The Heaton affair - a hoo haa over nothing?

or a bloody scandal?

vadz - you are excused for obvious reasons

fraud is fraud

If so then why isnt the entire management of the armed forces being court martialed?

Dunno, it isnt an insignificant breach of the law but at the same time it seems like a fair bit of a witch hunt. Especially considering how much he is losing.

Compare this to the treatment taggers and benefit fraudsters get.

taggers and benefit fraudsters generally don't hold positions that require trust

I agree it seems to be a witch hunt but my original point still stands...

On the wider issue... do we expect army and policemen to be absolutely perfect? Hell, look at the politicians we get and they get voted in.

What it seems to me is that we have unrealisitic expectation of one section of society and completely dismal expectations of another.

Another thought - BobD you seem to bend over backwards to excuse terrorists/freedom fighters et al but you see things in very black and white when it comes to fraud...?

Explain?

We don't expect the army, policement, doctors, teachers et al to be perfect - we do expect them to be honest

we expect lies, cheating and other unflattering behaviour from politicians - we'd prefer honesty and openess

I bend over backwards to excuse no body - to understand I do - this doesn't mean I condone their actions

I work in a grey world, this man has been caught comitting fraud, he should be punished for this crime - the punishment should reflect and take into account that he was merely doing what others have for a long time it seems, thus by virture of this forums love of deterrence I suggest he be hanged (tongue in cheek here) as an example to others whom might feel double dipping for their own personal gain is acceptable behaviour

Someone high up in either the Army, NZDF or Government had it in for him and wanted him removed for one reason or another.

The NZ Army can ill afford to be losing high ranking officers over stupid insignificant indiscretions like this that could have been handled in house.

I agree entirely bob t b

bob_d he faced other charges that the army had to drop on account of compromising itself

interestingly the order came from on high to ignore UN guidelines regarding the housing allowance that he was originally charged with breaching

the army guy on tv last night referred to "a disconnect" in respect of this - double speak if ever I heard it

wtf is going on in our departments of state? the real breaches of trust lie in the upper echelons of power not in some relatively minor breach by a lower ranking official

I doubt it. officers are held to a higher standard of behaviour. A single drink driving charge can, and has, ruined an officer's career.


And it was handled in house. It was a court martial.

Officers, yes. ORs, no. There is a clear standard of behaviour required from officers.

Police? Who?

That is true, for example if an officer above the rank of Major has a UD (unauthorised discharge of their weapon) they have to be court martialed.

But what we are talking about here isnt a UD, it isnt deriliction of duty, at most it is borderline conduct unbecoming. He certainly wasnt the first officer to bend the rules a little and no doubt he wont be the last. A quiet talking to by Maj Gen Gardiner and paying back what he had purchased illegally would have been sufice in this case.

Where's the scandal here? He acted outside the bounds of conduct expected by an officer and bought a bit of shame on the NZDF by getting caught by the UN.
He was fined $1,500 and reprimanded.

All seems pretty appropriate to me? Some of you are talking like the guy has been decomissioned or something...

have you followed the full story gareth?

Perhaps not - bits I've followed were just around the charges as laid and the results of the court martial? And they all seem pretty legit and expected to me?

What else was there?

Yes and it can and has prevented people from entering the police or getting admitted to the bar or immigrating to another country or getting a particular job.

If that is what you are using as an example of 'higher standard of behaviour' find another one.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10519546

I said ruined a career, not preventing them starting that career.

You = know nothing.

It's a simple request ffs is it not?

Obviously not as simple as I thought. Let me break it down for you then:

A lot of professionals are held to a higher standard of behaviour than the ordinary man. And across a lot of professions a conviction can ruin a career and/or prevent someone starting a career. 'Officers' are not the only ones in this boat. A conviction or a charge can have wide-reaching effects, not just professionally but across a number of aspects of one's life. If you are claiming that 'officers' are held to some divine standard of behaviour far above the common man, I don't disagree with you, I'm asking you to provide some evidence of that. Your drunk driving example doesn't do that.

I suggest you do some research.

I'm not the one putting forward a proposition - YOU ARE!

Do lawyers have to shave every day? No.

NOW you're talking.

grooming. officers are held to a higher standard of .....grooming!

Actually senior officers can usually get away with non regulation mo's alot more easily than a Pte of JNCO will.

Where on earth did you get that notion? that officers have a higher standard of behaviour required of them? that is a truely inaccurate ideal.

The Army, Navy and Air Force all stick to one motto - 'One standard' not that the officers have much more to live up too....or could it be that you are an officer?

There are many things that have ruined officers careers in the army and using a drink driving charge one as an example of how easy they would get dismissed is not accurate, because that applies to all staff, not just officers!. There was one example of an instant dismissal actually, an idiot Lt that thought it would be cool to ride a motorbike drunk through a certain camp, killing his officer friend at the end of the road (RIP), yea - he got an instant dismissal.

And although one could go on all day, something I have noticed here is that we are talking about Heaton, he is not just an officer - he is a high ranking senior high level officer. Big difference to referencing him to the general front line army.

Referencing him to the daily army is not correct, they are far above the everyday army, far away in fact (Wellington based, or internationally placed) and not on the same sheet of paper as pimple faced Lt's or battalion level Colonels on the actual army front.

Officers and soldiers live by the same standards. There are not two, never has there been two.

However, in an actual fact, luckily officers recieve nothing more than extra duties for any offences that dont involve instant dismissal (rape, murder, theft), where as soldiers are treated like dogs for weeks on end until their sentence is up. Theres a difference for you!. But really, you would also find if you hung out on base for a while that officers are a boys club....and alot of things going under the carpet, senior officers can twist arms internally and externally (police) for much loved subordinate offciers.

Anyway, enough of that.

For what its worth, it was good they got rid of Heaton from an operational postion when they did. He was dangerous in a number of ways, not just financially. I remember his problems well back then.

And anyone that has dealt with/been in the military will know that the vast majority of people with rank are ripping the system.......cause they can - its all at their finger tips on their intranet computers - and the 'bro' network - thats how it works, trust me.

I see a comment you made to some one saying 'do some research'.

How about you? lol.

You radiate the image of a young officer bored in the quarters having a rant trying to make your kind out to be 'The god kings'..?????

Buddy, on the battlefield, for example, officers are either just a 'bro' to drag out under fire when wounded. Or an idiot to shoot in the back for getting your mates killed.

That much......is researched - and proven.

Without going into it too much, one example:
ORs can have a 2nd job outside Army as long as they have CO's approval, officers can't.
Read the DFOs.

Oh for gods sake we are not going to bring out the DFO's are we?

Well whatever page you think your reading, how about the officers that do bouncing and run businesses outside of the army?

DFO that....

So because some people break the laws, that means the laws don't exist? Great logic.