Jail for Soldier who wont go on Second Tour.

[Shasown]

A soldier has been jailed by court martial after refusing to fight in Afghanistan.

Lance Corporal Joe Glenton went absent without leave (AWOL) rather than serve a second tour in the country. He later campaigned against the conflict.

The 27-year-old was jailed for nine months and reduced to the ranks at a military court in Colchester, Essex, after admitting the AWOL charge.

The court martial hearing was told that Glenton went missing on June 11, 2007, when he was due to return to Dalton Barracks in Abingdon, Oxfordshire.

He was absent for 737 days before handing himself in, prosecutor Group Captain Tim Backer said.

Glenton, from York, had already performed a seven-month tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2006 serving with the Royal Logistic Corps, the hearing was told.

On his return, he was ordered to go back to the conflict zone after nine months, although army guidelines suggest soldiers should not be deployed again within 18 months.

Nick Wrack, speaking in mitigation, said Glenton suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after his first stint in the war zone.

When the soldier raised concerns about going back out, he suffered bullying, Mr Wrack said.

"When he first raised with his staff sergeant his reluctance to be deployed again, instead of being dealt with in a sensible way it resulted in the sergeant at the time bullying and intimidating Lance Corporal Glenton," said Mr Wrack.

"He was called a coward and a malingerer.

"When this information was brought to his commanding officer, the sergeant was spoken to, but this reinforced the bullying."

Glenton was the first serving member of the armed forces to have headed up an anti-war demonstration since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.


Courtesy of Sky News.

[arista]

Wasted Money.

[ILoveTRW]

Reminds me of Ryan from The Real World Brooklyn

he got called back whilst being filmed, he had planned to go to college after he left brooklyn but had to drop it all to go and serve in iraq for a war he didnt believe in
heartbreaking

[Tom4784]

I don't blame him in the slightest this war's ridiculous and pointless and we should have never got involved nevermind still have soldiers there so many years afterwards.

[Shasown]

I don't blame him in the slightest this war's ridiculous and pointless and we should have never got involved nevermind still have soldiers there so many years afterwards.

Not exactly pointless;

It allowed the US and UK to be seen to be doing something after the terrorist strikes on the twin Towers etc.

It also turned peoples focus on overseas affairs as opposed to problems at home.

Plus it now provides US forces more overseas bases to jump from, into other countries should future US foreign policy dictate.

[WOMBAI]

I don't blame him in the slightest this war's ridiculous and pointless and we should have never got involved nevermind still have soldiers there so many years afterwards.

Completely agree! I applaud this soldier for having the guts to stand up and refuse to go! In many ways that is equally as brave as going to Afghanistan, bearing in mind the trouble he was going to get into and the stick he was likely to receive from many.

The soldiers shouldn't be there - isn't it bad enough that we have lost so many in the name of such a pointless war - nevermind adding to the total by continuing to keep them there!

[WOMBAI]

Not exactly pointless;

It allowed the US and UK to be seen to be doing something after the terrorist strikes on the twin Towers etc.

It also turned peoples focus on overseas affairs as opposed to problems at home.

Plus it now provides US forces more overseas bases to jump from, into other countries should future US foreign policy dictate.

Dishonest, manipulative morally pointless reasons - that do not justify the loss of all the soldiers' lives - a complete manipulative sham!

[arista]

What he said outside the Court
was Bang On Right.

They are not out there Protecting UK
It is a Illegal Invasion War.

[Shasown]

Dishonest, manipulative morally pointless reasons - that do not justify the loss of all the soldiers' lives - a complete manipulative sham!

PMSL of course they are, thats why i posted them. I did not say they were legitimate military legal aims. Just that there was were several points to the invasion of Afghanistan.

[Stu]

Fair play to him. Sending him to prison for not participating in a 'freedom' war? What ****ing irony.

[Shasown]

No they sent him to prison for being absent without leave,(AWOL) thats different than being charged with failing to comply with orders, or desertion. If they had charged him with failing to comply with orders or desrtion he could have a case to appeal, challenging the legality of operations in Afghanistan and take it all the way through the UK courts up through the House of Lords and then into Europe.

Its a minor point but are the MOD admitting the war is actually illegal? Though they do justify military action under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 and UN Security Council Resolution 1386 for the invasion of Afghanistan and operations undertaken there since 2001.

[*mazedsalv**]

I dont get it... does that mean that you need to be in the war until it ends....?

[Shasown]

I dont get it... does that mean that you need to be in the war until it ends....?

Well if the US and the UK pulled out there would be no war and the Taliban would move back in and take control of the country again, meaning the invasion and all the losses since were in vain.

[*mazedsalv**]

Well if the US and the UK pulled out there would be no war and the Taliban would move back in and take control of the country again, meaning the invasion and all the losses since were in vain.

Basically its either fight it out and survive until the end (which can be a long way away) or you will get killed... that is horrible :( Not only are the hero's fighting for the country but they are fighting to see their family and their partners, as the last visit could have been the last time they saw a family member :(
I swear, I dont even remember what the war even is about? We need to reach a mutual agreement, we are losing too many soldiers and I think if someone wants to back out for any reason (could be a valid one) then they should be able to... but this is me talking even though I dont understand exactly what is going on.

