malcolm kendall smith is free...ish! [Archive]

Lost & Filed

26th Jun 2006, 22:51

Hear Hear - I hear he wanted to call that SAS squaddie as a witness and was told he couldn't as his case was totally different. Well there we go, Officers getting into trouble themselves and trying to get bailed out by the other ranks - though in this case it didn't work, in fact it backfired on him. Especially with it about to be his 3rd tour out there - what was he thinking - that the RAF would turn round and give it "It's quite alright old chap we understand u don't want to go to war AGAIN, here u go go take the day off" come on - wake up and smell the roses - that aint ever going to happen no matter what rank u r - if ur told 2 go 2 war, u go, end of argument.

Roadster280

27th Jun 2006, 01:15

if ur told 2 go 2 war, u go, end of argument.

Quite apart from the appalling English, I think you have missed the point. The convict had failed to report to the range, as ordered, and also for the fitting of equipment. Not with failing to go to war, though this is the obvious consequence.

I do however agree that the convict should have been subjected to a longer period of imprisonment. He was sentenced on 13th April, I believe. That's not even three months ago. Surely his sentence should have been longer than the deployment he was evading by disobeying the orders given. It seems he spent less time in clink than he would have in Iraq?

BEagle

27th Jun 2006, 06:12

Some of the posts on this thread sound as though they're from descendants of the baying rabble who used to watch public executions in the Middle Ages...

Here is a counter view from Matthew Norman in The Independent; it has much substance:

Kendall-Smith agreed with Kofi Annan and countless millions of others around the world that the war against Iraq was illegal. Since he'd been already served in Afghanistan and Iraq with distinction, it is safe to accept that he is neither a coward nor a conscientious objector. He simply decided, having studied the matter in depth, that the war was illegal under international law, UN rulings and, perhaps most pertinently, the Nuremberg Principles established in 1950 that ended forever the classic defence of just obeying orders.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior," states Principle IV, "does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

I agree with chappie; the punishment meted out was entirely disproportionate to the alleged offence.

PompeySailor

27th Jun 2006, 07:24

Repeated direct disobedience and failure to comply with lawful orders (range work and fitting/supply of kit and equipment). Punishment is fair - any less and everyone would be trying it on.

teeteringhead

27th Jun 2006, 07:55

Not quite sure of the point you are making BEags old fruit.

As was mentioned at the trial, the war in Iraq was over by the time he refused to go, so its legality or otherwise was not germane to the charge. It was without doubt (in law) that the allied presence in Iraq at the time that Smith refused to go was indeed legal in international law. His defence seemed to be along the lines of "well it was illegal when I did go, so I won't go now".

Even poorly-educated non-graduate grammar-school oiks like oneself can spot a lack of logic when it's that obvious.;)

And btw, have you noticed how a preponderence of double-barrelled names seem to be attached to very common names, like Kendall-Smith, Armstrong-Jones and Heath-Robinson.

Michael Edic

27th Jun 2006, 08:00

Simple fact he disobeyed a legal order. What should he get? A medal?
Secondly by the time he chose to object we weren't at war. We were invited guests of the democratically elected government of the country and there were UN mandates to back our presence. I'm sorry I don't think the chap had a leg to stand on. Clever move to try him with not turning up to training etc. to avoid the issue of the war's legality being dragged through the court-martial though.
Incidentally does anyone know how he has got on with the GMC? There was talk he may be struck off for abndoning his duty of care to his patients.

Regards

SwitchMonkey

27th Jun 2006, 09:08

Not that it matters a fig, he disobeyed legal orders and got punished, but can anyone confirm that he had actually served IN Iraq before?

Several articles seem to imply that his 2 previous OOAs had been in support of operations in Iraq. Should this be the case, seems to me that he had no moral problem with the situation in Iraq, including the 2003 operations, until he had to put himself in harms way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1753241,00.html
Kendall-Smith formed his belief that the war was unlawful after serving tours of duty in Kuwait and Qatar at the time of the invasion.

Of course I could be barking up completely the wrong tree....

South Bound

27th Jun 2006, 09:20

A2QFI

27th Jun 2006, 09:25

Slightly off thread, aplogies. This lady has gone to prison for not paying her council tax,and being in prison will not cancel the debt BTW. Can anyone explain what determines whether someone goes to prison for owing money or whether the bailiffs are sent in to remove property, to be sold to clear the debt? I guess this lady had £1000 worth of goods in her house so why is she in prison?

airborne_artist

27th Jun 2006, 10:56

Sorry, but I think the crux is still that he abandoned the boys and girls who might have needed his medical skills in theatre. No sympathy from SB, this desertion of his colleagues is unacceptable - he was never going to be asked to shoot anyone, only mend those that had been shot.

