Another case…

[snapper41]

I was hung out to dry, says RAF ex-corporal who was assaulted in her sleep https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65266215

[air pig]

I was hung out to dry, says RAF ex-corporal who was assaulted in her sleep https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65266215


This was a case that involved the Red Arrows team a couple of years ago.

[barotraumatized]

This was a case that involved the Red Arrows team a couple of years ago.

This one didn’t.

[NutLoose]

The RAF has appealed against the decision. It argues the assault happened off-base and the service personnel involved had broken a curfew.

That's a pretty weak argument, to infer because they were off base the RAF's responsibilty to the care of their service personnel ends. A lot of detachments and down route are often in hotels or in the field, to say the care ends at the main gate is disgusting and that because they were out after curfew it makes it all alright...

​​​​​….

[SASless]

The UK and US might have different laws....but in the US military investigative agencies (NCIS, OSI, CID) retain jurisdiction upon military personnel on and off base.

The actual jurisdiction considering whether it is non-DoD or local/xounty/state determines which system has primary jurisdiction.

DoD Leased accommodation off base for example is concurrent jurisdiction and an offense on base is DoD jurisdiction.

Had I a service. member be a victim or perpetrator off base I could open an investigation on that.

Depending upon the branch of the service member would determine which DoD Investigative service would be the lead agency for DoD.

Example....Two enlisted Marines....in a Rape Case that happened in an automobile alongside a county roadway following a night of drinking....I worked and the case went to a General Court Martial on base....after the County District Attorney deferred prosecution to the military.

In a child molestation case in off base leased housing done by a civilian husband of a service member residing in that housing....went to Federal Court after the County DA took the position that Federal Courts would be far more harsh in penalty due to the difference in the State and Federal Laws....the Perp wound up in Federal Custody for Eighteen Years to do before poss8blilty of probation or parole as compared to what would at best been a two or three year sentence in a State Prison.

Washington DC is the most complicated place for determining jursidiction due to the myriad of Police Agencies and ownership of pro0erty and the presence of military personnel.

Laws and jurisdiction can be a complicated matter sometimes.

I do find the RAF position on the case being discussed as questionable as can be.....unless it is based directly upon the Law and the decisions. made by the Officials having jurisdiction over the matter.

A Rape Complaint was made....which Police Agency investigated it and which Prosecutor made the decision re taking it to Trial?

[bugged on the right]

Maybe the location is irrelevant but the fact that a member of the armed forces is obliged to carry out duty at any time is relevant. I was told the service owned me lock stock and barrel. You were either on duty or off duty but always in the mob and expected to behave that way.

[Easy Street]

I don't have any comment on the case itself, but I do have a comment on Jonathan Beale's reporting. How can he uncritically quote the alleged victim thus, even providing a link to a related story ...

Sam says she saw no evidence of a change in culture during her 10-year career in the RAF. She points to recent cases of sexual harassment in the RAF Red Arrows display team (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-63682965).

... without offering the highly relevant fact that two Red Arrow pilots were dismissed from the Service in those cases? It would obviously have been preferable for the harassment not to have taken place, but the decisive action against the pilots is very obvious evidence of a change in culture, whatever a single complainant might say. As usual with Beale, his reporting is so unbalanced that it can only be deliberately so. By all means, give voice to alleged victims. But uncritically reciting their complaints is just another form of client journalism, no different from political hacks regurgitating lobby briefing lines. It unfairly skews perceptions and is deeply unhelpful when there are genuine steps being taken to improve.

[pr00ne]

I don't have any comment on the case itself, but I do have a comment on Jonathan Beale's reporting. How can he uncritically quote the alleged victim thus, even providing a link to a related story ...



... without offering the highly relevant fact that two Red Arrow pilots were dismissed from the Service in those cases? It would obviously have been preferable for the harassment not to have taken place, but the decisive action against the pilots is very obvious evidence of a change in culture, whatever a single complainant might say. As usual with Beale, his reporting is so unbalanced that it can only be deliberately so. By all means, give voice to alleged victims. But uncritically reciting their complaints is just another form of client journalism, no different from political hacks regurgitating lobby briefing lines. It unfairly skews perceptions and is deeply unhelpful when there are genuine steps being taken to improve.

Victim blaming, just great!

