1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

So this marine convicted then

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by bradders, Nov 9, 2013.

  1. I'll stand by my statement that I want Sgt Blackman treated as the law stands, if that means a retrial then I'm happy with that. What I object to is the cult of hero worship of our troops and the suggestion as we have seen from some in this case and the earlier case of Danny Nightingale that normal rules can be set aside if the crimes were comitted in green.
     
  2. May I make a small amendment to my post of last Tuesday: technically the CMAC did not need to grant leave to appeal, since a reference to the CMAC by the CCRC is deemed to have leave anyway.

    Similarly a reference to the CMAC by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) also does not need leave, a point I should have remembered having actually operated that procedure myself.
     
  3. I don't object to troops being treated as heroes; so they should be, if they are. But that does not entitle them to break the law or act contrary to their orders, nor does it exempt them from being held to account for their crimes.
     
  4. And judged with all of the facts, and their state of mind and motivations, taken into account.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. We can't keep sending people to do terrible things and face terrible things then wash our hands of them when facing people who do not play by the rules as we try to do. It's as much a reflection on society where we think we can keep changing morality, legality and conscience depending on what the political arena is that day.

    What we do have to accept is that we ask people to do things we might not do ourselves when dealing with people who have no rules.

    Because it was pre-meditated then yes he should have been dishonourably discharged but no he should not have faced criminal charges I feel.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. In the British armed forces, personnel are discharged because their term of engagement has come to an end, because they are not capable of carrying out the duties, or because they are surplus to the needs of the service. The decision to discharge is a practical one, and essentially a personnel function not a judicial function. "Dishonourable" doesn't come into it.

    Dismissal is a punishment imposed on an individual as a sentence, following a trial process and a finding of guilt. It is subject to appeal in the usual way.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. Was it premeditated ? How long had he been thinking about it before he did it ?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. There's some right old shite being written on this thread.
    Allow me to put it in a nutshell. The general public get quite irate about this kind of stuff. If Sgt. Blackman had been laid injured and Mr. Goat shagging taliban man had caught him he would have most certainly topped him. Probably in a quite grotesque manner. But would he have had his life turned upside down and thrown in the slammer. No. would he fuckers like. My point is the rules of engagement only apply to us and not the enemy. And while we have these armchair champagne socialists driving this shit it'll never change. I've never served as a soldier but I bet they dispair at the way their fellow soldiers are hung out to dry. It irritates the shit out of me when I read about it.
    I recently read about 2 old boys from 1 para are to be prosecuted for the shooting of an established IRA member 44 fucking years ago! But do the CPS chase terrorists with such gusto. No, do they fuck. As far as I'm concerned it's the Guardian reading liberal elite driving this nonsense.
    And ffs, pete1950 & Shadow don't come back with the same old law/moral high ground shite. Neither I nor the majority of the British public buy it. It's just your lefty pals. Tra...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Correct. Of course they do. If the enemy respected the rule of law and behaved decently, there would be no need to fight against them. It is the appalling murderous behaviour of the enemy which is the main justification for going to war. If we were just as bad as they are, it would be pointless.
     
  10. Soldiers who obey their orders, do their duty, and keep to the law despair if other soldiers who disobey orders, fail in their duty, and break the law were to get off scot free.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Very true. And gracious of you to provide examples.
     
  12. Ha ha, I'm trying to catch up with you.

    Do one.
     
  13. Oh dear. You really don't understand do you?
     
  14. Christ.

    Hello. Have you swallowed something? Would you like me to call someone?

    Just read that utter shite back to yourself.
     
  15. Well there's another difference between you and me then.
    Who'd have thought, all that knowledge about how soldiering should be done and never served. Almost as if you're a bullshit spouting keyboard warrior.
     
  16. No mate, I'm no keyboard warrior. If you were to meet me you'd know. But I'm a paid up member of society. And obviously more in touch with the average Joe than you.
     
  17. And here you go @shadow cut it out and slap it on your Afgan. he he he... Keyboard_Warrior.png
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. If you say so.
    You still know feck all about soldiering
     
  19. Nope. Can I touch you?
     
Do Not Sell My Personal Information