Hypocrisy still the order of the day:mad:

Fg Off Max Stout
26th Apr 2005, 21:50
Taff, I do not see the relevance to this case of the 'hypocrisy' point you are trying to make.

Icarus, I think you are totally out of line. You have clearly decided the verdict already, and I suspect all your evidence is harvested from the media, and not from primary sources.

Perhaps you will find out a little more from those who know once the CM is completed, but until then I suggest that your 'conduct unbecoming' suggestion may be more applicable to her than him.

vecvechookattack
26th Apr 2005, 22:01
You have clearly decided the verdict already ...I thought that he admitted it....He admitted scaling the window...removing his kit (including his watch) and then assaulting the lady.

Fg Off Max Stout
26th Apr 2005, 22:49
Allegations not admissions.

For public domain information:
Telegraph 21/4 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/21/nhague21.xml)
Telegraph 22/4 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/22/nflirt22.xml)
Telegraph 23/4 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/23/nhague23.xml)
Telegraph 26/4 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/26/nhague26.xml)

Icarusthesecond
27th Apr 2005, 08:02
Fg Off Max Stout:

Thank you for your post. I am certainly not judging it before it has concluded. I appreciate that the PC world of the Armed Forces has gone mad, but that only highlights my point.

However, even you can not deny that, he admits that he was not invited into the room, it's in one of the hyperlinks you kindly posted. Obviously the rest is alleged, the CM martial has not concluded. If they were proven facts there would be no need for a CM:\ The papers have to put that for libel reasons. Some of what the victim says, may be embellished, some may not. But the bottom line is - He was not invited into the room, and had he just gone home, Odiham and the Officer concerned would not be the centre of this media issue.

I merely highlight the obvious from an impartial point of view. Long may the support for the individual continue! If I knew him, I would probably do the same, I don’t and therefore I can look at it from an impartial spectator point of view and comment thus. That is why we have these threads isn’t it??

vecvechookattack
27th Apr 2005, 08:20
the PC world of the Armed Forces has gone mad .....Im not sure that an alleged sexual assault fits into the "political correctness" bracket.

Judging by todays Torygraph it would apear that the defence are making a good case...

Lets hope he walks away untarnished.

ZH875
27th Apr 2005, 09:31
Lets hope he walks away untarnishedBetter still, lets hope the legally correct verdict is achieved.

An Teallach
27th Apr 2005, 13:06
It does happen that very ropey cases go all the way to CM just because no-one has the balls to stop it.

Especially in a case like this one where, were the RAF to be seen to do nothing, they could be open to a substantial vicarious liability claim.

The "march in the guilty bastard" / "it woudn't have got this far if he was innocent" brigade might do well to remember that.

I do agree that in these cases the alleged assaulter should be given the same anonymity as the alleged victim until anything is proved.

Scud-U-Like
27th Apr 2005, 14:01
The prosecuting authorities (CPS, RAFPA etc) work to a common standard in deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. There was clearly sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution in this case. Whether the defendant is guilty or not is a matter for the court to decide.

As has already been mentioned, even if the defendant is innocent of indecent assault, he arguably showed a lack of good judgment, in entering the alleged victim's room via the window and climbing into her bed, all, by his own admission, without invitation. He cannot therefore be totally surprised to find himself on the wrong end of a sexual assault allegation.

Autorev
27th Apr 2005, 14:56
Scud,
I don't believe that enry to the room via the window is anything but an allegation. I have heard of no proof that this was the method of entry, nor indeed is "by his own admission" how he entered the room.

Vox Populi
27th Apr 2005, 15:35
Fl Lt Hague has been cleared.

Spanish Waltzer
27th Apr 2005, 16:13
Does that now mean the 'accuser' can be named & shamed?

FJJP
27th Apr 2005, 16:32
Sorry, Vox, just to clarify - the court has brought in a not guilty verdict? What did they have to say about the affair and the role of the young lady in the case?

Fg Off Max Stout
27th Apr 2005, 16:39
Congratulations Stu. Correct result.

MightyGem
27th Apr 2005, 16:55
Result here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4491081.stm)

animo et fide
27th Apr 2005, 18:12
See, the truth was out there! You lot are just cynics!! but seriously congrats Stu, it'll be good to see ya again

Vox Populi
27th Apr 2005, 19:05
Can the accuser be named and shamed?

No - 'victims' of sexual crimes are guaranteed anoynimity for life, regardless of the result of cases.

I think that is very sensible, but there is an overwhelming case for extending this to the accused until (and if) they are convicted.

Sympathies to all in this very unfortunate situation.

Big Hook
27th Apr 2005, 22:02
Good news Stu, Lets hope you can put all this behind you now. Will be great to see you back at work. :D

Taffwales
28th Apr 2005, 00:17
Wonder what the potential Mrs Hague has to say about her potential husband's behaviour?

And if anybody is naive enough to think his career is not affected, dream on.

How could female personnel he meets in future mess p$ss ups feel comfortable later on into the night? in case he misreads the signals;)

Presumably his Sqn Commander will write in his next annual appraisal report, '' Hague has on at least one occasion made a gross error of judgement in his dealings with a fellow officer'', and PMC promotion board will correctly take this shortcoming into account.

spekesoftly
28th Apr 2005, 00:51
How could female personnel he meets in future mess p$ss ups feel comfortable

As p$ssed as that lot allegedly were, I doubt they'd feel anything! :E

Tiger_mate
28th Apr 2005, 06:15
Obviously Wales does not recognize the verdict of a British Court. Those days went out with Henry 8th Taff, get a life!

Good verdict, is she posted yet?

Training Risky
28th Apr 2005, 10:08
Good Stuff Stu, lets hope this bint stays away from any future ball in the mess.

Taff: Let us hope you never make it into a position to affect anyone's chances of promotion.

FJ2ME
28th Apr 2005, 10:39
From his posts on other topics, Taffwales is almost certainly RAFP. Now doesn't that make you feel rosy that such an impartial and fair-minded person could be in such an authoritative postion...? Still, don't want to hijack the forum.

Congrats Stu, hope you can put this whole nonsense behind you.

charliegolf
28th Apr 2005, 13:52
TR said:
Good Stuff Stu, lets hope this bint stays away from any future ball in the mess.

SHE WAS ASLEEP WHEN THE OFFICER AND GENTLEMAN ENTERED HER ROOM!

So she's the knob after all in this then?

CG

Groan- know wot's coming next

Send Clowns
28th Apr 2005, 13:59
Glad this result was found. Good for Stu as well that it was a mainly-female panel - no snide hints of closing ranks for the lads. Hope he recovers from this ordeal soon.

She won't be named, but since there is no evidence that her complaint was malicious perhaps that is the best balance, if imperfect.

CG

By the evidence presented, she was awake when she told him she wanted to see him later. Assuming that is true (and he can do little else) then TR has made a reasonable comment.

Back in the Barrel
28th Apr 2005, 16:14
Stupidy, stupidy, stupidy!

And that applies to them both.

exleckie
28th Apr 2005, 19:49
There is a new thread about this.

It is worth a read.

Different angles I believe!