[Shasown]

Basically its either fight it out and survive until the end (which can be a long way away) or you will get killed... that is horrible :( Not only are the hero's fighting for the country but they are fighting to see their family and their partners, as the last visit could have been the last time they saw a family member :(
I swear, I dont even remember what the war even is about? We need to reach a mutual agreement, we are losing too many soldiers and I think if someone wants to back out for any reason (could be a valid one) then they should be able to... but this is me talking even though I dont understand exactly what is going on.

Lol if only things could be that simple, unfortunately he joined up. In doing so you sign over certain rights, for the training, the wage, the adventure, the mates, the camaraderie, visiting exotic lands and either killing or being killed by some of the locals.

[WOMBAI]

Well if the US and the UK pulled out there would be no war and the Taliban would move back in and take control of the country again, meaning the invasion and all the losses since were in vain.

Personally - I don't buy into that argument. There are no guarantees that staying will acheive anything other than further loss of life - and even if it did - how could that in anyway validate the deaths of so many soldiers, how could it in any way make their deaths worthwhile.

As for the problems with the Taliban - that is for Afghanistan to sort out. Much as I feel for the innocent people of Afghanistan - I do not consider it a cause worth the loss of our men and womens' lives. We have to look after our own!

[arista]

Well if the US and the UK pulled out there would be no war and the Taliban would move back in and take control of the country again, meaning the invasion and all the losses since were in vain.


No Leave the Yanks there
it is there Problem
All UK out.

[Shasown]

Personally - I don't buy into that argument. There are no guarantees that staying will acheive anything other than further loss of life - and even if it did - how could that in anyway validate the deaths of so many soldiers, how could it in any way make their deaths worthwhile.

As for the problems with the Taliban - that is for Afghanistan to sort out. Much as I feel for the innocent people of Afghanistan - I do not consider it a cause worth the loss of our men and womens, lives. We have to look after our own!

Ah I see, you dont buy into helping an oppressed people remove a tyrannical fundamentalist government, its no concern of ours? You dont care that said government did allow terrorist training camps and you feel the invasion was wrong? You dont mind that that government was financing itself through the heroin trade?

You see UN sanctions and embargos were introduced but they were seen to be failing, hitting the poor people of Afghanistan at a time of famine anyway. They didnt really affect the leadership of the country. Just the poor.

Well our leaders at the time decided to invade, so blame Blair and Bush. Even if another government were elected this year to replace the current labour one, they still couldnt pull troops out over a period less than about 12 months.

They decided they were acting legally in support of UN Mandates and resolutions. As we are part of the UN Security Council we have to follow Mandates and Resolutions - British fair play and all that. So yeah i suppose we could just say , we want...... then expect others to deliver, and to rely simply on the UN to actually do something except sit and debate is a laughable concept.

The operations in Afghanistan are attempting to help a country that was run by the Taliban get back on its feet, reduce the amount of Heroin coming not only from but through Afghanistan and removing the terrorist training camps from the area.

If the current operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the parallel operations in Pakistan being undertaken by their armed forces are both successful then the future involvement of our forces in that area will be dramatically reduced.

Well thats the official party line anyways. Its up to you if you believe them.

[Tom4784]

Not exactly pointless;

It allowed the US and UK to be seen to be doing something after the terrorist strikes on the twin Towers etc.

It also turned peoples focus on overseas affairs as opposed to problems at home.

Plus it now provides US forces more overseas bases to jump from, into other countries should future US foreign policy dictate.

Is the loss of life worth it though? We've lost hundreds of soldiers and MANY innocent Iraqi lives have been lost, granted that we've taken out Saddam Hussein but now the country's in a state of unrest with groups fighting against democracy. more lives are gonna be lost and that'll only lead to more anger that terrorist groups can use to manipulate people into joining them.

My knowledge of the matter's probably not as good as yours but to me it just feels like a massive waste of life on both sides.

[BB_Eye]

This whole regime change thing is a waste of time. I would go so far as to call this a pre-emptive war as the US and UK were never strictly invaded by the Taliban, only attacked. We may aswell go invade North Korea (possibly the worst dictatorship on Earth) for sending spies to kidnap our allies in South Korea and Japan. It would probably be easier.

[WOMBAI]

Ah I see, you dont buy into helping an oppressed people remove a tyrannical fundamentalist government, its no concern of ours? You dont care that said government did allow terrorist training camps and you feel the invasion was wrong? You dont mind that that government was financing itself through the heroin trade?

You see UN sanctions and embargos were introduced but they were seen to be failing, hitting the poor people of Afghanistan at a time of famine anyway. They didnt really affect the leadership of the country. Just the poor.

Well our leaders at the time decided to invade, so blame Blair and Bush. Even if another government were elected this year to replace the current labour one, they still couldnt pull troops out over a period less than about 12 months.

They decided they were acting legally in support of UN Mandates and resolutions. As we are part of the UN Security Council we have to follow Mandates and Resolutions - British fair play and all that. So yeah i suppose we could just say , we want...... then expect others to deliver, and to rely simply on the UN to actually do something except sit and debate is a laughable concept.

The operations in Afghanistan are attempting to help a country that was run by the Taliban get back on its feet, reduce the amount of Heroin coming not only from but through Afghanistan and removing the terrorist training camps from the area.

If the current operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the parallel operations in Pakistan being undertaken by their armed forces are both successful then the future involvement of our forces in that area will be dramatically reduced.

