[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by bananarama

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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]

Originally Posted by bananarama

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]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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]

Originally Posted by bananarama

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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?