# Two CF members arrested in Petawawa over Cpl Bloggins Facebook page



## bradley247

http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=294469

I'll be interested to see how this story develops.


----------



## ModlrMike

'Twas only a matter of time.


----------



## Kat Stevens

IF GUILTY, I hope they roast their nuts.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName

I had no idea it was as bad as outlined in the videos. Disgusting.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I've heard a woman from out West got in quite a bit of hot water for making a fake Cpl bloggins Web page and saying some pretty  bad shit in an attempt to make bloggins "look bad".  People at work and posts I've seen on that dumb page are saying it was the woman from the ctv link.


----------



## ModlrMike

You would have to try exceptionally hard to make Bloggins "look bad". In fact, looking bad would be an improvement over the current content. Having watched the video, some of the stuff they showed appeared to have come from the source, so I don't think she was making anything up. To add, if the NIS arrested someone, they would surely have sufficient evidence to do so.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm sure she wasn't making up being made fun of and harassed one bit, the harassing comments looked like sop for that page. 

I never seen the fake bloggins page but I did catch some posts of bloggins and friends going ape shit about comments alledegly made by the woman.


----------



## kratz

I'm confident this will be resolved appropriately.

I am content to see this item move forward and some action being taken, as warrented.


----------



## Journeyman

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm confident this will be resolved appropriately.
> 
> I am content to see this item move forward and some action being taken, as warrented.


Perhaps I'm cynical....OK, scratch "perhaps".....I see nothing coming out of this.

The military _wants_ to do the right thing (ie- CSD, appropriate punishment, justice being seen to be done), but you just know that the advocates of "freedom of speech trumping responsible behaviour" will have a field-day of 'those moving$$-entitled Generals picking on the Cpls.' And we all know, the regular cast of rent-a-talking head and anti-military hand-wringers will be lining up for an "opinion."

I'm afraid the military justice system has become too emasculated, coupled with political oversight pre-disposed to cringe at _potentially_ negative media coverage -- even though they're already reporting it as a hate crime [should be win-win]


----------



## FJAG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm afraid the military justice system has become too emasculated, coupled with political oversight pre-disposed to cringe at _potentially_ negative media coverage -- even though they're already reporting it as a hate crime [should be win-win]



I know cynicism is the order of the day but let me reassure you that the military justice system has been neither "emasculated" nor "coupled with political oversight pre-disposed to cringe at negative media coverage".

While quite some time ago we lowered the powers of punishment for commanding and delegated officers all that resulted in is that the more serious offences are diverted (by election or direction) to the court martial system where heavier punishments are available.

The JAG stands completely independent of the chain of command. As far as the court martial system is concerned, so has the charge preferral process since it was transferred from the chain of command-based convening authorities to the Director of Military Prosecutions.

Charges are authorized when credible evidence of an offence is developed by the police and prosecutions are moved forward when the prosecutors determine that there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction. The chain of command cannot interfere and media coverage, whether negative or positive, plays zero role in the process.

Have a good one.

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

FJAG said:
			
		

> .....let me reassure you ....



Yes, that's nice.

Belly up to the bar and pull your cash out.  Are you willing to bet on the outcome of these two arrests?

   op:


----------



## devil39

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> Belly up to the bar and pull your cash out.  Are you willing to bet on the outcome of these two arrests?
> 
> op:



I'm with Journeyman on this one.... emasculated.... 

Much has changed in my time, though not always as a negative.


----------



## Lightguns

Edit:  Checked the page, they (it and it's followers) are still making fun of the LBQTs and now added the MPs and CTV to their hate parade.  Still lots of soldiers posting hate and participating in bully other soldiers under their own names.


----------



## Remius

His other page seems gone though. Or at least content was removed.


----------



## The Bread Guy

bradley247 said:
			
		

> http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=294469
> 
> I'll be interested to see how this story develops.


Here's a readable version of the CTV story .....


> A Facebook group berating gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces is being investigated after publishing personal information about a B.C. transsexual woman.
> 
> Comox resident Katherine Bickford, a former member of the military, said the “Cpl Bloggins” group crossed a line last Saturday when it posted pictures of her family online.
> 
> “That became the point where this went beyond making us angry and got to the point where we were afraid,” Bickford said. “That’s when it became personal.”
> 
> The group also shared the name of Bickford’s partner, who is an active Canadian Forces member, and revealed where she works.
> 
> Fed up, Bickford reported the online harassers to military police.
> 
> “There are a lot of good people in the military who have been harmed by this,” she said. “A lot of people are suffering from [post-traumatic stress disorder], this kind of stuff doesn’t help them. It certainly doesn’t help me.”
> 
> The Canadian Forces told CTV News the “Cpl Bloggins” Facebook group has been investigated in the past, and in January two members of the military were arrested for allegations of defamation and inappropriate comments.
> 
> The page appears to have been taken down, but another popped up under the same name on Jan 26.
> 
> Military police have launched another defamation probe into the new page, but the Canadian Forces said it cannot comment while the investigation is underway.
> 
> “The Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Forces Military Police take seriously all allegations of inappropriate conduct by Canadian Armed Forces personnel,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
> 
> “In all cases, investigations are conducted to determine the facts, analyze the evidence, and if warranted, lay appropriate charges.” ....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Edit:  Checked the page, they (it and it's followers) are still making fun of the LBQTs and now added the MPs and CTV to their hate parade.  Still lots of soldiers posting hate and participating in bully other soldiers under their own names.



The cat is out of the bag, doesn't matter if this Bloggins gets arrested, another Bloggins will rise up to take his/her place. 

I was just reading comments on the Bloggins page and this one stood out in my mind:

"The funny thing is Cpl bloggins is every Roudy member of the cf. So why do they think they can end it...."  

Now the guys spelling may suck but he does have a point.  I said it in an earlier post in the other Bloggins thread, this page is merely an extreme representation of "combat arms machismo" that exists and has always existed within the army.  Contrary to popular belief, the combat arms aren't filled with a bunch of nice, pleasant people that hand out teddy bears to kids.  Disagree with me all you want but I've been an assisting officer enough, seen enough summary trials and read enough police and court reports to know better.

The one tool that the military had to deal with this was discipline but it seems that discipline has taken back seat to "freedom of speech, human rights, etc..." 

Discipline is a leadership problem and requires, dare I say it, leadership.

I remember a certain Australian General releasing a statement on Youtube about a similar incident which demonstrated tremendous leadership on his part....







Where has our leadership been hiding this whole time?


----------



## Lightguns

"combat arms machismo" perhaps, complete loss of message control definitely.  Cpl Bloggins has now instructed it's followers to "light up" the CTV facebook page.  Pissing them off will lead to pissing DGPA off.  Watch and shoot for the biggest witch hunt in the history of Canadian military.  

Edit:  it will make interesting watching whether Bloggins commands enough "combat arms machismo" types to do any real damage to CTV facebook.


----------



## Remius

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular belief, the combat arms aren't filled with a bunch of nice, pleasant people that hand out teddy bears to kids.  Disagree with me all you want but I've been an assisting officer enough, seen enough summary trials and read enough police and court reports to know better.



Contrary to popular belief the combat arms aren't filled with knuckle dragging criminals either.  This turd is one of the bad apples.  The kind of guy that gets units disbanded for his actions when left unchecked or undealt with.  His type, makes the military as a whole look bad.  I know plenty of combat arms types that volunteer, are Big Brothers etc etc.  So maybe not teddy bears but close enough.  

Machismo is one thing, this is outright, overt hate and harrassment.  Excuse it any way you want, it isn't acceptable.  It goes beyond the combat arms attitude, dark humour and sometimes politically incorrect talk  that may be limited to unit lines and messes.  He's gone into the public domain and is taking it to places where that kind of stuff shouldn't be tolerated.  

I predict that this guy is on borrowed time anyway.  

And it seems that some of his more hateful stuff has been taken down or removed, so I guess the "visit" he had rattled him somewhat.  

With all the SHARP crap, ethics training and citizenship lessons in the CF, you would think that a soldier would get it.  

So forget that he's combat arms, infantry etc etc.  The only explanation is that he is an idiot.


----------



## Journeyman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Pissing them off will lead to pissing DGPA off.


   anic:

-30-


----------



## McG

Here is a proper link to the article:  http://bc.ctvnews.ca/canadian-forces-probes-facebook-group-belittling-gay-and-lesbian-members-1.1695115


----------



## Edward Campbell

Two loosely connected points:

     An old chum, MGen (ret'd) Clive Addy (late of the RCAC), explained, some years ago, that we had a problem with what he called "macho thuggery." The CAF, he suggested, needs "tough guys" but the toughness needs to be both
     of a certain, cheerful type and well focused.

     Some tie later I adapted one of my own thoughts (from the 1970s) into a _notion_ that said we might want to consider the business of soldiering by describing the attributes of a soldier. The "good soldier," I suggested, was six things:
     four of them had to be in a certain order and the other two could be "bookends."

My six things that a good soldier must be are:

     _Well led_;
          *Tough;
          Superbly disciplined;
          Well trained;
          Adequately equipped*; and
     _Properly organized_.

The four attributes: tough, superbly disciplined, well trained and adequately equipped, I argued, needed to be in that specific order because _toughness_ is an innate quality, we, the military, can hone and shape and focus it but we cannot teach it. But toughness, especially Clive Addy's "macho thuggery," is only useful to us when it is paired with discipline. I always used the term "superbly disciplined" because I remember it from a long lost magazine article about the change of command (control, actually) of the Canadian Army _circa_ 1960; the article referred to "the small but superbly disciplined Canadian Army." I heard similar words again and again when I was under training in the UK and the US. Those countries may have thought that we could have done "more" in terms of numbers of soldiers, tanks, guns, etc but they were certain that we were the "best," the _ne plus ultra_ in the quality business. And their definition of quality was, essentially: discipline. Training is, I hope, obvious, but the other _qualitative_ attribute upon which foreign officers always  commented was the high standards to which we were trained. Another thing I saw, in my own service, was that good equipment helps, but the best equipment in the world is less than useful if it isn't in the hands of tough, superbly disciplined, well trained soldiers. Again and again I saw Canadians, and others, produce the desired results with only barely adequate equipment while others, with more and better kit, failed.

The other two attributes deserve a word each:

     I have dealt with "properly organized" el;sewhere. There is no "right" answer but there are wrong ones and I believe we are less than adequately organized now.

     "Well led" means, in my mind, that the leaders are tough*er*, even *better* disciplined and even *better* trained than their subordinates and they, the leaders are 'equipped' with the right administrative tools to help the soldiers do their very best.

