Should CDS be Dismissed?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I correct in saying this incident only came to light following an event\investigation by the local police who were investigating an unrelated incident and during their investigations they found this unauthorised recording?
My thoughts are that if this is correct then how long after the event did this happen and if the police had not taken this action would anyone have been any the wiser?
If this incident had been reported at the time, would there have been the same charges laid against those offenders?
This was an unauthorised film shot by a camera that should not have been used\worn and the reality is that if Marine A had done his job and ordered that Marine to remove the camera before they went out on patrol.... Where would we be?
One last observation
Is anyone convinced this is the first time this has ever happened and if not how many soldiers in the last fifty years have faced court martial for a similar act?
Somed very good points have been raised and I find Nutloose has made an interesting point but perhaps not comparable.
In the specific circumstances we are discussing I fear murder is murder is murder.
Regarding the CDS speaking out, I have no opinion on that specific point, but dismissal??? I think not.
My thoughts are that if this is correct then how long after the event did this happen and if the police had not taken this action would anyone have been any the wiser?
If this incident had been reported at the time, would there have been the same charges laid against those offenders?
This was an unauthorised film shot by a camera that should not have been used\worn and the reality is that if Marine A had done his job and ordered that Marine to remove the camera before they went out on patrol.... Where would we be?
One last observation
Is anyone convinced this is the first time this has ever happened and if not how many soldiers in the last fifty years have faced court martial for a similar act?
Somed very good points have been raised and I find Nutloose has made an interesting point but perhaps not comparable.
In the specific circumstances we are discussing I fear murder is murder is murder.
Regarding the CDS speaking out, I have no opinion on that specific point, but dismissal??? I think not.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romeo Oscar Golf,
my apologies if I came across as lecturing, having re-read my post it certainly is a little heavy on self-righteous hectoring, sorry. I'm perhaps a little over-earnest because for me and my currently serving peers it's not simply an internet discussion on an esoteric topic but an issue which will undoubtedly have consequences for me when I return to Helmand.
I'm certainly not discounting the past; what I was (somewhat clumsily) attempting to iterate was that the current framework set by the Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, European Conventions, The Human Rights Act et al is, by its very nature, of the moment and reflects the current social, political and legal norms. The contemporary operating environment is exactly that and, as we have seen with recent legal judgements based on the applicability of UK and EU legislation on operations, it can change fundamentally on a single legal judgement. Would I have liked to engage the IED emplacers? Yes I would and in just about every conflict up to the end of the 20th Century I probably could have without any great legal concerns. But, that was then and this is now and even if everything else had remained the same, the modern legal framework within which we are obliged to operate is almost unrecognisable from that of previous generations.
I'm not dismissive of the past or closed to new ideas, I'd much rather learn from somebody else's mistakes than my own! What I am is a commander fighting in a multi-dimensional, high tempo, highly kinetic war who is constantly pulled in all directions by an ever-changing black and white legal framework overlaid on a shades of grey operating environment.
MB
my apologies if I came across as lecturing, having re-read my post it certainly is a little heavy on self-righteous hectoring, sorry. I'm perhaps a little over-earnest because for me and my currently serving peers it's not simply an internet discussion on an esoteric topic but an issue which will undoubtedly have consequences for me when I return to Helmand.
I'm certainly not discounting the past; what I was (somewhat clumsily) attempting to iterate was that the current framework set by the Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement, European Conventions, The Human Rights Act et al is, by its very nature, of the moment and reflects the current social, political and legal norms. The contemporary operating environment is exactly that and, as we have seen with recent legal judgements based on the applicability of UK and EU legislation on operations, it can change fundamentally on a single legal judgement. Would I have liked to engage the IED emplacers? Yes I would and in just about every conflict up to the end of the 20th Century I probably could have without any great legal concerns. But, that was then and this is now and even if everything else had remained the same, the modern legal framework within which we are obliged to operate is almost unrecognisable from that of previous generations.
I'm not dismissive of the past or closed to new ideas, I'd much rather learn from somebody else's mistakes than my own! What I am is a commander fighting in a multi-dimensional, high tempo, highly kinetic war who is constantly pulled in all directions by an ever-changing black and white legal framework overlaid on a shades of grey operating environment.
MB
Last edited by Mahogany_Bomber; 16th Nov 2013 at 20:24. Reason: Poor command of written English
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Queen's Shilling
Taking the Queen's Shilling is enlisting, I think. Few will be encouraged to join the military as a result of these events , I suggest.
Last edited by A2QFI; 17th Nov 2013 at 06:46.
Taking the Queen's Shilling is enlisting, I think. Few will be encouraged to join the military as a result of these events , I suggest.
