4 RN Sailors Charged with Gang Sexual Assault

[GeorgeD]

How would something like this work? Would they work for the CF or would they be working for the RN?

 

[Tibbson]

How would something like this work? Would they work for the CF or would they be working for the RN?

They will end up being paid and employed by the RN (as it states at their bail hearing they cannot resign from the RN) but no doubt the RN will ask the RCN to find some suitable duty for them to perform.  Not quite how you want to get an exchange position with another navy eh?

 

[Occam]

I've got to admit, the few posts alluding to giving them crappy jobs to do pending trial disturbs me a little.  I'm sure opinions would be somewhat different if you put yourself in the shoes of someone charged for a crime you know in your own mind you didn't commit.  Let's give them their day in court, eh?

 

[McG]

Do you have some inside info they are absolutely innocent and being framed?

...

It is nice too see you concerned for the 4 accused and not the victim.  :

Concern for victims does not necessitate punishing accused until they may be found innocent.  The only one posting as though they have inside information on the truth is you. 

 

[Scott]

Do you have some inside info they are absolutely innocent and being framed?

Rape is down on my list of lowest crimes committed by the lowest form of fucking life.  Gang rape is just all the way to the bottom of the barrel and then burrowed into the wood some.

I will stick to my posted comments because, trust me, they are much less PC than what I posted.

If you that sensitive, don't read this thread. 

It is nice too see you concerned for the 4 accused and not the victim.  :

OTOH,  do you have some inside info that they're guilty? If so then you should not be posting here. At all.

Im concerned for all. Full stop. That doesn't have me jumping to any conclusion though.

 

[mariomike]

Just what kind of work might they do. 

"It was not clear last night how they will keep themselves occupied thousands of miles from their shipmates and a representative from the British High Commission who was in court refused to elaborate."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3047155/Four-Royal-Navy-sailors-accused-gang-raping-woman-Canada-ice-hockey-tournament-arrive-court-granted-bail.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The thread has been cleaned of posts advocating adverse administrative punishments for those who are awaiting their day in court.

Any member wishing to continue along that line will find themselves jammed into the Warning System at a level somewhere above initial entry.

This warning will not be repeated.

---Staff---

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yet, in another thread, you suggest removing collateral damage so civilians can be killed in bombing runs.

:

My opinion, which I have a right to, stands.  Just like you are entitled to your thoughts on killing innocent civilians, which no one was morally outraged at.  I guess its okay to say we should bomb civilians, but suggesting 4 foreign servicemen accused of gang raping a young Canadian woman scrub pots - well, thats just unacceptable!!

If your going to pull your cyber-sheriff badge out, fine.  But IMO, you have to walk the walk.  Some of us were talking about scrubbing pots and picking up brass.  Not blowing up innocent people.

Double standards really piss me off.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Yet, in another thread, you suggest removing collateral damage so civilians can be killed in bombing runs.

:

My opinion, which I have a right to, stands.  Just like you are entitled to your thoughts on killing innocent civilians, which no one was morally outraged at.  I guess its okay to say we should bomb civilians, but suggesting 4 foreign servicemen accused of gang raping a young Canadian woman scrub pots - well, thats just unacceptable!!

If your going to pull your cyber-sheriff badge out, fine.  But IMO, you have to walk the walk.  Some of us were talking about scrubbing pots and picking up brass.  Not blowing up innocent people.

Double standards really piss me off.

I'm going to defend Recceguy here because I am certain he would personally love to see a guy charged with sexual assault scrubbing pots as much as you or I would; however, these men are innocent until proven guilty. 

With that being said, we need to temper our commentary until the court renders a verdict, otherwise we open up the site owner, Mr Bobbitt, to the potential for legal action due to defamation, slander, etc... Against him.

Recceguy is just trying to protect the site owner. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I think the intent of some of the questions posed is to ascertain if these four sailors are going to be gainfully employed while in Halifax.

 

[mba2011]

I did not phrase my previous comment about scrubbing pots or clearing brass properly at all, and wasn't trying to insinuate that they should not have their day in court; more to the point of wondering if they were going to be employed them in a job that would not impact anyone else or keep them out of the way and eye of RCN members.

