Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:02 pm
Given the reputation that sailors have, I was surprised to read that it was between a man and a woman..... 
Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:26 pm
So what if they are both officers? ( I have read that this may be the case) If one is the direct superior of the other then I can see a big problem. If they are both Lieutenants and in different but equal parts of the unit would that make a difference?
I'll bet they all sign something when they join the Blues that says something like "no hanky panky with anyone for the duration, or else"
...but what about the "regular" Navy?
I'll bet they all sign something when they join the Blues that says something like "no hanky panky with anyone for the duration, or else"
...but what about the "regular" Navy?
Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:38 pm
mustangdriver wrote:I fail to see where they should have been let go from the squadron.
Ever hear of military regulations ?
Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:14 pm
mustangdriver wrote:This is two people having a relationship, not abuse. but whatever. I hope that they work everything out.
In all probability - if it was deemed to be at level of dismissal from team - it 'ain't gonna work out' with the Navy.
Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:14 pm
Could this be why there was 6 Blues flying last Saturday at NAS Jax and 5 on Sunday?
Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:46 pm
Two words, "Conduct unbecoming".
Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:09 am
Ztex wrote:So what if they are both officers? ( I have read that this may be the case) If one is the direct superior of the other then I can see a big problem. If they are both Lieutenants and in different but equal parts of the unit would that make a difference?
I'll bet they all sign something when they join the Blues that says something like "no hanky panky with anyone for the duration, or else"
...but what about the "regular" Navy?
At least one of the two was married.
That makes this particular "inappropriate relationship" a crime so far as the military is concerned, regardless of rank or supervisory relationship.
So, agree or disagree with the law...but it is still the law.
Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:20 am
interesting point we civilians can watch - see "Carrier" - there is an episode where a NCO who has been the shining star of the ship has "inappropriate contact" with another NCO. She covers for his sorry drunk tail and says it was consentual (sp?) - what happens? they very clearly point out that his Navy career is over and he will never get another opportunity again for anything but cleaning the ships head. Rules are rules and if you sign on the dotted line you gotta live by them.
Tom P.
Tom P.
Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:14 am
OK, but there are two issues as I see them. One is the "wacka wacka" issue the other is the show. No back up personnel to keep the show alive at "full volume"?
That's the part I have trouble with. Boinkin a subordinate or even equal is one thing. But there must be some redundancy in the line up of the "show" to maintain the marketing of the show. Am I wrong?
That's the part I have trouble with. Boinkin a subordinate or even equal is one thing. But there must be some redundancy in the line up of the "show" to maintain the marketing of the show. Am I wrong?
Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:19 am
sdennison wrote:But there must be some redundancy in the line up of the "show" to maintain the marketing of the show. Am I wrong?
IIRC, most air force demonstration teams do not have someone who can step into a missing position, as the training structure and intensity of the demonstration work against someone being up to speed who isn't actually flying every show.
Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:35 am
sdennison wrote: But there must be some redundancy in the line up of the "show" to maintain the marketing of the show. Am I wrong?
Its the military, its not show biz.
The marriage thing is bad
Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:00 am
The marriage violation is definitely bad, any way you cut it, UCMJ or no UCMJ. I would never condone somebody violating a marriage. But what are you people thinking? Do you want the bland leading the bland? Patton said that if a soldier won't f***, he won't fight. The tone of most posts on this one is that you expect the ubiquitous fighter pilot to be a celibate metrosexual. You gotta quit putting these guys on a pedestal. They put their pants on the same way you do. If you want Dudley Do-Right, watch cartoons.
Aside from that, I truly hope the marriage gets worked out, AND that they are taught a lesson, first NOT to violate a marriage and second NOT to violate a military team's trust.
Aside from that, I truly hope the marriage gets worked out, AND that they are taught a lesson, first NOT to violate a marriage and second NOT to violate a military team's trust.
Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:56 am
I'm not sure where in the h*ll you're getting your impressions FF, but that couldn't be further from the truth. What we're saying is that they're most certainly allowed to be men (and women), but there are rules and they are to be followed whether anyone likes it or not. That rule is pretty darned clear cut -
An officer does not have a sexual relationship with a subordinate or superior in their chain of command. If there is "attraction", then the officers involved must request that they not be in a position where one is the supervisor of the other.
An officer does not have a sexual relationship with an enlisted.
An officer does not have improper relations with anyone if married.
It's a basic concept - Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman. If it's not an action or conduct of the highest moral standard, then it's wrong and the military has every right to hold you accountable for any actions that do violate that ideal.
If you're giving over the "keys" to a multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar asset, do you want anyone other than someone of the highest character and moral standards in charge? I don't. I want someone who can stop thinking below the waist long enough to protect my life and my investment. There's a time and place for everything - having relationships that can destroy your unit cohesion is not the right time nor the right place - EVER.
An officer does not have a sexual relationship with a subordinate or superior in their chain of command. If there is "attraction", then the officers involved must request that they not be in a position where one is the supervisor of the other.
An officer does not have a sexual relationship with an enlisted.
An officer does not have improper relations with anyone if married.
It's a basic concept - Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman. If it's not an action or conduct of the highest moral standard, then it's wrong and the military has every right to hold you accountable for any actions that do violate that ideal.
If you're giving over the "keys" to a multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar asset, do you want anyone other than someone of the highest character and moral standards in charge? I don't. I want someone who can stop thinking below the waist long enough to protect my life and my investment. There's a time and place for everything - having relationships that can destroy your unit cohesion is not the right time nor the right place - EVER.
Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:57 am
He's not a fighter pilot, he's a Blue Angel. There is no room for exceptions to the rules due to the fact that he is in a higher profile to the public.
Re: The marriage thing is bad
Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:53 am
Forgotten Field wrote:Patton said that if a soldier won't f***, he won't fight. The tone of most posts on this one is that you expect the ubiquitous fighter pilot to be a celibate metrosexual. You gotta quit putting these guys on a pedestal. They put their pants on the same way you do. If you want Dudley Do-Right, watch cartoons.
While I agree with your point, remember we are talking about a violation of the law here. This is not somebody's moral headhunt -- it is the UCMJ. you don't have to like the law, you just have to abide by it.
Forgotten Field wrote:Aside from that, I truly hope the marriage gets worked out, AND that they are taught a lesson, first NOT to violate a marriage and second NOT to violate a military team's trust.
...or the regulations.