[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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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]

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......

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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/au...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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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/au...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.