My  :2c:


----------



## ModlrMike

All very good and valid points Edward and the ideal we should be working for. That being said, you can't prevent people making bad decisions; you can only give them the tools to make good ones.

This issue is not done with, and some folks are in for a rude awakening once their activities are made public.




Edit: spelling


----------



## wx_watcher

I made this account just so I could reply to this post. I'm happy they're getting shit on. I went on their page once because a friend of mine had a picture of herself used (without her consent) on that page in an attempt to put women in the military down. She was a good sport about it, I was more upset then she was.
It was disgusting seeing some of the hateful comments serving members were posting, it was embarrassing.

Even if nothing comes of them being arrested at least it will send a message.


----------



## Strike

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I was just reading comments on the Bloggins page and this one stood out in my mind:
> 
> "The funny thing is Cpl bloggins is every Roudy member of the cf. So why do they think they can end it...."
> 
> Now the guys spelling may suck but he does have a point.  I said it in an earlier post in the other Bloggins thread, this page is merely an extreme representation of "combat arms machismo" that exists and has always existed within the army.  Contrary to popular belief, the combat arms aren't filled with a bunch of nice, pleasant people that hand out teddy bears to kids.  Disagree with me all you want but I've been an assisting officer enough, seen enough summary trials and read enough police and court reports to know better.



Here's the thing though.  The page that was put up on FB was an open page.  So, with that, how many of these people making the rude comments and posting some very insulting memes would show these to their mothers?

I try using that as a general rule of thumb (especially since my mom is on my friends list).  If I don't think my mom would want to see it or read it I won't post it, certainly not on an open site.  A closed group is a different beast altogether and, if these people wanted to beak off, then that's where it should have been done.


----------



## Journeyman

wx_watcher said:
			
		

> Even if nothing comes of them being arrested at least it will send a message.


The last news report I'd read, they'd not yet been charged.  If there's no follow though, the message will be "all bark but no bite -- have at 'er boys."


----------



## muskrat89

Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to see how sturdy these internet tough guys are, moving through the process. Maybe someone can post memes of them blatting in front of the Judge


----------



## RCDtpr

The fact of the matter is if people don't want their pictures used in any manner, don't post them on Facebook.

As for buddy being arrested, I highly doubt he will learn much of a lesson.  His arrest probably consisted of nothing more than being told he's under arrest, searched, and then (since it appears they would have no grounds to hold the person) released on the spot after being told their CoC would receive the report recommending charges.

The elements of the offence for criminal harassment are not really met from the Facebook page alone so (unless there's a lot more to this) he's  probably looking at nothing more than a 129.

Everyone giving the page this much attention is actually worse than the page itself.  The guy wants/wanted attention...and he succeeded.


----------



## wx_watcher

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The last news report I'd read, they'd not yet been charged.  If there's no follow though, the message will be "all bark but no bite -- have at 'er boys."



A bark is better then nothing. Would you rather it be ignored and nothing be done at all?
Anywho, I'm procrastinating. Have fun picking this topic apart! Bye.


----------



## FJAG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, that's nice.
> 
> Belly up to the bar and pull your cash out.  Are you willing to bet on the outcome of these two arrests?
> 
> op:



Sorry. No bet there yet. Over the years I've learned not to predict the eventual outcome of a case until I have a pretty good handle on the facts. Other than that I've seen the crappy web site once, I have no insight as to what the facts re these two individuals are. That might sound mealy-mouthed but in my mind a rush to judgement in either direction would just be presumptuous.

While I maintain that the military justice system is not broken, I do agree with much of what has been said above regarding discipline and leadership. I always thought that our attitude towards leadership went down the tubes in the early seventies at the time that the infamous recruiting add for officers came out showing a nattily dressed-in-greens officer stepped off the steps to a Boeing 707 carrying an attaché case. 

From that point forward the officer corps (and to an unfortunate extent the senior NCO corps) started concerning themselves more with administration and management than with true leadership. Our policies became more civil service in nature and unfortunately much of our ethos followed suit.

As to our troops, I've always believed that they are reflective of the society that they come from. We're a cross section of that - the good and the bad. Unfortunately society in general has gotten meaner and less self-disciplined. Our high schools are filled with the unruly (just take a look at bullying there and their negative use of social media) and many of them have joined the CF where we no longer "indoctrinate" our people. What we mostly do is issue orders and directives on social behaviour and expect that they will be absorbed by osmosis.

We have a problem (not a general one but a large enough, and I think growing one to be of concern) with how some of our troops act out. Unfortunately our leadership (neither upper officer corps nor upper senior NCO corps) have the skill sets to handle many of these issues.

All that said, for those who believe that I yearn for the old pre-sixties army, all I can say is that I was there. IMHO, today's soldiers are better trained, better equipped and generally all around more capable of warfighting. Their numbers are down and therefore the force as a whole is less effective, but man-for-man and unit-for-unit they're a heck of a lot better today then in the "good old days".

 :stirpot:

 :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar

FJAG said:
			
		

> We have a problem (not a general one but a large enough, and I think growing one to be of concern) with how some of our troops act out. Unfortunately our leadership (neither upper officer corps nor upper senior NCO corps) have the skill sets to handle many of these issues.



Powerful words there FJAG.  

I sometimes wonder if our upper officer and NCO corps hasn't become too far removed from the people they are meant to lead.  

Kind of builds into your statement: 



> As to our troops, I've always believed that they are reflective of the society that they come from. We're a cross section of that - the good and the bad



Perhaps like the troops this too happens to our CoC and they become a reflection of the society they are built from.  If you ever want to know how disconnected some CEOs are from their organizations just watch those shows where they plant the CEO as a worker for a day or two.  

I dunno perhaps I'm reading too much into what your saying but I find it interesting.


----------



## daftandbarmy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Two loosely connected points:
> 
> An old chum, MGen (ret'd) Clive Addy (late of the RCAC), explained, some years ago, that we had a problem with what he called "macho thuggery." The CAF, he suggested, needs "tough guys" but the toughness needs to be both
> of a certain, cheerful type and well focused.
> 
> Some tie later I adapted one of my own thoughts (from the 1970s) into a _notion_ that said we might want to consider the business of soldiering by describing the attributes of a soldier. The "good soldier," I suggested, was six things:
> four of them had to be in a certain order and the other two could be "bookends."
> 
> My six things that a good soldier must be are:
> 
> _Well led_;
> *Tough;
> Superbly disciplined;
> Well trained;
> Adequately equipped*; and
> _Properly organized_.
> 
> The four attributes: tough, superbly disciplined, well trained and adequately equipped, I argued, needed to be in that specific order because _toughness_ is an innate quality, we, the military, can hone and shape and focus it but we cannot teach it. But toughness, especially Clive Addy's "macho thuggery," is only useful to us when it is paired with discipline. I always used the term "superbly disciplined" because I remember it from a long lost magazine article about the change of command (control, actually) of the Canadian Army _circa_ 1960; the article referred to "the small but superbly disciplined Canadian Army." I heard similar words again and again when I was under training in the UK and the US. Those countries may have thought that we could have done "more" in terms of numbers of soldiers, tanks, guns, etc but they were certain that we were the "best," the _ne plus ultra_ in the quality business. And their definition of quality was, essentially: discipline. Training is, I hope, obvious, but the other _qualitative_ attribute upon which foreign officers always  commented was the high standards to which we were trained. Another thing I saw, in my own service, was that good equipment helps, but the best equipment in the world is less than useful if it isn't in the hands of tough, superbly disciplined, well trained soldiers. Again and again I saw Canadians, and others, produce the desired results with only barely adequate equipment while others, with more and better kit, failed.
> 
> The other two attributes deserve a word each:
> 
> I have dealt with "properly organized" el;sewhere. There is no "right" answer but there are wrong ones and I believe we are less than adequately organized now.
> 
> "Well led" means, in my mind, that the leaders are tough*er*, even *better* disciplined and even *better* trained than their subordinates and they, the leaders are 'equipped' with the right administrative tools to help the soldiers do their very best.
> 
> My  :2c:



Too bad we seem to promote the 'Warrior' ethos these days, which has a negative influence on the way our troops behave in public, and elsewhere, as well as perceive themselves. The differences between a 'Warrior' and a 'Soldier' are vast, and it's important to maintain a focus on the latter and get eliminate efforts to extoll the virtues of the former viz:


Soldiers and Warriors

I am a Seventh Cavalry officer. I commanded in that most famous of American units, and my regimental affiliation and affections will always be with the men who wear the upturned horseshoe crest of that regiment. As a historian, and as perhaps the de facto regimental historian (since there is no such thing as a de jure position for this function), I am also very well acquainted with our legacy. The Seventh Cavalry was created to man the outposts of the frontiers in the wake of the Civil War, and to fight against the warrior cultures of the Native American tribes as need be. But in doing so they were not then, and are not now, warriors themselves. The men of the 7th Cavalry were and are soldiers. There is a significant difference between the two.

Unfortunately, and I cannot nail down when this started, a trend started to take hold in the Army and the Marine Corps which blurred that distinction. Sometime in the mid-90s we started to hear senior officers (defined in my head as "Colonels and Up") calling us "warriors." 

At first the appellation was rare enough. Now and then you might hear it creep into a speech at a Change of Command ceremony, or perhaps at a Dining In (a formal dinner for the officers of a battalion or brigade). But slowly the term began to come into more common usage, even as it leaked into print in professional journals and in speeches coming from Air Force officers. This is a bad sign, and it does not seems to be stopping. I wish it would, because calling us warriors is not only inaccurate, it displays an ignorance about what a warrior is all about. The bottom line is that a real "warrior" is really just about himself.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html


Soldiers As "Warriors"? A Myth That Doesn't Translate to Reality

written by Arthur Varanelli
on January 27, 2010 


It strikes me that more and more these days, the military's leadership seems to want to convince soldiers that they are "warriors," people who are distinct from the rest of society by virtue of their courage and aggressiveness. The goal is to make the soldier more effective at killing the enemy by stoking the psychological fires of combat. But promoting this kind of ideology, along with the amazing technology available to the military today, creates a sort of mythical and futuristic landscape that is more pop fiction than real life. And unfortuntely, encouraging the Warrior concept among soldiers can only exacerbate the gap between soldiers and society.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/conversations/coming-home/soldiers-as-warriors-a-myth-that-doesnt-translate-to-reality.php


----------



## AirDet

Crantor said:
			
		

> forget that he's combat arms, infantry etc etc.  The only explanation is that he is an idiot.



