Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[amateur51]

I'm with Col. Wilson on this one (someone catch PeeMeister & Oxo).

I would add one thought: do we really want someone who is either deeply disturbed by what he has seen/done OR who is capable of such cold-blooded murder walking about as a civilian in years to come?

I'd say Marine A needs a lot of psychiatric help before he is allowed to re-enter civil society.

[ahinton]

I'm with Col. Wilson on this one (someone catch PeeMeister & Oxo).

I would add one thought: do we really want someone who is either deeply disturbed by what he has seen/done OR who is capable of such cold-blooded murder walking about as a civilian in years to come?

I'd say Marine A needs a lot of psychiatric help before he is allowed to re-enter civil society.

Indeed but, as I sought to observe, he and people like him need such help well before this while they're on active service in the armed forces at taxpayers' expense.

[amateur51]

Indeed but, as I sought to observe, he and people like him need such help well before this while they're on active service in the armed forces at taxpayers' expense.

I support your observation. Furthermore we know from recent statistics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23259865) that UK military personnel in Afghanistan are more likely to die by their own hand than in combat. I suggest that no other employer would permit, or be allowed to permit, such a work-related suicide rate to arise.

This is a national scandal and a disgrace. Action needs to be taken now for everyone's sake.

[Richard Barrett]

UK military personnel in Afghanistan are more likely to die by their own hand than in combat.

No doubt many are asking themselves the question "what's the point of all this" and coming to the conclusion that there isn't one, as far as they're concerned.

Recall that one reason for the Labour election landslide in 1945 was the large numbers of servicemen returning home and wanting more social justice in the country than the Tories had been serving up to them in the 20s and 30s, remembering the mass unemployment that followed the previous world war and wanting the "better world" they'd been told they were fighting for. In 1945 there were alternative policies on offer from the opposition, whereas now that's hardly the case.

[amateur51]

No doubt many are asking themselves the question "what's the point of all this" and coming to the conclusion that there isn't one, as far as they're concerned.

Recall that one reason for the Labour election landslide in 1945 was the large numbers of servicemen returning home and wanting more social justice in the country than the Tories had been serving up to them in the 20s and 30s, remembering the mass unemployment that followed the previous world war and wanting the "better world" they'd been told they were fighting for. In 1945 there were alternative policies on offer from the opposition, whereas now that's hardly the case.

Indeed, only today I was invited to sign this petition to challenge so nasty-looking double-dealing by our beloved government.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pm-david-cameron-keep-your-promise-to-our-troops-compensate-service-personnel-made-compulsorily-redundant-close-to-pension-point?utm_campaign=new_signature&utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt#share

[Beef Oven!]

Colonel Richard Kemp pretty much echoing what I said in post 213:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-criminal.html

All it says is there's an awful lot of mitigation to this alleged murder. Nobody doubts that. Any court will take such things into account. So what's all the fuss about?

[ahinton]

All it says is there's an awful lot of mitigation to this alleged murder. Nobody doubts that. Any court will take such things into account. So what's all the fuss about?

That doesn't mean that there is any such mitigation or room for it. Many doubt it, including some distinguished senior armed forces personnel. The court has taken all the circumstances and the facts into account and has convincted Marine A of murder. Only when sentence is passed on 6 December will anyone be able to assess the extent to which any "mitigation" might have been incorporated into the prescribed length of imprisonment term; not all murderers get the same length of sentence in any case and there's no reason why this case should be treated as any kind of exception. If Marine A gets the harsher end of possible sentencing, he will struggle to appeal but may well have a separate case of his won against his employers for failure to monitor his condition and the effects that the pressures of his work were having on him and it could just be that he might attract support for that; how he'd be able to conduct it from behind bars, however, is far from certain.

[Beef Oven!]

That doesn't mean that there is any such mitigation or room for it. Many doubt it, including some distinguished senior armed forces personnel. The court has taken all the circumstances and the facts into account and has convincted Marine A of murder. Only when sentence is passed on ......................

Which is what I said.

