Life Sentences for Desertion...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: scotland
Age: 42
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
This will work wonders on recruitment and retention. Conscription will have to be re-intoduced for the next war!
nah that not PC anymore mate the MOD will just introduce CONLOGS for front line units employing a really expensive agency to supply the man power, a bit like nursing banks in the NHS.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: scotland
Age: 42
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well said lads
I have absoultley no confidence that if I went to basra or khandahar and had to use my personal weapon there that I would be protected by the RAF or the MOD, it makes me wonder when you have the enemy to your front and a human rights lawyer at your back. Oh does the MoD have the figures for human rights lawyers in the TA?who have been to Iraq?
Tom watson is right , we cant have a forces that we pick and choose where we go , but it would have been nice to think the polititcans would have done that job for us and took the countries wishes in to acount.
As for recruiting this is a disater and I think in general that Iraq has done the greatest damage in 50 years to the armed forces, but acording to the MoD that doesnt matter as they require less man power!
I have absoultley no confidence that if I went to basra or khandahar and had to use my personal weapon there that I would be protected by the RAF or the MOD, it makes me wonder when you have the enemy to your front and a human rights lawyer at your back. Oh does the MoD have the figures for human rights lawyers in the TA?who have been to Iraq?
Tom watson is right , we cant have a forces that we pick and choose where we go , but it would have been nice to think the polititcans would have done that job for us and took the countries wishes in to acount.
As for recruiting this is a disater and I think in general that Iraq has done the greatest damage in 50 years to the armed forces, but acording to the MoD that doesnt matter as they require less man power!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was amazed at the news this am. The number of desertions is at an all time high. There must ba a message in there somewhere. Still at least we don't frag our Ruperts.
I was forced to watch an excellent film last night "A Very Long Engagement", I thought that it would be a bit girly but it left me moved. It is about self mutilation in time of war.
My Grandfather had to witness a firing squad during WW1. He was fifteen and had lied to get into the mob. He wrote a very moving piece about it when he became a journo later in life. It left me in tears.
I was forced to watch an excellent film last night "A Very Long Engagement", I thought that it would be a bit girly but it left me moved. It is about self mutilation in time of war.
My Grandfather had to witness a firing squad during WW1. He was fifteen and had lied to get into the mob. He wrote a very moving piece about it when he became a journo later in life. It left me in tears.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we all go down the path of believing the BBC consider what the nice chaps at ARRSE are saying, the BBC seem to be including EVERYONE in those figures including AWOL which is a very different case to desertion - still, why let the facts get in the way of another anti-mil story?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/start=0.html
Not according to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/776462.stm
Seems they can't even remember their own reporting from few years back(thanks to an ARRSEr for the link) Obviously that was all down to Iraq and Afganistan and the evil Bush/Blair too
Still, at least then they knew then that there's a difference between AWOL and desertion!
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/start=0.html
The number of desertions is at an all time high.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/776462.stm
Seems they can't even remember their own reporting from few years back(thanks to an ARRSEr for the link) Obviously that was all down to Iraq and Afganistan and the evil Bush/Blair too
Still, at least then they knew then that there's a difference between AWOL and desertion!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's VERY interesting that someone, somewhere, has decided we need to introduce legislation like this, whether it actually goes through or not.
Put another way, we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 3 years now with no obvious problems getting manpower to go, so why bother introducing this measure now...unless you think troops might not like stage three.
I rant, while wondering what might cause something like that...
Put another way, we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 3 years now with no obvious problems getting manpower to go, so why bother introducing this measure now...unless you think troops might not like stage three.
I rant, while wondering what might cause something like that...
Last edited by dallas; 28th May 2006 at 16:24.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now if we had a federation it could take on/publicise bulls**t decisions like these. Whilst we wait for that i wonder what would happen if we had a 'national desertion day', when all members of HM forces down tools to test their mettle. It could be for two reasons
1. Call their bluff
2. Get a pardon for the 346 men that we murdered to keep discipline by using the term cowardice, when actually the poor buggers were stressed out of their minds.
