Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[Beef Oven!]

What is?

The mitigation is.

[amateur51]

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.

My post was about the minority who suffer terrible psychological damage through their combat experiences and the lack of treatment and support from the military. I'm not surprised, I'm angry that these these wounded people are left to fend for themselves in mainstream civilian society.

Are you suggesting that this minority of soldiers should just pull themselves together? They have been damaged during their paid employment and their employers should do something about it. the fact that their employer is the British Army makes no difference whatsoever, in my opinion.

You say it's not surprising, which it isn't. What is surprising is that so many receive so little help that they kill themselves and you don't get angry about it.

That's all.

[ahinton]

Oh Al, there is so much codswallop in most of your points above that I really don't know where to begin.

Codswallop or no codswallop, the fact that you claim not to know where to begin surprises me not one jot.

I will endeavour to reply when I have about 4 hours to spare, but just now there are more pressing matters awaiting.

Surely there are - so please don't bother to waste your time or, more importantly, anyone else's here with this.

[ahinton]

The mitigation is.

OK, but, as I said, some seem to believe that this is worthy of consideration and some most certainly do not - so what do YOU make of that and why? That's all that I'm asking here...

[ahinton]

My post was about the minority who suffer terrible psychological damage through their combat experiences and the lack of treatment and support from the military. I'm not surprised, I'm angry that these these wounded people are left to fend for themselves in mainstream civilian society.

Are you suggesting that this minority of soldiers should just pull themselves together? They have been damaged during their paid employment and their employers should do something about it. the fact that their employer is the British Army makes no difference whatsoever, in my opinion.

You say it's not surprising, which it isn't. What is surprising is that so many receive so little help that they kill themselves and you don't get angry about it.

That's all.

The voice of reason. Very many thanks for your contribution here. The fact that these military personnel are on active service where clearly they should not be, whilst impartant, is not the nub of the problem here which instead is, as you suggest, the lack of monitoring and support of and due care for those personnel, both while on active service and in terms of preparing them for civilian life thereafter. Your reference to the suicides within that scenario are as unconfortable as they are vitally necessary towars a properly comprehensive understanding of that scenario.

[Beef Oven!]

OK, but, as I said, some seem to believe that this is worthy of consideration and some most certainly do not - so what do YOU make of that and why? That's all that I'm asking here...

Well I've already said what I think. But here goes:

If the guy had walked into a supermarket in Leamington Spa and did what he did to a check-out assistant, then there's nothing much to consider.

But if we consider that the combat situation is pressurised almost beyond everyday comprehension, and prolonged exposure exacerbates and intensifies emotional instability, and seeing your comrades brutally killed by 'that guy' in front of you, there might be a contributory aspect that must be factored into the decision.

It's pretty simple, what I'm thinking and it's no more than what all courts consider when drawing conclusions.

It's still murder and he'll go away for a long time.

[ahinton]

Well I've already said what I think. But here goes:

If the guy had walked into a supermarket in Leamington Spa and did what he did to a check-out assistant, then there's nothing much to consider.

But if we consider that the combat situation is pressurised almost beyond everyday comprehension, and prolonged exposure exacerbates and intensifies emotional instability, and seeing your comrades brutally killed by 'that guy' in front of you, there might be a contributory aspect that must be factored into the decision.

It's pretty simple, what I'm thinking and it's no more than what all courts consider when drawing conclusions.

It's still murder and he'll go away for a long time.

Thanks for that.

I'm far from convinced that the court concerned will indeed take into consideration the pressures under which Marine A functioned, given that he opted for that kind of professional life, knew what those pressures were and merited - as do all his colleagues - due monitoring and support on account of them.

Of course the combat situation does what you say, but few under such pressures do what Marine A did as any kind of consequence; mention has indeed been made here of a far greater instance of suicide than murder among troops on the front tline.

Furthermore, whilst battlefield pressures may well be unique in their particular nature, other professionals function under similarly great pressures, so armed forces personnel on active service - even if, as in this case, in what is ostensibly a war situation without war having been declared or justified in advance (which itself carries with it a demoralising sense) - are not the only people to have subjected themselves to intense professional pressures, a fact that the court may well bear in mind when considering whether any call for clemency could conceivably be justified.

[Mr Pee]

I'm far from convinced that the court concerned will indeed take into consideration the pressures under which Marine A functioned, given that he opted for that kind of professional life, knew what those pressures were and merited - as do all his colleagues - due monitoring and support on account of them.

Oh right, so since he chose to join the Royal Marines, it's all his fault. Very caring of you. And unfortunately, when patrolling Helmand and seeing your friends and colleagues blown to pieces and their body parts hung from the trees, I'm not sure that he would have had the time or opportunity to phone the Forces equivalent of The Samaritans and have a chat about how he was feeling.

