Operation HONOUR discussion

[Underway]

I'm going to attempt clear up a few incorrect bits of information here so people can discuss the issue with some accuracy as there are important distinctions/details being missed.  The FB and reddit rage is classic mob justice without the actual facts.  I know we expect a higher standard here.

1) Rumor one:  She groped a subordinate.  False. 
Her crime was against mess mates.  She was a SLt at the time (most Jr member of the mess). The complaint came from someone who was not groped but reported one of the incidents.  This was not against a subordinate, it was a peer.

2) Rumour two: She had preferential career progression because of gender.  False.
Career and postings continued as normal after the incident with a swap to a different ship because; the complainant and respondent should be separated. Also as outlined in the HISB process there is a presumption of innocence with no career implications until the truth can be determined through an investigation. 

3) Rumour three: She's free and clear at this point.  Unknown.
No one but her chain of command really knows where the administrative process is on this.  The disciplinary process is now over (aside from fine paying). There are a number of rumours but without a look a the actual file all we can do is speculate.  As directed by the CDS in CANFORGEN 049/19 there may still be an Administrative Review to finish (resulting in an Admin Release).  The initial investigating authority (aka her original ship) may have finished one, or applied other administrative functions (C&P, counselling, coursing, rehab whatever...) we don't know and frankly that information is private to the member.  Complicating the issue was that the HISB policy/program was not as well defined when the incident happened.

4) Rumour four: If she was a man the punishment would have been worse.  False.
The judge in sentencing used at least 4 previous cases to assign the punishment.  Fines in those cases ranged from $1500 to $5000 and all included a severe reprimand.  The most severe was a male Maj who groped their subordinates.  The sentence didn't come out of nowhere, there are presidents.  The punishment severity was within the spectrum of previous cases and thus cannot be argued to have been reduced by her gender..


Hopefully this will recenter the discussion on what I believe it should really be about.  Are punishments assigned by the military justice system in these cases severe/appropriate enough?  Is the HISB process as now written dealing with these incidents in an appropriate manner?  How important is the Administrative review process and is it going to be used as supplementary punishment because the military justice system is deemed not harsh or politically sensitive enough?  Should CAF members be allowed to learn from mistakes and resurrect their career over time?

As a PSA:
If you are not familiar with the HISB process I've linked the reference.  I suggest especially if you are a leader in the CAF you make yourself very familiar with the contents.  If you are in the RCN every single board qualification that you attempt will have an HISB component to it, with a hard pass/fail for the scenario.

HISB Procedure Manual. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

I guess the CAF can take that $3000 fine and put it towards that billion dollar pay out were doing (for not treating assault and harassment serious enough in the first place?).

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread.

Brihard as always, you provide a very articulate and composed post.  There was definitely some intentional hand-wringing on my part but I think I'll be able to home in on a few things in response to what you've said.

Sexual assault is a crime. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and it has a clear meaning in law. Unfortunately it happens a lot in society you can indeed go out on a weekend evening, and there's a reasonable chance that if you're in the bars, some sexual assaults on the 'lower' end of the spectrum of what that offense covers will occur near you. Being reasonably frequent, and being 'lower end' doesn't make them any less criminal, it just makes them a prevalent problem. I have the right to go to a bar, or the mechanic's, or the library, or to my place of employment, or the furniture store, or to a work party without having my dick touched if I don't want it to be. Everyone does. A victim being male and a perpetrator female doesn't change the gravity of a situation at all. So let's start with that- you grab someone's junk without permission, regardless of the nature or configuration of their junk or of yours, you're offside. If you tell them "You know you like it" and you do it again, it's difficult to suggest it was unintentional or a misread of a sexually charged but still somewhat ambiguous situation. Does it happen a lot in bars? Yes. And if someone comes to me with a credible allegation of that and there's a suspect, I can and will arrest and charge that person. In the strictly criminal law side of the house, there's no differnet, higher standard being applied here simply because it's the CAF and the eyes of society are on us. The conduct was in and of itself sufficient to justify charges,a dn charges were laid. A plea deal resulted, also common in civilian criminal court. Nobody got railroaded here.

You and I are mostly in agreement here; however, you're looking at it from a Police Officer's perspective.  Police Officers are like the nuclear missiles of the justice system and you work exclusively on behalf of the Crown.  Police Officers don't say "Anything you say can be used FOR you" quite the opposite actually.  Luckily Police are only one part of the justice system. 

