Army Duelling
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Question: Why did RAF Akrotiri have two officers' messes?
Answer: So they had somewhere to eat while the other was rebuilt.
AFAIK this happened more than once.
Answer: So they had somewhere to eat while the other was rebuilt.
AFAIK this happened more than once.
Bugger!
I have just lost half an hour of my life re-reading chunks of Blasts from the Past.
Bugger! They are brilliant .............. I am just going out with a soppy grin on my chops!
I have just lost half an hour of my life re-reading chunks of Blasts from the Past.
Bugger! They are brilliant .............. I am just going out with a soppy grin on my chops!
I rather seem to recall that the RAF had a rather nasty incident in the not too distant past, where some young officers ended up causing serious injuries to one of their colleagues.
I think it might have been Chivenor or Valley and the victim was badly burned.
Old Duffer
I think it might have been Chivenor or Valley and the victim was badly burned.
Old Duffer
Gentleman Aviator
'Twas indeed Chiv O-D and involved setting fire to a colleague.
It became something of a legal precedent IIRC. The senior Teeterette, when a law student, asked me darkly:
"Father, what exactly happened at Chivenor when ........"
Turns out it became a precedent to do with "consent" to GBH as the victim had allegedly been doing similar stuff to another (apologies if I got this wrong) .... other similar precedents were strange chaps who invited other strange chaps to nail their dangly bits to the floor
de gustibus and all that ....
I'll speak with said Teeterette and see if I can confirm my ageing memory,,,,,
[Edited to add:] The case was R v Aitken, Bennett, Barson (1992) CA. A summary of the case and ruling are quoted here (D=Defendant and V=Victim; Section 20 is the Section of OAPA dealing with GBH) from a Law Revision website.
It became something of a legal precedent IIRC. The senior Teeterette, when a law student, asked me darkly:
"Father, what exactly happened at Chivenor when ........"
Turns out it became a precedent to do with "consent" to GBH as the victim had allegedly been doing similar stuff to another (apologies if I got this wrong) .... other similar precedents were strange chaps who invited other strange chaps to nail their dangly bits to the floor
de gustibus and all that ....I'll speak with said Teeterette and see if I can confirm my ageing memory,,,,,
[Edited to add:] The case was R v Aitken, Bennett, Barson (1992) CA. A summary of the case and ruling are quoted here (D=Defendant and V=Victim; Section 20 is the Section of OAPA dealing with GBH) from a Law Revision website.
[General defences - assault – Sec 20 an offence of basic intent - consent by conduct therefore intoxication not a defence]
D's RAF officers at a party at the completion of their flying training. They drank a lot. There was some horseplay that was treated it as a joke.
D's set fire to V's fire resistant suit [his flying suit]. In his drunken state he could only resist weakly. Flames flared up rapidly and although the appellants took immediate action to put out the fire but V was severely burned.
Held:
Section 20 not an offence of specific intent.
Therefore drunkenness is no defence to the forming of the intent necessary.
D’s would have acted maliciously if they had foreseen that their actions would result in injury to V or would have foreseen injury but for drunkenness.
A victim can give effective consent to the risk of accidental injury in the course of rough undisciplined play.
Moreover, if D honestly but mistakenly believed that V had consented (or in this case, would have so believed had they not been intoxicated), that too would be a defence.
Not Guilty of GBH
D's RAF officers at a party at the completion of their flying training. They drank a lot. There was some horseplay that was treated it as a joke.
D's set fire to V's fire resistant suit [his flying suit]. In his drunken state he could only resist weakly. Flames flared up rapidly and although the appellants took immediate action to put out the fire but V was severely burned.
Held:
Section 20 not an offence of specific intent.
Therefore drunkenness is no defence to the forming of the intent necessary.
D’s would have acted maliciously if they had foreseen that their actions would result in injury to V or would have foreseen injury but for drunkenness.
A victim can give effective consent to the risk of accidental injury in the course of rough undisciplined play.
Moreover, if D honestly but mistakenly believed that V had consented (or in this case, would have so believed had they not been intoxicated), that too would be a defence.
Not Guilty of GBH
Last edited by teeteringhead; 31st Jul 2016 at 17:09.