Well thats the official party line anyways. Its up to you if you believe them.

Yes - my priority is for our own young men and women over and above the oppressed people of Afghanistan - I won't feel guilty about that! Those oppressed people apparently don't want us there anyway - many have made it clear that we have out-stayed our welcome!

Most men and women sign up to protect their own country, if needs be - not to risk their lives for the political ends of dishonest politicians or to solve the religious problems of other nations. The people of Afghanistan should do more to help themselves and stand up to the tyranny of such regimes as the Taliban. It is not our responsibility!

[bananarama]

Fair play to him. Sending him to prison for not participating in a 'freedom' war? What ****ing irony.


Troops cannot be allowed to pick which war they agree with or not..That would lead to chaos.......He should be booted out and or jailed for life as an example of being a traitor and coward.....

[Tom4784]

Troops cannot be allowed to pick which war they agree with or not..That would lead to chaos.......He should be booted out and or jailed for life as an example of being a traitor and coward.....

Ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress? It's easy to brand someone a coward when you're not there yourself.

[bananarama]

Ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress? It's easy to brand someone a coward when you're not there yourself.


Sure have but some use it as an excuse to pick and choose and get political..service men by the nature of their job should not get political and judgmental about what war is right or wrong........They should get on with the job or get out........

This character is a a coward and years ago they would have shot him.......Time to put the clock back......

[Tom4784]

Sure have but some use it as an excuse to pick and choose and get political..service men by the nature of their job should not get political and judgmental about what war is right or wrong........They should get on with the job or get out........

This character is a a coward and years ago they would have shot him.......Time to put the clock back......

They called PTS cowardice back then, It was ignorant then and it's ignorant now. Unless you are this man's personal doctor then you can't dispute that he had PTS. It's oh so easy to condemn people behind a computer screen isn't it? You'd be singing a different tune if you experienced what that man has experienced. You wouldn't be so eager for blood then.

[BB_Eye]

Sure have but some use it as an excuse to pick and choose and get political..service men by the nature of their job should not get political and judgmental about what war is right or wrong........They should get on with the job or get out........

This character is a a coward and years ago they would have shot him.......Time to put the clock back......

But he did get out and then got called back... unlawfully.

[bananarama]

They called PTS cowardice back then, It was ignorant then and it's ignorant now. Unless you are this man's personal doctor then you can't dispute that he had PTS. It's oh so easy to condemn people behind a computer screen isn't it? You'd be singing a different tune if you experienced what that man has experienced. You wouldn't be so eager for blood then.


Excuses excuses excuses........Criminals use fancy technical diagnosis to get off serving proper sentences for crimes.........Sorry mlord I was temporary insane but am ok now so let me off........Sorry mlord had a sressfull day so will say I don't like this particulat war can I go home please.......Excuses bloody excuses..........They can always find some politically correct fool of a doctor to come up with an excuse for cowerdice or political dogmatism......

[Shasown]

Yes PTSD, he could have had it, but did he? It could just be an convenient excuse for legging it. Its interesting to note he raised a complaint of bullying against one of his seniors but didnt go see the service medical staff for his PTSD.

If he had suffered PTSD and gone sick with it, it would have been mentioned and entered into the court martial. There was a comment by the adjutant general that he hadnt reported this PTSD at the time but had complained about bullying.

Making a complaint against a superior would look a lot worse than being diagnosed with PTSD amongst those he worked with.

[Shasown]

But he did get out and then got called back... unlawfully.

LOL he didnt get out, he done a runner. He was still a serving soldier and when he knew he was going back to the Stan he went awol - absent without leave, for a little over 2 years.

[BB_Eye]

Excuses excuses excuses........Criminals use fancy technical diagnosis to get off serving proper sentences for crimes.........Sorry mlord I was temporary insane but am ok now so let me off........Sorry mlord had a sressfull day so will say I don't like this particulat war can I go home please.......Excuses bloody excuses..........They can always find some politically correct fool of a doctor to come up with an excuse for cowerdice or political dogmatism......

What you are saying here seems to come from a dangerous, reactionary school of thought that poses that professional groups such as doctors and social workers are conspiring together and are out to get us. This mindset is popular among fascist sympathisers, militant Thatcherites, structuralists, communists and religious whackos and shouldn't be taken seriously. Coming to understand issues such as PTSD is the mark of a more enlightened society and the product of learning some hard lessons from history. Either you're suggesting we go back to the days when soldiers could be court marshalled for showing symptoms of shellshock or you're choosing to ignore these things.

[Shasown]

What you are saying here seems to come from a dangerous, reactionary school of thought that poses that professional groups such as doctors and social workers are conspiring together and are out to get us. This mindset is popular among fascist sympathisers, militant Thatcherites, structuralists, communists and religious whackos and shouldn't be taken seriously. Coming to understand issues such as PTSD is the mark of a more enlightened society and the product of learning some hard lessons from history. Either you're suggesting we go back to the days when soldiers could be court marshalled for showing symptoms of shellshock or you're choosing to ignore these things.

Interesting comments, you are missing the point that the forces are now geared up to recognise, diagnose and deal with PTSD, given they dont want to send soldiers back into a war zone with it misdiagnosed, mainly for two reasons, the soldier could become a loose cannon and turn on his mates or himself. The soldier or his family can take the MOD to court for lots and lots of money.