Wearing the uniform should not be seen as a get out of jail card for murder.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will not make a single piece of difference
You may think it murder, many others myself included do not. Please don't quote the "rules" to me , I am sadly only too aware of them, and it is because of that the Armed Forces cannot fight a battle against these despots.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second ROG totally.
I wouldn't recommend anyone to join hands, let alone join any of HM Forces.
In retrospect, he shouldn't lose his job. CDS.
After the well remembered and generally laughed at ipod incident involving HMS Cornwall and the rest....weren't the public and the politicians jolly cross with RN/RM then....? They were pretty ashamed the RN hadn't opened up and gone down fighting to the last round, it seemed.
We suffered all sorts of cheap paper bolleaux posted and sent our sections sent from 2ndSeaLord, basically telling us ratings to all man up a bit (maybe it was just the RN that got this).
Now, the RM part of the service has been seen to over step and been too...what exactly? Savage? Brutal?
This line they have to keep.....
I wouldn't recommend anyone to join hands, let alone join any of HM Forces.
In retrospect, he shouldn't lose his job. CDS.
After the well remembered and generally laughed at ipod incident involving HMS Cornwall and the rest....weren't the public and the politicians jolly cross with RN/RM then....? They were pretty ashamed the RN hadn't opened up and gone down fighting to the last round, it seemed.
We suffered all sorts of cheap paper bolleaux posted and sent our sections sent from 2ndSeaLord, basically telling us ratings to all man up a bit (maybe it was just the RN that got this).
Now, the RM part of the service has been seen to over step and been too...what exactly? Savage? Brutal?
This line they have to keep.....
should receive the harshest possible sentence
I think CDS has probably got his wish.
Secondly, whatever people think of it, a 10 year tariff is not "the harshest possible sentence". The tariff for murder under the normal sentencing guidelines starts at 15 years.
Last edited by baffman; 6th Dec 2013 at 22:55.
the judge must have taken note of the circumstances when working it out
I sincerely hope that Sgt Blackman's wife learns from Sgt Nightingale's wife and sells her story to the highest bidder to a) make some money to compensate for losing the main breadwinner for at least 10 years and b) stick the boot right in to the military legal system and show up the higher MOD CoC. (Although it seems his CO and the Marines charity may be of some support.) Some xmas this will be for his family.
And ref the military legal system - I, like many others on this forum I am sure, have run an Orderly Room and am only too aware of the inappropriate pressure applied by OCs to find the charge proved and award an 'appropriate' sentence for the 'guilty barsteward' as a warning to others.
And ref the military legal system - I, like many others on this forum I am sure, have run an Orderly Room and am only too aware of the inappropriate pressure applied by OCs to find the charge proved and award an 'appropriate' sentence for the 'guilty barsteward' as a warning to others.
I thought Judge Blackett's remarks were logical and comprehensive and led to the most appropriate sentence being delivered. A far cry from the shrill demands from both sides for either cruxifiction or freedom.
In my opinion, justice has been done.
In my opinion, justice has been done.
Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth has been on the radio today saying the sentence is too harsh and he shouldn't have been named.
I don't agree with his politics, but Sir Gerald is well known for speaking up and has some pretty robust views about who SHOULD be in prison; for example, over Nimrod MRA4. I hope his seniors listen on this occasion!
I don't agree with his politics, but Sir Gerald is well known for speaking up and has some pretty robust views about who SHOULD be in prison; for example, over Nimrod MRA4. I hope his seniors listen on this occasion!
Tecumseh,
I respect your opinion - especially on engineering and procurement matters, but in the case at hand, there was no political interference (why would there be?) and the evidence was overwhelming - not only to demonstrate that the Sgt committed a deliberate act of murder (oxymoronic, I know) but also took a considerable number of steps before hand to prepare for it - malice aforethought.
Just by implying that others - VSOs and Ministers - are, in some way, guilty of other crimes has no bearing on this warcrime - and for a crime that is also covered under British criminal law. -and, dare I say, the 10 commandments.
I respect your opinion - especially on engineering and procurement matters, but in the case at hand, there was no political interference (why would there be?) and the evidence was overwhelming - not only to demonstrate that the Sgt committed a deliberate act of murder (oxymoronic, I know) but also took a considerable number of steps before hand to prepare for it - malice aforethought.
Just by implying that others - VSOs and Ministers - are, in some way, guilty of other crimes has no bearing on this warcrime - and for a crime that is also covered under British criminal law. -and, dare I say, the 10 commandments.
Whenurhappy
I'm not sure you've interpreted my meaning correctly and I apologise if I've not been clear. I've already said I believe the Sergeant guilty of wrongdoing; and specifically said I don't think there was political interference. While entirely possible, I think Sir Gerald Howarth's statement today reveals they took a wait and see approach.
