Latest news was that he was trying to deliver a Pizza!



I'll get my coat.

I hate to say it chaps but if the Torygraph is right he has pretty well admitted to it.

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 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.......

The allegation is patently false. Everyone knows an RAF pilot's head won't fit through a window....

It had to be an RAF Officer....he took his watch off. A naval Officer would never been seen without his watch...




Taxi for one please

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!!

Are you sure? I've known several people who have consented to ignition at Happy Hour, including two who actually set themselves on fire (in fact one of the two was me).

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.

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.

I was referring to the specifics of the (?) Chivenor case which finished up as GBH and is in fact used in legal textbooks as an example.

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 ( :ooh: )

Consent not a defence there either....

The 'Scanner' case I believe.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Safeware,

Couldn't agree more!

So, the lady was totally legless (Daily Telegraph report on the C/M)- that must make her the perfect target for a re-attack later. Military Ethos, or what?

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.

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.