[WOMBAI]

Troops cannot be allowed to pick which war they agree with or not..That would lead to chaos.......He should be booted out and or jailed for life as an example of being a traitor and coward.....

What total bull****e! No way could he be considered a coward as he had already done one tour of duty in Afghanistan. They were trying to send him back too soon - they were breaking rules themselves. There is also the possibility he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress - a recognised and legitamate medical condition often experienced by soldiers facing such traumatic experiences. The ignorance and arrogance of any civilian who has never been in such a position - to sit in judgement of someone else - how could they possibly understand?

[arista]

LOL he didnt get out, he done a runner. He was still a serving soldier and when he knew he was going back to the Stan he went awol - absent without leave, for a little over 2 years.



And the Best One
as he told the Press the Invasion/War
it's not for the protection of the UK.
And a Illegal Corrupt War.


He is a Hero.

[Shasown]

What total bull****e! No way could he be considered a coward as he had already done one tour of duty in Afghanistan. They were trying to send him back too soon - they were breaking rules themselves. There is also the possibility he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress - a recognised and legitamate medical condition often experienced by soldiers facing such traumatic experiences. The ignorance and arrogance of any civilian who has never been in such a position - to sit in judgement of someone else - how could they possibly understand?

They werent breaking rules, just general guidelines, however said guidelines may have to be set to one side, and often are, for operational commitments, if he didnt go someone else still needed to do his job, his post still had to be manned so its quite possible someone who had had even less time back in the UK would have been stiffed at short notice to fill it.

Bearing in mind he isnt front line he was a loggie (Royal Logistics Corps) so it wasnt as if he was engaged in combat as per the infantry, thats who the 18 month guideline was actually intended for.

Something to do with overcommitting UK forces while trimming and slimming front line numbers.

[BB_Eye]

Interesting comments, you are missing the point that the forces are now geared up to recognise, diagnose and deal with PTSD, given they dont want to send soldiers back into a war zone with it misdiagnosed, mainly for two reasons, the soldier could become a loose cannon and turn on his mates or himself. The soldier or his family can take the MOD to court for lots and lots of money.

All the more reason why this sergeant sounds incompetent.

[Shasown]

All the more reason why this sergeant sounds incompetent.

His sergeant was dealt with, hopefully appropriately. However that doesnt remove the fact he didnt go sick with PTSD to service medical staff at the actual time does it?

[BB_Eye]

LOL he didnt get out, he done a runner. He was still a serving soldier and when he knew he was going back to the Stan he went awol - absent without leave, for a little over 2 years.

I'm sorry. Did I misread the article? It says he raised the issue with his sergeant who refused to listen. I'm sure that doing a runner was a last resort.

[bananarama]

Nations cannot survive wars if they allow service men to behave like this jerk in question.......Being soft and giving creed to all this modern psycho bable would have certainly lost us the war against Gemany.....

I agree there are conditions of mental stress for some under constant battle fatigue........This cowardly political character is a different kettle of fish.........Jail is to lenient for him.....

[WOMBAI]

They werent breaking rules, just general guidelines, however said guidelines may have to be set to one side, and often are, for operational commitments, if he didnt go someone else still needed to do his job, his post still had to be manned so its quite possible someone who had had even less time back in the UK would have been stiffed at short notice to fill it.

Bearing in mind he isnt front line he was a loggie (Royal Logistics Corps) so it wasnt as if he was engaged in combat as per the infantry, thats who the 18 month guideline was actually intended for.

Something to do with overcommitting UK forces while trimming and slimming front line numbers.

In the eyes of many none of the soldiers should be there! This is not a legitimate war - and the army has no right to force soldiers to risk their lives for a cause other than to protect their own country, citizens or way of life - especially bearing in mind they do not provide the best protection and equipment money can buy! They have proved they care little about the lives of the soldiers, why the hell should the soldiers give a damn about their rules and regulations?

[Shasown]

Nations cannot survive wars if they allow service men to behave like this jerk in question.......Being soft and giving creed to all this modern psycho bable would have certainly lost us the war against Gemany.....

I agree there are conditions of mental stress for some under constant battle fatigue........This cowardly political character is a different kettle of fish.........Jail is to lenient for him.....

His punishment was reduced to the ranks and time, he wont go to civi jail, he will go into whats called Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester, a military nick, its nothing like civilian jail. Its all marching everywhere, kit layouts and inspections, weapons training, and other military skills, you start at crack of sparrow fart in the morning and finish when they are happy with you, normally about 8 at night, if you are at a loose end for something to do they normally have you running around with heavy weights. Great fun.

If he had of been dismissed he would have done some time at Colly then possibly into a civvie jail then discharged.

[bananarama]

What total bull****e! No way could he be considered a coward as he had already done one tour of duty in Afghanistan. They were trying to send him back too soon - they were breaking rules themselves. There is also the possibility he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress - a recognised and legitamate medical condition often experienced by soldiers facing such traumatic experiences. The ignorance and arrogance of any civilian who has never been in such a position - to sit in judgement of someone else - how could they possibly understand?


Bull **** its the forces not a children party..You fight when told. The forces have to maintain diciplin and power over its troops or chaos would result........This mamby pamby mentality is dangerous to any nation.....

[Shasown]

In the eyes of many none of the soldiers should be there! This is not a legitimate war - and the army has no right to force soldiers to risk their lives for a cause other than to protect their own country, citizens or way of life!