Agreed - under the Convention is he even allowed to shoot other than in self-defence?

He could very easily have done just as the Hereford lad, had a quiet word, and been posted to RAF Little Snoring while he waited for his PVR to complete. Instead he chose to make a big fuss about it. My middle, actress-in-waiting daughter could not have made more of a drama.

seven4mankind

27th Jun 2006, 20:01

No idea

27th Jun 2006, 21:06

Southside,

The day we no longer care what one another's political, moral or ethical opinion is, is the day I hang my wings on the bedpost. Signing up does not mean that we no longer have an opinion and that it is no longer valuable. I'm not saying that I agree with this individual's action, but I most certainly agree with an expression of moral.

S4M

S4M - get a grip and remove yourself from that high ground - this is not a matter of an individual expressing his moral, ethical, political opinion - this is a simple matter that the individual disobeyed a direct order to attend training - it is fools like you that get a kick out of attaching some form of importance or morality to a Serviceman who disobeyed a series of lawful commands.

nigegilb

27th Jun 2006, 21:37

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, I am grateful to Mr Smith for attempting to refocuss everyone's mind on the legality of the original decision to go to war. If the Govt has nothing to hide, show us the 2 sides of A4 paper that contain the reasons for the change of mind of the Attorney General.

I live in hope but I am not holding my breath.

South Bound

28th Jun 2006, 07:37

S4M

please don't confuse me with Southside (!).

Not saying that people should not be permitted a moral point of view, just that they should limit how far they take that right. If we don't stamp on this sort of thing, how far will it go. "Sir, Sir, I think the Argies have a legal right to the Falklands and I don't want to go on my 4-mth Det" Reply "That's alright airman, you are allowed your point of view, we won't make you go...".

Personally I believe the case for the war on Iraq was questionnable and poorly thought through. However, I will go when told and do my job to the best of my ability (which is pretty damn good - hoorah for me!) and leave the legal stuff to other people. If I felt that strongly about it I would take my pension and go and be a Tory MP, but I have no taste for PVC and oranges so I will stay where I am.

Skunkerama

28th Jun 2006, 09:59

It is not up to a servicemen or women to decide what is moral, your trained killers and hired thugs. Your job is to do excactly as your told and to do as best as your ability, training and equipment allows.

You are there for when parliment cannot do their job properly, you are the final resort.

If you think you have a right to decide what is right and what is wrong then I'm sure there are many nice and comfortable jobs with BA, Qauntas etc.

Or do you think that mutiny is a viable way of deciding military matters?

South Bound

28th Jun 2006, 10:07

Skunk

'Trained killers and hired thugs'?

Oh please do grow up or just go away.

Skunkerama

28th Jun 2006, 11:14

Skunk

'Trained killers and hired thugs'?

Oh please do grow up or just go away.
South Bound please get off your holier than thou soap box, it's pathetic.

What is a serviceman or women trained to do? Defend the country, which will require the deaths of an enemy. As a serviceman I was trained to kill an enemy person, not send them home with a smack on the wrist. Perhaps you should have realised this before you signed the dotted line.

"Ohhhh Mr recruiter, will your lot really teach me to fly jolly fast planes and see the world?"
"Yes we will but now and then you may be asked to shoot down human beings and turn them into charcoal, and also bomb people using cluster munitions and other nasty stuff as developed by Huntings".

You are payed by the government to do things that they are too scared to do. Now grow up, smell the coffee and live with it.

Civvies in uniform is just a joke you realise? It's not all tea and medals, now and then you have to do nasty things to other people.

South Bound

28th Jun 2006, 11:33

:D lol - funniest thing I have read in a while. Will stop after this message because PPrune is not my personal argument forum. Just thought your comments were amusing when we are talking about a medic who is neither a thug or a killer.

If you choose to consider yourself as a thug, be my guest, but I shall not as I believe that to be totally degrading and inappropriate way of describing what we do for a living. If you think that gives me a holier than thou attitude, fine, I can live with that. You know nothing about my attitude to conflict, only that I choose not to be called a thug, and yet you suggest I somehow would shirk my responsibilities to do my duty. Don't make me laugh.