I think the intent of some of the questions posed is to ascertain if these four sailors are going to be gainfully employed while in Halifax.

To Mr Seggie's point, I find myself wondering what exactly they could find themselves employed doing. It seems to me that it would be a stretch to suggest that they would be employed on ship or employed in a specific position of some importance. They won't be employed long, whether they are found innocent and returned to the UK or found guilty and sentenced to a prison term.  Would they be employed like some bases/schools employ PAT Pl members, doing a range of lower level tasks? Or would the Chain of Command take the opportunity to reinforce manning short falls in jobs they are qualified for/have done previously?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yet, in another thread, you suggest removing collateral damage so civilians can be killed in bombing runs.

:

Double standards really piss me off.

 

[captloadie]

At the end of the day, it isn't the CAF's or the Canadian public's concern what is done with these four individuals. The RN is responsible for paying them, housing them, and employing them. I am surprised that the British government has not requested that the condition to remain in Nova Scotia be lifted and send them to the nearest embassy/consulate office within Canada to sit and wait their court date.

 

[chrisf]

At the end of the day, it isn't the CAF's or the Canadian public's concern what is done with these four individuals.

Wait, what?? They allegedly raped a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, and that isnt the Canadian publics concern?

 

[George Wallace]

Wait, what?? They allegedly raped a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, and that isnt the Canadian publics concern?

It isn't the CAF nor the Canadian public's concern how they will be employed.  They are out on Bail and required to remain in Canada to await their Trial dates.  Are you one of those people who has to be constantly in the Twitterverse and know when these guys go to the toilet, what they had for lunch, etc.?  It is NONE of your concern.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am pretty sur as adults, we can decide for ourselves to what we are or are not concerned about.  :

 

[George Wallace]

I am pretty sur as adults, we can decide for ourselves to what we are or are not concerned about.  :

Well, EitS, I am not concerned, like you may be, as to what their ablutions are, and when.  The facts are there as to their having gained Bail and that they must remain in Canada to await Trial.  What rights do any citizen have to know the intimate day to day activities of any other person?  If you are the type who is so vain as to be constantly on twitter and post every mundane action you make in a day; well fine for you devolving you lax personal security concerns.  There is no need for anyone to know, nor be concerned, what these persons daily lives will now entail. 

Are you a "Peeping Tom" ready for the possibility of a charge of "Harassment" or even "interference in a criminal case"?
 

 

[brihard]

For those who might be curious, typically in something liek this bail conditions will include not to have contact in any way direct or indirect with the victim; remain in the jurisdiction presiding over the charges (i.e., Nova Scotia), attend court as required, report to a bail supervisor and attend as required, and there is likely a curfew as well. If alcohol was a factor (which I would suspect it was) there will typically be an abstain from alcohol condition as well.

The intent of someone being released on bail is to minimize the unnecessary imprisonment of accused suspects if it is not necessary in order to ensure their attendance in court or to protect the victim/society from further offending. There is often a lot of ambiguity and question marks in a sexual assault case, so I'm not particularly surprised to see them on bail given the considerable difficulty they would face in skipping out on their court dates.

As for how they're occupying their time until then? I really neither know nor care, but there's nothing criminal about people wanting to know, being curious, or speculating. Justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done, and it's not unreasonable for people to be concerned about how accused suspects are monitored and controlled. If I was living/working on base out there I'd definitely be a tad bit more interested to know.

I feel bad for any of their royal navy comrades working out of Halifax these days. That's a really ugly disgrace to have to be associated with. While they are of course innocent until proven guilty, we all know criminal charges aren't laid on a whim, and regardless of the outcome in court these four are always going to wear this.

 

[Blackadder1916]

At the end of the day, it isn't the CAF's or the Canadian public's concern what is done with these four individuals. The RN is responsible for paying them, housing them, and employing them. I am surprised that the British government has not requested that the condition to remain in Nova Scotia be lifted and send them to the nearest embassy/consulate office within Canada to sit and wait their court date.

