Treating People Fairly

I was shocked and appalled by the news that the Welsh Assembly Member took his life after it was alleged that he had behaved inappropriately and forced to resign from his post. My heart goes out to his family who I am sure from the personal experience I have of this will be feeling numb and asking all manner of questions to which there is no answer. In my family’s instance nearly 30 years on it is still something that is not spoken of openly.

It has come to light someone else in the Welsh Assembly was alleged to have done similar but was allowed to continue until it had been investigated. How is this fair? If the former had been treated similarly he would have been alive and preparing himself for a Q&A about things, but at least he would have known who had said what and when it was alleged to have happened.

How long is it before people accused of doing things are afforded the same anonymity as the accusers?

In light of recent events this whole allegation saga needs to be looked at and a proper process looked at, rather than an expectation that people are able to be named willy nilly and resign or leave their job, with a chance to answer the claims and have them properly investigated and if proved beyond all reasonable doubt, then resign.

If it’s not illegal what is wrong with just saying sorry? We all say sorry for things, making a mental note about not doing it again and move on without making any sort of change to what we do, so why do instances like this require a different tack.

Ironically none of these allegations relate to anything illegal just things that people don’t like. I get a sense they want to introduce legislation, which will be completely unworkable.

1 Like

Agree wholeheartedly. The whole affair over the latest round of scandals has me shocked quite frankly. I would have thought that if somebody had assaulted me in any way (harassed or otherwise) then the first option is the police then any relevant member organisations.

I feel that people do have the right to come forward and absolutely should if there is wrongdoing but it seems in 2017, the first option is to run to the nearest journalist.

… and the journalists can’t help themselves and rather than wait to see if it’s right, especially in some of the historic cases, just publish. Some of the more ‘modern’ instances people can’t help themselves using emails and social media, which isn’t so easy to deny and is blatantly stupid.

How many newspapers and other news outlets issue apologies and retractions when they’ve reported things incorrectly, which seems perfectly OK for them as an apology and they just carry on.

1 Like


The Media.

Guilty until proven innocent.

“We are the angry mob, we read the paper everyday, we like who we like, we hate who we hate. But we’re oh so easily swayed”

1 Like

Not when it happened 10/20/30 years ago. Based on witness statements alone.

So the police don’t care if something’s historical?

Of course they care about historical offences however such things are so much harder to prove, but not impossible.

With historical offences there’s are several weaknesses inherent to the investigation. Firstly you have zero DNA or Visual evidence. Taht leaves you reliant entirely on Victim Statements, Witness Statements & Suspect Interviews.

What you will find if you look at the successful prosecutions is that where this has happened you will have multiple victims, generally not related to each other in anyway and a pattern of behaviour will have emerged which makes the offences proveable. (So for example the same words used, same actions, same locations used).

Where it’s one persons word against another at that distance in time it will be almost impossible to prove, unless the suspect themselves makes admissions. (Which is where the press intrusion can also be of help as other victims do come forward when it’s publicised taht people have been arrested).

1 Like

I feel it is a consequence of today’s 24hr news. We need to keep people updated 5 mins ago! We can’t wait for the hourly broadcasts as before.

Why wait that bit of time and get the facts right, when you can post something straight away. I’m in my 30s, but I still remember the “breaking news” when they would interrupt a programme to give you the updated information. You got the impact from that… we’ve lost that now. Just my thoughts.


Also News is now a Business so it’s a race to get the information first. It’s also about getting people to click links and generate add revenue.


This is the point > .

This is you > :slight_smile:

You missed it.

It is a bit complicated - on the one hand, in a perfect world anonymity for anyone accused of something would be assured until convicted.

But on the other it has to be said that a lack of anonymity has shone light on to certain people who might have otherwise avoided justice; particularly in the case of older accusations. For example Kevin Spacey who is looking on increasingly shaky ground - if it was his word against one other then it’s entirely possible that he would have gotten off scot-free, if it’s dozens of complainants or witnesses then it’s a much stronger case.

It’s a case of choosing the lesser of two evils and I’m not entirely certain which one it is.

1 Like

It’s a very difficult balancing act, made even harder when one half of the case is anonymous. It’s more difficult to argue that justice needs to be open and honest in those terms.

But it also needs to be recognised that just because someone is found not guilty doesn’t mean that they are innocent any more than it means the accuser was lying. All it means is that the Crown has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

The problem is that the accused if found completely innocent has had their life ruined, while the accuser lives to do it again, knowing they can do it and remain lurking in the shadows.

There is always in my mind a nagging doubt of people leading someone on, not getting what they want and turning on their prey. My wife spoke to our daughters about this when our eldest started leading boys on. It was harmless teenage stuff but my wife concerned that unless she did something, something undesired might happen, As dad with 2 daughters and a son, you see the difference. My son would just ask and the girls would be indirect and I remember my wife telling them just ask him, as that stuff doesn’t work on him, and she should know.