[ExAscoteer2]

Apparently nothing has changed in the last 30 years.

[Easy Street]

Apparently nothing has changed in the last 30 years.

This? And "victim blaming"? WTF?

Since last autumn there has been a zero tolerance policy in place with dismissal from service now the default sanction for any allegation of harassment (however minor) proven to the standard required for admin action: a low bar which even the RAF Police can cope with. How is that not a change?

The two Reds pilots were dismissed for events which took place before that came into force, so needn't have been sacked as a matter of policy, but they were anyway. How is the very public defenestration of two people who (quote) "30 years" ago would have been protected for the good of the wider organisation not crystal clear evidence of a change in culture which is being very publicly imposed from the very top?

It's a shame that Sam did not see any evidence of that cultural change in her 10 years of service. There is no reason to doubt her on that; cultural change does not happen at the same rate in all parts of a large (ish) organisation like the RAF. She is entitled to say it how she saw it and Beale is entitled to report what she says. But it's not "victim blaming" to point out that hers is not the only valid perspective when talking about an organisation of over 30,000 people, which is what she's doing in labelling the entire RAF a "boy's club". It's not unreasonable to expect a BBC journalist to provide a modicum of balance.

[ExAscoteer2]

Yeah because males are routinely sexually assaulted in the RAF.

Oh wait...

It's the 21st Century FFS! This sort of crap should not be happening, but clearly is, so your assertion that attitudes have changed is clearly a bucket of horlicks despite what Policy Change there may have been in the last few months.

It's not good enough. FFS an Admin Discharge is worth about the square root of **** all to the victim. Cases should be investigated by an independent body (ie the Civilian Police) and guilty parties gaoled.

[Easy Street]

It's the 21st Century FFS! This sort of crap should not be happening, but clearly is, So your assertion that attitudes have changed is clearly a bucket of horlicks despite what Policy Change there may have been in the last few months.

I made no "assertion that attitudes have changed". I rebutted *your* assertion that nothing had changed in 30 years by providing two specific examples of things which *have* changed in that time, which are important for reasons which I will explain.

It's not good enough. FFS an Admin Discharge is worth about the square root of **** all to the victim. Cases should be investigated by an independent body (ie the Civilian Police) and guilty parties gaoled.

This is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a perfect world we might have RAF Police who could handle evidence properly or Defence leaders willing to countenance civil police involvement (this is not something the RAF could institute on its own). But we don't have either of those things, so the admin discharge policy has been adopted as the most direct way in which RAF leaders can get a handle on "attitudes" and "culture" instead of waiting for some currently unattainable dream world in which criminal standards of proof can be reliably attained in sexual misconduct cases. [You might also have noticed that the civil police and justice systems are very, very far from paragons of virtue here; the aforementioned perfect world might fix that, but I digress.] There are undoubtedly still crewrooms, messes and barrack blocks where attitudes need to catch up to the "21st century" but direct exhortation by leadership is unlikely to achieve that fully and certainly not quickly. The opening up of new routes to make complaints outside the chain of command, combined with the admin discharge policy is (in my opinion) forcing the pace of cultural change far beyond anything else RAF leadership could have done.

As for your comment about the victim's perception of the punishment - this is Pr00ne's territory, but in my understanding of legal philosophy, retribution is only one aspect of punishment and not regarded as especially significant. From the RAF's perspective, both prevention (of further misconduct by the known miscreant) and deterrence (of misconduct by others) are served well by the policy.

Yeah because males are routinely sexually assaulted in the RAF.

How on Earth does that follow from anything I wrote?!

[ExAscoteer2]

I made no "assertion that attitudes have changed".

That's what you asserted.



This is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a perfect world we might have RAF Police who could handle evidence properly or Defence leaders willing to countenance civil police involvement (this is not something the RAF could institute on its own). But we don't have either of those things, so the admin discharge policy has been adopted as the most direct way in which RAF leaders can get a handle on "attitudes" and "culture" instead of waiting for some currently unattainable dream world in which criminal standards of proof can be attained.

Which is patent bollocks if there was an Istitutional wish to change.


Y.] There are undoubtedly still crewrooms, messes and barrack blocks where attitudes need to catch up to the "21st century" but direct exhortation by leadership is unlikely to achieve that fully and certainly not quickly. The opening up of new routes to make complaints outside the chain of command, combined with the admin discharge policy is (in my opinion) forcing the pace of cultural change far beyond anything else RAF leadership could have done.

