RAF Odiham
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Gentleman Aviator
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.......
Of course, consent would be an absolute defence -which it can't be in some cases - eg setting fire to people at Happy Hour.......
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, consent would be an absolute defence -which it can't be in some cases - eg setting fire to people at Happy Hour.......
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Joking aside, I hope this all goes away. The whole issue, regardless of 'blame', is not exactly putting the Services in good light.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Gentleman Aviator
I've known several people who have consented to ignition at Happy Hour
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 (
)Consent not a defence there either....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
IIRC there was another case with some strange blokes who liked drilling holes (with a Black and Decker) in each others dangly bits
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Stout
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
Ginseng
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protecting the innocent
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
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
Last edited by Safeware; 24th Apr 2005 at 16:59.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: somewhere in a 12x12
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Nevertheless, once again Stu, all the best
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.