RAF Odiham
 

Good luck mate, I have attended a few parties in your rooms, and I hope this all blows over soon.

TR

What?????

Come on woz 'appened?

I presume this relates to the story in the Daily Express?

Indeed in the Daily Express .

So slow work days all round: RAF PLOD, DLS and the Daily Sexpress.

Isn't the headline on the newspaper what fairytales are made of? I hope he left a box of Milk Tray.


Just read the same story on The Sun's web site, ok perhaps a more serious tone to the story, not suggested by the Express headline.

And in the Torygraph. Someone's career has just crashed.

I wonder though why the speed of justice is so slow.

Knowing both parties involved rather well, and a few details that are not public domain, I hope justice is done and we see Stu back on the Sqn very soon.

I would say more but it's not appropriate while the CM is running. Also be aware that anything written here will probably find its way into the tabloids tomorrow.

I just love the fact that, even though the verdict is not known and the case is still going on, the chap's name and photograph can be released to the press. I don't know any details about this incident apart from what I have read, but it does seem a little unfair as if it is disproved, his name and reputation will be irreparably damaged. Crazy.

I do not have first hand knowledge of this incident and am only commenting on what I have read in the tabloids.

If what is written is to believed, then I hope the Board take said FO aside afterwards and give her a good dressing down for being so stupid and leading this poor guy on!


;)

Let the law take it's course.
If he is guilty, hang him.
If not guilty, drinks all round in the Mess afterwards.

As long as it's no more than 5 glasses of champers!
Concensus around here is that he's a lightweight and should be charged with bringing the RAF into disrepute...

At least the alleged offence was with a female.........:rolleyes:

Was he too p!ssed to try taking a cab, or not p!ssed enough?

Come on boys, let's have faith in the system and hope the truth comes out and Stu is totally cleared of all charges. But as for describing him as dashing...... Who says the press don't bend the truth!!!

Well we can but hope but I won't hold me breath. Hats are very keen on being seen to do something.

Knowing more than I can let on, I echo all sentiments, and hope that Stu comes out of this in the clear. Here's hoping........

All the best mate

Good luck Stupot.

Its difficult to avoid names here when the BBC web site has names and photos. The comment about keeping him anonymous is valid, unfortunately everyone in the country goes by the same rules. What if Ian Huntley had been found not guilty?? I'll bet Wacko Jacko wishes the same hiding place in America. If this dashing fellow is found not guilty his career will not necessarily be affected, he may get promoted!!!

It's serious alright, as this unsensationalised account in the Torygraph shows.

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.