Life Sentences for Desertion...
 

A tad severe I thought - Those shiny arsed PONTIs at Westminster are clearly losing the plot :uhoh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5006638.stm

Discuss...

Unless of course this is part of the planning process for Iran where they think a few of you might not accept the invitation to party!

:confused:

It just makes me wonder... what do these MPs think of the personnel serving in HM Armed Forces? Do they think we are all on the brink of desertion? Do they think....I know, we need to send a strong message to these moaning lot? Very strange......Perhaps we should send a large group of MPs to live and work in Iraq in order to stabilize the iraqi government and aid the rebuilding process. Oh, and by the way, you are living in a tent and you have a 3 min phone call home and 10 mins on the internet, enjoy.
I'm losing faith in this lot!

Letsby

What's a PONTI?

PONTI = Person of no tactical importance
JAFFA - Just another Fat F******* Administrator
REMF - Rear echelon mother Fu**********
Handbrake House - SHQ - Stn Headquarters where an abundance of REMFs, JAFFAs & PONTIs can be found.

Thanks Tiger. Got the picture.

Just a point, you would have been shot for desertion 50 years ago.(in the face of the enemy). So life inprisonment is a logical move, wether its the right one is another matter,

Quote:
Defence minister Tom Watson said there would only be a maximum sentence of life where desertion was "to avoid relevant service".

That would exclude things like military occupation of a foreign country.

Relevant service operations would be "the ones which every member of the force needs to have complete confidence in the other members of his unit,"
:confused:
Let me get this right, relevent service is not the occupation of a foreign country, but it is when you need to be completely confident in your work mates (like when they're your safety man on a functional test, keeping an eye on you on the line, not taxying over you on the pan, getting your pay right so you don't lose your house, going to war etc).
Politicians, what a waste of oxygen.:D

Way over the top!! Especially in a time when a soldier (probably) hesitates more than he should before opening fire incase he finds himself in court for doing his job!!

Why not go back to 1914 and bring back the firing squad? We have politicians behaving like Great War Generals, they may as well go the whole hog.

One point could it be argued that this is a change to terms of service?

I was sent the draft legislation a few days ago...

Clause 8: Desertion
60. Under this clause desertion is committed if a person subject to service law is absent without permission and either intends:

not to return at all, or
to avoid service on operations against an enemy, service abroad on operations to protect life or property or service on military occupation of a foreign country or territory.
61. It is an offence whether the person has the necessary intention at the time of going absent or develops the intention later.

62. The maximum sentence for desertion is generally two years' imprisonmentin the second bullet above, or if his intention is to avoid such service.. But the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service, of the types described

8 Desertion

(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if he deserts.

(2) For the purposes of this Act a person deserts if he is absent without leave and—

(a) he intends to remain permanently absent without leave; or
5
(b) he intends to avoid any particular service or kind of service, and that

service or kind of service is relevant service.

(3) In this section “relevant service” means—

(a) actions or operations against an enemy;

(b) operations outside the British Islands for the protection of life or
10
property; or

(c) military occupation of a foreign country or territory.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to any punishment

mentioned in the Table in section 163, and any sentence of imprisonment

imposed in respect of the offence—
15
(a) if subsection (5) applies, may be for life;

(b) otherwise, must not exceed two years.

(5) This subsection applies if—

(a) the offender was on relevant service or under orders for such service

when he became absent without leave; or
20
(b) subsection (2)(b) applied to him in relation to the offence.

Clause 2: Misconduct on operations
45. When persons subject to service law are taking part, or under orders to take part, in operations against an enemy certain misconduct may be more serious than in other circumstances. Under this clause service personnel are guilty of an offence if in such circumstances they commit specified types of misconduct. These are:

surrendering or abandoning a place when under a duty to defend it (subsection (1))
failing to do their utmost to carry out lawful commands (subsection (3))
when carrying out certain important duties (such as guard duty) sleeping or leaving their place of duty (subsection (4))
making statements (or other communications) likely to cause alarm or despondency among our or allied forces, or among accompanying civilians who are subject to service discipline (subsection (5))
46. In most cases no offence is committed if the person has a reasonable excuse for his actions.
47. The maximum penalty under this clause is life imprisonment.

Hmm, does that include stuff that we post on here then? B*ggers are trying o clamp down on our blessed PPRUNE!!!! :mad: :8

Scotsman carried a good article on this;

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=742682006

Something is spooking MoD. Can't figure out if it is a knee jerk reaction to Ben Griffin and the Doctor in the trench coat, future ops, or the general malaise concerning occupation of Iraq. Thankfully legislation did not include PPRUNE-yet!!

Any one know what the current maximum penalty for desertion is?

Still trying to find out, expect it to be the same but what is interesting is this new reference to occupations.

Check out this web site.

We executed 346 of our own in the Great War some of them were kids. The youngest that I have found reference to was just 17 yrs old! We still recruit kids into our own Army. Methinks this move will backfire amongst mums and dads out there.

http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/

This page in the website refers to 3 troubling cases,where such things as stress were not taken into account. Anyone who saw Gilligan's prog last night will be aware that Brit Mil is still making same mistakes 90 yrs on.

http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/page36.html

Ah yes, Gilligan, that well known champion of the British Military. Where would we be without him. Although the issues were real enough because there was a heartbeat at the end of them, I can't help but feel it was yet another chance for Gilligan to strut his fat ego (and gut) around without giving the MoD the opportunity to defend itself and only reporting the side that he wanted to people to hear. He is no better than a video version of the Daily Mirror.

Whereas, of course the MOD is full of honourable people who are looking after the best interests of our troops!

Yeah right!
:yuk:

Intrigued by Kevan Jones comment about not having a "pick & choose army where people pick and choose where they do serve". I thought that was the way the RAF worked! It was always a bugger getting posted from Kinloss to Brize where all the prima donna "pick & choosers" lived!

Wonder what his opinion would be if the next UK Parliamentary session occurred in downtown Kandahar or Baghdad!

BBCi: "More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered."

This will work wonders on recruitment and retention. Conscription will have to be re-intoduced for the next war!

IMHO, this is a huge story. Not surprisingly, the MOD and indeed the Cabinet do not want this information on the streets in any way, shape or form. They will do just about everything to stop, spin, bury this kind of information.
To say they don't have any figures on increases in desertion is a blatant lie. Of course they know how many are missing and how that relates to previous years.
The Military top brass do little to help the situation when they hang servicemen and women out to dry to appease the Left. They further damage the Forces when they bow and scrape to the Politicians in pursuit of personal gain. Having said that I did meet a VERY senior Naval Officer who had thrown his toys out of the cot. He told us to watch the press over the next three months or so. His PSO was livid and told us to forget what we had heard.
Two months later his retirement 'on health grounds' was announced in the media.

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.

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 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.

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 :rolleyes: :ugh: Still, at least then they knew then that there's a difference between AWOL and desertion!

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...

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.

Been watching the Da Vinci Code have you Tigs?:)

He's thinking of the Barron Knights surely?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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
 

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho...rtionsdrop.jpg

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.

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?

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

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

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

Why not? We are an equal opportunity employer open to all faiths, genders and persuasions. The force you join today may be employed to do something in the future that you would never have joined if they were doing it today.

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.

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