 :goodpost:


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Too bad we seem to promote the 'Warrior' ethos these days, which has a negative influence on the way our troops behave in public, and elsewhere, as well as perceive themselves. The differences between a 'Warrior' and a 'Soldier' are vast, and it's important to maintain a focus on the latter and get eliminate efforts to extoll the virtues of the former viz:
> 
> 
> Soldiers and Warriors
> 
> I am a Seventh Cavalry officer. I commanded in that most famous of American units, and my regimental affiliation and affections will always be with the men who wear the upturned horseshoe crest of that regiment. As a historian, and as perhaps the de facto regimental historian (since there is no such thing as a de jure position for this function), I am also very well acquainted with our legacy. The Seventh Cavalry was created to man the outposts of the frontiers in the wake of the Civil War, and to fight against the warrior cultures of the Native American tribes as need be. But in doing so they were not then, and are not now, warriors themselves. The men of the 7th Cavalry were and are soldiers. There is a significant difference between the two.
> 
> Unfortunately, and I cannot nail down when this started, a trend started to take hold in the Army and the Marine Corps which blurred that distinction. Sometime in the mid-90s we started to hear senior officers (defined in my head as "Colonels and Up") calling us "warriors."
> 
> At first the appellation was rare enough. Now and then you might hear it creep into a speech at a Change of Command ceremony, or perhaps at a Dining In (a formal dinner for the officers of a battalion or brigade). But slowly the term began to come into more common usage, even as it leaked into print in professional journals and in speeches coming from Air Force officers. This is a bad sign, and it does not seems to be stopping. I wish it would, because calling us warriors is not only inaccurate, it displays an ignorance about what a warrior is all about. The bottom line is that a real "warrior" is really just about himself.
> 
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/09/soldiers_and_warriors.html
> 
> 
> Soldiers As "Warriors"? A Myth That Doesn't Translate to Reality
> 
> written by Arthur Varanelli
> on January 27, 2010
> 
> 
> It strikes me that more and more these days, the military's leadership seems to want to convince soldiers that they are "warriors," people who are distinct from the rest of society by virtue of their courage and aggressiveness. The goal is to make the soldier more effective at killing the enemy by stoking the psychological fires of combat. But promoting this kind of ideology, along with the amazing technology available to the military today, creates a sort of mythical and futuristic landscape that is more pop fiction than real life. And unfortuntely, encouraging the Warrior concept among soldiers can only exacerbate the gap between soldiers and society.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/conversations/coming-home/soldiers-as-warriors-a-myth-that-doesnt-translate-to-reality.php



I remember that topic in my Ethics OPME.  I guess I actually learned something


----------



## Jarnhamar

There were just as many CS, CSS, CIC and retired members acting like assholes right along side combat arms types.


----------



## armyvern

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is if people don't want their pictures used in any manner, don't post them on Facebook.
> 
> As for buddy being arrested, I highly doubt he will learn much of a lesson.  His arrest probably consisted of nothing more than being told he's under arrest, searched, and then (since it appears they would have no grounds to hold the person) released on the spot after being told their CoC would receive the report recommending charges.
> 
> The elements of the offence for criminal harassment are not really met from the Facebook page alone so (unless there's a lot more to this) he's  probably looking at nothing more than a 129.
> 
> Everyone giving the page this much attention is actually worse than the page itself.  The guy wants/wanted attention...and he succeeded.



There's been some defamation occurring on that site.  For example, when a female asked for something to be removed they searched her out and posted about her being a female Captain with words to the effect of "Fk off Captain C^&(*" in their response to her request.  Given the commentary they have on their site accompanying the print screen of my post, they seem to like utilizing the C-word to describe us serving females (or any female).  100% not acceptable conduct - 24/7.

Defamation is  a service offence under the NDA. I have also seen that utilized while deployed due to a facebook post someone made.  I, personally, have also been involved in 129s for sexual harassment under the NDA where a member (deployed) was afforded and elected CM (because someone told the member "they'd never CM someone for 129s for harassment").  He was wrong.  He was CMd - & pleaded guilty.

That site is not just about LGBT bashing --- they target anyone. Cadets, CIC, underage females, anyone.  Although the CCC may not be able to do much, the CF is held to a higher standard than the average population of Canada (because we need to remain a disciplined force) for _just_ reasons and therefore the NDA and CSD come into play.




Edited to add:  Their crackbook page has probably been taken down - yet again - due to it being reported again ... I certainly reported it again and do so each time I see it re-appear.  Despite that, they've now branched out to another domain (that I will not post), but am also tracking for updates/printscreens.


----------



## RCDtpr

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There's been some defamation occurring on that site.  For example, when a female asked for something to be removed they searched her out and posted about her being a female Captain with words to the effect of "Fk off Captain C^&(*" in their response to her request.  Given the commentary they have on their site accompanying the print screen of my post, they seem to like utilizing the C-word to describe us serving females (or any female).  100% not acceptable conduct - 24/7.
> 
> Defamation is  a service offence under the NDA. I have also seen that utilized while deployed due to a facebook post someone made.  I, personally, have also been involved in 129s for sexual harassment under the NDA where a member (deployed) was afforded and elected CM (because someone told the member "they'd never CM someone for 129s for harassment").  He was wrong.  He was CMd - & pleaded guilty.
> 
> That site is not just about LGBT bashing --- they target anyone. Cadets, CIC, underage females, anyone.  Although the CCC may not be able to do much, the CF is held to a higher standard than the average population of Canada (because we need to remain a disciplined force) for _just_ reasons and therefore the NDA and CSD come into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edited to add:  Their crackbook page has probably been taken down - yet again - due to it being reported again ... I certainly reported it again and do so each time I see it re-appear.  Despite that, they've now branched out to another domain (that I will not post), but am also tracking for updates/printscreens.



Agree with you 100% that the conduct falls under 129.  The point I was making is that outside of the CSD/NDA the page, or anything on it, isn't illegal.

He will be charged, whether he goes summary or CM is up to him, but as you well know there are legal precedents in place for just how serious the punishment can be.  While I agree he probably be found guilty (if he elects summary), I don't think the punishment is going to be as great as people seem to think he's going to receive.

Just my .002


----------



## armyvern

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> Agree with you 100% that the conduct falls under 129.  The point I was making is that outside of the CSD/NDA the page, or anything on it, isn't illegal.
> 
> He will be charged, whether he goes summary or CM is up to him, but as you well know there are legal precedents in place for just how serious the punishment can be.  While I agree he probably be found guilty (if he elects summary), I don't think the punishment is going to be as great as people seem to think he's going to receive.
> 
> Just my .002



You neglect that Admin actions can also be taken ... and they can be quite serious.

Election or not would depend upon what charges actually end up being laid and is not, necessarily, at the member's choice.  If they are laid, that will be because there is a preponderance of "evidence" supporting the charge. The Summary Trial or Court Martial process would then occur and findings would remain to be seen as would any punishment pending that outcome.

The CF has come a long way since the days when we "marched the guilty bastard in". And, there's not anything wrong with that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Unless they boot him on some charge and then the RCMP take over and charge him with something else civie side.

And as much as I hate Human Rights and their tribunals, it would be fitting to see someone lay a complaint there also. Especially with a female adjudicator.

Don't forget, the person laying the complaint doesn't have to pay a cent. However, he will, and big time, if he has to defend himself in civie court or\ and HA tribunal. Even more so if found guilty, but even a tossed case is going to cost him big legal fees.

I think that social ostracizing and financial destitution would be fitting. If he had to scrape out a living the rest of his life, maybe he'd be too busy to waste time at his computer.

If he can afford one.


----------



## DAA

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> Agree with you 100% that the conduct falls under 129.  The point I was making is that outside of the CSD/NDA the page, or anything on it, isn't illegal.
> 
> He will be charged, whether he goes summary or CM is up to him, but as you well know there are legal precedents in place for just how serious the punishment can be.  While I agree he probably be found guilty (if he elects summary), I don't think the punishment is going to be as great as people seem to think he's going to receive.
> 
> Just my .002



It's entirely possible.  But the problem is proving they were responsible for it.  Cyberspace and the Internet is virtual in nature.  There is nothing to stop anyone from creating a FB account using your name and then posting comments.  So, hypothetically, these people could sit back and say "Nope, wasn't me!" or my favourite "I decline to answer that question based on advice provided by legal counsel".  The onus is now on the CF to obtain sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.  Which, I can only assume would involve acquiring "internet account logs/access, etc" information from not just commercial "ISP service providers" but also from "Facebook" themselves.

On the internet, you can be whomever you want to be.  Unless of course you draw the attention of special interest groups like "Anonymous".


----------



## armyvern

DAA said:
			
		

> ... "Anonymous".



Who could really "out" these pers instantaneously.   


Steubenville anyone?


----------



## DAA

At the end of the day and if you really think about it........

The average Canadian doesn't connect with the term "Cpl Bloggins" but NOW they do.  So because of the popularity in the news, they will now seek this out and should it still be available, in some way shape or form, some may very well participate.  The audience just got bigger!

I don't in anyway support what that FB page was doing but the few times that I did scoped it, purely through curiousity, I couldn't help but think to myself and picture making a "slapping" motion and asking someone "Come here, come over here and walk into this."

It's sad that things like this happen and I feel for those affected.  Now bring on the executioner...........


----------



## MeatheadMick

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Who could really "out" these pers instantaneously.
> 
> 
> Steubenville anyone?



To be fair though, the "Anonymous" hive mindset is very much in tune with Cpl Bloggins. They would be more likely to help Bloggins, than they would be to help the CF.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

DAA said:
			
		

> At the end of the day and if you really think about it........
> 
> The average Canadian doesn't connect with the term "Cpl Bloggins" but NOW they do.  So because of the popularity in the news, they will now seek this out and should it still be available, in some way shape or form, some may very well participate.  The audience just got bigger!
> 
> I don't in anyway support what that FB page was doing but the few times that I did scoped it, purely through curiousity, I couldn't help but think to myself and picture making a "slapping" motion and asking someone "Come here, come over here and walk into this."
> 
> It's sad that things like this happen and I feel for those affected.  Now bring on the executioner...........



I feel it's important to note that one doesn't need to be serving or be familiar with 'Cpl Bloggins' in order to find the page (or specific aspects of it) extremely offensive.

When the topic first started here, I loosely paid attention for a little while, but then eventually went to check it out. I was not amused.