And you are very, very wrong - it is up to a Serviceman to decide what is moral - every time one steps onto an Iraqi or Afghan street he will be faced with many moral dilemmas, some of which may involve choosing to use force. For some time, the UK armed forces have been highly regarded for their ability to apply judgement, and morals, to a situation, before offering violence. As I said earlier, Flt Lt Smith is entitled to his opinion, in fact he is obliged to have one - we do not want unthinking personnel in the Services.

Signing off now, still laughing (but a little bit saddened) as I do...

Skunkerama

28th Jun 2006, 11:46

The trained killers and hired thugs comment is a throw away quote that is meant to make people think, seems that you didnt spent much time on that one.

A serviceman or woman is required to make judgements at an alarming rate when on duty. However the further you get down the food chain the smaller the type of judgement. It is not up to a doctor to decide whether we should go to war or not, his toughest decision involves defibs and triage.
It is not up to an infantry man to decide whether we are right to invade for oil or WMD's. He just has to worry about looking after himself and his oppo's and to ensure that the task at hand is completed to the mission requirements or above.

If he doesnt like it then he can leave the services, but he still has to do the job whilst waiting to leave.

Thats life in a green/blue suit.

Wannabe1974

28th Jun 2006, 11:51

And you are very, very wrong - it is up to a Serviceman to decide what is moral

Is it really? What difference does it make? Yes I feel that I am duty bound to keep myself totally informed as to world affairs and the operational situation in hand, however that does not give me the right to question my orders on the basis of my beliefs. Most service personnel who have given the matter any thought satisfy themselves that we work for a democratic government and that we have no option but to follow our orders. What do I think about Iraq? I have thought it fundamentally wrong and immoral since day one. Would I have gone and fought if ordered? Yes.
Some people here have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "legal order". Morals do not enter the equation. Once you have applied the criteria (is it achievable? Is there a military objective? etc) then you obey the order. Even if it doesn't meet the critera, you still have to do it! There is no place in battle for individuals to apply there own morals to what they are told to do.
Also (I'll stop soon), medics may only be "patching people up" which might seem a bit fluffy, but they contribute enormously to achieving the military aim.

South Bound

28th Jun 2006, 12:45

Nige, hit the nail on the head, as you normally do. EVERYONE has to make such decisions, it is just at different levels.

Smith was in the extremely priviledged position that he could make his at home. The issue is that as a result of his decision he decided not to carry out his duty. The para on patrol does not have the luxury of agonising over decisions for a long time, and they have my upmost respect because of that.

Funny that the other posters and I are agreeing that Smith was out of order, just arguing loudly about whether or not he was permitted an opinion in the first place...

Wannabe - your post really worries me. You are suggesting there is no room for morals on the battlefield once given an order. I respectfully suggest that you are horribly wrong and you should think about what you would be prepared to do in order to achieve an objective. Would you really gun down the women and children in Nige's example without stopping to think? That is a moral dilemma and getting that sort of decision wrong could land a young soldier in prison for a whole lot longer than Smith served.

Skunkerama

28th Jun 2006, 13:27

South Bound

28th Jun 2006, 13:40

Skunky - see I am still biting, can't resist. I am confused now. On one hand you accuse anyone suggested that morality plays a part of being namby pamby, on the other you bring up one of the worst atrocities that occured because Lt Calley ignored the moral perspective.

You have completely lost me now, just what point are you trying to make...?

Skunkerama

28th Jun 2006, 13:48

What I am trying to say is that I agree with you up to a point. At different levels of service you have certain levels of moral responcibility.

Lt calley and his troop lost all sense of morality and went feral. It was one of the most horrific acts ever commited in war, it's up there with the rape of Nanking and some of the recent attrocities in African countries.

However the guys killed Zarqarwi also killed civillians yet they can be said to be morally sound. The main difference is that Lt Calley was not ordered to kill innocents, commit rape etc. The 2 F-16 pilots were told to attack the house in the full knowledge that there would be extreme damage which would no doubt kill others.

The decision had been taken out of their hands and it had been made further up the chain of command.

Likewise it was not up to this doctor to make the decision not to go to war. The only decision he was allowed to make was to put his chit in and leave after the required service date.

nigegilb

28th Jun 2006, 13:53

I hope you are not trying to suggest that we have a truly independent nuclear deterrent? Or that we would fire it without the express permission of the US?

Kosovo War RAF Harrier pilots returning home with a full bomb load because of difficulties in acquiring the target. Made me proud to be British. Paras holding fire because Talibs using women and children as shields, also made me proud to be British. Moral dilemma for sure, get it wrong you could end up in the ICC for war crimes.