Of course the combat situation does what you say, but few under such pressures do what Marine A did as any kind of consequence; mention has indeed been made here of a far greater instance of suicide than murder among troops on the front tline.

Of course the first part of the above is true; but that doesn't mean that one should therefore ignore any mitigating cicumstances when such an event does take place, however rare such a case may be. Few people commit murder back here in "civvy street", but that doesn't mean that in such cases mitigating circumstances should be ignored. That doesn't seem very liberal, does it? Not like you. Have you started taking The Daily Mail?

Furthermore, whilst battlefield pressures may well be unique in their particular nature, other professionals function under similarly great pressures, so armed forces personnel on active service - even if, as in this case, in what is ostensibly a war situation without war having been declared or justified in advance (which itself carries with it a demoralising sense) - are not the only people to have subjected themselves to intense professional pressures, a fact that the court may well bear in mind when considering whether any call for clemency could conceivably be justified.

I'm glad you at least admit that battlefield pressures are unique in their nature, but do please elighten us as to how that equates to other professions. Which ones did you have in mind, in which the stresses might drive one to such behaviour? I know the daily commute can be a trial, or in your case perhaps deciding on the instrumentation of your next compostion drives you to distraction, but neither can be compared to patrolling in Helmand, where at any moment you might be killled or left grievously injured.

[Beef Oven!]

Thanks for that.

I'm far from convinced that the court concerned will indeed take into consideration the pressures under which Marine A functioned, given that he opted for that kind of professional life, knew what those pressures were and merited - as do all his colleagues - due monitoring and support on account of them.

Of course the combat situation does what you say, but few under such pressures do what Marine A did as any kind of consequence; mention has indeed been made here of a far greater instance of suicide than murder among troops on the front tline.

Furthermore, whilst battlefield pressures may well be unique in their particular nature, other professionals function under similarly great pressures, so armed forces personnel on active service - even if, as in this case, in what is ostensibly a war situation without war having been declared or justified in advance (which itself carries with it a demoralising sense) - are not the only people to have subjected themselves to intense professional pressures, a fact that the court may well bear in mind when considering whether any call for clemency could conceivably be justified.

The court will delivery it's conclusions and you, despite your very strong views, will have no bearing on.

[french frank]

I'm glad you at least admit that battlefield pressures are unique in their nature, but do please elighten us as to how that equates to other professions.

You may not find an equation between one 'unique' situation and another: but suppose an overstressed NHS doctor started drinking too much, drove his car while considerably under the influence and killed a child. Should he be treated more leniently than another person who killed a child in similar circumstances? Or should it presumed that a trained doctor ought to have enough control over his actions to avoid such a situation?

[amateur51]

The court will delivery it's conclusions and you, despite your very strong views, will have no bearing on.

Whereas all the do-gooders signing petitions for clemency are bang out of order while the the sentence is being considered.

Once you know what you're talking about, fine.

[Beef Oven!]

Whereas all the do-gooders signing petitions for clemency are bang out of order while the the sentence is being considered.

Once you know what you're talking about, fine.

I'd say the same to them.

I've signed a petition for clemency. It's what people do. Doesn't make it right. Alistair doesn't seem to be aware of it though, hence my comment.

My advice to you, is to slow down a bit, and try to understand what's being said.

[amateur51]

I'd say the same to them.

I've signed a petition for clemency. It's what people do. Doesn't make it right. Alistair doesn't seem to be aware of it though, hence my comment.

My advice to you, is to slow down a bit, and try to understand what's being said.

I assume that you're trying to influence the decision-making process.

In my view, that's wrong.

The legitimate time for that is post-decision.

Which is what I wrote.

[Beef Oven!]

I assume that you're trying to influence the decision-making process.

In my view, that's wrong.

Which is what I said!!!!!!!!!!

But people are people!

You are such a silly gentleman's sausage sometimes!!!!!

[Serial_Apologist]

You may not find an equation between one 'unique' situation and another: but suppose an overstressed NHS doctor started drinking too much, drove his car while considerably under the influence and killed a child. Should he be treated more leniently than another person who killed a child in similar circumstances? Or should it presumed that a trained doctor ought to have enough control over his actions to avoid such a situation?

And of course, he or she who joins the armed services knows that orders must be obeyed; not to do so amounts to insubordination and even sedition on occasion. It's no good moaning that in my day we only had a crust to eat but didn't go about demonstrating and rioting, which is tantamount to what those arguing for clemency are effectively excusing. Once one sees this, the political nature of the mercy calls is clear to see - for who knows when, one day, another answering to the all of duty opens fire on the "mob" or quietly takes one from its number round the back of the arrest vehicle to prove whose side the law is ultimately on?