Sex, lies and cleverly concealed videotape

BK says:

07:45am | 15/04/11

This whole idea that men are never criticised for their sex life is insane. These men have their reputations in the dirt, where it belongs.

Furthermore, this concern about double-standards is very selective.  Flirty women get all sorts of favours from men. Men need to risk rejection and approach women, while women don’t. Women get everything from free drinks to favourable treatment from some employers, police, publicans etc. Women can get casual sex with men who are out of their league, men cannot.
Women who want long term relationships need to give up these double standards and avoid blokes who are too eager to please. Promiscuous women’s behaviour is all about taking advantage of double-standards.

KH says:

07:59am | 15/04/11

Have they? I haven’t seen any shadowy pictures of them on the news or even a fake name. Nor do they appear to have been disciplined.

And only a pervert films people without consent whilst they are having sex. A filthy disgusting pervert. Nothing to be undecided about.  I didn’t hear anyone claiming to be raped. This was clearly just a pervert and his dickhead mates who like watching their friends have sex, which is a whole other level of weird.

Vaunted says:

08:51am | 15/04/11

Some good points Erick but I’m still confused about rooting in the barracks. Have I missed out on something?

Markus says:

08:58am | 15/04/11

“Nor do they appear to have been disciplined”.
Apparently even the inhuman monsters that are the military have this crazy convention where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I believe it is called a fair trial, perhaps you’ve heard of it?

Mike says:

09:33am | 15/04/11

I haven’t yet seen any “naming and shaming” of the scum who did this to her.  Watch them and the whole thing disappear under an ADF whitewash…  And as for “innocent until proven guilty”,  it doesn’t seem to have applied to her, does it?

Troy says:

11:41am | 15/04/11

No way, Erick.  You are way off the mark on this one. 

First, secretly filming someone having sex with you or someone else is morally reprehensible.  There are no “pros and cons” to that idea at all, full stop.  My god, I can’t believe you would even suggest that. 

Second, as for “naming and shaming the dirtly slut”, perhaps you missed the fact that this is what was said in a meeting of the cadets and that the girl in question was forced to apologise.  That is what the author is highlighting.  Why was she forced to do this, in the first instance, and called a “dirty slut”?  Sure, enquiries are now happening, but that’s only because of her going public, isn’t it.  And, in any event, they still haven’t really be “named and shamed”, have they?  But she has.  That much is clear.

Markus says:

12:05pm | 15/04/11

“perhaps you missed the fact that this is what was said in a meeting of the cadets and that the girl in question was forced to apologise.”
Perhaps you missed the fact it has been confirmed that this never actually happened?

Tim says:

12:17pm | 15/04/11

Markus,
Correct.
There is so much misinformation in this article it’s not funny.
If found guilty (which they will be) these guys will be booted out of ADFA. 100% guaranteed.
KH,
you haven’t seen any shadowy figures of the men involved because they didn’t go to the media. Which I might note is another rule that the girl has broken.
ADFA and the defence force handled this matter exactly how it should be and the final outcome will be the correct one.
Unfortunately the media and a lot of uninformed idiots like scandalising everything without even verifying any of the evidence.

Rose Russo says:

12:30pm | 15/04/11

Just for the record, the information at the time I wrote this article was what was at hand. As most of you would know, it takes time for articles to be written, approved and subsequently published. Hence why more information has come to light since this piece was written.

Lee Enfield says:

01:26pm | 15/04/11

@Rose: That is all good and well, but why didn’t you update the story to reflect the update in the information. The correct information has been public knowledge for a week, more than enough time for you to update your facts. But updating your facts would mean this article would be obsolete. 
Your reasons for not presenting the correct and accurate facts in your article, are slack. If for whatever reason, you could not update the article, then the article should never have been posted in the first place. It is simply not fair on the ADF, Commodre Kafer, “Kate” and the Numpties who filmed and watched, for Steven Smiths lies to be perpetuated.
Either way, this is poor journalism.

Video is the way to go says:

03:06pm | 15/04/11

Yet again, Erick is spot on. With the amount of false rape accusations and the inherent “guilty until proven innocent” bias in relation to rape allegations, it is in the interest of men to secretly film their sexual experiences in order to protect themselves.

This has already occurred. A few years ago, a section of riflemen (I shall not name the unit), had consensual sex with a woman. The next day she falsely accused of them of rape and they were subsequently brought in for questioning. Fortunately, one of them had the foresight to film the sexual encounter, which clearly showed she was consenting, and the charges were dropped.