[ahinton]

Which is what I said.

But what you also said in the opening of your post (even if I misunderstood it) was "all it says is there's an awful lot of mitigation to this alleged murder" - and I disagreed, to the extent that none has been either proved or exercised in a more lenient sentence than might otherwise have been dispensed; furthermore, it's hardly an "alleged" murder now that the murderer has been convicted of it and merely awaits sentence and has yet to appeal his conviction.

[Beef Oven!]

But what you also said in the opening of your post (even if I misunderstood it) was "all it says is there's an awful lot of mitigation to this alleged murder" - and I disagreed, to the extent that none has been either proved or exercised in a more lenient sentence than might otherwise have been dispensed; furthermore, it's hardly an "alleged" murder now that the murderer has been convicted of it and merely awaits sentence and has yet to appeal his conviction.

Agreed about alleged (an occupational term that's hard to shake off!). Regarding mitigation, it's all there.

[ahinton]

Regarding mitigation, it's all there.

What is? Some, including senior armed forces figures, have sought publicly to claim that there's a case to answer for clemency and others (including more of the same) state that there is and indeed should be none; however, regardless of the conflicting individual views on this and irrespective of their particular sources, the fact that no one has yet made out a convincing case that any British citizen on active military service who is convicted of murder in cold blood in wilful and conscious contravention not only of British law but also of the terms of the Geneva Convention merits being treated any differently to any other muderer is strongly suggestive of the likelihood that no such case could be made out, unless it be for even more severe treatement in view of the flouting of the Geneva Convention which, apart from any other consideration, effectively adds breach of contract to the act of murder.

[MrGongGong]

When i used to work in prisons I met many young men who had made "errors of judgement" some of them ending in murder.
From what we know this doesn't seem to be that kind of thing at all.
Funny how so many folks who are outraged at the idea that maybe understanding why someone might do something really horrible isn't the same as approving of that act are seemingly able to extend understanding to this young man ?
Yes, it is "understandable" that a young man can be so brutalised by experience to think that this is an acceptable and ethical way to behave, in the same way that it's "understandable" that someone who has seen his family killed by soldiers or by a drone strike would want to do the same or even worse to those who are seen to be responsible or complicit.
To pretend that somehow "our lads" are in some way different or even "special" is very foolish indeed.

[amateur51]

When i used to work in prisons I met many young men who had made "errors of judgement" some of them ending in murder.
From what we know this doesn't seem to be that kind of thing at all.
Funny how so many folks who are outraged at the idea that maybe understanding why someone might do something really horrible isn't the same as approving of that act are seemingly able to extend understanding to this young man ?
Yes, it is "understandable" that a young man can be so brutalised by experience to think that this is an acceptable and ethical way to behave, in the same way that it's "understandable" that someone who has seen his family killed by soldiers or by a drone strike would want to do the same or even worse to those who are seen to be responsible or complicit.
To pretend that somehow "our lads" are in some way different or even "special" is very foolish indeed.

And that very neatly brings us back to the title of this thread, MrGG.

[Mr Pee]

I support your observation. Furthermore we know from recent statistics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23259865) that UK military personnel in Afghanistan are more likely to die by their own hand than in combat. I suggest that no other employer would permit, or be allowed to permit, such a work-related suicide rate to arise.

You talk about "no other employer" as though the Armed Forces were just an off-shoot of Sainsburys, or the BBC. It is hardly surprising that there is a high incidence of PTSD in combat veterans. What do you suggest? Wrap them in cotton wool, or simply never deploy them? Tha would make rather a mockery of a so called "armed force".

And the fact is that the majority of ex-Forces personnel rejoin civilian life perfectly well. But given the pressures and the emotional and physical stresses that will always be part of combat, it should not be such a source of surprise that there are some who do not.

[Mr Pee]

OK, so let's unwrap this...

A Royal Marine convicted of murdering a wounded Taliban captive should not be treated as a common criminal, a former commander of British troops in Afghanistan has said.