I took particular offense to the C word and reported it. (I believe this was about a week ago.) I wasn't satisfied with the options that Facebook provided for the reasons why I wanted to report the page/subject matter in the first place; therefore, I chose the one that best applied. Unfortunately, within 24hrs. Facebook responded informing me that there wasn't suitable cause for them to remove the page, but I'm happy things have obviously escalated and complaints are being taken more seriously. (I have since investigated ways to report the content to their new venue source as well.)

Perhaps more traffic is being drawn to the page, but that also means that perhaps more people are placing complaints and voicing that the behaviour/actions displayed by the mind(s) behind this ridiculous page are inexcusable.


----------



## Tibbson

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unless they boot him on some charge and then the RCMP take over and charge him with something else civie side.



Why assume he needs to be handed over to the RCMP?  If there are grounds for civilian charges the garrison MPs can lay them or if the CFNIS is involved they can lay them as well.  No need to involve the RCMP unless its a jurisdictional issue and the fact the accused are CF members makes it MP/CFNIS jurisdiction.


----------



## Tibbson

DAA said:
			
		

> It's entirely possible.  But the problem is proving they were responsible for it.  Cyberspace and the Internet is virtual in nature.  There is nothing to stop anyone from creating a FB account using your name and then posting comments.  So, hypothetically, these people could sit back and say "Nope, wasn't me!" or my favourite "I decline to answer that question based on advice provided by legal counsel".  The onus is now on the CF to obtain sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.  Which, I can only assume would involve acquiring "internet account logs/access, etc" information from not just commercial "ISP service providers" but also from "Facebook" themselves.
> 
> On the internet, you can be whomever you want to be.  Unless of course you draw the attention of special interest groups like "Anonymous".



It was reported that the Justice Department worked with Facebook US to action the required warrants to get the access records.  Combine that with the analysis of the computers seized from the residence(s) and there is no way they could say "Nope, it wasn't me" if it really was.


----------



## Jarnhamar

In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of. 

They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set.  

I'm sure any CF member involved with this will get a 129 slap on the wrist and sent on their way without some serious career speed-wobbling  :nod:


----------



## NavyShooter

I think I was invited to the page by a buddy in the Combat Arms about 3 weeks ago...the first photo I saw was genuinely funny.  I think I 'liked' that photo, and maybe commented on it...then I started advancing through the photos, saw the comments, and oh..my...it was time to leave.    

I went back once more and was, well, dismayed.  

The vitriolic hatred that exuded from some of the posts was disturbing.  

I'm honestly hoping that some suitable punishment will come from this, but know first-hand that the wheels of justice turn slowly at times.

NS


----------



## armyvern

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of.
> 
> They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set.
> 
> I'm sure any CF member involved with this will get a 129 slap on the wrist and sent on their way without some serious career speed-wobbling  :nod:



I believe, if one actually checked, the other page that went up was called "Master Corporal Bloggins" *thus out-ranking him  , not posing as him ... and had some posts about "anti-bullying, stand up to bullies" etc.  I viewed it once and it resembled nothing as crass and hateful such as the "Corporal Bloggins" page did.

Now, Corporal Bloggins himself created untold numbers of "Corporal Bloggins" pages ...  have a print screen to the links for all of them --- as he posted them "in case this one goes down again".   :


Oh, and I know of at least one pers that Corporal Bloggins claimed that was an imposter posing as an officer ... who actually was is the Officer who posted asking for a removal of some content and an end to the harassment.


----------



## RCDtpr

DAA said:
			
		

> It's entirely possible.  But the problem is proving they were responsible for it.  Cyberspace and the Internet is virtual in nature.  There is nothing to stop anyone from creating a FB account using your name and then posting comments.  So, hypothetically, these people could sit back and say "Nope, wasn't me!" or my favourite "I decline to answer that question based on advice provided by legal counsel".  The onus is now on the CF to obtain sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.  Which, I can only assume would involve acquiring "internet account logs/access, etc" information from not just commercial "ISP service providers" but also from "Facebook" themselves.
> 
> On the internet, you can be whomever you want to be.  Unless of course you draw the attention of special interest groups like "Anonymous".



This is why I stated he would be charged and probably convicted if it goes the way of Summary (yes I know the days of "march the guilty in" are gone....but let's be real here).  If he gets the opportunity to elect CM (which I assume he would as I'm sure it will be more than 1 count of 129) then it's a whole new ballgame.  Defence will work the angle that of regardless of ISP etc. it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fact the person sitting at the computer making the page etc etc.  Although I have left the RCD's and am now currently a police officer, I will admit my tech savvy is next to nothing and I am definitely not (nor do I ever expect to be) a member of the tech crimes unit.  Perhaps there are ways those guys have of determining who physically made the page, but from what I've been told, tech stuff is quite hard to prove in court. 

If he is aquitted, found not guilty or whatnot, then any administrative action taken by the CF can, and should be grieved by him as it would be baseless at that point.

I'm not defending the guy, but as I stated, nothing he did is illegal outside of the CF.  The C word is offensive to some people, but that doesn't make it against the law nor does making fun of someone because of their weight, sexual orientation, gender etc etc.  There might be ground for civil cases.....but that's a whole other ballgame and I'm not very familiar with that side of the justice system.

Keep in mind, everything I've stated is going off of what I've read at face value....there very well could be more to this than has been released.  I'm curious to see how all of this is going to play out.


----------



## armyvern

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> This is why I stated he would be charged and probably convicted if it goes the way of Summary (yes I know the days of "march the guilty in" are gone....but let's be real here). ...



At the last ST that I attended, 3 charges were on the table. Dude walked in and pleaded guilty to the 3. When the Presiding Officer heard the statement of facts read to him, the MP report, and statements, he called for a phone interview with the MPs and it resulted in the PO finding him not guilty on 1 of the counts --- after the troop had pleaded guilty.

Times have changed. For real.


----------



## DAA

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> It was reported that the Justice Department worked with Facebook US to action the required warrants to get the access records.  Combine that with the analysis of the computers seized from the residence(s) and there is no way they could say "Nope, it wasn't me" if it really was.



Interesting, but I find this very hard to believe, especially given the short span of attention this page has drawn.  I am no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I would purely "speculate" that such a thing would have to involve "CCC" indescretions, as NDA probably wouldn't cut it, for it to be taken seriously.  So the CF pursuing charges, would "have" to be under a section of the CCC.  Then if we just so happened to be the party initiating this and given that it crosses international borders, we would probably need to engage the Cdn DoJ, who in turn would send the request to the US DoJ for assistance.

I am truly surpirsed that FB would coughed up anything due to the liability issues involved.

But hopefully, what you propose, comes to fruition.  The intent behind my original post, was to bring forward the "hurdles" that would need to be jumped, inorder to get any tangible results.


----------



## semper

UGH! Really didn't expect my first post to be on this topic.. 



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of.
> 
> They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set.


I can't speak to what happened on Bloggins page or on the alleged impersonator's page. Like so many others, I left the Bloggins page when it became an example of people being horrible to each other and never bothered with the MCpl page. 

That said, I am one of the people upset as to how the Mil Spouse (Ms. L-J), who first informed Ms. Bickford that her info was published publicly on the FB page, was treated by Ms. Bickford. She tweeted the info to her and Ms. Bickford's reaction - while perhaps she was in shock, scared or intimidated - was completely over the top. She immediately began tweeting random military related accounts that she was receiving death threats, demanding the woman be investigated, and later posting her personal info and husband's name and rank on Twitter, claiming that she was being harassed by Ms. L-J. It wasn't pretty to watch. 

If Ms L-J wants to complain about being harassed or bullied by Ms Bickford, I'm certainly willing to stand in her corner.  

Both parties are in the wrong and I expect the Bloggins crew will be treated more harshly (as deserved), but no one is completely innocent in this mess... and I wish we had the courage to admit that and figure out where to move on from here.


----------



## Tibbson

DAA said:
			
		

> Interesting, but I find this very hard to believe, especially given the short span of attention this page has drawn.  I am no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I would purely "speculate" that such a thing would have to involve "CCC" indescretions, as NDA probably wouldn't cut it, for it to be taken seriously.  So the CF pursuing charges, would "have" to be under a section of the CCC.  Then if we just so happened to be the party initiating this and given that it crosses international borders, we would probably need to engage the Cdn DoJ, who in turn would send the request to the US DoJ for assistance.
> 
> I am truly surpirsed that FB would coughed up anything due to the liability issues involved.
> 
> But hopefully, what you propose, comes to fruition.  The intent behind my original post, was to bring forward the "hurdles" that would need to be jumped, inorder to get any tangible results.



Negative.  NDA is still a federal act with charges/punishments.  Civilian warrants, issued by Judges "downtown" get issued on investigations involving NDA offences all the time and once the warrant is issued in Canada it's just a matter of getting it endorsed in the US so that it can be executed in the US.  There is no need to get the Cdn DOJ and US DOJ involved most times because there is already various MOUs between Canada and the US as well as the SOFA if its required.  When more assistance is required it just gets staffed through the RCMP Liaison Officer at the Embassy in Washington and they facilitate what ever needs to be done.  

You are right though, Facebook wouldn't give up any info without some order to do so and since production orders are not recognized in the US a search warrant for the info would have been necessary.


----------



## Strike

DAA said:
			
		

> I am truly surpirsed that FB would coughed up anything due to the liability issues involved.



I have a friend who works for FB and we've chatted about issues like this quite a bit.

Given the whole issue of internet bullying and how much it has been in the news in the past few years (as well as the suicides that have resulted) you'd be surprised how willing they are to help out ANY legitimate law enforcement agency when issues such as these arise.


----------



## DAA

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Negative.  NDA is still a federal act with charges/punishments.  Civilian warrants, issued by Judges "downtown" get issued on investigations involving NDA offences all the time and once the warrant is issued in Canada it's just a matter of getting it endorsed in the US so that it can be executed in the US.  There is no need to get the Cdn DOJ and US DOJ involved most times because there is already various MOUs between Canada and the US as well as the SOFA if its required.  When more assistance is required it just gets staffed through the RCMP Liaison Officer at the Embassy in Washington and they facilitate what ever needs to be done.
> 
> You are right though, Facebook wouldn't give up any info without some order to do so and since production orders are not recognized in the US a search warrant for the info would have been necessary.



Great info!  I didn't think much consideration or effort would have been given to "certain" NDA infractions, especially when crossing international boundaries.  Obviously, someone put some thought and effort into this.


----------



## Deleted member 30710

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2545422/

The two that were arrested were charged. 