I also believe there were extenuating circumstances in this case that simply do not apply outwith the Military arena. But being sympathetic to his plight does not mean I think him innocent.
I concede my personal experience is limited in such things. But I always remember the first time I attended the High Court of Appeal - training and familiarisation. (I haven't always been an engineer!) It so happened a soldier was appealing his sentence (not conviction) for something he'd done while recovering from serious wounds received in NI. He'd been gaoled for 4 years. The three Lords, Stott, Robertson and one other I can't recall, took all of 2 minutes to replace the sentence with a £200 fine, which his Commanding Officer paid there and then. About 4 months wages to me at the time and it sounded a lot! Lord Robertson was very robust in his decision, something along the lines of "No ordinary person can know what the soldier has gone through". I have a sneaky feeling he'd have something similar to say today. Lord Stott even more so. That doesn't mean they were soft on crime; but they did come from a generation who appreciated the Military far more. Today, it has few friends in the Establishment.
I'm not sure you've interpreted my meaning correctly and I apologise if I've not been clear. I've already said I believe the Sergeant guilty of wrongdoing; and specifically said I don't think there was political interference. While entirely possible, I think Sir Gerald Howarth's statement today reveals they took a wait and see approach.
I also believe there were extenuating circumstances in this case that simply do not apply outwith the Military arena. But being sympathetic to his plight does not mean I think him innocent.
I concede my personal experience is limited in such things. But I always remember the first time I attended the High Court of Appeal - training and familiarisation. (I haven't always been an engineer!) It so happened a soldier was appealing his sentence (not conviction) for something he'd done while recovering from serious wounds received in NI. He'd been gaoled for 4 years. The three Lords, Stott, Robertson and one other I can't recall, took all of 2 minutes to replace the sentence with a £200 fine, which his Commanding Officer paid there and then. About 4 months wages to me at the time and it sounded a lot! Lord Robertson was very robust in his decision, something along the lines of "No ordinary person can know what the soldier has gone through". I have a sneaky feeling he'd have something similar to say today. Lord Stott even more so. That doesn't mean they were soft on crime; but they did come from a generation who appreciated the Military far more. Today, it has few friends in the Establishment.
I concede my personal experience is limited in such things. But I always remember the first time I attended the High Court of Appeal - training and familiarisation. (I haven't always been an engineer!) It so happened a soldier was appealing his sentence (not conviction) for something he'd done while recovering from serious wounds received in NI. He'd been gaoled for 4 years. The three Lords, Stott, Robertson and one other I can't recall, took all of 2 minutes to replace the sentence with a £200 fine, which his Commanding Officer paid there and then. About 4 months wages to me at the time and it sounded a lot! Lord Robertson was very robust in his decision, something along the lines of "No ordinary person can know what the soldier has gone through". I have a sneaky feeling he'd have something similar to say today. Lord Stott even more so. That doesn't mean they were soft on crime; but they did come from a generation who appreciated the Military far more. Today, it has few friends in the Establishment.
racedo
It was an "offence against the person", and the original sentence is what you'd expect outwith the Military given the person was an adult.
My point was I believe extraordinary extenuating circumstances can be found in many military cases and, therefore, and like it or not, different standards apply to sentencing. The soldier in my example was severely wounded and had been on strong, addictive opiates as painkillers. This diminished responsibility. Not a million miles away from what Marine A's experiences on that tour MAY have done to him.
I also think a soldier, on operations, cannot be judged by civilian standards, simply because the soldier's job is to kill. His "line" is in a different place and can be under extraordinary pressure and stress when it comes to deciding where it is.
I don't want to seem flippant but Brian Clough's brilliant remark on the new offside rule comes to mind. "If he's not interfering with play, he shouldn't be on the pitch". (Sorry SASless, that may be beyond you).
Again, I do not condone, but think I understand a little.
It was an "offence against the person", and the original sentence is what you'd expect outwith the Military given the person was an adult.
My point was I believe extraordinary extenuating circumstances can be found in many military cases and, therefore, and like it or not, different standards apply to sentencing. The soldier in my example was severely wounded and had been on strong, addictive opiates as painkillers. This diminished responsibility. Not a million miles away from what Marine A's experiences on that tour MAY have done to him.
I also think a soldier, on operations, cannot be judged by civilian standards, simply because the soldier's job is to kill. His "line" is in a different place and can be under extraordinary pressure and stress when it comes to deciding where it is.
I don't want to seem flippant but Brian Clough's brilliant remark on the new offside rule comes to mind. "If he's not interfering with play, he shouldn't be on the pitch". (Sorry SASless, that may be beyond you).
Again, I do not condone, but think I understand a little.