Another case…
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: hi in the ski
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,927 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
The RAF has appealed against the decision. It argues the assault happened off-base and the service personnel involved had broken a curfew.
….
Last edited by NutLoose; 14th Apr 2023 at 17:15.
The following 4 users liked this post by NutLoose:
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?
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?
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.
The following 5 users liked this post by bugged on the right:
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.
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.
Last edited by Easy Street; 14th Apr 2023 at 20:17.
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.
... 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.
The following 2 users liked this post by pr00ne:
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
Last edited by ExAscoteer2; 15th Apr 2023 at 01:00.
The following 2 users liked this post by ExAscoteer2:
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.
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.
Last edited by Easy Street; 15th Apr 2023 at 01:52.
The following users liked this post:
That's what you asserted.
Which is patent bollocks if there was an Istitutional wish to change.
It needs to happen. The RAF CLEARLY cannot police itself.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
Perhaps the squadron is unusual, perhaps it reflects real change
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
Perhaps the squadron is unusual, perhaps it reflects real change
The following 2 users liked this post by cheekychimp:
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,927 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/vict...ve-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 todayat the start of an eight-week public consultation….
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 todayat the start of an eight-week public consultation….
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