In this day and age, where women falsely accuse men of rape and are rarely punished when found guilty of making false allegations, it is in the interest of men to secretly film any sexual encounters.

Alison says:

09:34pm | 15/04/11

If a man secretly films a woman while he’s having sex with her then at the very least he’s proven himself to completely disregard the woman’s right to informed consent. Had she known she would be filmed she may not have consented to sex. Any film he therefore presented to ‘prove’ that she consented should be considered void. It should also be considered illegal material and he should be charged with a criminal offence.

By the way, false rape claims are no more common than false reports for other crimes. And rape convictions are notoriously rare. The suggestion that men’s lives are ‘frequently destroyed’ by false rape claims is exxageration and hyperbole.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:39pm | 15/04/11

BK if you knock back being coersed into something by a flirty female their rage is white hot & they try to bring you down for having the audacity to not fall for their feminine wiles

Erick says:

05:14am | 16/04/11

Typical feminist views from Alison. If men are proven innocent of rape by video, they should be held guilty, and also charged with other crimes. Men have no rights in a feminist world.

As for false rape claims, they are very common. In fact some studies suggest the false reporting rate is as high as fifty per cent. Women who lie about rape are rarely punished, and as Alison’s comment shows, men are still considered guilty by feminists even if the accusation is proven to be a lie.

BK says:

10:11am | 16/04/11

I would rather be convicted of videoing without consent than rape. Denying the frequency of false rape allegations shows a complete inability to empathise with men who face them and is misandry.

Pete says:

07:35am | 15/04/11

I would have to agree 100% with this,  And it would also be helpful to remember that the cadets ( all of them are primarily subject to military law not civil until a civil crime was committed, So I support the cadet being on default parade in front of the commandant and he hearing military charges of AWOL and drunkedness. this was totally seperate to the other incident.

It really is starting to smell a bit like” Lets go the military to get Julia off the frontpage”

Seamus says:

09:20am | 15/04/11

Good article Louis and you are spot on.

trentyn says:

09:28am | 15/04/11

@pete, sorry to be a bit of a pedant, but can you explain the comment: “subject to military law not civil until a civil crime was committed”

Pete says:

10:22am | 15/04/11

What I meant was, that at this stage no civil law has been broken, The video thing however unsavoury, was not illegal under civil law, the other matter AWOL and being drunk were internal disciplinary matters.  As a soldier you are subject to military law and are penalised if you break it If as a soldier you break a civil law you are also subject to that law. i should have said that you are subject to military if you breach military law and civil law if you breach civil law.  My point was that the minister has no place commenting on any military law process.

I can see your point, I didn’t mean to imply that the military is above the law , simply that they are subject to either or both as appropriate, sorry

L. Mountbatten says:

11:19am | 15/04/11

Louis,
once again the voice of reason, great comment. I am tiring of The Punch wheeling out the same old comments on this “Skype” Case, yesterdays story entitled “ADFA: Frat house with guns” was the bottom of a downward slide (never seen so many negatives in a comment string, also never seen comments closed so quickly).
“Australia’s greatest conversation” is largely becoming the same conversation repeated in subtlety different ways.
It’s time for the Punch to let this criminal case run its course before adding further to the misinformed reporting taking place largely online.

marley says:

03:56pm | 15/04/11

I’m not so sure no civil law was broken.  The girl gave consent to having a private sexual encounter.  She didn’t give consent to having that private encounter skyped to a bunch of giggling cadets.  So, does her consent to a private act cover this situation, or does the violation of privacy negate her consent?  In which case, we’re looking at sexual assault.

I don’t know the answer to this question and neither, apparently, do the police (yet) so I wouldn’t be quite so quick to state that there had been no criminal act here.

philip says:

06:42am | 15/04/11

seriously sarah its people like you that gives us the reason that we do need the defense force we are surrounded by the largest coastline in the world for any single continental country and you think that we have no reason to protect our country from potential invaders.

by the way I think what these cretins did to kate against her will ie the recording are dishonourable and should be charged with rape by proxy.

sir ronald bradnam says:

07:00am | 15/04/11

Good idea sarah and lets all wear pretty flowers in our hair, everyone have butterflies and fluffy bunnies as pets and wacht and listen to the movie Hair everyday. What a wonderful world.

PJ says:

07:23am | 15/04/11

Sarah,

I think we should abolish renewable energy and fund the defence force.

