She couldn't have been that drunk

[Tarnished]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=1WYBRDGVPYHETQFIQMGCM5WAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/04/28/nhague28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/28/ixportal.html

If she was "that drunk" she wouldn't have taken the time to get changed into her pyjamas now would she?

It annoys me that his name and picture get spread around (oops I guess I'm furthering the problem) but she gets to stay anonymous.:\

[FEBA]

Quite right. She cannot expect to get away with potentially damaging this poor guys career Scot free!
LETS HAVE NAMES
Right here.


Edit: Absolutely NOT!

PPP

[exleckie]

I don't really think that exposing names will help anyone apart from appeasing the minds of people who (and rightly so) are angry.

We all know the law is inadequte in these situations but how can it be changed?

The good thing is that the "system" cleared the gentleman and we should suppport him for carrying himself in a dignified manner throughout the whole debacle.

As for the lady concerned, I think she should really ask herself some questions about her own morality and learn some very important lessons about life.

[effortless]

Sorry chaps but if this was a civvy case and on the evidence in the Torygraph, he may well have been convicted. Closing your door and going to sleep when you are pissed is a good signal that you aren't expecting visitors.

In my experience of sexual encounters, I have always liked to be certain as to my welcome. This usually meant being taken home by the woman in question. If this was your daughter, wife or girlfriend you would be walking into the mess with a horsewhip. Whether or not you had already had a go at her for being drunk.

I know that I am not making any friends here but I would hope that I would be able to pull without the woman being incapable.

I am willing to bet that her career is the one that is finished and I am not at all sure that it should be so.

[exleckie]

That last post was out of line.

There are two victims in this. Both Him and Her. They have both been through enough as it is without WITCH HUNT MENTALITY trying to creep in as well.

Effortless, you are an excellent observer of true life and speak volumes of the way our society is. Thanks.

However,( not you effortless) To post a username and message and insinuate that it will point to one of the parties involved is nothing more than pure evil.

Sorry Username ********, you are just about to find yourself banned from this site.

Oh good, looks like it has already been done.:ok:

Yes it has been done and your use of asterisks was insufficient!!!!! Also close to a ban!

[Safeware]

There is no good to come of trying to name anyone here. As I said on the RAF Odiham thread, there are gals out there who are too scared to report incidents because of the attitude that pervades society - 'Well, she must have been asking for it'. Well maybe she was drunk, but is that the best time to 'seduce' a woman?

There are 2 victims here, who have both undoubtedly gone through hell in various ways, one because she felt strong enough to do something, but was assured of anonymity, and another powerless to prevent his name being dragged through the dirt that is our tabloid media. I don't know the people, I don't know the situation, but can't they both be left in peace?

'mate' from Coningsby, you should be ashamed of yourself. :sad:

sw

[buoy15]

See that Court Martial Boards have increased to 5 members. In my day it was always 3, and, funny old thing. no wimen!!

That reminds me, I forgot to do my EO refresher this year! Ha!

[Training Risky]

Wow Effortless, I bow to your superior knowledge of this particular situation. Obviously you know both parties involved?

[exleckie]

Apology to Moderators.

Message recieved and have actually gone bright red from embarassment.

I think you know what my feelings are as towards scapegoating and witch hunting as such. Thank you for bringing me into line, these things can be quite emotional you know. I was very very annoyed at that post and in future, advice heeded, I will make sure that ** are used more.

If you read the thread, you will probably be aware that I was voicing discontent at THAT post, however, I have now learnt an important lesson in manners on this site

Once again, many apologies and please keep up the good work.

Sorry to have disgraced myself.:ugh:

[Safeware]

only to be protected by fellow officers

3 of whom were female. Can you ask for it to be fairer?

sw

[exleckie]

Again, I think it prudent not to judge any partie's integrity. You may have feelings towards this but there are always two sides to the story. I don't know what happened and people on both sides will feel agrieved. More to the point, is it not wise to support and help both of the people involved?

Offering people support and love costs nothing. Helping people through crisis, no matter which side you are on, taking a non judgementalist approach is probably going to be more beneficial in the long run rather than the short term.

Time Heals.

[Vox Populi]

Effortless wrote:
Sorry chaps but if this was a civvy case and on the evidence in the Torygraph, he may well have been convicted.

I seriously doubt it - conviction rates for this type of offence are very low - in fact on the evidence I read in the Telegraph I would be prepared to bet the CPS would not have even brought a prosecution as this case was always going to come down to hearsay.

By 'blaming' the woman involved, people (not you effortless) are suggesting she brought the prosecution maliciously, whereas isn't more likely she geniunely belived herself to have been assaulted.

We have to assume from the result of the CM that it was a case of mistaken judgement on her part - but that is not the same as deliberately bringing a false accusation.

I know neither party but have sympathies for both (and wholeheartedly agree that those accused of sexual offences should be given anonymity until conviction).

[Controversial Tim]

Of course she could have led him on, then remembered she'd have to face a boyfriend so called crime.
(Don't know any more than anyone else here, just adding another option.)

Anonymity for all. One out all out.

[You Can Call Me Al]

I know neither of the parties involved, but add this for what it’s worth…

Presumably the lady in question felt that she had a genuine grievance and would have been given advice. If so, that advice was either flawed or she ignored it. If neither is true then the CM result is flawed.

Judging from the mixed opinions on both this and the other thread, either, or both parties are guilty of at least stupidity. Surely the facts should be made known such that rumours and aspersions can be strangled? (It would appear that the feelings at Odiham are running quite high amongst the other ranks - witness Jimodiham post)

[Maple 01]

I do hope the above was meant as a 'joke' - I'm reminded of a book I read recently entitled 'we all wore Airforce blue' the point being that the 'them' and 'us' approach is bloody divisive and should be stamped on at every opportunity IMO - I don't as a matter of course take any pleasure in seeing an officer fall on his or her arse - unless of course they have been knobs of the first degree and deserve it, I also accept that being a 'chopper' is an equal opportunities job - any trade, any rank can apply

Haven’t been at work for a few days so can't speak for the shop-floor but the two things that have annoyed me about the Odiham case is

a; the bloke being named - so now he's going to suffer the old 'no smoke without fire' whispers, either name both of them from the beginning (bit of a non-starter for obvious reasons) or no names until the verdict is in, and then only if the accused is found guilty

b; Press coverage - usual shower of sh*te in action by the looks of it