While it may be of no concern to the CF generally what is done with these individuals awaiting trial (other than any agreement with the RN as to accommodation and employment, if any), what the greater unwashed Canadian public (collectively or individually) decides to make its concern if only limited by its interest, outrage or attention span.

I am not surprised that British authorities did not seek any change as to location post-bail.  Other than the difficulty of finding suitable employment at (as you suggested) one of the four British diplomatic or consular missions (Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary), though there was media speculation pre-bail hearing about sending them to Suffield, it seems to be RN policy not to make any undertaking as to conditions of bail for its members.  As well, should they be "ordered by naval authorities" to a place other than where they were arrested and would normally be required to remain, then that may be considered placing them in a temporary duty status with attendant travel and accommodation benefits.

Fortunately during my time in, I never had to be involved in any civil criminal proceedings of soldiers at a location other than where they were stationed.  Even overseas (Germany), when soldiers (in my units anyway) transgressed on the economy, they still lived locally to the court's jurisdiction so it was not as administratively difficult a situation as this.  What would the current CF policy be if a similar situation involving Canadian soldiers/sailors/airmen occurred and they were not able to return to their normal place of duty and there was no Canadian Forces establishment in the locale to which they were restricted?  Would they be required to be on leave (annual, LWOP or other) to account for their absence from their normal place of duty?  I sort of remember such being discussed years decades ago (maybe a hypothetical discussion at Staff School?).  Perhaps these four British ratings find themselves in a similar status, at least in the short term until their next scheduled court date - about a month away.  I haven't found any British regulations or instructions that specifically deal with that but I did find the RN's Naval Personnel Management publication that does mention civilian court proceedings.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/~/media/royal%20navy%.20responsive/documents/reference%20library/br%203/Br3book/ch20.pdf

BR 3
PART 5

SECTION 17 - CIVIL OFFENCES

20115. Service Policy and Employment

a. The Naval Service, both as an employer and a public body, must take account of
pending and completed civil offences in order to regulate the workplace, protect the
legitimate interests of the accused and his or her colleagues, to maintain the discipline
and ethos of the Service, to assist the Court and the criminal justice system, and
ensure that public confidence is maintained.

b. QRRN Ch 39 should be consulted together with this section.
. . . .

SECTION 18 - DIVISIONAL ATTENDANCE AT COURTS

20126. Guidance for attending officers

a. This guidance should be read in conjunction with QRRN Art 3903.

b. If a member of the Navl Service is to appear in the Crown or Magistrate’s Court,
an officer (usually the Divisional Officer/Troop Commander (DO)) should normally
attend. Divisional representation from another ship or establishment better placed
than the accused’s own may be arranged. For minor offences dealt with in the
Magistrates Courts it may not be necessary for the divisional staff to attend. Guidance
may be sought from the Legal Advisor.

c. Prior to attending court DOs should receive a brief from the Command Advisor,
Adjutant or G1 Advisor on the purpose of their attendance, the information they may
give the court, and the information they must obtain from the court. They should wear
smart plain clothes in court. (found this interesting as we usually had to wear uniform as attending officer)
. . . . .

d. Attending Officers should be ready to assist the court in the following areas:
. . . . .
(5) Bail. If the court has to decide between remanding the individual in bail or in
custody, the individual should be encouraged, through his or her legal advisor, to
ask for bail. Courts have a variety of possible bail conditions, and may assume,
incorrectly, that the Service can supervise such conditions. The Service can
usually provide the individual with Single Living Accommodation in a suitable
area, but no undertaking can be given to the court that the Service will supervise
bail conditions. If the court appearance is abroad there is a strong Service interest
in the individual being granted bail. Exceptionally a sum of money can be
provided from public funds as a surety (QRRN J.5813 and JSP 838 The Armed
Forces Criminal Legal Aid Scheme).

 

[George Wallace]

With all the complaints and protests against Bill C-51, it is interesting to see all the people concerned with what these four may be doing now that they have Bail.  Kinda hypocritical, don't you think?