Police will lay a charge or charge(s) based on one set of facts i.e. the ones they collected and presented but that is not the entire story ever.  We are lucky its not because if it were there would be a lot more people in jail.

I think in the case above, the system has worked as intended.  As you said, a plea bargain was reached and I think the sentencing was proportional and just given what we know about the case and the offender.

I think the real problem is peoples perceptions vs reality.  We should not and cannot treat every case of alleged sexual assault or any other crime for that matter with the same brush every single time.  You only need to read this reddit thread to get a sense of what I'm trying to get at:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/cxacd2/fondling_of_frigatemates_earns_navy_officer_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Comments ranging from "that's rape" to hatred for officers disguised as outrage over the verdict.  It's a Roman Colosseum mentality.  Luckily again, the judicial system doesn't take this in to consideration and works as intended.

The CAF, quite wisely, has decided that for valid institutional reasons, we impose a standard of conduct higher than 'don't get convicted of a criminal offense'. Any employer can and most do. The CAF is hardly unique for having certain situations in which someone will lose their job if it's reasonably believed they engaged in certain conduct. While the CAF is one of only a few employers with its own specific legislation, and its own conduct expectations that have the weight of law, that's not what it has to rely upon to determine that someone is best removed from employment. McDonalds doesn't need a National Fast Food Act passed by a legislature to have the power to fire someone who grabs someone else's dick, either during work hours or at an after hours work function. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the CAF has one of the most rigorously procedural employee administration systems, with some of the strongest oversight mechanisms to be found anywhere. You grope a coworker at TD Bank, watch how fast you're fired. You probably won't be seeing an NOI, there's probably not going to be a grievance procedure. Brief meeting with HR, and here's the banker's box with your personal effects... The CAF has a lot in place to make sure that administrative measures are enacted fairly.

I acknowledge that the role of the CAF justice system is in part rehabilitation. Absolutely, and yes it should be. But that does not obviate the requirement for CAF leadership to identify systemic problems int he institution, and to use the measures they have available to target unacceptable behaviours that fall short of outright criminality. Being fired from a job does not carry the weight of a criminal conviction. It sucks, but when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and there has been nothing unclear about the consequences of not keeping your damned hands to yourself for a fair bit of time now.

An individual who engages in such behaviours against / among CAF members does more than just grab someone's dick. They're wilfully engaging in conduct that perpetuate a type of behaviour that is rightly or wrongly seen as endemic within our ranks, and that has been deemed (rightly) to constitute a threat to the institution. They are wilfully engaging in behaviour that makes some other members uncomfortable at or afraid to come to work, and that has caused some significant psychological distress. In the case of a leader, they are damaging ocnfidence in the integrity of the chain of command and they are damaging the trust that should implicitly be vested both upwards and downwards through the chain of command. I recognize also that institutionally the CAF sees such things from an officer as more egregious. Frankly I tire of that nonsense and I think that as we're all adults (or damned close to it) and professionals, and as our junior ranks are no longer Wellington's 'scum of the earth', we should be able to view misconduct equitably regardless of a degree or a commission. But I digress- that was just the (not quite released yet) NCO in me taking umbrage at the residual classism we still have. In any case, there is no person so lowly in rank or junior in experience who is not aware of where these particular lines are drawn, and whose conduct can be mitigated by being junior.

Again, I mostly agree with you but the big difference is people don't live at TD Bank or McDonalds and they don't spend 24/7 for months on end with Jimmy or Julie flipping burgers on the line (thank goodness as smelling like Chicken McNuggets 24/7 would be terrible). 

There is a reason the military has its own justice system and its own code of service discipline.  The purpose of which is to maintain "discipline, efficiency and morale" of the Armed Forces. 

IMO if we are keeping people in the Forces with Multiple DUI Convictions (I know a few) and Confirmed Illicit Narcotic Use (and there are many), I cannot objectively look at this (with the facts we know) and say that this individual does not deserve a second chance to remain in the service.  In terms of their actual employability in their actual job (driving ships), I would certainly trust them more than an addict. 

What do I objectively think would be a fair outcome of an administrative review?  12 months C&P and a requirement to undergo a counselling program. 

You and I are in 100% agreement concerning the outdated class system.  Canada has one of the most educated populations in the world.  Expectations concerning conduct should be the same across the board.  I'm not a fan at all of "Rules for thee but not for me" but this is what the CSD is for. 