Philip

There is no such thing as ‘rape by proxy’

Retired Soldier says:

07:40am | 15/04/11

Geez Sara, what school of naivety did you attend and what the hell do you know about the Domino Effect. I would also wonder what you understand about the operations and responsibility of a Defence Force; apparently very little it seems.
Sarah perhaps you might do better to read some military history and refrain from comments in this forum until your eyes are wide open and you stop seeing that little fairy in your garden

St. Michael says:

01:24pm | 15/04/11

Obvious troll is obvious, Sarah.

The domino effect is not the argument for an ADF.  The prospect of foreign powers occupying or destroying infrastructure just that section of the northwest which contains the majority of Australia’s oil and gas fields is sufficient for that alone, if not the entire national defence.

As for Hugo Chavez ... who’s he?

Oh, right, the president of Venezuela who has been taken to task by Amnesty International for politically-motivated arrests.  And also by the UN itself for pressuring voters to join his party, not to mention creating a climate of fear amongst the legal profession and eroding the independence of the judiciary in his own country.  Freedom House does not classify the press in Venezuela as free, either.  When you allow advertising for anti-government organisations, you get your TV licence shut down.  Don’t see that happening in the West or any civilised nation.

Homicide rates have doubled since he came into power.
30% of the country’s population have to survive on $US2 per day.
Its per capita GDP is around $13,000, which makes in 85th in the world.
And for all his anti-capitalist and anti-US posturing, he doesn’t mind taking the capitalist US’s money, because the US is Venezuela’s primary trading partner.  He also idolises Fidel Castro’s model of economics, whom I think you also do except you’re too gutless to say so and reveal yourself as a communist.

Some role model you got there.

Sarah lives on planet denial says:

03:10pm | 15/04/11

Sarah, you can thank the thousands of soldiers who laid down their lives so you have the right to speak in a free country.

You’d be the first coward to cry for their mummy if the Jap’s invaded again.

n_dude says:

03:43pm | 15/04/11

Troll - you must be a Liberal Party stooge

KH says:

08:03am | 15/04/11

Why not? In photography model releases are standard practice. These people were not in “general view” in public, therefore consent should be required. Goodness knows there are plenty of halfwits out there who would consent to it - this woman is clearly not one of them.

Markus says:

09:14am | 15/04/11

Releases are standard practice in modelling not so much for proof of consent, but acknowledgement that the model has no claim to intellectual property on the photos (as they are being taken for commercial purposes).
Obviously consent would still be required, but verbal seems more than sufficient for non-commercial purposes.

Reggie says:

11:40am | 15/04/11

I can’t help wondering how you would impart “consent” in the video and is there such a thing as “retrospective withdrawal of consent?”

Perhaps the parties should begin with a mutual thumbs-up to camera with NO subsequent edits.  It’s all too much, expansive public fornication is the only answer so everyone becomes bored with it, I know I have.

marley says:

06:54pm | 15/04/11

Well, Canada has precisely such a law.  Don’t know how it works in practice, but its right there in the Criminal Code amongst sexual offences.  So, I reckon it’d be worth a try.

Sarah M says:

08:58am | 15/04/11

I agree, there are definitely double standards there. Everyone should be protected. But if we are talking about societal standards, I have never seen a woman paraded around as a hero for cheating on their husband and sleeping with over a thousand men…

KH says:

09:20am | 15/04/11

People releasing sex tapes of themselves clearly have no problem with people watching - in fact in most cases, they were performing - it wasn’t without their knowledge.  Obviously that is completely different to a situation where there is an expectation of privacy, and you are not aware of being recorded.  I can’t believe the distinction isn’t clear to you.

Having been in a situation of sexual harassment, it became clear very quickly that despite doing nothing wrong, I was the one being punished - I got moved to another department ‘for my well being’ - what a load of BS - meanwhile the pervert continued in his normal job while they ‘investigated’ - I still don’t understand why he wasn’t moved,as he was the perpetrator.  In the end, I ended up resigning, and now sadly tell others to do the same and not bother complaining, because you will lose, even when you are proven correct.  That is what is wrong here-and other workplaces- the victim gets punished- in my case the guy got fired, but the damage to me was already done,as it is for this woman. So why not draw attention to it if it humiliates them into action?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

09:47am | 15/04/11

Sarah M
I should hope not. How depraved.

Blokes, on the other hand, are different. WEG

Markus says:

09:52am | 15/04/11

@KH, you lodged a complaint, they investigated, and fired the guy after confirming your complaint.
Apart from perhaps you being moved rather than him (I assume it was done in that order to minimise impact on the whole work environment. Was he the higher up at the time?) I don’t see anything wrong with that process of events.

Unless you are saying that he should have been punished based on your accusation alone, or that you being moved temporarily is somehow a bigger punishment than him being fired?

Bev says:

10:05am | 15/04/11

Err you got the story slighly wrong your thinking of another case (she got off too). Apparently while arguing he called her a “fat bitch” and turned his back then she lost it and threw accelerant over him followed by a candle.  The judge said “she had suffered enough”. The fact that he died a horrific and agonizing death didn’t seem to count.  A bunch of feminists were there cheering including Elisabeth Mcinnes who insists that a man threating or commiting sucide is guilty of DV and should be locked up in the former case though she doesn’t specify a punishement for the latter perhaps they should have their head chopped off and buried in unconsecrated ground as they did way back when. I would not put it past feminists. The same article said 3 women in 7 years had got off.  One women run her husband through will a samurai sword in front of the children she to “had suffered enough” too. Part of the DV ad message is “there is never an excuse for violence ever”  The government should add a disclaimer.  “This only applies to men, women can commit any violence they like up to and including murder”.

Rover of North Cooma says:

10:22am | 15/04/11

Markus, the issue is that the victim was moved and nothing happened to the harasser until after the investigation was complete, which sends the message to the victim and other people in her situation that she is being punished.

Okay, he ended up losing his job, which shows that her complaint was vindicated. The fairest course of action would have been to move both of them to other departments while the investigation proceeded. Whether or not he was in a senior position is irrelevant - if someone, male or female, is a sexual harasser it doesn’t matter how good they are at their job, they’re breaking the law and deserve to be punished.

Swarley says:

10:26am | 15/04/11

“the victim gets punished-”

I’m confused…they fired the guy, moved you to another department (probably to help distance you from all of the office gossip) and you see this as losing?

What were you after, exactly?  If you were after further punishment, take it up as a criminal matter if a crime was committed. 

You say the damage was already done…well, hate to break it to you, but your HR department probably didn’t have ready access to a time machine.  What are they supposed to do?!

Life isn’t fair and you don’t always get treated well.  What makes a difference is how you handle it.  You decided to roll over and play the victim…how’s the working out?

Bah!

Markus says:

10:31am | 15/04/11

@Bev,  I see no need for a disclaimer, when the “Violence against women, Australia says no” slogan already shows fairly blatantly what the government’s stance on DV is.

In My Opinion says:

11:59am | 15/04/11

@ KH - I’m sorry you went through that however my point is the same. Just because someone makes an allegation doesn’t make it correct. Brett Stewart was paraded in front of the media, banned from football and spent $300,000 in lawyers fees, because some ‘girl’ said he touched her.

@ Sarah M - However you have seen women have affairs with married men and run to the press and sell their story. People like Tiger Woods have had to publicly apologise for extra marital affairs. Since when is it anyones business what goes on in a marriage and why does the man have to apologise?

Statistics show that women commit far more instances of domestic violence than men, yet there is no campaign to say no to that, we are expected to suck it up as men, as the premise of women being weaker somehow excuses it.

Again I would say when the law is equal on all sides, maybe I might get a bit more upset about cases like this.

in my opinion.

Ando says:

11:59am | 15/04/11

Rover,
The victim was not moved as punishment. No one would argue the principal of innocent until proven guilty , it was obviouisly a measure to minimize further impact on KH.
If I was in the situation and didnt want to move , I would have stayed ,so I doubt she was forced.
I understand that innocent until proven guilty has its downsides but this situation seems have been handled fine.

james milton says:

12:27pm | 15/04/11

More than 3 women have ‘gotten away’ with murdering their partners. Just a few weeks ago a woman had told her friends she would kill her partner, she tried twice, then the third time ended up succeeding by giving him a massive heroin overdose. She did a few short years in ‘jail’ (ask around what women’s prisons are like, where they fund everything to help the prisoners self-esteem) and now she has a scholarship and is writing a thesis on women killing their partners. This was all over the Australian news a few weeks ago, no protests, no people up in arms, nothing.

Very sexist.

Paul Horn says:

02:59pm | 15/04/11

Yes rajend that’s exactly what they said after the First World War! The War to end all Wars!

Allied defence funding was slashed. The British army was basically a shambles, her Air Force not much better and the Navy reliant on old Battleships though they were effective.