Sorry, you sign up and you go where the government decides to send you. The government decided the conflict in Afghanistan had a direct impact upon the National Security of this country. Whether it did or not is immaterial to a soldier receiving orders. He should simply follow them otherwise we would have debates at troop level when action is required.

Imagine a section of troops on the ground and they come under fire from some afghans the section commander orders half his men to provide covering fire, the other half to move to an assault position ready to move forward and engage the enemy at close quarters, the assaulting troops then sit and debate the legalities of the war?

[WOMBAI]

Nations cannot survive wars if they allow service men to behave like this jerk in question.......Being soft and giving creed to all this modern psycho bable would have certainly lost us the war against Gemany.....

I agree there are conditions of mental stress for some under constant battle fatigue........This cowardly political character is a different kettle of fish.........Jail is to lenient for him.....

How do you know this soldier is a different kettle of fish? You have no personal knowledge of him or relevant qualification to make such a diagnosis!

[Shasown]

How do you know this soldier is a different kettle of fish? You have no personal knowledge of him or relevant qualification to make such a diagnosis!

No diagnosis of any sort was entered as evidence in his defence. He had a psychologists report entered in court record as mitigation. The report according to press coverage said he could have been suffering from PTSD at the time.

Mitigation means he has accepted the decision of the court but wishes the following information to be considered when deciding his award (punishment).

[WOMBAI]

Sorry, you sign up and you go where the government decides to send you. The government decided the conflict in Afghanistan had a direct impact upon the National Security of this country. Whether it did or not is immaterial to a soldier receiving orders. He should simply follow them otherwise we would have debates at troop level when action is required.

Imagine a section of troops on the ground and they come under fire from some afghans the section commander orders half his men to provide covering fire, the other half to move to an assault position ready to move forward and engage the enemy at close quarters, the assaulting troops then sit and debate the legalities of the war?

I disagree. And obviously such debate should take place before troops get posted to a certain area - not once there!

It should also be easier for soldiers to leave the forces - especially bearing in mind how the army deliberately glamourize army life in an attempt to recruit young, niave 18 year olds - who often have no idea of what they are really letting themselves in for - I personally think that borders on criminal!

[Shasown]

It should also be easier for soldiers to leave the forces - especially bearing in mind how the army deliberately glamourize army life in an attempt to recruit young, niave 18 year olds - who often have no idea of what they are really letting themselves in for - I personally think that borders on criminal!

I agree entirely, however generally speaking when service personnel wish to leave prior to their contract exit date or various exit dates in built to their contract, they follow a procedure called PVR, Premature Voluntary Release. They will apply to be released from contract, they will be interviewed to see their reasons and if they are being bullied or have personal problems that could be sorted within the forces, they will then be given a release date.

The problem is that it cant be within the next month, inbuilt into the release date is an allowance for time to retrain a replacement, this wont be a long time just an amount based on a formula which looks at recruitment, retention and training rates within the trade group they are in. The maximum date for PVR is by regulation no more than 18 months however most people who PVR are out within 5-6 months.

Why didnt he just PVR? Why didnt he ask for discharge at his court martial? Why didnt he report sick at the time with PTSD?

[Shasown]

I disagree. And obviously such debate should take place before troops get posted to a certain area - not once there!


That is one of the processes of government. Debate did take place. Sometimes extended debate cant take place in the run up to the possible deployment of troops into an operational environment. Nor can national referendums. That is one of the reasons you vote for those you want to run the country.

If you disagree with the use of troops over there I suggest you take it up with your MP. Ask if there is anyway we can change our constitution to something that allows everyone to make decisions in all cases.

He signed on the dotted line. He accepted the terms and conditions. He got pop stars wages for doing a relatively easy job. He was told he was going back out, if he didnt want to or was medically unfit go back out there are procedures, he decided to leg it.

[WOMBAI]

That is one of the processes of government. Debate did take place. Sometimes extended debate cant take place in the run up to the possible deployment of troops into an operational environment. Nor can national referendums. That is one of the reasons you vote for those you want to run the country.

If you disagree with the use of troops over there I suggest you take it up with your MP. Ask if there is anyway we can change our constitution to something that allows everyone to make decisions in all cases.

He signed on the dotted line. He accepted the terms and conditions. He got pop stars wages for doing a relatively easy job. He was told he was going back out, if he didnt want to or was medically unfit go back out there are procedures, he decided to leg it.

I would say more people oppose this war than support it - that is what should count - not the underhand tactics of a bunch of public schoolboy politians who would never allow their own sons to enlist and take such risks!

I also feel that they have undermined their position of authority by failing to supply troops with the necessary support and equipment for the job - so therefore have no right to expect the soldiers to carry out said 'orders'. In my book they have broken their side of the deal - so why should the soldiers be obliged to meet their side! I would applaud any soldier who refused to fight with inadequate equipment!! Neither the polititians or the army give a damn about them - it is up to them to stand up for themselves!

And where did the 'pop stars wages' come from - are you serious - they get paid a pittance in relation to the risk they take! The soldiers are more deserving of pop star wages than the so called pop stars themselves. And as another poster mentioned didn't he attempt to raise the issue with his sergant who refused to listen. It all sounds rather dubious to me!

[Shasown]

I would say more people oppose this war than support it - that is what should count - not the underhand tactics of a bunch of public schoolboy politians who would never allow their own sons to enlist and take such risks!