I’ve watched young women at work act up to managers and it was interesting to see it stop dead when we had a female manager in the 90s and bloke in the 00s, who was gay.

I watched QT last night and one of the women said it’s about men in power and not sex, but IMO girls / women use their femininity to gain an advantage over male colleagues, but they’d never admit. I will guarantee that this weekend if the girls come out to collect, they will get more than the boys.

1 Like

Some years ago, when I worked for a company we shall refer to as Big Airline, I overruled a senior cabin crew member (Purser) over a technical issue. My decision was reached after consultation with the First Officer and the ground engineer and the Purser was given a full explanation of the reasons. My decision was later endorsed by the fleet Technical Manager. I even voluntarily wrote a long explanation of the case to the purser after she had complained to her management. Her management declined to give her the explanation.

A number of months later I flew with the Purser again who, after another disagreement of a technical issue decided to go sick and left the crew halfway through the trip. The following day I was interviewed by a senior manager who said he had a written complaint that I had “shouted at the purser”. This doesn’t seem like a major offence and indeed was completely untrue as it was the outstation engineer that had shouted at her.

As a result of this complaint the company devoted nearly three months of investigations including a whole week for a team of two and numerous meetings, usually between two “suits” and me and a another captain/union rep (in Big Airline you ALWAYS take a prisoner’s friend).

The result of all this was a statement that I had no case to answer and that the Purser had lied on a number of occasions, something that must have been very obvious at the beginning. It was then followed by a requirement for me, the purser, her manager, my manager and a training captain to have a meeting to decide that the Purser and I could work together. During this meeting the Purser (who arrived two hours late) lied several more times. It was very obvious to me, and I suspect everyone else, that she had some serious problems. At the end of the long meeting I agreed that we could probably work together so we could all get lunch before the canteen closed. I was assured verbally afterwards by my manager that there was no chance of that ever happening (working together, not lunch!).

The point was that the Purser had made so many complaints about numerous people in the past that they had started a second file because the first one was full. The company (and particularly her manager) was frightened of her and instead of the whole thing being stopped at the beginning by a wise manager they continued to escalate the problem and put it on someone else table. No-one would make a decision, they would rather spend money.

Incidentally, neither I, nor several of the investigators, were allowed to see the written complaint. Just remember this was about nothing worse than someone allegedly shouting. No action was ever taken about the Purser’s false complaint, lies or failure to obey a lawful command on two occasions.

Very often complaints like this are backed up by others tacitly agreeing with the complainer, this because the serial complainer is also a bully and pushes others to agree with them. The agreement is often withdrawn later, but this is never taken into account until the situation becomes very formal.

I have seen something similar happen (not to me) at our squadron recently - the system doesn’t trust its junior managers (OC Squadron) to make decisions and take sensible action, so the issue becomes a major one that takes months to decide there is no problem.

No, it isn’t fair, but it is where we get to with a system the promotes managers that never make a bad (any?) decision.


Nailed it squarely on the head.

I know of a lad who was involved in a relationship with a girl he worked with.
Relationship went sour, or she just changed her mind, filed a complaint against him at work for a comment.
Next thing you know, girls are rallying around each other encouraging each other to make statements and playing up to it. Manipulating each other statements or playing off against each other.

He still got sacked.

God help the Infantry and close combat units when this failed social experiment to let women in happens.

I would say in the Corps it’s because they like to over-promote youngsters who just go along with everything and when confronted by a real problem either go OTT or hide.

A squadron in our Wing has had the same bloke in charge and each time he moves he immediately upsets staff who leave. Two complained direct to the Wing Cdr (after the local WSO ignored them) about the language he used to them and nothing. He’s has favoured status and the word is he’s being lined up for a Wing job. Apparently he has mental health issues and blames his behaviour on that, which if he does should he be running an ATC squadron if it’s going to affect how he does things and secondly blaming behaviour on a mental health issue as defence is poor and derogatory to people who suffer with these sorts of issues. Having met him I get the impression he has full control of his faculties.

1 Like

I bet you are the type of person that refers to the RAF Regiment as “The Regiment”… There is only one “The Corps” and it is not the ATC… :wink:

I hope I run into someone like that as a CI.

1 - you talk in the past tense - has it failed?

2 - given the title of the thread there is a degree of irony in this stance

1 Like

In this instance I would safely assume that we aren’t talking about any other Corps’. If this were a more open discussion group like ARRSE then referring to “the Corps” would need clarification.
Nah it’s RAF Regiment or Rock Apes.

1 Like