It needs to happen. The RAF CLEARLY cannot police itself.

[ExAscoteer2]

How on Earth does that follow from anything I wrote?!

Because it's NOT males getting dicriminated against, aaulted, whatever FFS!

[langleybaston]

Because it's NOT males getting dicriminated against, aaulted, whatever FFS!

I have asked my gdaughter Gunner Regiment reservist as a concerned onlooker. Happy to report not a sniff of any incidents, her or the other very few female rocks ...... and she is a very robust no nonsense in your face equal.
Perhaps the squadron is unusual, perhaps it reflects real change

[cheekychimp]

I have asked my gdaughter Gunner Regiment reservist as a concerned onlooker. Happy to report not a sniff of any incidents, her or the other very few female rocks ...... and she is a very robust no nonsense in your face equal.
Perhaps the squadron is unusual, perhaps it reflects real change
There is real change, it's the same on my Sqn. There is so much mandatory training about unwanted sexual attention, D&I etc nowadays, nobody can be in any doubt about the consequences of getting caught, an accusation is enough to get someone thrown out. Unfortunately, no amount of education and training can prevent bad people doing bad things, it will always be that way.

[megan]

an accusation is enough to get someone thrown outThat would seem to be a fraught policy, with innocent until proven guilty in mind.

[NutLoose]

That would seem to be a fraught policy, with innocent until proven guilty in mind.

I thought exactly the same when I read it, don’t like someone, hold a grudge? bang in a complaint and get him / her chucked out…that one is just open to abuse.

[ORAC]

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/victims-crimes-committed-armed-forces-personnel-have-say-justice

Victims of crimes committed by armed forces personnel to have say in justice

For the first time, there will be a requirement to consider the views of those reporting a crime allegedly committed by a member of the armed forces when deciding whether a case should be dealt with by the civilian or military justice system.

Prosecutors would have to consider the preference of those who report a crime under a revised Joint Protocol being published today (https://www.cps.gov.uk/consultation/consultation-revisions-cps-spa-protocol-regarding-exercise-criminal-jurisdiction)at the start of an eight-week public consultation….

[Asturias56]

That would seem to be a fraught policy, with innocent until proven guilty in mind.

I think the poster was describing what the mood is - not the actual policy or law

TBH that's pretty much how it works in civi street these days - with kids, women, disabled, race - you have to be be very, very careful - which isn't necessarily a bad thing

[downsizer]

The policy is, if found guilty the presumption will be that you are discharged. You aren't thrown out just because of an accusation. The policy is readily available for all those it affects to read and is quite clear IMO.

[pr00ne]

I think the poster was describing what the mood is - not the actual policy or law

TBH that's pretty much how it works in civi street these days - with kids, women, disabled, race - you have to be be very, very careful - which isn't necessarily a bad thing

That is manifestly NOT how it works in “civi street!”

The burden of proof is very high in such cases and there is still a much higher percentage chance of the charges being dropped with no action taken rather than a successful prosecution.

[langleybaston]

That is manifestly NOT how it works in “civi street!”

The burden of proof is very high in such cases and there is still a much higher percentage chance of the charges being dropped with no action taken rather than a successful prosecution.

Yes I believe you are correct ...... do you have stats that show who/ how/ why charges / cases are dropped please?
I have a nasty suspicion that the victims [or alleged victims in law] all too often play a part in the failed cases.
I am emphatically not victim blaming, but my Met Police daughter and her detective husband grew despondent about the number of cases which were withdrawn, and not by CPS. All praise to those who press the charges, especially in domestic violence cases, where it must be a terrible dilemma.

[Asturias56]

I was thinking more of the court of public opinion

the head of the CBI got his head in his hands this week and there was no mention of any legal proceedings.

[air pig]

That is manifestly NOT how it works in “civi street!”

The burden of proof is very high in such cases and there is still a much higher percentage chance of the charges being dropped with no action taken rather than a successful prosecution.

As many cases are down to she said/he said and the difficulty in defining the 'truth'.

[Asturias56]

By the time it ends up in court you're toast these days - accused, tried, convicted and punished by the media and social media