I also feel that they have undermined their position of authority by failing to supply troops with the necessary support and equipment for the job - so therefore have no right to expect the soldiers to carry out said 'orders'. In my book they have broken their side of the deal - so why should the soldiers be obliged to meet their side! I would applaud any soldier who refused to fight with inadequate equipment!! Neither the polititians or the army give a damn about them - it is up to them to stand up for themselves!

That is why we have a system of government, so that we can allow people we vote into power to take important decisions in some areas without the need for national debate.

The troops had sufficient adequate equipment to meet the threat, they didnt have the best equipment but they did have sufficient. However did we manage to win in Europe and the far east last century without body armour or armoured land rovers? Better equipment means less casualties, but where do you draw the line? There has to some limits, again decisions were taken on budget reviews and Defence Spending.

Of course the politician and the Army give a damn about them, they only have a finite number of young men we can send across there, before their young men line up for the fight overseas.

[Shasown]

And where did the 'pop stars wages' come from - are you serious - they get paid a pittance in relation to the risk they take! The soldiers are more deserving of pop star wages than the so called pop stars themselves. And as another poster mentioned didn't he attempt to raise the issue with his sergant who refused to listen. It all sounds rather dubious to me!

Pop Stars wages is a joke used by combat soldiers that Loggies etc get paid money for nothing, its the infantryman who meets the enemy face to face and they are actually one of the lowest pay grades in the forces, whereas other trades get much higher wages because they have a trade. And it is a good wage for the average 18 year old. Except for the dying bit thats a disadvantage of joining up.

If you had a problem at work, would you just leave it in the hands of your line manager if they thought you were trying to pull a flanker? If you had a medical problem would you leave it in the hands of your supervisor, especially if they refused to see things from your side, or would you go higher or to the doctor etc. Its the same in the forces there are other means to an end. He obviously knew the system good enough to complain about his supervisor's bullying but didnt know the system to report sick? Is that what you are saying?

[Raph]

:(

[WOMBAI]

They should have the best equipment - the polititians would expect nothing less for their own sons. Lives are, or should be, more important than money - and doing what it takes to have less casualties should be given absolute priority! They owe the soldiers that - when considering what they are asking of them!

And I don't believe for one minute the army give a damn about individuals - just having enough troops for the job!

If I was the mother of that young soldier - I would be proud of him for having done his best and completing one tour of duty - which is a lot more than most do. I would also be relieved that he was in jail as opposed to being a target for the Taliban in Afghanistan!

[WOMBAI]

Pop Stars wages is a joke used by combat soldiers that Loggies etc get paid money for nothing, its the infantryman who meets the enemy face to face and they are actually one of the lowest pay grades in the forces, whereas other trades get much higher wages because they have a trade. And it is a good wage for the average 18 year old. Except for the dying bit thats a disadvantage of joining up.

If you had a problem at work, would you just leave it in the hands of your line manager if they thought you were trying to pull a flanker? If you had a medical problem would you leave it in the hands of your supervisor, especially if they refused to see things from your side, or would you go higher or to the doctor etc. Its the same in the forces there are other means to an end. He obviously knew the system good enough to complain about his supervisor's bullying but didnt know the system to report sick? Is that what you are saying?

But surely if he were suffering from post traumatic stress, he wouldn't be thinking very clearly and logically! His inadequate attempts may just have been a 'cry for help' from a desperate man.

[Shasown]

If I was the mother of that young soldier - I would be proud of him for having done his best and completing one tour of duty - which is a lot more than most do. I would also be relieved that he was in jail as opposed to being a target for the Taliban in Afghanistan!

A lot more than most do? Most what, youths, or soldiers. Because of the current and last governments' policy of manpower reduction the armed forces in general are very overstretched. I know of cases where certain personnel in the forces have spent 6 months on ops in Iraq come back to the UK for 2-3 months then deploy to Afghanistan for a further 6 months. So all in all matey boy got off quite lucky. I myself have done 4 on 4 off back to back operational tours both in the 80s and 90's and into the naughties

Remember he wasnt dismissed, wonder what will happen when he has done his time, will he stag on? (That means fit back in his unit and do as he is told, including future deployments?) If you watch the news and look through the lists of Casualties you will see by far the biggest number of casualties is in the infantry, followed by Bomb Disposal, he was and is in the Logistics Corps mostly cooks clerks and drivers. If he goes out of base he goes out in convoys which will be lead and protected by armoured vehicles from infantry units.

[Shasown]

But surely if he were suffering from post traumatic stress, he wouldn't be thinking very clearly and logically! His inadequate attempts may just have been a 'cry for help' from a desperate man.

So his supervisor and his boss may both have been total incompetents, plus any other person in his unit in position over him? And he went totally unnoticed and he failed to seek help? While its possible its not really probable is it? Besides when he was interviewed by his boss about his supervisors conduct , its a serious allegation in the forces, bullying, his boss was duty bound to fully investigate it, that would include if necessary ordering the man himself to be examined by the MO to see if he was suffering from anything. Thats the way the forces work.

