Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[Remius]

For clarity that leadership comment wasn’t supposed to come off as being at you in any way shape or form

I hadn’t interpreted it that way and assumed it was a writ large comment but I appreciate the clarification,

 

[Booter]

If the guy makes money for the trial but at the end he gets what he deserves he can have the meal claim- it’s worth it

 

[Halifax Tar]

So the Naval Officer who spoke about Officer X at the Commons Defence Committee is receiving threats via email.

You will have to google to find the article as it cannot be posted here.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So the Naval Officer who spoke about Officer X at the Commons Defence Committee is receiving threats via email.

You will have to google to find the article as it cannot be posted here.

I'm assuming then that these people don't know how to threaten people anonymously

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm assuming then that these people don't know how to threaten people anonymously

Unknown, but apparently it is being investigated, according to the article.

 

[KevinB]

If the guy makes money for the trial but at the end he gets what he deserves he can have the meal claim- it’s worth it

Sort of. Years ago I knew a M/Cpl who got charged for something rather chickenshit. He ended up getting a $200 fine, but had come in 7 days to meet with his assisting officer and had the charge parade on a non parade admin night - so he made more than double the fine.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Sort of. Years ago I knew a M/Cpl who got charged for something rather chickenshit. He ended up getting a $200 fine, but had come in 7 days to meet with his assisting officer and had the charge parade on a non parade admin night - so he made more than double the fine.

Several decades ago, young troops in a Res Inf unit had a thing going. They would commit minor offenses prior to Christmas, get charged, get the Cl A pay to prep for the trial and be fined only a percentage of it - leaving them money to party or buy presents.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Unknown, but apparently it is being investigated, according to the article.

It actually specifically says the MPs aren't investigating and have no plans to do so. Nothing like a little whisteblower/witness intimidation to get quick action I guess.

The double (triple?) standards is interesting; there are plenty of people who have been crucified and identified by name in press releases for less, (with zero follow up if charges were dropped, found not guilty etc) and this guy doesn't even have a rank attached.

Never go full RCN I guess.

 

[dapaterson]

Lawyers generally advise caution about reporting names in public.

As well, depending on the specific nature of the accusations, media may withhold names even if someone is ultimately charged.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It actually specifically says the MPs aren't investigating and have no plans to do so. Nothing like a little whisteblower/witness intimidation to get quick action I guess.

The double (triple?) standards is interesting; there are plenty of people who have been crucified and identified by name in press releases for less, (with zero follow up if charges were dropped, found not guilty etc) and this guy doesn't even have a rank attached.

Never go full RCN I guess.

I thought it said something about the unit investigating, perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Several decades ago, young troops in a Res Inf unit had a thing going. They would commit minor offenses prior to Christmas, get charged, get the Cl A pay to prep for the trial and be fined only a percentage of it - leaving them money to party or buy presents.

Good Lord... in what decade was the whole disciplinary process that efficient?

 

[Good2Golf]

Good Lord... in what decade was the whole disciplinary process that efficient?

Back when a reserve army unit was a platoon, not a section.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I thought it said something about the unit investigating, perhaps I misunderstood.

I think it did, but then explicitly said the MPs aren't investigating and don't intend to, which I had to read a few times to make sure I hand't dropped a word or something. Not that the unit investigation won't try, but random PO1/CPO2 that gets tagged with it hardly has the resources of the MPs.

The guy got called to testify in Parliament, which I believe is under oath, gets several threats, and MPs do....nothing? That doesn't seem right. They may not be legally required to but holy fuck. If nothing else having them randomly drop in and ask you to come by for questions should at least put the fear of god into the dumb ass of whoever did it and act as a deterrent.

This happened to the LCdr that testified at parliament a few years ago as well, and SFA came of that as well.

My take away is it's cool to harass people who get called to testify at parliament.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Honestly though, if someone was threatening you and you, with a spotless record and some tours in the bank, showed up and played smash face what kind of punishment are you looking at? Suspended sentence? Worse thing would be some lawyers fees and having to take some angery management classes you already signed up for and completed to show the judge you're in a better place now.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Honestly though, if someone was threatening you and you, with a spotless record and some tours in the bank, showed up and played smash face what kind of punishment are you looking at? Suspended sentence? Worse thing would be some lawyers fees and having to take some angery management classes you already signed up for and completed to show the judge you're in a better place now.

That would be vigilante justice I think a lot of people could get behind.

"I testified in Parliament, got threatened as a result, and my employer did nothing about it, so took it in my own hands. They were coming right for me, so it was self defence'.

I mostly found the RCN claim of 'Privacy Act' convenient, they are plenty happy to name and shame people who have only been accused well before any charges are on the table in other cases where it was an isolated incedent reported to the CoC, let alone a serial sexual abuser with numerous complaints that was testified before in Parliament.

 

[Furniture]

That would be vigilante justice I think a lot of people could get behind.

"I testified in Parliament, got threatened as a result, and my employer did nothing about it, so took it in my own hands. They were coming right for me, so it was self defence'.

I mostly found the RCN claim of 'Privacy Act' convenient, they are plenty happy to name and shame people who have only been accused well before any charges are on the table in other cases where it was an isolated incedent reported to the CoC, let alone a serial sexual abuser with numerous complaints that was testified before in Parliament.

Perhaps the CAF learned from those previous experiences, when things fell apart and they had to go to court or settle with the named and shamed members.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good Lord... in what decade was the whole disciplinary process that efficient?

The 70s enter the chat:

Charged at 0900 on orders parade at 1030 hrs, found guilty at 1040 hrs. Sentenced at 1041 hrs.
Defaulters parade at 1745 hrs. On Friday.

 

[Ostrozac]

Sort of. Years ago I knew a M/Cpl who got charged for something rather chickenshit. He ended up getting a $200 fine, but had come in 7 days to meet with his assisting officer and had the charge parade on a non parade admin night - so he made more than double the fine.

I had a slightly elevated situation when I was on RSS. Soldier court-martailled, which resulted in multiple Class A days not just for the accused but also for other members of the unit who were required to be tasked to support the proceedings. In the end, the member in question was not guilty. So no fine, significant spending on salary.

 

[Haggis]

Lawyers generally advise caution about reporting names in public.

The 17 Wing CWO who was wrongly charged and publicly identified in 2019 enters the chat. His name is still available on the GoC news releases.

As well, depending on the specific nature of the accusations, media may withhold names even if someone is ultimately charged.

That's generally the practice in cases where identifying the accused would identify the victim, such as intimate partner violence.

 

[dapaterson]

I had a slightly elevated situation when I was on RSS. Soldier court-martailled, which resulted in multiple Class A days not just for the accused but also for other members of the unit who were required to be tasked to support the proceedings. In the end, the member in question was not guilty. So no fine, significant spending on salary.

The cost of Reg F pay is frequently overlooked, or assumed away as a fixed cost of the CAF. Or, unfortunately, turns into a reason not to plan or prepare properly since "you're being paid anyways".