> The Department of National Defence said military police started to investigate allegations of “defamation and inappropriate comments” on a Facebook page titled “Cpl Bloggins” in early January.
> 
> Charges were laid against two members on Jan. 22, the department added.
> 
> “They were arrested for defamatory libel under the National Defence Act pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and use of improper comments under the Military Code of Service Discipline,” the department said. “The identity of the two CAF members arrested is protected under the Privacy Act.”
> 
> DND said military police also launched a new, separate investigation earlier this month after receiving “a subsequent complaint of alleged defamation and inappropriate comments posted on another Facebook page, also titled ‘Cpl Bloggins.’”


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Why assume he needs to be handed over to the RCMP?  If there are grounds for civilian charges the garrison MPs can lay them or if the CFNIS is involved they can lay them as well.  No need to involve the RCMP unless its a jurisdictional issue and the fact the accused are CF members makes it MP/CFNIS jurisdiction.



I didn't assume anything, nor do I need any lessons on jurisdiction. 

In your haste to rebut, I believe you misread.

What I said was the the CAF should charge him, say, with a 129* for being a dick* and release him as an admin burden. Then once he left the gate as a civie, the RCMP (or some other civpol) could pick him up for, I don't know, uttering threats*, hate speech* perhaps. Then fire his ass into court to face those charges.


_Caveat - * =  are to be used for simple examples, not legal ones._


----------



## Strike

> “The identity of the two CAF members arrested is protected under the Privacy Act.”



News to me.  Usually, the only time names are held back is during certain assault cases when identifying the accused could potentially identify the victim.

Maybe they're more concerned about backlash against the accused or protecting them from ridicule, but that's certainly not an issue under the Privacy Act.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Strike said:
			
		

> News to me.  Usually, the only time names are held back is during certain assault cases when identifying the accused could potentially identify the victim.
> 
> Maybe they're more concerned about backlash against the accused or protecting them from ridicule, but that's certainly not an issue under the Privacy Act.



I don't imagine it'll be long before their names are out there. Everyone knows someone on base and someone knows the MSM.


----------



## RCDtpr

recceguy said:
			
		

> I didn't assume anything, nor do I need any lessons on jurisdiction.
> 
> In your haste to rebut, I believe you misread.
> 
> What I said was the the CAF should charge him, say, with a 129* for being a dick* and release him as an admin burden. Then once he left the gate as a civie, the RCMP (or some other civpol) could pick him up for, I don't know, uttering threats*, hate speech* perhaps. Then fire his *** into court to face those charges.
> 
> 
> _Caveat - * =  are to be used for simple examples, not legal ones._



As stated....nothing about that page is illegal outside the CF.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I believe, if one actually checked, the other page that went up was called "Master Corporal Bloggins" *thus out-ranking him  , not posing as him ... and had some posts about "anti-bullying, stand up to bullies" etc.  I viewed it once and it resembled nothing as crass and hateful such as the "Corporal Bloggins" page did.


Sadly I don't think thats the case. Someone was pretending to be Cpl Bloggins and posting hateful shit all over the place including memorial pages in order to stir up hate against bloggins.

The people arrested were probably just admins from the page.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> As stated....nothing about that page is illegal outside the CF.



Illegal is in the eye of the Crown Attorney


----------



## armyvern

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> As stated....nothing about that page is illegal outside the CF.



_The times they are a changing_ ...

Sung by a much richer (and talented) individual than I.

Hopefully, in the spring:

New cyberbullying laws should pass this spring, Justice Minister says

And there is this already:  ... scroll down the below link to the "Traditional Offences" section and read the "Intimidation" bit ...

They put this woman's address on their page. They googlemapped her residence and posted a still shot taken from the street of her residence and threatened to put "boots on the ground" there.  They put her wife's name, workplace and trade out there ... walking a pretty fine damn line there with "intimidation" n'est pas?  The section after that is "Criminal Harassment and Threats of all Kind" - give it a read too.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/pub/cybercrime/cybercrime-eng.htm


----------



## RCDtpr

I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick however if the boots on the ground statement is the only one made....it's too vague and I doubt a conviction in court would result.

Criminal harassment, I can assure you through personal experience, will not fly.  I've tried laying an information for similar Facebook bullying......Crown wouldn't touch it.

As for the new cyber bullying laws....all well and good....but as of now they aren't law so it's really a moot point.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> “The identity of the two CAF members arrested is protected under the Privacy Act.”


My, how things have changed in just over three years.


----------



## armyvern

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick however if the boots on the ground statement is the only one made....it's too vague and I doubt a conviction in court would result.
> 
> Criminal harassment, I can assure you through personal experience, will not fly.  I've tried laying charges for similar Facebook bullying......Crown wouldn't touch it.



As recceguy pointed out: Crown wouldn't touch it in_ your_ case. As far as I know, this is not _your _case.



> As for the new cyber bullying laws....all well and good....but as of now they aren't law so it's really a moot point.



Ergo the reason for my little ditty of a song and the "Hopefully, in the spring". Sorry it went over your head.


----------



## semper

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick.


They did, thus they deserve to be held accountable for their actions. 

Sadly, very similar actions were then perpetrated by their victim when another individual informed her what they'd done.

It's an incredibly vicious cycle and no one's blameless in it.


----------



## RCDtpr

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As recceguy pointed out: Crown wouldn't touch it in_ your_ case. As far as I know, this is not _your _case.
> 
> Ergo the reason for my little ditty of a song and the "Hopefully, in the spring". Sorry it went over your head.



You're right...this isn't my case.  But I've seen cases where the bullying was far more vicious and personal than this and because the elements of the offence were not met...crown wouldn't touch them.

There's a reason new laws are being put into place...the main one being that the current criminal code doesn't cover cyber bullying or really any kind of cyber crimes such as this.  If the police could actually lay informations and get convictions with what we have now...the new laws wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## armyvern

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I'm not looking for any kind of argument etc...I've said my piece.....evidently you have much more experience than I do in the criminal justice system and how courts work.....I apologize.



Probably not, but I was subpoenaed at my wedding rehearsal dinner (try explaining that to the grandparents etc).   :blotto:  I've just seen the Crown decide to charge in one instance, but not in another when the circumstances were eerily similar. It just _depends_ sometimes.

I have been on either side of the NDA however; sigh, so now I pose as a grown-up.   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> You're right...this isn't my case.  But I've seen cases where the bullying was far more vicious and personal than this and because the elements of the offence were not met...crown wouldn't touch them.
> 
> There's a reason new laws are being put into place...the main one being that the current criminal code doesn't cover cyber bullying or really any kind of cyber crimes such as this.  If the police could actually lay informations and get convictions with what we have now...the new laws wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> I'm not looking for any kind of argument etc...I've said my piece.....evidently you have much more experience than I do in the criminal justice system and how courts work.....I apologize.



Your obviously not cognizant of the Crown charging gun owners for things there is no hope of the Crown winning. Drag them though preliminaries, rack up lawyers fees, time, stress, etc. In the end, they make it so onerous most plead out, take a ten year weapons prohibition and have all their firearms confiscated to stop the suffering. Typically, when they fight it up to trial the Crown drops the charges. Doesn't help the poor bastard that's had his life ruined and spent 10's of thousands trying to win against unlawful charges.

The Crown doesn't need to take you to trial to ruin you.

However, I don't mean to sidetrack and will drop this also. No harm, no foul.


----------



## RCDtpr

I'm quite aware things like this can and do happen.  Costs you a pretty penny to defend yourself.

However in this case it would be through the military justice system so he wouldn't be paying for an attorney.  If there's no reasonable prospect of conviction AND he's being represented by a legal officer for free....see where I'm going with this.

I believe these new laws are a good step forward...however, unfortunately for now, we are hamstrung with what can be done on cases such as this.

Also, please don't anyone think I'm looking for an argument or anything of the such...I'm merely trying to share previous experiences with similar events so as to potentially keep wild speculation at a minimum.  Like I said...I'm curious to see how all this plays out.


----------



## DAA

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware of the case of them posting the woman's address etc....intimidation might stick however if the boots on the ground statement is the only one made....it's too vague and I doubt a conviction in court would result.
> 
> Criminal harassment, I can assure you through personal experience, will not fly.  I've tried laying an information for similar Facebook bullying......Crown wouldn't touch it.
> 
> As for the new cyber bullying laws....all well and good....but as of now they aren't law so it's really a moot point.



Something similar to what I am thinking as well.  The only difference, is that this will not find itself in a civilian court.  So the question is, if the CF/Military deals with it, just how will this turn out.  We see members of the CF, charged under the NDA for various offences that would and are scoffed at outside of the service.

If the charges are purely NDA, then that is one thing.  But if they reference the CCC, then I think the standard/burden of proof, may be slightly higher and held to more scrutiny.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Your obviously not cognizant of the Crown charging gun owners for things there is no hope of the Crown winning. Drag them though preliminaries, rack up lawyers fees, time, stress, etc. In the end, they make it so onerous most plead out, take a ten year weapons prohibition and have all their firearms confiscated to stop the suffering. Typically, when they fight it up to trial the Crown drops the charges. Doesn't help the poor ******* that's had his life ruined and spent 10's of thousands trying to win against unlawful charges.
> The Crown doesn't need to take you to trial to ruin you.



Sounds like you have been the subject of a Military DI where nothing ever came of it.  Maybe this is nothing more than an exercise in "deterence".  Of course, at no "fiscal" costs to the accused.


----------



## McG

DAA said:
			
		

> If the charges are purely NDA, then that is one thing.  But if they reference the CCC, then I think the standard/burden of proof, may be slightly higher and held to more scrutiny.


Negative.  Courts Martial have the same high standard of proof as a criminal court.

... And going up a few posts we see charges were laid under NDA, with at least one 130 (which in this case applies a Criminal Code of Canada charge through the NDA).


----------



## Lightguns

He is back up and Armyvern you figure prominently.


----------



## Scoobs

RCD Cpl,

administrative actions are separate from charges.  Charges (or not), under the NDA or CCC or other means, do not preclude admin actions.  If the paperwork is in order, i.e. lots of written warnings, other written docs, he can grieve until his heart's content.  If properly documented, admin action is not very hard to hold up to a grievance.  Without this written (can't emphasize written enough) info, a grievance may or may not be successful, but the odds go up.  So, the member can be found guilty or not, and admin actions can still occur.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

DAA said:
			
		

> Sounds like you have been the subject of a Military DI where nothing ever came of it.  Maybe this is nothing more than an exercise in "deterence".  Of course, at no "fiscal" costs to the accused.



More than once 8)


----------



## armyvern

Lightguns said:
			
		

> He is back up and Armyvern you figure prominently.



Are you surprised? 