For our National Desertion Day, how about Fri Oct 13 as its the anniversary of that other band of military chaps (699 year anniversary no less) who got turned over - The Knights Templar'
The crew of the Bounty would be dancing on their deck.
1. Call their bluff
2. Get a pardon for the 346 men that we murdered to keep discipline by using the term cowardice, when actually the poor buggers were stressed out of their minds.
For our National Desertion Day, how about Fri Oct 13 as its the anniversary of that other band of military chaps (699 year anniversary no less) who got turned over - The Knights Templar'
The crew of the Bounty would be dancing on their deck.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigegilb
Re: Misconduct on operations #10
"surrendering or abandoning a place when under a duty to defend it."
So the rear gunner of a WW2 Bomber, which was on fire having been shot up and who had no intercom with any other crew member, was not justified in deciding to abandon the aircraft?
Which side are HMG on?
PS How many WW2 Field Marshals and Generals DID NOT order (or allow) the Forces under their command to abandon certain positions which they had a duty to defend?
Where would we have been if we had not evacuated Dunkirk?
Re: Misconduct on operations #10
"surrendering or abandoning a place when under a duty to defend it."
So the rear gunner of a WW2 Bomber, which was on fire having been shot up and who had no intercom with any other crew member, was not justified in deciding to abandon the aircraft?
Which side are HMG on?
PS How many WW2 Field Marshals and Generals DID NOT order (or allow) the Forces under their command to abandon certain positions which they had a duty to defend?
Where would we have been if we had not evacuated Dunkirk?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Risky
NO NO NO NO! Yes! Seen it but am member of said organisation as said on another thread (Know a lot, will say nothing!). Its just a frustrated case of 'Lets bloody showem'! How can they(The Gov) THINK of bringing in legislation against our finest WHILST they(our finest) are still fighting and loosing their lives. F**k the politics. **** Tony Bliar and Two Punches, Two Wives Prescot. How Dare they!! I despair at the unnecessary loss of life.
NO NO NO NO! Yes! Seen it but am member of said organisation as said on another thread (Know a lot, will say nothing!). Its just a frustrated case of 'Lets bloody showem'! How can they(The Gov) THINK of bringing in legislation against our finest WHILST they(our finest) are still fighting and loosing their lives. F**k the politics. **** Tony Bliar and Two Punches, Two Wives Prescot. How Dare they!! I despair at the unnecessary loss of life.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly only a handful of MPs voted against. Read Mathew Parris in yesterday's Times, the Tories are about to make a mistake. They wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iraq. This will probably backfire just as soon as Brown takes charge. I wish they would support and understand the problems of the men and women in UK Armed Forces, who have been asked to fight an increasingly unpopular war. By siding with the Govt in this mendacious legislation they are probably signalling that nothing would be different under a Tory administration. We need politicians to stand up and fight for our Armed Forces and have a little more understanding for the pressures on those people spending an awful lot of time on the front line.
Last edited by nigegilb; 29th May 2006 at 04:44.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whooh there Tigs, how about upping the medication there?
Perhaps a good question is why the BBC chose to run a story that is so factually incorrect - could it be to stir up the kind of emotions we've seen here today?
Perhaps a good question is why the BBC chose to run a story that is so factually incorrect - could it be to stir up the kind of emotions we've seen here today?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is Maple, who is sure of the facts here. It is hardly in the Govt interest to admit to mass desertion. They are probably calling it anything but. I note that US personnel are fleeing to Canada for safety. Maybe our guys could go to Scotland??!! One thing is for sure, the Govt and MoD are spooked over this issue.
US Military Desertion Rates Decreased post 9-11
Hate to burst the Anti-War gangs ideas here.....but the American Military Desertion rates are decreasing since 9-11. Must be our troops see something to fight for after the WTC and Pentagon. The passengers on United 93 did.
Reportedly, there has been exactly one desertion from US Forces within Iraq.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are probably right SaSless. Do you have any statistics showing recruitment and retention rates? Is it true that US passed emergency legislation preventing military personnel leaving under certain circumstances, after they had served their time?
