Fraudulent Wg Cdr. Possibly.
It has definitely long since gone, they've had a CM!! Like you say, times have changed 'for better or worse'. I think for worse, and it would seem from the number of people leaving I'm not the only one.
We could never afford to turn a blind eye to people making bad decisions, it's just that back in my day I believe we had a more grown up and pragmatic way of dealing with it.
But it's not my day anymore so I guess I should return to my hole. There is just something about officers who should be looking out for each other but are actually launching their own criminal investigations, searching court documents and collecting evidence on their fellow officers behind their back that doesn't sit well with me.
Good luck to all still serving.
We could never afford to turn a blind eye to people making bad decisions, it's just that back in my day I believe we had a more grown up and pragmatic way of dealing with it.
But it's not my day anymore so I guess I should return to my hole. There is just something about officers who should be looking out for each other but are actually launching their own criminal investigations, searching court documents and collecting evidence on their fellow officers behind their back that doesn't sit well with me.
Good luck to all still serving.
Is it just me or does the 'outing' of the Whistleblower in the Press not sit very well? I'm all for Military courts being conducted in a way that broadly matches proceedings in a standard ('civilian') court, but would we expect such details to make it to the public arena if this were a 'civvi' case?? I know it's not, so the point is maybe moot, but.....surely 'witnesses' are afforded some protection?
As for a quiet word in the shell-like alluded to earlier, he's a wg cdr and should know better - I doubt anyone would have the same sympathy if he were a sgt or, for that matter, an air officer! It's thanks to people like this that I have to spend so much time every year doing computer-based training about fraud, bribery and corruption (or whatever this year's course is called).
The following users liked this post:
People usually get caught out when they start bragging at the bar. He probably p155sed someone off who was within earshot. The guy was a Wing Commander in a plum posting and it still wasn't enough for him. He stole public money and should pay the price, no favours, no RHIP.
The following 6 users liked this post by Akrotiri bad boy:
It's disgraceful that he did it, of course, and he deserves the upcoming punishment. The thing that gets me is that having been the beneficiary of a couple of overseas tours, including one to the US, it's already a bloody good deal; fuel and lighting instead of paying your bills, ORA in return for paying for a quarter, LOA, etc etc. Why risk it for more?
The following users liked this post:
Greed - have youever seen a banker for instance, turn down a raise ??
I see it the other way but then maybe I'm too old fashioned. Personally I would hate to still be serving in a force where other officers were quietly running their own 'investigations' and making anonymous accusations.
In the Air Force I served in, had something like this happened then it could have been dealt with internally without having to resort to a CM. And I'm not condoning fraud at all, but let he who is without blame cast the first stone. I certainly bent the regulations from time to time and even broke them on more probably more then one occasion without even knowing because I have better things to do than read JSP whatever, which is something blunties should know all about but sharp pointy operators should be ignorant of, IMHO, and give me a 1771 all day long rather than the total abortion that was (maybe still is!?) JPA.
Can't think of someone I'd want less on my wing than a person who is 'calling out' (as you put it) regulatory transgressions by making anonymous accusations rather than taking me to one side in the bar and giving me an ear full.
But like I said, maybe I'm too old fashioned.
In the Air Force I served in, had something like this happened then it could have been dealt with internally without having to resort to a CM. And I'm not condoning fraud at all, but let he who is without blame cast the first stone. I certainly bent the regulations from time to time and even broke them on more probably more then one occasion without even knowing because I have better things to do than read JSP whatever, which is something blunties should know all about but sharp pointy operators should be ignorant of, IMHO, and give me a 1771 all day long rather than the total abortion that was (maybe still is!?) JPA.
Can't think of someone I'd want less on my wing than a person who is 'calling out' (as you put it) regulatory transgressions by making anonymous accusations rather than taking me to one side in the bar and giving me an ear full.
But like I said, maybe I'm too old fashioned.
Fraud is fraud, regardless of the rank held.
If anything, then the higher the rank the greater the responsibility to set a good example wouldn’t you say?
Ex-Cpl Avionker
The following 22 users liked this post by Avionker:
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: The beautiful North East
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
And would you have extended that courtesy to Other Ranks also? Or would you have it as “one rule for us and one rule for them”?
Fraud is fraud, regardless of the rank held.
If anything, then the higher the rank the greater the responsibility to set a good example wouldn’t you say?
Ex-Cpl Avionker
Fraud is fraud, regardless of the rank held.
If anything, then the higher the rank the greater the responsibility to set a good example wouldn’t you say?
Ex-Cpl Avionker
Honestly, when I was serving, as aircrew I had minimal responsibility for other ranks so never encountered the situation you described.
As I said before, I am not condoning what this individual has done. I don't know either of the people mentioned in the news articles and am aware that there could be a lot more to this that I don't know.
