This whole case is weird. Someone, somewhere along the way, doesn't "get it". As an impartial observer, you have to hope that it is the Nightingales who fail to understand what is going on.
As I have said previously..........who would want a soldier let alone a sniper on their team with appaarently such a severe lack of judgement.......... .........surely his so-called brain injury is self inflicted.
This case gets stranger all the time. I wondered if the prosecution might lodge an appeal against the unduly lenient sentence, which they might still do, but under the circumstances for Danny Nightingale to lodge an appeal against conviction (sic) is beyond bizarre. BBC News - SAS sniper Danny Nightingale lodges appeal over conviction
On what grounds or evidence could he possibly be relying on, Pete? He must be completely off his 'kin trolley
He's either off his trolley or has been stitched up somewhere along the line by his chain off command or the government , there's probably a lot we don't know regarding his employment , maybe he wants more to come out than meets the eye.
According to media reports (which may be wrong, of course), the grounds of appeal are to challenge some of the medical evidence (i.e. about his mental condition) and some of Jeff Blackett's summing up to the jury. If that is all there is, I doubt whether the Court of Appeal would even grant leave to appeal. And even supposing hypothetically that an appeal were allowed, the case would have to be remitted to the Court Martial for retrial - yet again - with no doubt the same result. Still, one never knows and the CMAC might have some agenda of its own for wanting to get its hands on the case again as it did the last time.
If it did go to appeal isn't there a chance he could end up with a harsher sentence? If it was me I'd be thinking that 2-years-suspended was almost as good as getting away with it!
I read the Nightingale's legal fees are now over £100k. I guess the rest, and it will not be insubstantial, will ultimately come from the taxpayer. But I suspect you knew that already bradders.
If a convicted offender appeals against his conviction, that appeal in itself cannot result in a more severe sentence; so no. But the point is that the prosecution could appeal about the sentence on the grounds that it is excessively lenient. The Director of Service Prosecutions (Bruce Holder QC, whom I know quite well) may have decided it was not worth bothering, but if the case is going to be appealed to the CMAC anyway he might decide now he has a duty to pursue the leniency issue. In his sentencing remarks, Jeff Blackett made it clear that a more severe sentence was justified but he felt constrained by the previous CMAC judgment. That's a nudge to Bruce from Jeff about a leniency appeal, if ever I saw one. Wiser people don't poke sleeping lions!
Have any of you concidered why Danny is doing this,if he was just trying to get away with it,he would have accepted the judgement and just got on with it. I am expecting some very basic replies to this by some which will only serve to further my grasp on the intelligence of many.
I will give you a very basic reply.......... .......I think your judgement is as clouded as Dan Ns and the whole circus including you are making complete and utter fools of themselves...........and if this is now the standard of intelligence of the elite section of the UK Armed Forces, in God's name what light is it showing on all the other regiments? Dan N; the circus and you should be bloody well ashamed of your behaviour.........because you are doing every other grunt and squaddie a dis-service..................not nice to think that the stupidity of a few can cause the disrepute of many. AL.
As AL can testify ....I am not well educated so please enlighten us lesser mortals Stu ....this will have to be good because a judge (probably fairly well educated) who examined all the evidence and testimony recons he should be locked up. Or is this one of those ....."If I told you I'd have to kill you" situations
anyone see the interview with the ex soldier who killed his two work mates after a dispute in Saudi last night? Turns out he had had previous convictions for gun possesion etc the law is clear. Guns are illegal unless appropriate permit or permission is held. If not its pretty simple. Its illegal. Dont really see what else there is to dispute? no one doubts the guys balls, nor whtehr his actions in battle (assuming there were some, as its all covert I'd guess) were brave etc, just that no one can be above the law (expect the Queen ). Exactly the same as PC Plod who gets nabbed speeding, or taking bribes to turn a blind eye.
My issue with this case has been that if all the blokes on Counter Terrorism rotation are keeping weapons at home to facilitate a faster response to threats to the nation's security, and its all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, the bosses know its happening but allow it to continue as common sense comes before following the rules, then one guy gets caught, all the other lads quickly return their weapons to the armoury and the army goes in to overdrive to stop this one getting out the bag and a decent, valuable bloke gets a criminal conviction and thrown out the Army. As I soldier that's now getting out, I hate the army. It looks after not one of its soldiers.
this isn't the case though Tom. This was a trophy weapon, with a load of ammunition thrown in. Had nothing to do with being on the CT team. once this was in the limelight, how could the army 'look after its own'? We are not above the law.
As far as I'm concerned mate, I'm a civilian again and I am as subject to the law as any one else, as I always have been. I just find almost everything the army does, it does for a reason less obvious than the reason given. I went to London last week on the train, and a couple of Colonels were sat next to me, from the DLO in Andover (the Army Land HQ) and they were discussing how they can do what ever they like with military processes as long as its cheaper. I.E. doesn't matter if it makes everybody's life harder or there's an easier and more efficient way to do something, the cheapest one will always win. Typical Army. It's not about doing a good job at the top, it's about saving money. And screwing all their soldiers over at the same time. Not that this has anything to do with the theme of this thread, I'm just angry and disappointed in how the Army has ended up.