The fact the individual in question was an Officer would have been a factor in sentencing.  It always is, which is why when General Rouleau had an ND in Iraq, he underwent a Court Martial and received a $2000.00 fine and a new Pte who gets an ND undergoes a Summary Trial and if they are found guilty, receives a $100 fine.

I agree with Ballz that it was wrong to come out and say the CAF would kick everyone out who was implicated for sexual misconduct.  It was short term political calculus and a situation of the estimate.  Administrative Law should not trump the CSD and that's essentially what has happened or at least that's the messaging we are seeing.

This is not something 'everyone is guilty of'. Most of us are perfectly capable of keeping our hands to ourselves. Those who can't give me pause- I question their ability to exercise sound judgment, and I question their self control. I won't leave those concerns in the frictionless vacuum of an after work party, because character is character.

Maybe I'm pretty die hard on this, but I don't think we need every single person who enters our organization to stay, and I don't think the recruitng process perfectly weeds in who should and who should not be here. I believe that over time, people will revert to their nature even when they 'wear a mask' in a professional environment. I believe that a small portion of our members, by virtue of their choices and their conduct, eventually show themselves to not be worth the cost of keeping. It might be a one off, it might not. But in an institution where discipline is so key, I fully support the CDS on down in keeping a very tight grip on the consequences of poor choices.

I never said anything different.  People should be able to keep their hands to themselves but unfortunately people aren't computers, they don't respond to algorithms.  I have little doubt that this Officer will from here on out keep their hands to themselves and if they don't, well the consequences will be greater and I would definitely expect them to be separated from the service.

Personally Brihard, I think the fact that you are a Law Enforcement Officer gives you a certain perspective that is different than others.  Everyone has biases that are shaped by their own experiences, including you and I.  You have your viewpoint but it is not the only one. 

One of the things that nobody seems to be talking about here that is a real elephant in the room in the CAF, is fraternization.  It's a chargeable offence but one that seems to have gone by the wayside.  The only people it still seems to apply to are certain senior officers who embarrass the CAF in some way.

I think fraternization does more damage to discipline and morale in the Forces than almost anything else.  Why?  Because it creates a power vaccuum and does real damage to the CoC. 

*Edited for typos, that's what I get for typing on my phone

 

[daftandbarmy]

One of the things that nobody seems to be talking about here that is a real elephant in the room in the CAF, is fraternization.  It's a chargeable offence but one that seems to have gone by the wayside.  The only people it still seems to apply to are certain senior officers who embarrass the CAF in some way.

I think fraternization does more damage to discipline and morale in the Forces than almost anything else.  Why?  Because it creates a power vaccuum and does real damage to the CoC. 

Nailed it.  :nod:

 

[FJAG]

... I think the real problem is peoples perceptions vs reality.  We should not and cannot treat every case of alleged sexual assault or any other crime for that matter with the same brush every single time. ...

I think what you say here is the crux of the issue especially when dealing with sexual assaults. A sexual assault in its simplest terms is "unwanted sexual contact".

While simple assaults are generally easy to distinguish in that generally no one wants to be "punched, stabbed or shot" and therefore whatever act happened was most likely non consensual, sexual activity and touching is for the vast number of occasions both wanted and consensual. Hence, consensual sexual contact is not a crime while unwanted sexual contact very well could be. In addition, like an  assault, sexual assault can be one of degree from a minor but improper touch to a very violent event.

Because of the complexities involved it takes a skilled jurist based on evidence before him (often involving credibility and diverging stories) to determine: a) if a sexual assault occurred; and b) where on the severity continuum it lays and how should it be sanctioned.

Media articles rarely give you the full story while a written judgement will provide much of the key evidence. I therefore refrain from commenting at all until I've read the judgement.

On top of that, for many crimes committed there are two aspects that follow the outcome: a) the punishment imposed by the legal system for the crime based on the facts and previous decisions for similar circumstances; and b) the sanctions imposed by the public, including the offender's employer, based on their own perception/guidelines of the circumstances on their particular area of responsibility.

For DND, any circumstance that leads to criminal/service offence charges can lead to an administrative action regardless as to whether the offence is actually proven in court. Remember that there is a wide gap between conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (a criminal standard) and on a balance of probabilities (a civil/administrative standard). Accordingly administrative sanctions may follow even when there isn't a criminal conviction and, where appropriate, the administrative action is usually imposed on a sliding scale based on the severity of the relevant circumstances.