I think US Govt approached this war in a different way to UK Gov. In many ways US were more honest with reasons to invade. I am not surprised if US motivations are different. Still, important to look at all the figures, not just desertion. It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to realise that this war is unpopular amongst civilians and that it was only a matter of time before some Mil personnel started feeling the same way. (Take a look at Bush's poll ratings now). However it's a bare faced lie for UK Govt to pretend that all is OK within the ranks. Labour is getting nervous. I wonder if they can remember a very uncomfortable time in the 1970's?
I think US Govt approached this war in a different way to UK Gov. In many ways US were more honest with reasons to invade. I am not surprised if US motivations are different. Still, important to look at all the figures, not just desertion. It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to realise that this war is unpopular amongst civilians and that it was only a matter of time before some Mil personnel started feeling the same way. (Take a look at Bush's poll ratings now). However it's a bare faced lie for UK Govt to pretend that all is OK within the ranks. Labour is getting nervous. I wonder if they can remember a very uncomfortable time in the 1970's?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems the BBC have changed their tune! The article has been heavily re-written and the journo's name has been removed - no apology obviously
Now as a rule I wouldn't use a blog as a source but have a look at this just to provide an 'alternative view' to the BBC's – balance? Yes, I know the guy has his own agenda - a right winger with a dislike of the BBC
http://ussneverdock.********.com/200...ion-story.html
The guy uses the BBC's own figures
1999 - Just under 2,000 Desertions
2003-5 1,000
Now I'm no mathematician (IGCSE Grade C) but isn't 1,000 over 30 months less than 2,000 over 12?
Taken from the 'new and improved' article, seems someone (perhaps from their legal department?) pointed out the difference between AWOL and desertion
Now as I see it the BBC has a problem, before the internet chances are few would have noticed the contradictions between the two reports, now, with old stories being around forever wildly inaccurate or just plain made-up agenda-setting stories can be ‘outed’ by a quick cross reference top previous work or other sources. One of the desertion stories must be wrong.
So the other alternative to unbiased reporting, apologising for ‘mistakes’ and retracting untrue stories is by editing them surreptitiously – Now normally I’m wary of comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984 because it’s been over-done but the BBC do seem to be running a ‘Ministry of Truth’ – their truth.
The link came from ARRSE - just to attriblte the source - see? Pongos do have their uses
Now as a rule I wouldn't use a blog as a source but have a look at this just to provide an 'alternative view' to the BBC's – balance? Yes, I know the guy has his own agenda - a right winger with a dislike of the BBC
http://ussneverdock.********.com/200...ion-story.html
The guy uses the BBC's own figures
1999 - Just under 2,000 Desertions
2003-5 1,000
Now I'm no mathematician (IGCSE Grade C) but isn't 1,000 over 30 months less than 2,000 over 12?
According to MoD figures 2,670 soldiers went "absent without leave" in 2001, with the figure rising to 2,970 in 2002 and falling in 2003 to 2,825. In 2004 it rose to 3,050, falling back again in 2005 to 2,725.
Now as I see it the BBC has a problem, before the internet chances are few would have noticed the contradictions between the two reports, now, with old stories being around forever wildly inaccurate or just plain made-up agenda-setting stories can be ‘outed’ by a quick cross reference top previous work or other sources. One of the desertion stories must be wrong.
So the other alternative to unbiased reporting, apologising for ‘mistakes’ and retracting untrue stories is by editing them surreptitiously – Now normally I’m wary of comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984 because it’s been over-done but the BBC do seem to be running a ‘Ministry of Truth’ – their truth.
The link came from ARRSE - just to attriblte the source - see? Pongos do have their uses
Last edited by Maple 01; 29th May 2006 at 08:57.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should decare an interest in that I have a soft spot for BBC at the mo! But question, if desertion is not a problem why is Labour Govt changing legislation? Especially with reference to military occupations? Maybe BBC having a Gilligan moment but looking back they were right about GW2 weren't they?
