Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Maa & trimble

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Mag2grid:612342 said:
From a CivPol perspective and Trimble if a unit admin sent me a report showing someone doing 84 in a 70 I'd take one look at it and ask them to prove who was driving, how many had access to the vehicle,spare keys etc. I'd quickly NFA it as there are too many variables. Also try explaining to a Magistraite Trimble and there is no photographic evidence of the accused driving, yes you have a signature in the book, but (and I speak from recent experience) they are reluctant to stick people on unless someone can physically ID a driver at the time of offence.

He said he didnt sign for the journey. Ergo no signature in no books. I wouldnt admit nothing its up to them to prove it.

MT chisellers just want to screw any non chiseller over vehicles as its their baby. The special MTT&L ones even try to screw their own kind over.
 
FL, there's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you do and you obviously wear your heart on your sleave, however, is important that people see the bigger picture and take reasonable actions to achieve their aims.

In many situations there are many pathways that end up with the desired outcome, in this case a reduction in speeding resulting in fewer accidents and the resultant injuries, damaged vehicles and potentially deaths. However in my view taking a series of actions that result in both the perpetrator correcting his behaviour and remaining engaged in the processis a much better result than the course of action that appears to have been taken here.

As you have admitted you took your commission so that you could have had a bigger impact on a larger group of people yet you limit your team to those within your functional responsibility, yet this airman, for whom you would have some responsibility whilst he is in one of your vehicles, is seen as an outsider.

IIRC there's no time limit on taking actions for MAA, however, in my own opinion, taking into account the intent of the MAA process, I think it's unreasonable to use it for an alleged offence this old when management discretion would suggest another course of action more appropriate.
 
Maa & trimble

Busby I think there has been some confusion. I have never said at any point that I limit what I do to my team. As I have said before I am not OC MT so nobody uses our vehicles other than us so I rarely have a need to deal with those outside of my CoC.

That said I have and will continue to operate an open door policy. That includes anyone whether they work for me or not and this has happened on several occasions. Mostly people who used to work for me but have moved on and feel they need a friendly set of ears.

I am fully aware of the bigger picture and I have never said that the disciplinary actions taken are the right ones in this case. You have just assumed it. Again without wanting to justify myself I see administrative action, in most cases, as being a failing on my part to deal with a situation in any other way.

So I am not dismissive of those from outside my remit, I do not throw charges or MAAs around and I have the 'bigger picture' in mind at all times whilst trying to keep things in perspective.

Now that I've cleared that up; without commenting on whether the action taken by MT is the right one I maintain that the OP has been found to have been speeding by Trimble and he has admitted to not filling in paperwork. If he chooses to fight the MAA they will most probably build a case that will find and prove this to be so. I wouldn't be surprised however if the speeding got dropped and as he's fought it, it's replaced by failing to adhere to orders etc. But then as an outsider it is always easy to speculate.

IMO an MAA will disappear in the near future, isn't mentioned on your SJAR (just this week I clarified this with P1) and should have no impact other than the immediate process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
So if the op stands up for himself the RAF will dig out some paperwork that they have been holding for 5 months without a care and charge him, not very RISE is it.

And I thought it was only the Army who acted like this.
 
Busby you know how it works FFS. Snowballs build when someone pushes them downhill. He may well get off if he fights it as this is pure speculation. My point remains as it has always been. The OP has done wrong, should just accept the MAA and move on. Nothing more said. If he chooses to take it further he should be aware of all possible eventualities. Again I am not saying whether this is right or wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Busby you know how it works FFS. Snowballs build when someone pushes them downhill. He may well get off if he fights it as this is pure speculation. My point remains as it has always been. The OP has done wrong, should just accept the MAA and move on. Nothing more said. If he chooses to take it further he should be aware of all possible eventualities. Again I am not saying whether this is right or wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If he was being MAA'd for not filling out paperwork then fair enough as he has admitted it. He is being MAA'd for something he denys so how can you say 'The OP has done wrong, should just accept the MAA and move on.'?
 
You clearly do not understand the P1 process. Sorry if you think I'm patronising you but if he fights the MAA there will be an investigation with possible escalation with all factors and evidence considered. If that brings further failings into consideration then P1 and legal will act upon that.

Going round in circles here tbh so I've said my bit and have based it on things that have happened here at Wittering not barrack block lawyer gen. Whatever the OP chooses to do is up to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'll add that I myself have had an original charge thrown out when I was an SAC and replaced by something that was raised during the investigation. Charges can and will be replaced by legal based on what is presented to them. This has also happened this week on my Sqn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP should try a ECHR defence, right to privacy...cat...pigeons go!