I can't say with a straight face that every administrative action that DND takes is well thought out and based on concrete principles but I can say that in these types of cases such principles are fairly well set down and evaluated based on an adequate investigation and determined under generally accepted standards of procedural fairness. Redress and appeal systems exist.

Our individual sense of outrage in this case may vary but I'm prepared to give the system its time to react and announce its decision rather than jump the gun on what it might or might not do.

:cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

CAF Reddit is a self-inflicted wound;  finding mob outrage there is no different than being surprised at finding an IQ-challenged comment in a US Presidential discussion, or Inspector Renault finding gambling in Rick's "Café Americaine."

The good news though, is that I can skip Sunday School tomorrow, having gotten my weekly share of preachin' right here.  :nod:

 

[dimsum]

CAF Reddit is a self-inflicted wound;  finding mob outrage there is no different than being surprised at finding an IQ-challenged comment in a US Presidential discussion, or Inspector Renault finding gambling in Rick's "Café Americaine."

I do like their SCS (Salty Cpl Saturdays) memes though.  Some of them should be PAO folks in 2 Div 

 

[MJP]

I do like their SCS (Salty Cpl Saturdays) memes though.  Some of them should be PAO folks in 2 Div 

Indeed, such salty memes! 

Overall, it is very much like a smoke pit, lots of chatter, a few great nuggets of info and lots of bitching and misinformation.

 

[Blackadder1916]

One of the things that nobody seems to be talking about here that is a real elephant in the room in the CAF, is fraternization.  It's a chargeable offence but one that seems to have gone by the wayside.  The only people it still seems to apply to are certain senior officers who embarrass the CAF in some way.

I think fraternization does more damage to discipline and morale in the Forces than almost anything else.  Why?  Because it creates a power vaccuum and does real damage to the CoC. 

Semantics, I'll admit, sometimes is the proverbial picking flyshit out of pepper, but your use of the term "fraternization" doesn't apply to the situations being discussed.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5019/5019-1-personal-relationships-and-fraternization.html

2. Definitions

fraternization (fraternisation)

Any relationship between a CAF member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CAF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CAF members are deployed. (Defence Terminology Bank, record number 43080)

personal relationship (relation personnelle)

An emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union, between two CAF members, or a CAF member and a DND employee or contractor, or member of an allied force. (Defence Terminology Bank, record number 43170)

And while "fraternization" per se is not "illegal" (which would be the only thing that would make it a chargeable offence), it can be situationally inappropriate.

4.6 Fraternization can have detrimental effects on unit operation effectiveness due to potential threats to the security, morale, cohesion and discipline of a unit. Task force commanders must issue orders and guidance on fraternization appropriate to the situation in their area of operations.

It is the "disobeying" of any orders about "appropriate" fraternization that is the chargeable part.

On the other hand "personal relationships" (which I assume is what you are referring to when you use fraternization) are also situational.

4.5 Commanding officers (COs) must apply appropriate situational-specific criteria when dealing with individual situations or establishing any local policy with respect to personal relationships. Before establishing any local policy, unit authorities should consult with the local representative of the Judge Advocate General (JAG). Any local policy must not be less restrictive than this DAOD.
. . .

5.1 If a personal relationship has a negative effect on the security, cohesion, discipline or morale of a unit, the personal relationship is considered adverse for the purpose of this DAOD.

And while romantic (or consensual sexual) attachments can be messy in the military, it is no different than the normal interactions in a civilian workplace.  And if I may interject a personal comment, if I had been precluded from forming relationships with other Canadian (and a few Allied) servicewomen, then I would have had a very dull career (and life).

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

CAF Reddit is a self-inflicted wound;  finding mob outrage there is no different than being surprised at finding an IQ-challenged comment in a US Presidential discussion, or Inspector Renault finding gambling in Rick's "Café Americaine."

The good news though, is that I can skip Sunday School tomorrow, having gotten my weekly share of preachin' right here.  :nod:

JM, you and I both know you aren't missing out on Tap of the Day at Spearhead Brewing Company.

I think what you say here is the crux of the issue especially when dealing with sexual assaults. A sexual assault in its simplest terms is "unwanted sexual contact".