I'm a POG/WOG/Girl/good for nothing but sandwich making.   :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you surprised?
> 
> I'm a POG/WOG/Girl/good for nothing but sandwich making.   :


I didn't find your sandwiches that good............the pickles were OK. :-X


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I didn't find your sandwiches that good............the pickles were OK. :-X



That's because you stole it!

Corporal Bloggins would be disappointed that you are firing me from sandwich making; so would my husband.   ;D


----------



## RCDtpr

Scoobs said:
			
		

> RCD Cpl,
> 
> administrative actions are separate from charges.  Charges (or not), under the NDA or CCC or other means, do not preclude admin actions.  If the paperwork is in order, i.e. lots of written warnings, other written docs, he can grieve until his heart's content.  If properly documented, admin action is not very hard to hold up to a grievance.  Without this written (can't emphasize written enough) info, a grievance may or may not be successful, but the odds go up.  So, the member can be found guilty or not, and admin actions can still occur.



I understand how the admin system works.  In this case, however, we don't know the troop so for all we know he's a solid guy with no previous problems at his regiment.  If that is the case, and IF he was somehow exonerated in court.....you can't ding someone administratively for creating a page when the court deemed there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact him.

A one way conversation...absolutely.  He coincidently seems to draw weekend duties and junk taskings....absolutely.  But full on administrative actions against someone for an infraction the courts determined there was not enough evidence to convict.......slippery slope.


----------



## George Wallace

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I understand how the admin system works.  In this case, however, we don't know the troop so for all we know he's a solid guy with no previous problems at his regiment.  If that is the case, and IF he was somehow exonerated in court.....you can't ding someone administratively for creating a page when the court deemed there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact him.
> 
> A one way conversation...absolutely.  He coincidently seems to draw weekend duties and junk taskings....absolutely.  But full on administrative actions against someone for an infraction the courts determined there was not enough evidence to convict.......slippery slope.



I don't think "solid troops" create a site where other "disgruntled" troops can post their poisonous diatribes.  

As for evidence, anyone who thinks that they can remain anonymous on the internet is a fool.  You may want to be reminded of all those who are currently being charged with internet porn, and how they are tracked and evidence collected.  Why would anyone think this would be in anyway different?  Once anything is posted to the internet, it is there for eternity and with the right search engines can be retrieved.  Same can be said for your Hard Drive; with the exception of destruction, ghost files will remain on Hard Drives.  There are dozens of Recovery programs available to retrieve files from damaged or corrupted Hard Drives.


----------



## RCDtpr

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think "solid troops" create a site where other "disgruntled" troops can post their poisonous diatribes.
> 
> As for evidence, anyone who thinks that they can remain anonymous on the internet is a fool.  You may want to be reminded of all those who are currently being charged with internet porn, and how they are tracked and evidence collected.  Why would anyone think this would be in anyway different?  Once anything is posted to the internet, it is there for eternity and with the right search engines can be retrieved.  Same can be said for your Hard Drive; with the exception of destruction, ghost files will remain on Hard Drives.  There are dozens of Recovery programs available to retrieve files from damaged or corrupted Hard Drives.



Yes I understand but what I've been trying to get at is that it's not as easy to prove as one thinks.  

Take your post for instance.  On the surface it's clear to all of us reading that George did in fact post what he did.  If you were to pull ISP records and we found the post came from your ISP at your home or on your data plan again it appears you posted it.  However, what defence would argue is that none of us physically saw you in front of the computer.  So, in theory, for all we know someone has your login and password and made the post while in your home.  Is someone currently posting as George?  Highly doubtful....but it is possible and a defence will play that angle.

Like I said....I'm not saying he will get off...nor do I think he should.  I'm merely pointing out that I don't believe this is the slam dunk case everyone thinks it is on face value.

That said, for all we know he could have admitted to it in an interview and this whole (while interesting) discussion is pointless.


----------



## Journeyman

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> So, in theory, for all we know someone has your login and password and made the post while in your home.


Holy freakin' OJ's attorney. That's an amazing stretch.

 I'm guessing you're dismissing "legal precedent." As someone mentioned internet porn convictions, it's doubtful these pornographers took pics of themselves at their computers.....uh, _pornography-ing_


----------



## McG

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> ...you can't ding someone administratively ... when the court deemed there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact him.


Courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Administrative measures are based on balance of probabilities.  I have kicked out guys who were let off by the court for the precipitating incident.  I have also kicked-out guys based on single incidents because the problem was so egregious.  I have also seen DMCA punt individuals that I only recommended for C&P because they do not take a light stand on behaviour they see as consciously colluding to go against the chain of command.  Cpls Blogginses may find they are in more trouble than you suspect.


----------



## DAA

MCG said:
			
		

> Courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Administrative measures are based on balance of probabilities.



 :goodpost:

And herein, lies the difference between the two!


----------



## RCDtpr

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Holy freakin' OJ's attorney. That's an amazing stretch.
> 
> I'm guessing you're dismissing "legal precedent." As someone mentioned internet porn convictions, it's doubtful these pornographers took pics of themselves at their computers.....uh, _pornography-ing_



Stretching to raise reasonable doubt is what lawyers do...

As for say kiddie porn...the offence is possession.  I don't need to prove you physically downloaded.....just that you have it.  Can't compare the two.

As for the post from Mcg....I appreciate that post.  I was not aware administrative stuff could stick even if one is let off by the courts.  Good to know.


----------



## Occam

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> .....you can't ding someone administratively for creating a page when the court deemed there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact him.



I believe the CF's stance on that would be  - "Just watch me."



> A one way conversation...absolutely.  He coincidently seems to draw weekend duties and junk taskings....absolutely.  But full on administrative actions against someone for an infraction the courts determined there was not enough evidence to convict.......slippery slope.



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90764/post-915072#msg915072



> "Even if a military member murders another military member in the middle of a garrison (in Canada) we can't take jurisdiction," said Lt.-Col. Bruce MacGregor, director of military justice and policy for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> He said he could not comment on specific cases before the court.
> 
> Speaking generally, MacGregor said, a sexual assault charge laid in Canada could be tried in the military system. But he added if that charge is linked to a more serious one in a civilian court a prosecutor is unlikely to separate them for different trials.
> 
> Military staff charged with such crimes as murder by civilian police can also face employment- related penalties such as loss of command, rank and employment after administrative review.
> 
> The military has a justice system parallel to the civilian system, but prosecution of some cases on Canadian soil is handled entirely by civilian authorities.
> 
> "If a person is found guilty then they go through the punishment as any Canadian citizen would," said MacGregor.
> 
> "If they're a military person and they're found guilty, we do not have the ability to charge them on the same type of offence on the same circumstances," he said.
> 
> Even if the person is acquitted, he said, he or she can't be courtmartialled based on the same facts since "that would be double jeopardy."
> 
> Administrative reviews are conducted by senior officers. They can, for example, be held by the accused's commanding officer or a career review board.
> 
> Unlike the criminal system, the reviews do not require a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Evidence can come from a variety of sources, from an interview of the accused to a summary military investigation.
> 
> Administrative action can still occur if someone is acquitted on a technicality, but "on the balance of probabilities, the accusation is very clear that it took place," he said.


----------



## winks2872

Strike said:
			
		

> Here's the thing though.  The page that was put up on FB was an open page.  So, with that, how many of these people making the rude comments and posting some very insulting memes would show these to their mothers?
> 
> I try using that as a general rule of thumb (especially since my mom is on my friends list).  If I don't think my mom would want to see it or read it I won't post it, certainly not on an open site.  A closed group is a different beast altogether and, if these people wanted to beak off, then that's where it should have been done.



I hear where you're coming from but closed or open seems irrelevant to me. There is a certain behavior that is expected of all members at all times. Its one thing to make a left sided joke in the right place and at the right time as long as there is not intent to cause harm. It is clear to most that there was clear intent to cause harm here and further to propagate hate and discrimination which are not acceptable values of any CF member. Reflecting our common ethos is not a part time job that ends when a member goes home at night. Just my opinion.


----------



## winks2872

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is if people don't want their pictures used in any manner, don't post them on Facebook.
> 
> As for buddy being arrested, I highly doubt he will learn much of a lesson.  His arrest probably consisted of nothing more than being told he's under arrest, searched, and then (since it appears they would have no grounds to hold the person) released on the spot after being told their CoC would receive the report recommending charges.
> 
> The elements of the offence for criminal harassment are not really met from the Facebook page alone so (unless there's a lot more to this) he's  probably looking at nothing more than a 129.
> 
> Everyone giving the page this much attention is actually worse than the page itself.  The guy wants/wanted attention...and he succeeded.



I think you're out in left field. To meet the test for Section 264 of the Criminal Code one must only exhibit fear for their personal safety and take and an action to protect themselves. You however are assuming that Criminal Harassment is the only violation here and you are also assuming that this will remain in the military as a CSD issue. For example there are now cyberbullying laws provincially, civil liabilities to consider, Hate crimes, Libel / Slander depending on the medium. And then you have all the potential military violations. I'm no expert, not pretending to be such but one thing I am sure of is that this guy or guys are in for much more hurt then a 129. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## ModlrMike

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> Yes I understand but what I've been trying to get at is that it's not as easy to prove as one thinks.



I think you're overlooking that one's Facebook posts are linked to their personal accounts. While it's possible to spoof someone's account, it's not as easy as one thinks.


----------



## Shamrock

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> I understand how the admin system works.  In this case, however, we don't know the troop so for all we know he's a solid guy with no previous problems at his regiment...



Conduct off duty is also a relevant factor.


----------



## OldSolduer

I have resisted commenting on this but I can not any longer. 

"Cpl Bloggins" needs to learn a few things - respect for others among them.

Unfortunately "Bloggins" creates another problem - "The Man is picking on me" syndrome in which the media picks this story up and runs with it, painting "Bloggins" as a poor soldier being picked on by The Man.
The CAF has difficulty defending itself in these cases, as if it is before the courts comments by the CoC are not appropriate. 

Let's hope the media reports the true story.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you surprised?
> 
> I'm a POG/WOG/Girl/good for nothing but sandwich making.   :



Didn't know you made sammiches......


There is a Corp Bloggins on FB. I believe he is former 2 VP and no mention of Vern anywhere.

This particular Bloggins had a DEU name tag - Bloggins- and he wore it on his DEU. it was spotted - by me - and I said has anyone noticed this. I then told him to keep wearing it til he's told to take it off.