Also what about statute of limitation for offences in the true sense of the word, (well this isn't really an offence, it breaking standing orders rather then an Act or Statute)? We have to serve Notice if Intended Prosecution upon people done for speeding within 14 days from mid night on the day of the offence, is it proportionate to try stick this lad on 5 months after the alleged offence?

Whilst i I was never a Scuffer (whilst serving) surely such things exist?
 
if he fights the MAA there will be an investigation with possible escalation with all factors and evidence considered.

That can't be right surely? Is it now really a case of 'bend over whilst we fist fcuk you dry, otherwise we will get the anal interceptor out and really go to town on your puckered starfish'
 
..
IMO an MAA will disappear in the near future, isn't mentioned on your SJAR (just this week I clarified this with P1) and should have no impact other than the immediate process.

I'm out of the service now and have no clue as to what MMAs are truly about but if they have no impact on ones career then I would suggest that the OP take the hit in this instance.
There have a number of times over the years were I have been driving, moving at the same speed as the traffic around me, and it was only when I glanced down that I realised I'd been in excess of the speed limit by a considerable amount - I'm sure we've all been there. It's quite possible (probable)that you did exceed the limit, maybe for only very short time, without noticing it but unfortunately Trimble has recorded it as being so. It's galling that everyone else on the list appears to be getting away it but unfortunately you're the one that has been singled out, sadly life is like that at times: if you fight it they'll only find something else to knob you with. Take the hit and put it down to experience.
 
That can't be right surely? Is it now really a case of 'bend over whilst we fist fcuk you dry, otherwise we will get the anal interceptor out and really go to town on your puckered starfish'


Not really different to anything that's come before, in either the military or civilian world, surely?

Let's have an example of someone leaving a door unlocked on duty keys/bod. Clever person takes MAA and does keys for an extra week or something. Gobby person fights back, investigation happens; uncovers the door was left open on purpose so friends of duty bod can help themselves to DII (why anyone would want to is another matter) and **** on Harry's desk.

Far-fetched scenario? Little bit. But the principle of an investigation uncovering information that ups the original charge isn't exactly legally un-sound...
 
In this scenario an individual is being singled out for action for an offence that caused nobody any harm 5 months ago, is it really worth the loss of engagement and goodwill for no real benefit.
 
Just MT trying to justify its existence, obviously have nothing better to do than trawl through old records so they can stiff someone. A joke of a trade and a joke of an MAA. If it was me I would accept the MAA and just laugh it off on how petty they are being.
 
A joke of a trade that earlier this year saved the MOD £500,000 in one road move in support of a Typhoon Ex. Too many with a limited knowledge of a trade from an outsiders view point fingers and claim irrelevance. As the only Service that can UK road move the RTCH (an important asset especially right now) the RAF are in fact looking at MT as a way of justifying it's own existence when compared to the Army and what they can provide... In Tri Service terms our MT capability is vital.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've heard it all now, 2MT justify the RAF.

Almost as funny as the mover that said to me he was an aircraft trade as they could raise and lower the ramp on a Klassic Herc....
 
Way to take what I said out of context. I said the RAF are using our capabilities to justify their existence in a Tri Service forum. Not that 2 MT on its own justifies the RAF. It's one of the capabilities we have that the Army do not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You really are the new TBJ!! :-D

My guess is that the MT DT identified a requirement at the same time as realising that money could be saved by introducing said requirement. That's a DTs job!! Nothing amazing in that. It's their job!!

I very much doubt they had tri-service and justification of RAF MT when said requirement was introduced, £500K or not.
 
may we'll have just saved the MOD £500,000, however from what I saw on a recent aircraft road move they've probably just cost it double that with the incident they've just had...

at at the end of the day, it is petty that he's gettig maa'd especially when a precident has already been set by letting the officer off..
 
Maa & trimble

RJL your guess is way off mark but good try.

The saving was compared to what it would have cost to road move the exercise equipment by civilian means. The 'MT should be civilianised' argument fell flat on its face. MOD had a quote which was astronomical and so we were asked to complete the task and taking into account all our costs still saved that amount.

The RTCH capability point I made was a separate point not related to the savings made in support of the Ex.

VAHSboy care to elaborate on the incident? Probably not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Back
Top