[WOMBAI]

A lot more than most do? Most what, youths, or soldiers. Because of the current and last governments' policy of manpower reduction the armed forces in general are very overstretched. I know of cases where certain personnel in the forces have spent 6 months on ops in Iraq come back to the UK for 2-3 months then deploy to Afghanistan for a further 6 months. So all in all matey boy got off quite lucky. I myself have done 4 on 4 off back to back operational tours both in the 80s and 90's and into the naughties

Remember he wasnt dismissed, wonder what will happen when he has done his time, will he stag on? (That means fit back in his unit and do as he is told, including future deployments?) If you watch the news and look through the lists of Casualties you will see by far the biggest number of casualties is in the infantry, followed by Bomb Disposal, he was and is in the Logistics Corps mostly cooks clerks and drivers. If he goes out of base he goes out in convoys which will be lead and protected by armoured vehicles from infantry units.

I meant youths in general - those that condemn soldiers - but have never had the guts to enlist themselves.

I have nothing but admiration for any soldier, but in particular for those in the infantry and bomb disposal. I find it obscene that infantry soldiers are paid less as they bear the greatest risk and should definitely be paid considerably more.

I don't know about the level of risk that particular soldier was at in comparison to an infantry one - but that is surely subjective. If in his mind he felt at considerable risk, and we don't know what horrors he might have witnessed, the risk is what is perceived!

[Shasown]

Yeah fine, I can understand where you are coming from. However and this is a big however. PTSD is dealt with in many different ways. What makes me suspicious of his claims is that the PTSD part of his defence was entered in mitigation and not as evidence.

Why? Because statements in mitigation are not and cannot be challenged. Whereas if it had been entered as a defence in evidence the prosecuting officer from the Adjutant General's Office could and would have ripped it apart.

It is often used as a fall back to help reduce any sentence. he didnt challenge the legality of the charge either, saying he had no other option but to go AWOL to avoid being involved in a war he believed illegal. there is a conscientious objection defence to some serious charges in the forces, But you have to express your concerns at the time and during subsequent interviews etc.

His solicitor is well versed in Service Law, as some civilian solicitors are. He would have advised his client the best defence agaisnt the charges if any and the best mitigation options available.

[WOMBAI]

Yeah fine, I can understand where you are coming from. However and this is a big however. PTSD is dealt with in many different ways. What makes me suspicious of his claims is that the PTSD part of his defence was entered in mitigation and not as evidence.

Why? Because statements in mitigation are not and cannot be challenged. Whereas if it had been entered as a defence in evidence the prosecuting officer from the Adjutant General's Office could and would have ripped it apart.

It is often used as a fall back to help reduce any sentence. he didnt challenge the legality of the charge either, saying he had no other option but to go AWOL to avoid being involved in a war he believed illegal. there is a conscientious objection defence to some serious charges in the forces, But you have to express your concerns at the time and during subsequent interviews etc.

His solicitor is well versed in Service Law, as some civilian solicitors are. He would have advised his client the best defence agaisnt the charges if any and the best mitigation options available.

I do understand all the points you are making - and you may be right - but I don't think that, from what I have read, the evidence is cut and dried. Too many loose ends for my liking - and, to be honest, I am a little suspicious of the army and its motives.

I also feel that, even in the worst case scenario, and he was simply scared to return - is that such a crime? Men are often too embarrased to admit to being scared - and his head was probably a total mess. He is young, some deal with those sort of situations better than others. I don't think he deserved to go to prison - he should of just been dismissed. That would have been embarrasing enough, surely!

[Shasown]

I do understand all the points you are making - and you may be right - but I don't think that, from what I have read, the evidence is cut and dried. Too many loose ends for my liking - and, to be honest, I am a little suspicious of the army and its motives.

I also feel that, even in the worst case scenario, and he was simply scared to return - is that such a crime? Men are often too embarrased to admit to being scared - and his head was probably a total mess. He is young, some deal with those sort of situations better than others. I don't think he deserved to go to prison - he should of just been dismissed. That would have been embarrasing enough, surely!

Technically he didnt go to prison he was sent for corrective military training. However if he had of been simply dismissed, that would completely undermine military disciple, anyone who didnt agree with the orders they receive would simply do a runner like he did then come back and get an administrative discharge.

Yeah, that would do the armed services the power of good. And the police and the fire service, anywhere where you have to follow sometimes unsavoury orders which you may not agree with, or where you have to be seen to be beyond reproach.

The knock on effect is, it would undermine all employment contract law within the UK. because the worker does not have to comply with the terms of his contract, whereas the employer does?

[Tom4784]

Excuses excuses excuses........Criminals use fancy technical diagnosis to get off serving proper sentences for crimes.........Sorry mlord I was temporary insane but am ok now so let me off........Sorry mlord had a sressfull day so will say I don't like this particulat war can I go home please.......Excuses bloody excuses..........They can always find some politically correct fool of a doctor to come up with an excuse for cowerdice or political dogmatism......

the 1920's called, they want their views back. That post just told me everything I need to know about you, Welcome to the home of the ignorant also known as my ignore list.

[Shasown]

Ok now what if I told you he was originally charged with desertion and wanted to use the legality of the war as his defence.

No mention of PTSD, in his defence then at the time. Simply the legality of the war.

[Tom4784]

Ok now what if I told you he was originally charged with desertion and wanted to use the legality of the war as his defence.

No mention of PTSD, in his defence then at the time. Simply the legality of the war.

The reason I've went off on one at Banana though is because his ignorance when it comes to PTSD.