I just would hate to work in an organisation where individuals were running their own investigations on each other. This is not the RAF I left and I don't believe encouraging this 'whistleblowing' mentality is conducive to creating an effective fighting force. A force where you will be asking individuals to put their lives in the hands of their fellow Squadron members.
This individual has committed fraud and is going to be punished. That is deserving and right, make no mistake of what I am saying. But whilst others focus on the individual and salivate at the idea of justice being done, I choose to ponder the state of the force I proudly served and left many years ago. To me this is a failure of more than just a single individual.
I see it the other way but then maybe I'm too old fashioned. Personally I would hate to still be serving in a force where other officers were quietly running their own 'investigations' and making anonymous accusations.
In the Air Force I served in, had something like this happened then it could have been dealt with internally without having to resort to a CM. And I'm not condoning fraud at all, but let he who is without blame cast the first stone. I certainly bent the regulations from time to time and even broke them on more probably more then one occasion without even knowing because I have better things to do than read JSP whatever, which is something blunties should know all about but sharp pointy operators should be ignorant of, IMHO, and give me a 1771 all day long rather than the total abortion that was (maybe still is!?) JPA.
Can't think of someone I'd want less on my wing than a person who is 'calling out' (as you put it) regulatory transgressions by making anonymous accusations rather than taking me to one side in the bar and giving me an ear full.
But like I said, maybe I'm too old fashioned.
In the Air Force I served in, had something like this happened then it could have been dealt with internally without having to resort to a CM. And I'm not condoning fraud at all, but let he who is without blame cast the first stone. I certainly bent the regulations from time to time and even broke them on more probably more then one occasion without even knowing because I have better things to do than read JSP whatever, which is something blunties should know all about but sharp pointy operators should be ignorant of, IMHO, and give me a 1771 all day long rather than the total abortion that was (maybe still is!?) JPA.
Can't think of someone I'd want less on my wing than a person who is 'calling out' (as you put it) regulatory transgressions by making anonymous accusations rather than taking me to one side in the bar and giving me an ear full.
But like I said, maybe I'm too old fashioned.
Can’t think of anyone I’d want less on my wing than someone who is a liar and a fraudster. Give me the person who is calling it out any day.
The following 15 users liked this post by snapper41:
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: The beautiful North East
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
The air force you were in must have been on a completely different planet to the rest of us, then. Seriously - you think a £20k fraud should have been dealt with by a quiet word in the ear at the bar?
Can’t think of anyone I’d want less on my wing than someone who is a liar and a fraudster. Give me the person who is calling it out any day.
Can’t think of anyone I’d want less on my wing than someone who is a liar and a fraudster. Give me the person who is calling it out any day.
Certainly when I was serving much worse things happened than 20k of fraud and it was usually dealt with without court marshals and the embarrassment to the service that entails.
Someone who was keeping tallies, making records of other officer conduct and then reporting them to higher authorities would not have been welcome on any Squadron I served on. This kind of activity is utterly corrosive to the esprit de corps that is essential to ensuring people climb into their jets and complete their missions when there is a reasonable chance they might not make it back. If that sounds dramatic then I would encourage people to focus on current events because we may find ourselves in that situation again soon.
I still remain convinced there was a better way to handle this but then maybe there are facts I am not aware of, or may the RAF has fundamentally changed beyond anything I would recognise.
The daily mail comments want blood and are an interesting read ~ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ments-13142031
As they say, "the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed" and I suspect the outcome will be once again making the news.
We all make mistakes, the majority of the time we get away with it, lessons are learned and I hope his transition to civilian life is smooth and painless.
As they say, "the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed" and I suspect the outcome will be once again making the news.
We all make mistakes, the majority of the time we get away with it, lessons are learned and I hope his transition to civilian life is smooth and painless.
The more I hear about the state of the RAF now, the more I'm inclined to agree that it was a different planet.
Certainly when I was serving much worse things happened than 20k of fraud and it was usually dealt with without court marshals and the embarrassment to the service that entails.
Someone who was keeping tallies, making records of other officer conduct and then reporting them to higher authorities would not have been welcome on any Squadron I served on. This kind of activity is utterly corrosive to the esprit de corps that is essential to ensuring people climb into their jets and complete their missions when there is a reasonable chance they might not make it back. If that sounds dramatic then I would encourage people to focus on current events because we may find ourselves in that situation again soon.
I still remain convinced there was a better way to handle this but then maybe there are facts I am not aware of, or may the RAF has fundamentally changed beyond anything I would recognise.
Certainly when I was serving much worse things happened than 20k of fraud and it was usually dealt with without court marshals and the embarrassment to the service that entails.
Someone who was keeping tallies, making records of other officer conduct and then reporting them to higher authorities would not have been welcome on any Squadron I served on. This kind of activity is utterly corrosive to the esprit de corps that is essential to ensuring people climb into their jets and complete their missions when there is a reasonable chance they might not make it back. If that sounds dramatic then I would encourage people to focus on current events because we may find ourselves in that situation again soon.