Some would argue we have already lost the moral high ground in Iraq. You could argue that when Blair sent the country to war with UN Inspectors not having finished the job they were given, was the moment we lost the moral high ground. I am not so sure, what is for certain is that our standing in the World is lower now than before. Skunk said that the Armed Forces are a last resort, the problem is that Blair did not try and exhaust all other avenues before giving the order to go in. The Armed Forces were the only card he was playing, the rest was pretence. It is a decision that he has to live with and many others have died by.

South Bound

28th Jun 2006, 14:04

Think we have been agreeing for a while then. He is entitled to his moral view, what he did about it is the problem. The option not to go was not open to him; hence off to prison he goes. I don't pity this man for the decision he made, I'll save that for the Lance Cpl being paid £22k a year when he has to decide whether or not to shoot into a crowd to stop something dreadful happening...

Nige, Nige, Nige unfortunately you are right. Glad to be out matey?

nigegilb

28th Jun 2006, 15:05

Yes, very happy thanks. From what I hear there won't be many left in soon! Stay safe.
NG

seven4mankind

28th Jun 2006, 21:46

No Idea,

Fools like me who get a kick...?

Jesus Christ.

Wannabe1974

29th Jun 2006, 12:24

Wannabe - your post really worries me. You are suggesting there is no room for morals on the battlefield once given an order. I respectfully suggest that you are horribly wrong and you should think about what you would be prepared to do in order to achieve an objective. Would you really gun down the women and children in Nige's example without stopping to think? That is a moral dilemma and getting that sort of decision wrong could land a young soldier in prison for a whole lot longer than Smith served.
Your post really depresses me as you're completely missing my point and illustrate the general ignorance of people regarding the tasks which sailors, soldiers and airmen are asked to do. You're obviously not in the services otherwise you would know that the Rules of Engagement are extremely strict. Break them, you go to jail - simple. Would I gun down women and children to achieve an objective? Probably not (and I'd certainly rather avoid being in that situation if I could avoid it), but if they were firing weapons at me, I might have little option. Would I stop and think about it while either my life or the lives of others are risked? Only long enough to examine whether engaging them would fuflfil the criteria of self defence or the rules in force. You are completely incorrect when you say that this is a moral dilemma. In the heat of an engagement, there is no place for stopping to wonder how many bunny rabbits the Tomahawk you just launched is going to wipe out.
Please don't impose your ill-informed opinion onto those that might have to do this for real!

South Bound

29th Jun 2006, 12:47

Oh please! When making the decision whether or not to kill Al Zaqawi there will have been a discussion over the collateral damage, the women and children that may be killed. That decision was taken because of that most classic of moral dilemmas - does one sacrifice a few to save many.

I ask you again, if you are faced with a target that you know is going to potentially blow up a market place full of innocent bystanders, would you risk shooting through (or bombing) a smaller group?

That is a moral dilemma, one you neatly sidestepped by saying you probably wouldn't have done it and would try to avoid. Nice work if you can get it, but the soldiers on the ground cannot avoid it.

'In the heat of an engagement, there is no place for stopping to wonder how many bunny rabbits the Tomahawk you just launched is going to wipe out.' - WRONG, look at the impact of the collateral damage reported by the media in the Gulf. This is a key facet of targetting and on most occasions a moral perspective is presented to allow a commander to weigh up the pros and cons of a decision, the likely military benefit against the loss of innocent life. I know the rules of engagement very well, but they are different for different people - to quote your RN example, how many RN ships were in danger to warrant firing off Tomahawks? Not all combat is in immediate self-defence, just most of it, especially at lower levels of authority.

No-one is suggesting that a soldier is not going to defend himself because he suddenly believes Tony was wrong to send us all to the desert.

Skunkerama

29th Jun 2006, 12:59

Simple, ban all media and press. Then bomb the crap out of them.

I bet there are more than a few generals that wish that was possible.

And I know there are a few Para's that wish that had been so, down in the Falklands when the BBC was telling the Argentinians about the attack that was about to go in, in 24 hours time.

Wannabe1974

29th Jun 2006, 13:27

'In the heat of an engagement, there is no place for stopping to wonder how many bunny rabbits the Tomahawk you just launched is going to wipe out.' - WRONG, look at the impact of the collateral damage reported by the media in the Gulf. This is a key facet of targetting and on most occasions a moral perspective is presented to allow a commander to weigh up the pros and cons of a decision, the likely military benefit against the loss of innocent life. I know the rules of engagement very well, but they are different for different people - to quote your RN example, how many RN ships were in danger to warrant firing off Tomahawks? Not all combat is in immediate self-defence, just most of it, especially at lower levels of authority.