While simple assaults are generally easy to distinguish in that generally no one wants to be "punched, stabbed or shot" and therefore whatever act happened was most likely non consensual, sexual activity and touching is for the vast number of occasions both wanted and consensual. Hence, consensual sexual contact is not a crime while unwanted sexual contact very well could be. In addition, like an  assault, sexual assault can be one of degree from a minor but improper touch to a very violent event.

Because of the complexities involved it takes a skilled jurist based on evidence before him (often involving credibility and diverging stories) to determine: a) if a sexual assault occurred; and b) where on the severity continuum it lays and how should it be sanctioned.

Media articles rarely give you the full story while a written judgement will provide much of the key evidence. I therefore refrain from commenting at all until I've read the judgement.

On top of that, for many crimes committed there are two aspects that follow the outcome: a) the punishment imposed by the legal system for the crime based on the facts and previous decisions for similar circumstances; and b) the sanctions imposed by the public, including the offender's employer, based on their own perception/guidelines of the circumstances on their particular area of responsibility.

For DND, any circumstance that leads to criminal/service offence charges can lead to an administrative action regardless as to whether the offence is actually proven in court. Remember that there is a wide gap between conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (a criminal standard) and on a balance of probabilities (a civil/administrative standard). Accordingly administrative sanctions may follow even when there isn't a criminal conviction and, where appropriate, the administrative action is usually imposed on a sliding scale based on the severity of the relevant circumstances.

I can't say with a straight face that every administrative action that DND takes is well thought out and based on concrete principles but I can say that in these types of cases such principles are fairly well set down and evaluated based on an adequate investigation and determined under generally accepted standards of procedural fairness. Redress and appeal systems exist.

Our individual sense of outrage in this case may vary but I'm prepared to give the system its time to react and announce its decision rather than jump the gun on what it might or might not do.

:cheers:

FJAG, as always your input is extremely valuable and a reminder why it takes years of training and associated experience to become a lawyer. 

Semantics, I'll admit, sometimes is the proverbial picking flyshit out of pepper, but your use of the term "fraternization" doesn't apply to the situations being discussed.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5019/5019-1-personal-relationships-and-fraternization.html
And while "fraternization" per se is not "illegal" (which would be the only thing that would make it a chargeable offence), it can be situationally inappropriate.

It is the "disobeying" of any orders about "appropriate" fraternization that is the chargeable part.

On the other hand "personal relationships" (which I assume is what you are referring to when you use fraternization) are also situational.

And while romantic (or consensual sexual) attachments can be messy in the military, it is no different than the normal interactions in a civilian workplace.  And if I may interject a personal comment, if I had been precluded from forming relationships with other Canadian (and a few Allied) servicewomen, then I would have had a very dull career (and life).

Thank you for the clarification and I don't really view it as picking fly crap out of pepper.  Semantics and Pedantics is why we have lawyers  8)

Call it what you want.  I have seen a number of "personal relationships" that would be considered inappropriate.  What was formally done about it?  Absolument rien.  Actually doing something about it would certainly solve a number of problems but invites other problems for Commanders so it is easier to do nothing. 

The question is when does it border in to the realm of conduct unbecoming or conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline?  I'm not a lawyer so I cannot answer that.

 

[dimsum]

Indeed, such salty memes! 

Overall, it is very much like a smoke pit, lots of chatter, a few great nuggets of info and lots of bitching and misinformation.

I'm honestly surprised it's not renamed to "The Smoke Pit". 

However, they did have some good tips about BGRS, and because how many people are on there, usually you get your answer in a day or less. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

For the record, I'm not condoning this person's behaviour at all.  What she did was wrong and she admitted guilt.  I'm just not certain removal from the service is 100% warranted in this case and I'm not about to jump on the mob bandwagon as I don't think it's helpful or right. 

Any how, good discussion and I want to state that I value everyone's opinion here and appreciate that we can talk about this without resorting to petty name calling or trolling, even if we aren't 100% in agreement on certain things.  It shows a certain level of maturity that other social media platforms lack nowadays.

Regards,
HB

 

[OldSolduer]

For what it’s worth I see sex offenders released from custody daily.
Some will return.

Some will not because they’ve made the decision to not sexually offend.

People can and do change.

 

[Stoker]

Perhaps if her mess mate spoke up about her behavior the other incidents wouldn't of happened. Chances are she's been like that before when she drank and most likely went unreported. Operation Honour is so ingrained in us now perhaps the best course of action is not to drink.