I still remain convinced there was a better way to handle this but then maybe there are facts I am not aware of, or may the RAF has fundamentally changed beyond anything I would recognise.
The following 6 users liked this post by 4everAD:
The daily mail comments want blood and are an interesting read ~ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ments-13142031
As they say, "the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed" and I suspect the outcome will be once again making the news.
We all make mistakes, the majority of the time we get away with it, lessons are learned and I hope his transition to civilian life is smooth and painless.
As they say, "the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed" and I suspect the outcome will be once again making the news.
We all make mistakes, the majority of the time we get away with it, lessons are learned and I hope his transition to civilian life is smooth and painless.
While not making light of an extremely serious allegation, I am utterly shocked that some parts of MoD still get expenses, while others have to fund (e.g. travel and subsistence) from their salaries. Can I put in a retrospective claim?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Opinion here seems to be that he will get hung out to dry and dismissed.
But I note the Judge’s closing remarks and will wait to see the sentence.
‘Adjourning the case until April, Judge Advocate Smith told Drysdale: “This one blemish detracts from, but does not take away completely, from your 20-plus years of service.”'
But I note the Judge’s closing remarks and will wait to see the sentence.
‘Adjourning the case until April, Judge Advocate Smith told Drysdale: “This one blemish detracts from, but does not take away completely, from your 20-plus years of service.”'
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: The beautiful North East
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Opinion here seems to be that he will get hung out to dry and dismissed.
But I note the Judge’s closing remarks and will wait to see the sentence.
‘Adjourning the case until April, Judge Advocate Smith told Drysdale: “This one blemish detracts from, but does not take away completely, from your 20-plus years of service.”'
But I note the Judge’s closing remarks and will wait to see the sentence.
‘Adjourning the case until April, Judge Advocate Smith told Drysdale: “This one blemish detracts from, but does not take away completely, from your 20-plus years of service.”'
5.2.1 Service personnel may have access to valuable stores (including those attractive to terrorist
organisations), IT equipment and a wide range of other materiel. They have access to the Joint
Personnel Administration System (JPA) and can claim expenses and allowances with limited checks
or controls. They are trusted to deal with such equipment or claims honestly, and theft or fraud is a
clear breach of that trust. Offences can be hard to detect and sentences with an element of
deterrence are generally required, particularly when offences are committed by commissioned
officers.
organisations), IT equipment and a wide range of other materiel. They have access to the Joint
Personnel Administration System (JPA) and can claim expenses and allowances with limited checks
or controls. They are trusted to deal with such equipment or claims honestly, and theft or fraud is a
clear breach of that trust. Offences can be hard to detect and sentences with an element of
deterrence are generally required, particularly when offences are committed by commissioned
officers.
YS
Sorry, you were an Officer in the Armed Forces? Presumably QRs was one of the manuals that you were too good to read? It certainly sounds that way.
I see it the other way but then maybe I'm too old fashioned. Personally I would hate to still be serving in a force where other officers were quietly running their own 'investigations' and making anonymous accusations.
In the Air Force I served in, had something like this happened then it could have been dealt with internally without having to resort to a CM. And I'm not condoning fraud at all, but let he who is without blame cast the first stone. I certainly bent the regulations from time to time and even broke them on more probably more then one occasion without even knowing because I have better things to do than read JSP whatever, which is something blunties should know all about but sharp pointy operators should be ignorant of, IMHO, and give me a 1771 all day long rather than the total abortion that was (maybe still is!?) JPA.
Can't think of someone I'd want less on my wing than a person who is 'calling out' (as you put it) regulatory transgressions by making anonymous accusations rather than taking me to one side in the bar and giving me an ear full.
But like I said, maybe I'm too old fashioned.
In the Air Force I served in, had something like this happened then it could have been dealt with internally without having to resort to a CM. And I'm not condoning fraud at all, but let he who is without blame cast the first stone. I certainly bent the regulations from time to time and even broke them on more probably more then one occasion without even knowing because I have better things to do than read JSP whatever, which is something blunties should know all about but sharp pointy operators should be ignorant of, IMHO, and give me a 1771 all day long rather than the total abortion that was (maybe still is!?) JPA.
Can't think of someone I'd want less on my wing than a person who is 'calling out' (as you put it) regulatory transgressions by making anonymous accusations rather than taking me to one side in the bar and giving me an ear full.
But like I said, maybe I'm too old fashioned.
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: The beautiful North East
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I know the RAF wanted people to be 'Officer first' but I'll be honest and say I joined for the flying and I think most of the aircrew of my era would have been the same.
So anything I did read in QR's I quickly forgot about because I didn't feel it was relevant to my job. I left it to the blunties to remind everyone that they were entitled to ride a horse into work, etc.
in fact, in most of my experience the people that care about that stuff only have time to care about it because the were not actually involves in delivering air power. Maybe that is you, I don't know.
The following users liked this post: