In the Army Now - The joy of the Armed ForcesI've never been a soldier. I was an air cadet once, but that mostly involved sitting in a mouldy hut learning about aeroplane engines with the hint that one day we might go flying.
Yet, anyone who has spent time defending their nation, or at least drinking bromide-laced-tea for their nation, must have stories to tell. Tell them now.
(
chthonic, Thu 23 Mar 2006, 18:26)
« Go Back
Not me but...Studying for a future career at the Bar has led to a working knowledge not only of the major judgements which form the foundation of the law, but also of the (often hilarious) circumstances which led to the case coming to trial in the first place.
Sorry to be boring, but in order to understand the story, it has to be explained that consent is currently no defence to a charge of GBH. S&M enthusiasts can and have been successfully prosecuted for significant prison terms even where the "crime" has been paid for by the "victim" (or "gimp" for a more pc term).
I now turn you to the case of R v Aitken.
It was 1992, and four airmen were attending an RAF celebration party. Having consumed a "considerable quantity of alcohol", the four began playing practical jokes upon other passed out airmen. A particular favourite was to spray white spirit upon their comrade's flame retardent suits, and then set the sleeping man alight.
A few hours, and several more drinks later, airman "A" decides to retire for the night. Leaving the bar, he returns to his bunk, onto which he collapses and promptly falls asleep. The remaining airmen: B,C and D feel rather let down by A's early exit, and resolve to play a similar joke on him.
They creep into the dormitory, pour liberal quantities (the whole bottle in fact) of white spirit on his (NON flame-retardent) suit. Airman A has by this point regained a measure of consciousness and is ineffectualy attempting to escape.
The eye-witness accounts by B,C and D during their trial described A as "going up like a torch", and medical reports indicated he “suffered extremely severe burning, with 35 percent of his body sustaining superficial burns of a life-threatening nature”.
They all got let off. It was held on appeal that as the men were "indulging in rough and undisciplined play", that a "genuine belief" that A had consented (no matter how unreasonable) was sufficient for a full pardon.
Moral of the story? Legally: You can't agree to a fistfight, you can't hurt someone in a private sexual act, and you can't touch the sleeve of another persons coat without their permission.
But by God, you can set people alight for fun if you're in the army!
(, Fri 24 Mar 2006, 0:28, Reply)
« Go Back