I don't know what point you're trying to make anymore! Although I would say that you are becoming very confused between the types of decisions made at tactical and strategic levels. I still say that morals don't come into the instant decisions of battle. Rules do. Its not just a case of 'shall I do this, shall I do that? What do my morals say?" - forget you're morals, the actions you take affect far more than any sanctimonious notions of right and wrong. People die in war! It's not right, but sometimes people have to take tough decisions based on the best way to achieve the aim and one small part of an operation going wrong because some civvy-in-uniform decided he wasn't happy with his orders can spell the end of it.
Clearly your understanding of RoE is not what you think it is! Are you seriously trying to tell me that the only way a cruise missile can be launched is in self-defence? The firing unit (a submarine, not a ship btw) is as far out of danger as it is possible to be in war - that's the whole idea.
You're not in the RAF by any chance are you?!

nigegilb

29th Jun 2006, 13:30

Fraid we have tried that in Iraq for the last 3 years skunk. Most wars end in a period of negotiation and that is exactly what is happening (hopefully) in Iraq right now. I was out in Afg when wedding parties were being bombed, Lord knows how many innoccents have been killed in Iraq and Afg. Listening to the paras the other day, they were saying it is impossible to know who the enemy is until they open fire. Like it or not your option of killing everyone in sight will solve nothing. We have to win them over. We have wasted 4 years in Afg when we could have been making a material difference to their lives. The job of a soldier nowadays is complex, dangerous and woefully underpaid. It is right to say that you should exercise the right to leave if you don't like working for Blair and Co. And many people are doing just that. What I find interesting about the Kendall-Smith case is the desperation on behalf of the Govt to say that his beliefs are not representative of the average serviceman. I am yet to meet anyone who thinks Iraq was a good idea, but as you point out most just get on with the job because they are professionals. It doesn't mean the war was right.

dallas

29th Jun 2006, 15:49

What I find interesting about the Kendall-Smith case is the desperation on behalf of the Govt to say that his beliefs are not representative of the average serviceman.

Which is at best interesting as I'm not aware of a survey being done and at worst misleading as I tend to agree with your view nige - based on conversations with people in the Service. Either way, I don't appreciate being politicized - it's damn annoying when they express my opinion for me in the absence of allowing me to say contrary.

I will say one thing, when I do leave I've got a lot to say. :*

South Bound

29th Jun 2006, 16:36

No confusion on my part. Tactically and strategically there is a moral perspective.

"Rules do. Its not just a case of 'shall I do this, shall I do that? What do my morals say?" You sure about this one. What do the rules say about the example I presented you with? Absolutely bugger all. It is down to the soldier on the ground to decide, no rulebook to look it up in, just that decision whether or not he should willingly risk someone else's life because he believed it could save more.

"the actions you take affect far more than any sanctimonious notions of right and wrong." So now we have left right and wrong in our tents, hmmm very worried now.

"People die in war! It's not right, but sometimes people have to take tough decisions based on the best way to achieve the aim..." Absolutely, no doubt about this, it is just that you are suggesting that soldiers are given some sort of rulebook in their heads to meet every scenario and that humanity never comes into it. Just because the Taleban are firing at you through a crowd, would you automatically defend yourself by firing through that same crowd? You may, you may not, but it would not be right to do so without giving it some thought. I am not talking about disobeying orders, but one is not allowed to follow them blindly anymore. Sometimes a decision not to proceed with an operation because of possible civilian losses is the right one and happens many times. This is not a civvy-in-uniform, it is a trained human being interpreting orders in an intelligent fashion and adapting to the situation.

"Are you seriously trying to tell me that the only way a cruise missile can be launched is in self-defence?" Nope, not at all, I made the opposite point. Perhaps your perspective (if you are dark blue) comes because the ship-borne RN only fire at targets that are not firing back. There is no consideration of collateral damage because that has already been done at strategic level and the order is simply to fire a Tomahawk at a set of coordinates. It is not the same for soldiers/sailors/airmen fighting face to face.

corsair

29th Jun 2006, 19:31

nigegilb

29th Jun 2006, 20:11

I think that is what most military people find so objectionable about his actions. He wants, or at least appears to want to politicize his cause. It is actually very effective. He will have no shortage of takers when he is allowed to tell his story. I sense a deal of nervousness about this whole subject, witness how the Govt went out of its way to downplay levels of desertion over Iraq. ie, call it anything but desertion. However, Kendall-Smith needs to be very careful when he finally opens his mouth. I hope he decides to ditch the trenchcoat.....

