A sad and very strange tale

#1
Apparently the guy in this tale is 41, a private soldier and a FI veteran?

Staying well clear of the case and any opinions;

How can you still be a private after 22 years and how can someone who is now 41 be a FI veteran? He would have been 14 years old.

I smell a fish!
 
#2
What tale?
 
#9
It's probably just Journalists getting thier story muddled up, he said he lost some hearing in the falklands, they probably took that to mean that he served during the conflict.

Having inside knowledge of quite a few newspaper stories of late it's been an eye opener into how badly research and incompetant most journalists are, especially when it comes to military matters.
 
#10
Awol said:
A conviction for arson in 1980 and in the army in the Falklands in '82?
I think it is poor reporting again.

He said Thomson had served his Queen and country loyally and had even been rendered partly deaf by an incident during a spell in the Falkland Islands,
Reporter putting 2+2 together and geting 5. Mr DOLAN assumed that the troops only went down in 82 and haven't been back since.
 
#11
The article doesn't actually mention what year he served in the FI but it obviously wasn't 1982.

Just a case of the Daily Wail injecting a bit of the old bollocks once again and trying to 'big up' a story.

The reason he was still a trooper after 22 years was given and not improbable.

What I find odd is the Arson conviction 7 years before he joined and the fact he may only get 18 months nick due to some wierd law... :?
 
#12
Falklands veteran Thomson, who served as a private for 22 years before resigning from the Army following the incident, was arrested by Royal Military Police after the girl produced a condom he used in the encounter, which she had kept as a souvenir.
Classy bird.
 
#13
Awol said:
A conviction for arson in 1980 and in the army in the Falklands in '82?
It said 'partially deaf after an incident in the Falklands' nothing about '82.
We are still there you know :roll: :roll:

VH
 
#14
VanHelsing said:
Awol said:
A conviction for arson in 1980 and in the army in the Falklands in '82?
It said 'partially deaf after an incident in the Falklands' nothing about '82.
We are still there you know :roll: :roll:

VH
Really? Gosh, thanks, I had no idea.

What do the words 'Falklands Veteran' imply to you?
 
#15
CQMS said:
Falklands veteran Thomson, who served as a private for 22 years before resigning from the Army following the incident, was arrested by Royal Military Police after the girl produced a condom he used in the encounter, which she had kept as a souvenir.
Classy bird.
Beat me to it.
Yeah what's wrong with pictures/video on your mobile or stealing their pants? Kids these days I dunno.
 
#18
Not the first time that something like this has happened at The Factory, and it won't be the last.

I agree with the above that it is sloppy research in reporting his military service, and I believe that it is definitely the Tpr that is the victim here. If the girl has a past record for under-aged seduction at thirteen and has made previous rape accusations, then why was she not banned from the stables and why was she not kept on a tighter leash by her parents?

It doesn't change the fact that he let his pants rule his head though.
 
#19
CQMS said:
Falklands veteran Thomson, who served as a private for 22 years before resigning from the Army following the incident, was arrested by Royal Military Police after the girl produced a condom he used in the encounter, which she had kept as a souvenir.
Classy bird.
Must have taken a page from Monica Lewinsky's book. :wink: That one kept the dress that had the Presidential Seal on it... :clap: :blowkiss:

 
#20
Gremlin said:
Not the first time that something like this has happened at The Factory, and it won't be the last.

I agree with the above that it is sloppy research in reporting his military service, and I believe that it is definitely the Tpr that is the victim here. If the girl has a past record for under-aged seduction at thirteen and has made previous rape accusations, then why was she not banned from the stables and why was she not kept on a tighter leash by her parents?

It doesn't change the fact that he let his pants rule his head though.

I agree. I have to wonder why a non-serving child is allowed in a working area of a military facility, apparently on a regular basis. I also wonder why, if the child was a known problem the officer mentioned did not do anything to have the child excluded. Admittedly very stupid for the private but if he is a private after 22 years perhaps he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads