Somewhat presumptive chaps, if not a tad arrogant?

Where now?
 

Having read this thread with interest and also having relatives who are neighbours of Sgt Nightingale and heard continually about what a nice family they are I would like to make a couple (OK - 4) of points.
1. I think that the CM tried its very best to let him "get out from under" on what is an absolute offence. No reduction in rank, not thrown out of the army etc.
2. The press and, through them, the great British publice got hold of half a story and outcry ensued. I think that the comments in this thread about the mindset of the 100,00 that signed the petition are bang on. They were led on by the press who were on yet another crusade to show how stupid everyone else but them is. As a result, Sgt Nightingale will now never return to Hereford and will probably leave the army - I'm sure that Max Clifford et al will already have been in touch and promised him his first million or so and- do you know what - I don't begrudge him a penny of it.
3. What does irk me however, is the fact that this case, badly handled once in the public domain, has set a legal precedent that any toerag can try to avail himself of in future when he is caught with an illegal firearm.
4. Finally, there is an ex Flt Lt whom I once had the misfortune to know who, for a similar, but less serious offence (no ammo as I recall) was dismissed HM Service, put in the civvy pokey for a couple of years and lost his pension.
Sorry fellas, it just doesn't stack up. Yet another case of the press running the country. Maybe Leveson is onto something after all.

"badly handled once in the public domain,"

By the Gov't and MoD, maybe they need to get on the front foot
in these types of situations and take back control before it does
what this case did, spiral out of control.

D'accord mon vieux, d'accord. Perhaps the press should also stop trying to run the country as well. Hey ho, time for a G and T.

Not another!

'Fraid so chap. Just to keep me going until I pull the cork on the Rioja you understand!

I think that's all he's got to work with.

If he claims he got bad legal advice, they could set the verdict aside and CM him again.

What chance would he have of a better result than he has today? Slim I think.

So he then needs to claim he can't ever get a fair trial and hope the crown desert the prosecution.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any more legal moves.

I find it hard to believe he has actually appealed the verdict, is that official, has it actually been lodged?

Given that he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, could he appeal against the verdict? Was a pre-arranged outcome promised but not honoured? That sounds far too Perry Mason for me. Maybe there is quite a lot we really don't know about this case and probably won't.:confused:

Not if he haslost his memory of the incident ........ I wonder what the medical affect of waving a million would be though?

Five or so pages on and I still don't know what to make of this, on one hand the regulations on the possession of firearms in the military should be second nature and on the other hand there seems to be medical evidence of memory loss.

What the great British public have seen and are very upset about is the inequity between a long serving member of the armed forces who is banged up ( dispite the first civil police decision that there was no criminal intent) and the fact that the UK legal system can't send a radical terrorist suspect for trial in Jordan.

Any way you look at this it has been very badly handled by the army & MoD both in outcome of the CM and the attempts to use a D notice to cover the tracks of those responsible. On the other side the supporters of Sgt Nightingale have played their hand brilliantly in the media.

That would not be a world first or even a bit out of character for posts on this site, eh?
:ok:

Not so presumptive
 

Cuefaye,

Airborne Artist is allowed to express his doubts, the fact that he doubts that many of the signatories are interested in all of the facts is undeniable. That's his opinion, right or wrong.

As for the people that I hear telling me they support him, or otherwise, I know if they are ex mil or not. I'm discounting the talking heads on TV, just referring to the people I actually come into contact with.

My doubts are based on a straw poll I conducted. I've spoken to about ten people who had been quite vocal about Nightingale's "poor treatment" by the court/Army etc.

I told them how impossible it should be to "acquire" that number of live rounds, and my doubts about the story as to how the weapon had ended up in his SSSA flat, and to a man they realised how they had only been told about 20% of the story by the press.

By the by I'm one of the few on here who has worn the same cap badge as Sgt Nightingale.

Airborne Artist, I wore a cap badge at the opposite end of the spectrum and yet we seem to share a common view of this.

I do agree with the sentiment that the great unwashed seem to be supporting. If indeed an SAS man was hung out to dry for doing his job, while bad men go free, that would be worthy of a complaint.

However, nobody has come on here to defend the actions that Sgt. Nightingale has admitted to, never mind what he's been "accused" of.

Are we really supposed to accept that it's ok to bring a weapon into camp and keep it?

How much ammo is/was in blocks, houses and rooms in the mess?

Perhaps, at a stretch, his admitted behaviour was/is normal for the Army. That needs to be changed if it is.

He took the gun back to his tent and "was going to hand it in"

"Aye, right"


There are lots of dialects where two negatives make a positive:

"I didn't do nothing guv!"

But,

Only in Scotland have we perfected the art of two positives making a negative:

Blimey a_a - I never had you down as a former foot soldier of The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment (King’s, Lancashire and Border).

Always had you as HCav.... :E:E:E;)

Interesting to see that the military discipline system has now evolved in to an X-Factor style popularity contest. Guilty or innocent, 5 years glasshouse or suspended sentence, you decide! Text your vote now to... blah, blah, blah....
Not a very illustrious episode from anyone's perspective.

a_a;
Wow! :rolleyes:

http://www.arranalexander.co.uk/ekmp...984-3416-p.jpg

Quote:
I doubt that any of the >100,000 who signed the various petitions has the
slightest idea Quote:
Oddly, the people I hear defending him the loudest are not mil or ex mil.
Here's another one:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

.