Nige
Nige
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, no, I don't think so - and isn't their job to report news rather than set the agenda? I remember a briefing just before GW2 in which one of our PR people pointed out that out of seven recent conflicts the UK mil had been involved in the BBC had been 'against' 5
Remember the BBC hitting Blair over inaccurate and misleading figures over the 45 min warning? The calls for an inquiry and resignations? Can we expect the BBC to call for the use of the same standards against themselves or will the usual self-serving excuses be dragged out again like the Gilligan bit?
Will be edited for spooling after I've removed a spider form my daughter's school bag
Spider gone, calm restored or in BBC speak ‘Ex Airman in ‘spider massacre’ probe
Remember the BBC hitting Blair over inaccurate and misleading figures over the 45 min warning? The calls for an inquiry and resignations? Can we expect the BBC to call for the use of the same standards against themselves or will the usual self-serving excuses be dragged out again like the Gilligan bit?
Will be edited for spooling after I've removed a spider form my daughter's school bag
Spider gone, calm restored or in BBC speak ‘Ex Airman in ‘spider massacre’ probe
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally Posted by fightingchickenplumb
Tom watson is right , we cant have a forces that we pick and choose where we go
When I joined Kuwait had just finished and the Cold War was the thing. Africa, after the winds of change, was no longer a balls aching posting although rumour had it that your friendly ayrab would do the favours if you looked at his women.
Fighting those 'commie bastards' even if they were in Indonesia was an OK thing.
We won and peace broke out.
Now we have wars of choice. Where does that leave your Birmingham Chinese if we nip off east somewhere? Or your Carib or African when parachuted in to Sierra Leone?
You cannot have equal opportunities for all and then expect everyone to be equally employed anywhere against anyone.
During the Suez campaign a Canberra jock decided against Government policy and opted out on the take-off roll. Retracting your undercarriage with a load of bombs on was gutsy as suicide bombing wasn't in vogue in '56.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...
I've been watching this thread with much interest, but have waited until now to jump in so that I could have a quick look at the Bill (now in the House of Lords, avaliable at http://www.publications.parliament.u.../2006113a.pdf).
Ignoring the amusing backside-covering section 8(3)(c) (relevant service includes the "military occupation of a foreign country or territory" - surely better drafting would've read "the legal military occupation of a foreign country or territory" - the extract that NG has posted is very interesting, and leads to the real question - does following legal orders in a conflict that is illegal constitute a crime?
In other words, if the political leadership in future were to opt to invade - rather than get invited in by a legitimate government like Sierra Leone - a country without UN approval, real humanitarian emergencies, or which has not invaded the UK / UK Overseas Territories / UK allies, it would probably be committing the crime of aggression (or as it was quaintly phrased at Nuremburg, "crimes against peace"), and would this make the orders illegal?
I think that it would - and that to order your subordinates to follow such illegal orders could constitute incitement to commit a war crime.
Consequently, those at the top of the tree - and all of the way down it - should have the right to take independent legal advice on the proposed conflict, and where it isn't legal, then to legitimately say no.
Given that this is effectively impractical, the onus should return to the one place it should always have been - on our political leadership not to fight illegal wars - unless they fancy doing it (by) themselves....
S41
Ignoring the amusing backside-covering section 8(3)(c) (relevant service includes the "military occupation of a foreign country or territory" - surely better drafting would've read "the legal military occupation of a foreign country or territory" - the extract that NG has posted is very interesting, and leads to the real question - does following legal orders in a conflict that is illegal constitute a crime?
In other words, if the political leadership in future were to opt to invade - rather than get invited in by a legitimate government like Sierra Leone - a country without UN approval, real humanitarian emergencies, or which has not invaded the UK / UK Overseas Territories / UK allies, it would probably be committing the crime of aggression (or as it was quaintly phrased at Nuremburg, "crimes against peace"), and would this make the orders illegal?
I think that it would - and that to order your subordinates to follow such illegal orders could constitute incitement to commit a war crime.
Consequently, those at the top of the tree - and all of the way down it - should have the right to take independent legal advice on the proposed conflict, and where it isn't legal, then to legitimately say no.
Given that this is effectively impractical, the onus should return to the one place it should always have been - on our political leadership not to fight illegal wars - unless they fancy doing it (by) themselves....
S41