When it comes down to it whether he had it or not doesn't matter, he shouldn't have gone to prison over it, they should have just sacked him.

[Shasown]

The reason I've went off on one at Banana though is because his ignorance when it comes to PTSD.

When it comes down to it whether he had it or not doesn't matter, he shouldn't have gone to prison over it, they should have just sacked him.

Again that would look to be seen to be playing into some peoples hands and lead to a break down in service discipline. People who wanted to get out would not go through the normal procedures simply "pulling a flanker".

Funnily enough if someone really wants to get out and they are given a distant release date they arent happy with, if they go get a solicitor to write to their commanding officer quoting rulings within European Law and contract limitations they normally find themselves out within the prescribed 28 days. The MOD dont want to have to challenge that ruling in court. It would be very expensive for them.

But he was actually charged initially with desertion,last year, which is a far more serious offence and if the MOD had really pushed it could have sentenced him far in excess of 2 years. Its actually life imprisonment, a reduction in the maximum sentence was voted on in parliament in 2006 and it wasnt reduced to 2 years. Though about 2 years is what he probably would have got.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/03/british-army-alleged-deserter-court

Which brings me back nicely to a point I raised earlier, which is: did the MOD reduce the charge to avoid having a ruling on the legality of the war in either the House of Lords or the European Court of Justice?

[WOMBAI]

Again that would look to be seen to be playing into some peoples hands and lead to a break down in service discipline. People who wanted to get out would not go through the normal procedures simply "pulling a flanker".

Funnily enough if someone really wants to get out and they are given a distant release date they arent happy with, if they go get a solicitor to write to their commanding officer quoting rulings within European Law and contract limitations they normally find themselves out within the prescribed 28 days. The MOD dont want to have to challenge that ruling in court. It would be very expensive for them.

But he was actually charged initially with desertion,last year, which is a far more serious offence and if the MOD had really pushed it could have sentenced him far in excess of 2 years. Its actually life imprisonment, a reduction in the maximum sentence was voted on in parliament in 2006 and it wasnt reduced to 2 years. Though about 2 years is what he probably would have got.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/03/british-army-alleged-deserter-court

Which brings me back nicely to a point I raised earlier, which is: did the MOD reduce the charge to avoid having a ruling on the legality of the war in either the House of Lords or the European Court of Justice?

Life imprisonment - that is disgusting. How old is that law I wonder - probably from the days when they didn't know or care about such things as PTSD and shot traumatised soldiers for cowardice. Thankfully we have moved on since then!

Although I see your point about discipline - there has to be another way of dealing with it! Fear can do funny things to people - even if not actually PTSD (and none of us know the ins and outs of that in his case) it can affect a person's mental faculties - and someone should not be villified for it.

Often naive, young boys/men join the army to 'see the world' not fully appreciating what is involved - then when they experience the horrors of war - they are expected to 'be men' and act in a certain way - and if they don't - string em up and make em pay - and let that be a lesson to any other 'cowards' of the future. What primitive/backwards bull****e!

Surely those in the army and fighting whatever cause - should be doing so through choice - not through force! They should be there because they choose to be - whether that be for ethical reasons or because of financial inducements, which should be more than they currently receive. They get trapped in by having to sign long contracts at a very young age - that can be very difficult to get out of - and although I accept your previous point about needing to train someone to replace them - the army/government should have some sort of back-up system to cover this.

The information you give regarding a solicitor is interesting though. I don't know about 28 days - all I know is it took a family member of mine nearly a year to get out - and in the meantime he was posted to Afghanistan! I always remember the case, and I am sure there have been many others, of a young soldier who was killed on his last day in Iraq before returning home and leaving the forces for good. If he had stated his intention to leave - he should not have been forced to go to Iraq against his will - I believe that is immoral.

I believe that only in a war situation in which we are directly involved and directly defending our own and our way of life - should soldiers be obliged to risk their lives (and that should include conscription of the masses) not just those already signed up. We all have a duty to defend our country in that situation.

[Shasown]

Well dealing with disciplinary offences could be done in many different ways, however the current method is proven to work both in the case of a deterrent to all and also in the rehabilitation of those who wish to stay in the forces.

As I said before there are plenty of ways to get out legitimately if you find that the armed forces arent for you. However why should the taxpayer pay for you to be trained in a trade, then to leave before the armed forces have recouped the money invested in training you?

There may be other ways of dealing with deserters, because lets face it, thats what he is. You can dress it up any way you like and give excuses. But he skipped, someone else had to do his job. He broke his contract. He more than likely wasnt suffering from PTSD, that excuse only came out as mitigation, it wasnt entered in evidence. In fact it wasnt even mentioned until the army reduced the charge against him, when that happened he changed his Defence team and they changed his defence.


Yes people do suffer from PTSD and should be looked after properly. They arent now strung up, the last thing the forces need is to arm someone who is going to crack and then possibly injure or kill those around him.

As I said earlier the Government decided to send in troops to an Out of Area Operation for reasons it decided were legitimate. Troops follow orders. They go where they are told. Thats the nature of the beast. He can hold his own opinion of the reasons for being there, thats fine. However as a member of the Armed Forces he has to follow orders. Otherwise they may as well disband the forces tomorrow.

One of the problems of living in a democracy eh? The government is elected by the people, they make decisions, laws and rulings on behalf of the people and we abide by them. We dont just pick and choose which ones we will decide to follow.