----------



## The Bread Guy

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> .... On the surface it's clear to all of us reading that George did in fact post what he did.  If you were to pull ISP records and we found the post came from your ISP at your home or on your data plan again it appears you posted it.  However, what *defence would argue is that none of us physically saw you in front of the computer*.  So, in theory, for all we know someone has your login and password and made the post while in your home ....


And if that's the case, defence counsel better be prepared to show evidence that the defendant was either 1)  not home AND not on someone else's computer, or 2)  was at home but NOT logged into his system.

I have to go with Journeyman's assessment on this one .....


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Holy freakin' OJ's attorney. That's an amazing stretch.


----------



## RCDtpr

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And if that's the case, defence counsel better be prepared to show evidence that the defendant was either 1)  not home AND not on someone else's computer, or 2)  was at home but NOT logged into his system.
> 
> I have to go with Journeyman's assessment on this one .....



In Canada the defence doesn't have to prove that.  The crown has to prove that he WAS in fact in front of the computer.

It's fine everyone.....clearly you all have watched more law and order than I...I'll bow out of this one as we are going in circles.


----------



## RCDtpr

winks2872 said:
			
		

> I think you're out in left field. To meet the test for Section 264 of the Criminal Code one must only exhibit fear for their personal safety and take and an action to protect themselves. You however are assuming that Criminal Harassment is the only violation here and you are also assuming that this will remain in the military as a CSD issue. For example there are now cyberbullying laws provincially, civil liabilities to consider, Hate crimes, Libel / Slander depending on the medium. And then you have all the potential military violations. I'm no expert, not pretending to be such but one thing I am sure of is that this guy or guys are in for much more hurt then a 129. Again, just my opinion.



Although I just said I'm bowing out of this thread I feel I need to answer this one before I go.

Go read S. 264 and read the entire section properly......elements of the offence are not met by cyber bullying unless there is a repeat pattern of bullying the same person.

As for these provincial laws you speak of...I won't say they don't exist..but here in Ontario where I work we get almost daily complaints of cyber bullying and there's not much we can do about it.  Nobody here has ever heard of any provincial laws about cyber bullying...one would assume if it existed someone here would know about it.  If you are aware of one...by all means please reference the Act say well as section.

As for assuming it's going CSD it has to as he's a service member.  All service members are charged through the CSD unless it's an impaired or a domestic.  S 130 of the NDA allows CCC offences to be laid contrary to the NDA.  An example would be say assault, the wording would simply be that the service member is charged with Assault contrary to S 266 of the CCC pursuant to S 130 of the NDA.

Hope this helps.


----------



## George Wallace

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> In Canada the defence doesn't have to prove that.  The crown has to prove that he WAS in fact in front of the computer.



Ummmm?  Yes, the Crown has to prove that he was.  That would probably be why he would have been charged in the first place.  The Defence is then obliged by their client to prove otherwise.


----------



## RCDtpr

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?  Yes, the Crown has to prove that he was.  That would probably be why he would have been charged in the first place.  The Defence is then obliged by their client to prove otherwise.



In Canada you are innocent until proven guilty.  In the courts system the onus is on the Crown to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  So in reality all the defence has to do is plant a seed of doubt....they don't have to actually prove anything.


----------



## Teager

I'm assuming this but to get away from the argument of proving he was at his computer I would also assume he has accessed FB from his phone as most people do these days. Would it then be easier to prove providing the authority's had access or a warrant to his phone?


----------



## MAJONES

I just can't see this guy being in the actual military, especially not the combat arms.  The type of guy that hides behind an anonymous FB page just wouldn't have the _cojones_ to make it in the CF.


----------



## OldSolduer

MAJONES said:
			
		

> I just can't see this guy being in the actual military, especially not the combat arms.  The type of guy that hides behind an anonymous FB page just wouldn't have the _cojones_ to make it in the CF.



Are you sure about that?


----------



## Lightguns

I know personally of a case of an Infantry Corporal who was harassing the wives of officers on base using facebook, stolen cell phones and DWAN Gag list access.  Some of of it was pretty gross.  Yup, he can definitely be military


----------



## MAJONES

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that?



Nope, sadly, not sure at all.  I made my comment mostly in the hopes that the Cpl in question would see them and come to realize just how little the rest of us think of him


----------



## Loachman

It's more likely that he'd just mock you on his site.

You'de better delete all of the compromising photos that you have on your Facebook site before it's too late. You know which ones I mean.


----------



## Good2Golf

These types of people are (hopefully) in the minority in the CAF; believing that such behaviour is consistent with their ability to practice their profession and that it is also consistent with the military's ethos.  They are wrong on both counts.  True marks of professionalism start with one's character and conduct within one's own society, which has a direct bearing on how one will conduct themselves around the world while deployed.  If one can't behave professionally at home, why would people be surprised if such an individual faile to conduct themselves professionally, upholding international rule of law.  That some believe such behaviour is acceptable and condone it, is just as disappointing.  Whether other service personnel like it or not, in the public's eyes, due to association, it reflects poorly on all members of the CAF.  Not warranted, but such as to give cause to the public's concern for the overall basis of conduct of its military forces.  Sad indeed.


----------



## MAJONES

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's more likely that he'd just mock you on his site.
> 
> You'de better delete all of the compromising photos that you have on your Facebook site before it's too late. You know which ones I mean.


  ...but those photos are some of my best work!  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> In Canada the defence doesn't have to prove that.  The crown has to prove that he WAS in fact in front of the computer.
> 
> It's fine everyone.....clearly you all have watched more law and order than I...I'll bow out of this one as we are going in circles.



What they have to prove depends on how they word the charge.

Example: I was charged for a 129 for "In that, in front of the troops, stated Capt X was an idiot , against section blah blah blah"

This caused quite the headache when it came to my summary trial and subsequent conviction.  I asked for a review and with the help of a lawyer, showed that in order to find me guilty of the charge, they had to prove that I knew what section blah blah was. The review found in my favour and the charge was dropped.

Had they simply charged me with "...stated that Capt X was an idiot" then it would have been simple. In trying to make the charges against me look sexier, they farked up and lost.

Oh, also pertinent to what we were discussing: I was also given a C&P for EXACTLY the same reasons as the charges I had received.  No need to prove ANYTHING!


----------



## Journeyman

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Had they simply charged me with "...stated that Capt X was an idiot" then it would have been simple.


I would have insisted they prove that Capt X _wasn't_ an idiot; preferably have the pros and cons debated in front of those same troops.   ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would have insisted they prove that Capt X _wasn't_ an idiot; preferably have the pros and cons debated in front of those same troops.   ;D



Funny thing, when I had originally opted a court martial, I discussed that route with my lawyer, even going so far as to pull up the Oxford definition of "incompetent" (the term I had actually used) and showed him that in teh case I was being charged for, it was the truth.  He didn't think it would be the best defence.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would have insisted they prove that Capt X _wasn't_ an idiot; preferably have the pros and cons debated in front of those same troops.   ;D


I'd want you as an AO anytime!


----------



## Shamrock

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Oh, also pertinent to what we were discussing: I was also given a C&P for EXACTLY the same reasons as the charges I had received.  No need to prove ANYTHING!



Both disciplinary actions under the Code of Service Discipline and administrative actions are meant to address a CF member’s conduct or performance deficiency. They may operate independently or one may complement the other.


----------



## Brad Sallows

All useful soldiers are warriors.  Not all warriors are useful soldiers.


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> I'm assuming this but to get away from the argument of proving he was at his computer I would also assume he has accessed FB from his phone as most people do these days. Would it then be easier to prove providing the authority's had access or a warrant to his phone?



Last I heard phones are not allowed to be touched if they have a passcode lock under initial arrest/search. 

So even if they get the phone with a warrant, unless its under lock it will wipe after X attempts. Then pretty much useless. Even then, i find it hard to imagine a warrant provided for a phone in this case. 

Even though the person is pretty special for creating the page, I was more disturbed with the comments then what was actually posted. The comments were the worst of it all, and at that point, how can the person posting something get in shit for what other people post? 

Yes it became worse and worse with what was being posted. 

Regardless, even with a charge, i don't see much coming out of this.


----------



## MedCorps

upandatom said:
			
		

> Last I heard phones are not allowed to be touched if they have a passcode lock under initial arrest/search.
> 
> So even if they get the phone with a warrant, unless its under lock it will wipe after X attempts. Then pretty much useless. Even then, i find it hard to imagine a warrant provided for a phone in this case.



Oh, I am not so sure about that.  All that you would require is a CO who is has reasonable grounds to believe that the phone has information on it that is in contradiction of some part of the NDA and that the information contained on the phone is required to afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against the NDA.  The location of the phone (on the defence establishment) is also important.  

Take a look at QR&O 106.04 and the information that follows on from it.   No judge required to issue a search warrant in this situation.  

MC


----------



## VIChris

upandatom said:
			
		

> Even though the person is pretty special for creating the page, I was more disturbed with the comments then what was actually posted. The comments were the worst of it all, and at that point, how can the person posting something get in crap for what other people post?



The option to delete either just the comments, or the complete content is entirely under the control of the person who started the page. Doing nothing about it is a willful act.


----------



## Transporter

upandatom said:
			
		

> Regardless, even with a charge, i don't see much coming out of this.



I don't think you necessarily need to hang the guy to achieve what ought to be the main aim at this point, which is dissuading others from doing the same or similar. Making his life hell for awhile and a good public shaming would go a long way to achieving that. And demonstrating, as the NIS has, that this kind of stuff will be follow-up on and charges laid if appropriate also helps. The guy may indeed walk away from this with little, or perhaps nothing, on his charge sheet but the whole process should (emphasis on should) be a big enough wake-up call to reform his, and others', online habits.  

Of course there will still always be the idiots out there who just don't get it...


----------



## upandatom

Transporter said:
			
		

> I don't think you necessarily need to hang the guy to achieve what ought to be the main aim at this point, which is dissuading others from doing the same or similar. Making his life hell for awhile and a good public shaming would go a long way to achieving that. And demonstrating, as the NIS has, that this kind of stuff will be follow-up on and charges laid if appropriate also helps. The guy may indeed walk away from this with little, or perhaps nothing, on his charge sheet but the whole process should (emphasis on should) be a big enough wake-up call to reform his, and others', online habits.
> 
> Of course there will still always be the idiots out there who just don't get it...



As bad as it sounds, When the names are made public. I can see a lot more public shaming for this person, and even some vigilante justice.