The marine faces life in prison after being found guilty of the killing by a court martial, in what is believed to be the first case of its kind since at least the Second World War.

Col Richard Kemp said any sentencing should take into account the horrors the experienced sergeant, identified only as Marine A, had faced on the battlefield.
"Common" criminal? Excuse me, but how "common" is murder and what percentage of the British population commit it? Of course Marine A won't be treated as a "common criminal", any more than will any other convicted murderer; murder is, mercifully, an exceptional circumstance.

He said the crime, captured in harrowing film clips, was "despicable and inexcusable", but added “this is not a crime that is exactly comparable to cold blooded murder back home in Britain.”
The first part of this is surely beyond question; as to the second, however, does this mean that it was committed in Afghanistan, or my a serving member of the armed forces, or what? Were a police officer or member of the armed services to murder someone on British soil, would that not be "exactly comparable"?

The dangerous precedent that risks being set by the making of exceptions for any murderer other than in genuine extenuating circumstances is surely all too obvious.

Gary Streeter MP, whose South West Devon constituency covers many Royal Marines, said: "My own view is that it’s very hard for those of us who have never served to understand the pressures of the battlefield".

He said: "While no one can condone this, I am hopeful that the sentence will be given by those who do have battlefield experience and that they will take into account those battlefield pressures."

Oliver Colvile MP, whose Plymouth constituency also holds many marines, said: "I have quite a lot of sympathy for him because I don’t know what mental pressure he might have come under."
Fair comments insofar as they can go; of course civilians, other than qualified and experienced psychotherapists who have worked with the police and/or armed services, are unlikely to have much idea of such things, but those who employ police and military staff do and it's up to them to ensure that such people are duly monitored, given all the support that they need and withdrawn from active service if problems are discovered.

But he said politicians should not try to influence the military justice system.
And the above is just one good reason why.

Col Kemp said: "The battlefield is a place of horror which can twist and warp the behaviour of otherwise decent human beings".

He said: "The responsibilities of a sergeant trying to close with the enemy and also keep his men alive are immense and the pressures greater than most of us will ever have to endure in the whole of our lives.

The cumulative effect of several intense and dangerous combat tours cannot help take their toll".
All the more reason, then, that those on the front line be properly monitored snd supported in such strained circumstances; that said, there are other professions where such strains might be different but no less profound. As to this assessment of "the batlefield" the question as to why Marine A and his colleagues were on this one in the first place comes inevitably to mind.

"Nor should we forget that Marine A volunteered, time and again, to put his own life on the line to protect us back at home. Yes, he should be severely punished for his actions, but, no, he should not be treated in the same way as a common criminal".
It should not be forgotten, to be sure, but the act that it needs remembering does not of itself make it an extenuating circumstance; Marine A did not only do this, he chose to put himself in that situation - no one forced him to take on that work. If he should be "severely punished" for his actions, he should be punished just as any other murderer should. As I've already stated, no murderer is a "common criminal" in any case.

He said: "We have to recognise that the Armed Forces have got to do things in their own way".
Up to a point - and within the laws of the country that funds their positions - but when that means that their personnel can expect to be treated differently to civilians under those laws, another dangerous precedent risks being set.

Marine A told the court martial he was ashamed of his actions and had thought the unnamed Taliban fighter was already dead when he shot him.

The film clips shown to the court show Marine A shoot the badly wounded man in the chest at point blank range with his 9mm pistol.
If his victim was already dead, why did he shoot him? If he shot him at point blank range, how come he would not have realised that he was not in fact already dead?

He then tolls [recte "tells"] the rest of his patrol to keep quiet, because he has just broken the Geneva Convention.
So he not only knew what he was doing before, during and after committing that murder but also recognised one of the most significant legal consequences of having done so; that doesn't sound much like a man acting entirely out of control, does it?

Oh Al, there is so much codswallop in most of your points above that I really don't know where to begin. I will endeavour to reply when I have about 4 hours to spare, but just now there are more pressing matters awaiting.

Toodle-Pip.