ADFA cadets arrested over skype sex scandal

Lookout Smithers said :

toriness said :

Faces.

I found it hilarious (not) to read in above linked article:

The lawyer for one of the men immediately moved to have the case heard in a closed court because of “national security concerns”.

Seriously? You’re a misogynist idiot 18/19 year old and you (via your lawyer) think your identity constitutes a national security concern? Come now tell the truth, you are bloody embarrassed at being revealed for being the pig that you are. Congratulations on your arrest and I hope you look forward to a lifetime of these articles showing up any time anyone googles your name.

Naming and shaming fan I take it? Too bad if the case is thrown out then. Wont you look like a prized turkey.

nah, pretty sure they are the ones which will still look like the tools whether the criminal charges stick or not 🙂

malbert said :

I’ve got one going off the fact they were in ADFA for only a few months:

the toxic high school system environment creates perverts. Undeniable.

I said that when it first happened. In ADFA a month or two, and defense gets the negative press… (and Minister uses it as a reason to talk tough?)

The Navy makes Midshipmen do a year before they actually start at ADFA, why don’t the RAAF or Army?

BerraBoy68 said :

Stevian said :

As I have said previously the toxic military environment creates perverts. Undeniable

Generalise Much?

Here’s a few more for you to be going on with:

the toxic environment in the Catholic Church creates perverts. Undeniable.

the toxic Summernats environment creates perverts. Undeniable.

the toxic Scouting environment creates perverts. Undeniable.

the toxic hospital environment creates perverts. Undeniable.

You’ll get no argument from me

Special G said :

Should have simply charged them under the Defence Force Disciplinary Act – they’d get far more impact under that than in the ACT Courts.

Mind you they can still be charged under the DFDA after the ACT Courts are finished with them for predjudicial conduct.

While prejudicial behaviour has typically been used as the stick for beating Defence staff with for miscellaneous offences, the charge cannot relate to any civil offence. The reverse double jeopardy does not apply (i.e. someone charged under DFDA can still be charged in a civil court) which is a topic for legal debate considering the ramifications under internationally recognised rights.

“the person is not liable to be tried by a service tribunal for the same offence or for an offence that is substantially the same offence.
(3) Where:
(a) a person has been acquitted or convicted by a civil court of a civil court offence; or
(b) a person has been acquitted or convicted by an overseas court of an overseas offence;

DFDA Sec 144
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dfda1982188/s144.html

Having said that, I think some time in Holsworthy would serve them right.

toriness said :

Faces.

I found it hilarious (not) to read in above linked article:

The lawyer for one of the men immediately moved to have the case heard in a closed court because of “national security concerns”.

Seriously? You’re a misogynist idiot 18/19 year old and you (via your lawyer) think your identity constitutes a national security concern? Come now tell the truth, you are bloody embarrassed at being revealed for being the pig that you are. Congratulations on your arrest and I hope you look forward to a lifetime of these articles showing up any time anyone googles your name.

Naming and shaming fan I take it? Too bad if the case is thrown out then. Wont you look like a prized turkey.