			
				MedCorps said:
			
		

> Oh, I am not so sure about that.  All that you would require is a CO who is has reasonable grounds to believe that the phone has information on it that is in contradiction of some part of the NDA and that the information contained on the phone is required to afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against the NDA.  The location of the phone (on the defence establishment) is also important.
> 
> Take a look at QR&O 106.04 and the information that follows on from it.   No judge required to issue a search warrant in this situation.
> 
> MC



Several pictures that were on it were actually from an O group, on base, at the unit, About the Cpl Bloggins page and the orders to disassociate themselves from it, or administrative repercussions would occur. Kinda funny how that happened. That could be justification right there. 

I have had some experience with personal comp/laptops/phones being searched and or seized wrt to NDA contradictions, and there has to be a very strong reasoning for it, and permission from the JAG. If not, if say a CO or an MP orders handing over of said item for search, it can throw off the whole case and just have it disappear(almost happened in this case).

If the cell phone does not appear on base, or in a PMQ, can't be touched unless it violates ITAR (and that has to have very strong proof that it does or has) It was just passed not too long in Supreme Court that if a cellphone has a passcode on it, that it can not be searched by police. They have to ask permission, if the person in question says no, then they are out to lunch and have to wait for a warrant and even then a WO to search a phone is difficult (i read that the only case that has allowed it thus far has to do with child porn or the Teen from Nova Scotia).


----------



## Tibbson

upandatom said:
			
		

> Last I heard phones are not allowed to be touched if they have a passcode lock under initial arrest/search.
> 
> So even if they get the phone with a warrant, unless its under lock it will wipe after X attempts. Then pretty much useless. Even then, i find it hard to imagine a warrant provided for a phone in this case.
> 
> Even though the person is pretty special for creating the page, I was more disturbed with the comments then what was actually posted. The comments were the worst of it all, and at that point, how can the person posting something get in crap for what other people post?
> 
> Yes it became worse and worse with what was being posted.
> 
> Regardless, even with a charge, i don't see much coming out of this.



There are more then enough software applications available to the police (both off the shelf and from the phone manufacturers themselves) that they can get around the password without much issue.  Based on the evidence collected and the investigative steps carried out thus far, getting a warrant for the phone would not be much of an issue if the police felt they had cause to need one


----------



## Fishbone Jones

If the NIS and JAG were involved, I'm sure the T's were crossed and the i's dotted.

Speculating here, armchair quarter backing as it were, doesn't accomplish much of anything except to muddy the waters.

The thread went quiet because most people realized this and have decided to just wait and see what the official word is, what is going to happen and why.

In other words, they are waiting for the explanation of the experts.


----------



## Tibbson

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Oh, I am not so sure about that.  All that you would require is a CO who is has reasonable grounds to believe that the phone has information on it that is in contradiction of some part of the NDA and that the information contained on the phone is required to afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against the NDA.  The location of the phone (on the defence establishment) is also important.
> 
> Take a look at QR&O 106.04 and the information that follows on from it.   No judge required to issue a search warrant in this situation.
> 
> MC



Actually, EVERY JAG officer will tell you that a COs search warrant should not be used in Canada.  The courts have long held that a CO does not have the required legal knowledge to issue a warrant and the only place they will be used successfully is overseas.  There are also two court cases right now working their way through the system to overturn any form of CO search warrant and make it so that MPs must go to a Military Judge to get a warrant under the NDA the same way they now need to go to a Military Judge to get a DNA warrant under the NDA.  

Of course, nothing at all stops the MPs from going to a civilian judge to get a search warrant for an NDA charge.  The NDA is a federal act the same way the Criminal Code is and any Judge can issue a civilian Search Warrant.  (Civilian DNA warrants for an NDA charge are a separate issue.)


----------



## MedCorps

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Actually, EVERY JAG officer will tell you that a COs search warrant should not be used in Canada.  The courts have long held that a CO does not have the required legal knowledge to issue a warrant and the only place they will be used successfully is overseas.  There are also two court cases right now working their way through the system to overturn any form of CO search warrant and make it so that MPs must go to a Military Judge to get a warrant under the NDA the same way they now need to go to a Military Judge to get a DNA warrant under the NDA.



Funny, that is not the advice I received from my JAG Officer(s) at the time when I issued a warrant on two different occasions.  Warrants were executed (in Canada, on a CFB) and subsequent prosecution took place without issue.  Both of these instances occurred since 2008. 

MC


----------



## Tibbson

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Funny, that is not the advice I received from my JAG Officer(s) at the time when I issued a warrant on two different occasions.  Warrants were executed (in Canada, on a CFB) and subsequent prosecution took place without issue.  Both of these instances occurred since 2008.
> 
> MC



Just because they got through and nobody challenged it does not mean it was right.  Yes, the system does allow for it but if you did it for a Court Marshal or for a civie case downtown, where the standards are much higher, you will find the warrants could have been easily challenged and tossed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Just because they got through and nobody challenged it does not mean it was right.  Yes, the system does allow for it but if you did it for a Court Marshal or for a civie case downtown, where the standards are much higher, you will find the warrants could have been easily challenged and tossed.



A directive to an employer, from our Act and Regs is and Order. Some, in my civvie job, say: 

"Any Order that doesn't get appealed is a good Order"


----------



## Tibbson

recceguy said:
			
		

> A directive to an employer, from our Act and Regs is and Order. Some, in my civvie job, say:
> 
> "Any Order that doesn't get appealed is a good Order"



I'd prefer to contend that someone who doesn't appeal a bad order is a fool.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> I'd prefer to contend that someone who doesn't appeal a bad order is a fool.



In order to determine such a thing requires the employer to actually be cognizant of the Act and Regs. If they are not, they risk worker safety and if given an order that makes those workers safer, even though it might be a little grey, it's more acceptable than the consequences.


----------



## war2001v

I know this is an old thread, but can someone explain to me what this Bloggins joke is about? I feel like I'm missing out on something funny here .


----------



## kratz

See topic 124584 to answer your question. 

This topic has nothing to do with "something funny"



			
				war2001v said:
			
		

> I know this is an old thread, but can someone explain to me what this Bloggins joke is about? I feel like I'm missing out on something funny here .


----------



## brihard

Wow, blast from the past. Whatever happened to these numpties?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Brihard said:
			
		

> Wow, blast from the past. Whatever happened to these numpties?



My guess, probably nothing.


----------



## jeffb

At least on the disciplinary side, I'd be willing to bet that there were some administrative measures here.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sounds lame but I find myself constantly using this case as an example/teachable moment for soldiers and social media. 

A big irony here was that the crap Cpl bloggins would post wasn't actually that harsh or disparaging. The comments from everyone else was the brutal stuff. Soldiers got warned if they "liked" a post they would face consequences.   CoC overstepping their boundaries  IMO.


----------



## war2001v

kratz said:
			
		

> See topic 124584 to answer your question.
> 
> This topic has nothing to do with "something funny"


Oh...This is awkward now...


----------



## mariomike

jeffb said:
			
		

> At least on the disciplinary side, I'd be willing to bet that there were some administrative measures here.



And, on the legal side, 

Top 10 Tips for Internet Defamation Victims from a Canadian Defamation Lawyer
https://zvulony.ca/2012/articles/defamation-articles/top-ten-tips-libeled-internet/



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sounds lame but I find myself constantly using this case as an example/teachable moment for soldiers and social media.



Especially if they are considering applying for another job,

QUOTE

Would you reveal your Facebook password for a job?
https://www.thestar.com/business/2012/03/20/would_you_reveal_your_facebook_password_for_a_job.html
In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.

"Oakville resident Rob XXX ( I omitted the name in the article ) breezed through the early stages of the interview process and become a finalist for a police job when he was lobbed a question he hadn’t anticipated: 

What is your Facebook password?"

END QUOTE


----------



## Piece of Cake

mariomike said:
			
		

> Would you reveal your Facebook password for a job?
> https://www.thestar.com/business/2012/03/20/would_you_reveal_your_facebook_password_for_a_job.html
> In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.
> 
> "Oakville resident Rob XXX ( I omitted the name in the article ) breezed through the early stages of the interview process and become a finalist for a police job when he was lobbed a question he hadn’t anticipated:
> 
> What is your Facebook password?"
> 
> END QUOTE



Labour laws in Canada offer strong protection from employers who ask job seekers for personal information such as social media passwords, lawyers said. Rules in the U.S. are much more lax, they said, citing several cases in which prospective hiring managers have asked candidates to turn over their login information as part of the vetting process
source :  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/facebook-snooping-employers-limited-in-canada-1.1161720


----------



## TCM621

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of.
> 
> They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set.
> 
> I'm sure any CF member involved with this will get a 129 slap on the wrist and sent on their way without some serious career speed-wobbling  :nod:



I know both of the women involved and they are definitely crusaders, and as such do bring much legitimate criticism on themselves. That said, I know that wasn't what you or likely that person meant. There is no need to attack them or their families. Not only is it unethical, and just plain mean, the spouse who is still in is very active in policy surrounding transgendered  CAF members, Op Honour, etc. Attacking her, and her family,  will merely ensure she fights harder to institute all the changes they hate.

I really wish we could afford to get rid of these types of asshats before they do shit like this but it is rarely possible or even viewed as desirable these days. You have a knuckle dragging asshole who is reasonably good at his job? Promote him because it will take 10 years to replace him. Even if they arent good at their job it is hard to get rid of them. We used to just not offer them new terms of service but a new CANFORGEN came out saying we can't refuse further TOS based on conduct or competency. As units have a harder and harder time meeting their mandates, they will be less willing to deal harshly with people who need to be dealt with. The fact is a large percentage of soldiers, sailors and airmen are neither well trained, disciplined, well led or representative of the military ethos but they have that one crucial thing units everywhere need: the are a body. If I look around my work space, I could probably pick 40% of the people that should be replaced in a ideal situation but without those 40% we can't even maintain a duty crew with any sense of sane scheduling.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I know both of the women involved and they are definitely crusaders, and as such do bring much legitimate criticism on themselves. That said, I know that wasn't what you or likely that person meant. There is no need to attack them or their families. Not only is it unethical, and just plain mean, the spouse who is still in is very active in policy surrounding transgendered  CAF members, Op Honour, etc. Attacking her, and her family,  will merely ensure she fights harder to institute all the changes they hate.



Just to be sure I'm clear are we talking about the women who were so pissed off at the Cpl Bloggins webpage that they lied and made fake Cpl Bloggins web pages (pretending to be Cpl Bloggins) and began making homophobic and anti-trans personal attacks and attacking the families of dead Canadian soldiers ALL to try and get Cpl Bloggins in shit? To frame them?  Kind of fucked up of them if their spouse is, as you say, active in trans policy.

Were they ever punished for that?


----------