Once the Germans got under way and invaded Western France and Belgium no one could hold them back! In fact pacifist gutlesness reigned in the pre war years hence the dire situation facing the Allies early in the war. The idiotic reasoning being of course that British pacifist diplomacy could bring Hitler to submission. What a tragic failure that turned out to be.

Only one man realised what would happen as early as the 1920’s and his name was Winston Churchill. When every other politician wanted to parley with the Germans he and he alone stood against his coleagues gutless pacifist cowardice.

Without him you’d be singing Deutchland, Deutchland Uber Alles or more likely part of a race wiped from the face of the Earth.

Why don’t trendy lefties ever ever read their history? Out of a million pacifists it only takes one madman to plunge the world into sheer chaos!  Have a nice day!

tren says:

09:32am | 15/04/11

but thats ok because you are wearing the rquivalent of a burqa

BK says:

03:32pm | 15/04/11

Maybe Michael should ride naked and sue anyone who photographs him.

Louis says:

09:03am | 15/04/11

Agree with you 100%. Spot on.

Tim says:

12:24pm | 15/04/11

“So don’t let the truth get in the way of your story, if you did, you wouldn’t have a story. “

Wait a minute, Isn’t this the motto of the Australian media?
Scandal sells far more papers.

Bev says:

11:51am | 15/04/11

Right on target.

marley says:

04:00pm | 15/04/11

Well, I guess I ‘d say that the military code requires officers to respect and trust one another.  Secretly filming one having sex is hardly showing her respect or building trust, now is it?

Markus says:

12:26pm | 15/04/11

“My message to others is to control the environment you’re in as much as is possible, i.e. go back to yours instead of his”
Or not sleep with someone if you aren’t sure you can trust them.
That is advice just as applicable to guys (claiming they were ‘tricked’ into getting a one night stand pregnant etc).

Jonesey says:

01:05pm | 15/04/11

@Markus Trust is great in hindsight. And you can’t be ‘tricked’ if you wear a condom.

Rose Russo says:

05:41pm | 15/04/11

Thanks Jonesey.

I’m sorry to hear about your ordeal. Since this incident came to light last week it has raised a lot of questions about sex and technology. And that is what I was trying to debate in my article.

Yes, the ADFA was an example but this kind of behaviour happens to civilians too and should not be tolerated.

You are right - making secret videos of sexual encounters is wrong and can never be justified.

Women are after a good time too, we are free to explore our own sexuality just as men are. Filming the other person without their consent is pornography, and it’s just not right.

Bev says:

06:07pm | 15/04/11

@ Jonesey but make sure you flush it afterwards. In case she uses the contents to impregnate herself . Yes it has happened and yes the man is up for child support.

Tim says:

12:27pm | 15/04/11

Obviously you haven’t been following the St Kilda schoolgirl case. Taking pictures and videos of people in your own home is completely legal.

Markus says:

12:39pm | 15/04/11

From what I have read so far, the issue here seems to be because the device in question was based inside his private residence.

Plus I think the Surveillance Devices Act may only cover the legalities of the use of surveillance equipment by law enforcement officers.

marleyt says:

03:57pm | 15/04/11

Who’s blaming the victim?  Read Bob Ellis over on the Drum.

Rose Russo says:

05:47pm | 15/04/11

Unfortunately, I don’t own a typewriter… this is the 21st century after all

Rose Russo says:

10:17am | 16/04/11

Good point Thomas, I didn’t think of that. I believe she went public because she felt that what happened to her wouldn’t be thoroughly investigated within the ADFA.

The reason she is being vilified now is because she should have let the military investigation take its course and exhausted all her options before she approached the media. I don’t necessarily disagree that she should have followed protocol but I don’t have a lot of faith that it would’ve been investigated thoroughly. And obviously never did she.

I guess we’ll never know.

Markus says:

02:39pm | 16/04/11

She only knew about the incident after she was approached as part of the investigation. Surely the fact that they knew about it before she did would add a fair bit of faith that they are doing their job?

marley says:

02:01pm | 16/04/11

@Ray - this is a situation in which one offender, the female,  has committed minor offences(fraternization, drunkenness), and the other has committed both a minor offence (fraternization) and a major one (videoing the sexual encounter) which traumatized the girl. 

Any competent manager would deal with the more serious offender as a priority, and leave the minor charges against the lesser offender until she had had a chance to recover from the trauma.  That’s what effective and responsible management is about.  And it has nothing to do with the gender of the two participants, but only with the seriousness of their respective offences.

So, to my mind, the issue isn’t that the girl is being given a break because of her sex; it’s that the management of the process was poor.  And I’d say exactly the same thing if the genders had been reversed.