 

[ballz]

Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread...

<Cut> remainder of post to save space </cut>

I don't know if I'm one of these "hand-wringers" but if so, you are off the mark. I have no issue with using administrative actions with the disciplinary system, no issue with kicking people out when they've earned it, etc.

What I have a problem with a CDS who, in order to score cheap points, has undermined the administrative actions system. He took the decisions and judgement out of the hands of those closest to the problem, and applied a blanket standard which is just ridiculous. Sexual misconduct is so broad, trying to use one standard apply to it is like trying to standardize the kit layout for a plane, ship, and tank.

4) Rumour four: If she was a man the punishment would have been worse.  False.
The judge in sentencing used at least 4 previous cases to assign the punishment.  Fines in those cases ranged from $1500 to $5000 and all included a severe reprimand.  The most severe was a male Maj who groped their subordinates.  The sentence didn't come out of nowhere, there are presidents.  The punishment severity was within the spectrum of previous cases and thus cannot be argued to have been reduced by her gender..

I'll make my own judgement on that, thanks. As I said, I look forward to reading the actual decisions. But, the only thing I have readily available to compare it to is the same judge's decision on the Taylor case. At the face of it, there are two standards, but I look forward to getting more info so I can make a more informed judgement. I know how precedents work, and you saying "thus cannot be argued" is just making value-less noise when I think I've demonstrated a pretty comparable case where the outcomes were quite different and you've just arbitrarily stated the cases the Justice applied are more well-suited yet haven't actually provided any details.

I can't say with a straight face that every administrative action that DND takes is well thought out and based on concrete principles but I can say that in these types of cases such principles are fairly well set down and evaluated based on an adequate investigation and determined under generally accepted standards of procedural fairness. Redress and appeal systems exist.

Hard to say that when the CDS has ordered what the decision will be before the administrative process has even started. I can't open the CANFORGEN's right now but I hope the latest CANFORGEN has corrected that.

 

[Journeyman]

JM, you and I both know you aren't missing out on Tap of the Day at Spearhead Brewing Company.

Well, I do  happen to have "pick up beer" on today's list of chores.
…. probably followed by catching up on some of yesterday's RWC warm-up matches.  :cheers:

/sidetrack

 

[Underway]

I'll make my own judgement on that, thanks. As I said, I look forward to reading the actual decisions. But, the only thing I have readily available to compare it to is the same judge's decision on the Taylor case. At the face of it, there are two standards, but I look forward to getting more info so I can make a more informed judgement. I know how precedents work, and you saying "thus cannot be argued" is just making value-less noise when I think I've demonstrated a pretty comparable case where the outcomes were quite different and you've just arbitrarily stated the cases the Justice applied are more well-suited yet haven't actually provided any details.

Yah on re-read it does sound a bit condescending in a different voice.  Perhaps a bit overkill on my part I grant you but overkill was needed IMHO.  What I was trying to get at was a perceived bias without any extra information.  This situation has become an instant trigger issue with opinions via facts.  The judge at the sentencing referenced the previous cases for their reasoning.  We should trust their decision as the professional in the case. That needed to be presented and the arguments for bias need to be restrained until there is more information to prove otherwise.  We will know more when the full decision is released but until then the argument in favour of bias is the real "value-less noise".  Perhaps there is truth to the bias argument when the facts are fully public and persons more learned than myself with law get their mitts on it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Underway]
Career and postings continued as normal after the incident with a swap to a different ship because; the complainant and respondent should be separated.
[/quote]

Was I wrong? She didn't deploy on the same ship again after the incident?

 

[Underway]

Was I wrong? She didn't deploy on the same ship again after the incident?

I'm not sure on the time delay afterwards but she did not finish the deployment with her original ship due to the incident.  The ship she was sent to afterwords subsequently deployed a year later.  Hence some of the confusion I think.  That's the general sequence of events as was presented to me.

I also think that the press doesn't know the difference between a deployment and just normal navy sails to Europe for other training/diplomatic reasons.  Some more confusion may have resulted from that as well.

 

[kratz]

Perhaps if her mess mate spoke up about her behavior the other incidents wouldn't of happened. Chances are she's been like that before when she drank and most likely went unreported. Operation Honour is so ingrained in us now perhaps the best course of action is not to drink.

Yikes !! Where would all the best stories germinate from? It's rare to begin a tall tale with, "We were sober and..."