Things have obviously changed, when I was in the mob, (pre IRA activites 1969), as a member of the regimental shooting team I kept my weapon with me in barracks or at home in a WD Hiring. We didn't put them in the armoury as they had all been zeroed to ourselves and we didn't want them mixed up with others.

Also, in those days, being a member of HM military was considered as a licence to sensibly and safely carry and possess firearms, no police licence needed.

Yeah, and a man waving a red flag walked in front of the car.

You could leave your door unlocked at night.

A pound could feed a family of four for a week.

They shipped criminals off to Australia.


It was all a long time ago.

Parabellum - that was a very long time ago, definitely pre-late 70's. As someone else mentioned earlier, when completing weapons related activities a suitable declaration is required. Don't know if it's changed much but "I have no live rounds or empty cases on my possession, Sir" used to cover it. That was after the warning that "...you are reminded that it is a Courts Martial offence to leave the range/trg area/theatre while in possession of any live rounds or empty cases. Should you subsequently find any after the declaration you should contact xxxx immediately". That was used every single time I used weapons and ammunition without exception. Not much gray area there.

Two's in - agreed, a long time ago and we had to make the ammunition declaration everytime too when shooting as a unit, but in the team all ammo was handed to OIC the team and he kept it locked in his car!



airpolice - Grow up and don't be so rude, shame really, most of your posts have made sense, up until now.

The point is, that it's of no matter what the law was way back then.

During World War II, German families living in the UK were locked up, for being German. Just because it was the law then is not a case for allowing it to continue now.

Sgt. Nightingale has clearly, even by his own mitigation plea in the CM, broken the law (as it is today) and chose to plead guilty to doing so.

You remind me. In officer training we kept our rifles and bayonets in our huts. When not in use they were 'securely' padlocked to the bed base using a kit-bag D-clip and those natty issue padlocks. The bolts were removed and stored in an ammo box in the armoury.

The huts were 'secured' with unlocked doors near the back gate which may have had a barrier but if it did it was never shut.

"Here's my credo. There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people."
Charlton Heston





Clearly DN is one of our country's finest, however the defence in this case of suffering from a brain injury, IMHO wasn't the best line to pursue!

And just how many of the 100,000 plus (great unwashed, who know nozzing) who signed the e-petition have you been in contact with?

The question has been asked many times in connection with this case, "Is it one law for them and another law for the rest?".Given the nature of their work and the nature of their lives either overseas or in Herefordshire I think it is highly likely their interpretation of the civilian rules is very much at variance with your average man in the street and yes, I suspect they may well stick to some of the rules, as they were, a long time ago, I doubt they ever changed in some cases.

(As the near full skip of surrendered weapons would suggest).

So, with Sgt Nightingale's conviction being quashed does that mean Armed Forces personnel no longer require a FAC for weapons hidden in their SFA? Sweet, that'll save me some paperwork.....:hmm:

According to the BBC the conviction was overturned Sgt Nightingale will now face a retrial. Let us hope for his sake that he is not then sentenced to 5 years.

Best he doesn't please guilty next time.

According to a report I read in the online DT, by law, he cannot be sentenced to a longer sentence than his previous suspended sentence, after appeal/sentence review, from his last trial, so that would be twelve months suspended, stay in the Army and keep his rank.

How can he stay in the army, I thought he coughed up to being mentally ill. Who's gonna sign him off for weapons now?

Used to have thing in the 5000 (prob still do) which had to be signed off

I know of know reason why this dude cannot aviate..or words to that effect.

I had bloke with a history of wife abuse...SHQ refused to do squat, so I refused to sign his 5000. I was ordered to sign...I told them to **** off. He never flew again on my watch.

As I predicted in post 7 - he has been PNGd.

Danny Nightingale is banned from SAS HQ after he broke code of silence | The Sun

He broke the rules ..............

Didn't they do the same to General de la Billiere ?

Predictable
 

If you go back through the posts on this subject you will see a number of posters who "warned" that this issue should be left alone. At that time, he had not beed discharged from the Army, despite the result of the CM. In their rush to stand up for Sgt Nightingale, the British press (some of it at least) and the people that jumped on the outrage bus completely ignored the Law of Unintended Consequences. Shortly he will be Mr Nightingale and cut off from his old colleagues in Hereford. He is still to face a retrial and, from where I am looking - it would seem that his offence is an "absolute offence" - i.e. there is no defence - only mitigation. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see it end this way - or indeed to say "I told you so" - I only hope that Mr Clifford or someone similar has signed a suitably large financial deal with Sgt Nightingale for his "exclusive" to recompense him for his losses.

There are still many unanswered questions relating to this matter.

Whatever he is, hard done by is not an appropriate term.

Having chosen not to let it rest in house (which I think would have been unjust to the public) he has opened a can of worms, which has not yet completely spilled out.

He went public because he didn't like the verdict, I wonder what he'll make of the next one...........

"The armed forces is no place for people who will not do as they are told."

I remember hearing that during my last ever interview with OC Admin, five minutes before leaving the RAF.

ISTR an air marshal, when told pilots in the front line were reluctant to volunteer for QFI training, retorted "They are all volunteers, they volunteered to do as they are told"

Pl Sgt

I need three volunteers, then quickly points out
the three he wants, "You, you and you."

I can't see how revealing anything that happened 'in house' could possibly be in the public interest in this case. It's a simple matter of of committing a crime and not liking having to take responsibility for it or accepting the consequeces of being caught.

I think I may have misunderstood - sorry if I have - but I didn't understand that bit of your point.