Ray says:

03:32pm | 16/04/11

Marley, we’re getting to petty argument, but her earlier indiscretions or misdemeanors (drunkenness and AWOL - which you conveniently omitted) pre-dated and were seperate from the matter of the headlines. No need or obligation to be put on hold. In fact there is more likely an obligation to proceed as intended. The male alleged offences were all part of the seperate incident including the fraternisation..

If you take it to the extreme, just continue making offences whenever an old one is due and you never see the light of day in court military or otherwise.

You are missing my main thrust that of the existing over the top affirmative action, the impact on male employees subject to exclusion, and above all the seizing of an opportunity to peddle some agenda which is flys under the banner of ‘equality’ so is untouchable.

My other point was the fortuitous convenience of the ‘pure as the driven snow’ mentality invoked at convenience to recover lost sanctity of self respect or guilt. Women just remain unaccountable in a totally tainted social misrepresentation that sees men as the purveyors of all miscreant behaviour and women as the beyond reproach benfeciaries.

Above all, women get a rails run in this discredited philosophy to which society is ransomed.

marley says:

07:57pm | 16/04/11

No Ray, you’re missing my point.  Entirely.  My point was about managing the situation, and the failure to adequately do so. 

You have one person facing disciplinary charges within the military code for offences against military discipline, and of course she should have to answer for those.  But you have another person facing charges not only against military discipline (fraternization) but also potentially against the criminal code.  No manager would address the minor charges before dealing with the major ones.  At least no competent manager would do so. 

If you think otherwise, well, I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. One of the keys to effective management is understanding which decisions are important, and which are urgent, and which are simply easy.  It’s easy to penalize the girl right away for her violations of the military code - but, given the serious nature of the offence against her - it’s the wrong decision.  Focus on the important decision - what to do with the guy or guys - and let the other decisions wait till that’s been resolved. 

And anyway, do you seriously think that the bloke in this case is likely to become a good officer?  A guy who has no respect for his fellow cadets, is willing to subject them to humiliation, is willing to betray their trust in him so he and his buddies can have a few giggles? 

I don’t give a damn about the gender of the people involved. I do give a damn about officers respecting one another, trusting one another, and being able to trust one another. And I don’t see how anyone could ever trust the male in this case. 

That’s not to say the woman gets a free ride either.  She’s made some pretty bad decisions, and probably isn’t suited to a career requiring discipline.  But she hasn’t committed any criminal offences and I suspect he’s damn close to having done so.

Ray says:

09:58pm | 16/04/11

Whoa take it easy Marley. In your haste to muddy the waters you have not acknowledged that the drunkenness and AWOL by the now famous Kate were seperate pre standing incidents on pre satanding dates . Not within the incident subject of the guys and her tawdry action on the video night.

I thought the mangement was spot on. The seperate incidents are quarantined. Houston stands by his ADFA Commander while Smith succumbs to political expediency in favour of satisfying media interference and hangs the ADFA Comander out to dry.

You seem to decree yourself an expert on management.

Well despite your protestations you have aptly demonstrated women’s misunderstanding of mangement and dare I say leadership.

Address the tawdry issue with due process, investigate properly. then makew a decision.

In this case don’t be hoodwinked by the feminist driven obsession to discredit all and or any male intitution. Drawing other bows to fit the episdode of one night is a demonstration in not being able to compartmentalise, quantify or prioritise seperate issues.

There is a constant in all these type of issues which reflects a protected species equally complicit but devoid of responsibility or accountability. Apart from that Defence has lost its momentum and status through the gender cleansing process underway, unabated, and underwhelmed by a lust to appease gender politics.

I won’t go into combat units only being as strong as their weakest link. Not to mention the lives of others in the combat unit compromised by the weak link.

marley says:

08:24am | 17/04/11

@Ray - well, Ray, if you think the situation was well managed, explain why it blew up in the face of the military?  Could it possibly be because they didn’t manage their young female cadet well?  Umm, that would be a yes.  I judge the competence of management by outcomes, and this one is a textbook case of things going wrong.

And you describe the girl’s actions as “tawdry.”  How exactly do you describe the boy"s?  Or his mates?  Where I come from, the word “tawdry” doesn’t cover what they did; the word “criminal” does.  And if its your view that dealing with misdemeanour offences should take precedence over dealing with criminal offences, well, all I can say is, it’s not mine.  Nor do I believe that any competent manager would take that stance.