No idea

29th Jun 2006, 21:22

What always puzzled me is this. Why didn't he simply resign his commission? He was an Officer and Doctor. No one conscripted him. He could leave anytime. Obviously he wanted to make his political point. No doubt when he is fully released he will be popping up on all sort of talkshows.

He tried but the Service would not let him apparently as he had a commitment to fulfill his OOA obligations - we wouldn't accept a PVR from an airman so he/she could get out of an OOA so we won't do it for the Officer Corps.

As for the TV shows - you are probably right. And no doubt we get some more prongs on here pontificating how unjust he was treated.

air pig

29th Jun 2006, 21:32

Kendall Smith stood up for what he believed as a principle, but in doing so allowed his potential patients on all sides to be deprived of medical care. He would only have been armed in accordance to the Geneva Convention, in that arms are only carried for the protection of patients.

Numerous medical and nursing staff with HM Forces have performed acts of bravery over the years, despite many I suspect having grave reservations about the conflict that they were engaged in.

Whether the present conflicts that HM Forces are involved in are legal or not, should matter very little to the medical services. They are there to treat any and all victims of a conflict, without fear or favour. If you choose to undertake the obligations of the uniform and as a doctor, then you accept the tasks presented to you. Kendall Smith has also as I have previously stated broken the bond between the medical staff and the troops, in that we will do our best to get you well and send you home to your familly, and you will protect us whilst we undertake that task. i would suggest that this " gentleman" tries to volunteer for a medical charity such as MSF or Merlin, in order to redeem in my opinion, his "honour"

Political posturing in this situation has no relevance, his and anybody else in the medical services is to render help to his fellow man. Another medical officer will have been and is probably still on deployment in Kendall Smith's place, they too may have had reservation about the legalities of these conflicts, but have still gone to look after and care for the ill and injured.

Wannabe1974

29th Jun 2006, 22:17

This is not a civvy-in-uniform, it is a trained human being interpreting orders in an intelligent fashion and adapting to the situation.
So you are in the RAF then!

South Bound

30th Jun 2006, 07:57

I do hope you're not suggesting that the other Services are inflexible, unintelligent untrained apes...

They might get upset about that...

cazatou

30th Jun 2006, 10:28

air pig is correct about the bravery of medical staff. Of the 3 people who have been awarded a Bar to the VC, 2 were doctors.

Wannabe1974

30th Jun 2006, 10:57

I do hope you're not suggesting that the other Services are inflexible, unintelligent untrained apes...

They might get upset about that...

Not in the least, I hold the Army in the highest regard.

Lara crofts pants

30th Jun 2006, 12:36

air pig echoes my sentiments completely. I wish I could put it as eloquently.

vecvechookattack

30th Jun 2006, 14:07

Totally concur with Air pig.....This weevil should have been hung for this crime. I dont care what his political agenda is but to turn your back on your comrades is unforgiveable.

dallas

30th Jun 2006, 14:19

Agreed. He totally did it the wrong way.

And the Gestapo trench coat he wore to court should have cost him another 12 months...

air pig

30th Jun 2006, 18:46

I have to apologise, in the term medical services I include without reservation, from aircrew of all grades and ranks who get the patient to the medical units, down to front line troops who render aid to whoever requires it. The young Paratroop Regiment combat medic who recently gave aid to a member of US Forces in Hellmand Provence dispayed a maturity and bravery beyond his years, acting whilst his comradres put down covering fire to protect him. His patient, as he became now no longer a combatant was evacuated to safety and survived, due to his actions. This young medic reportadily had basic skills and choose to act. One hopes that his actions are recognised

KS may have had principles he believed in, thankfully others have principles in the medical world "that you do the sick no harm." By not being available he allowed others to stand in line for him, and the ill and injured where cared for. I would suggest that this "gentleman" reads Rescue under Fire, the story of dust off in Vietnam. the book graphically describes operations under fire with many acts of heroism.

I will now make no further comments on this subject except to say that all personnel involved in the rescue chain have my total and utter respect for being there and doing the job, at times above and beyond the call of duty.

I now hope KS will fade from view and memory, and I hope that he will one day reflect on his actions and undertake something to redeem his "honour" in the view of many from HM Forces.