Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[Richard Barrett]

But people are people!

Not all people will sign a petition attempting to influence the result of a legal process when they know this to be a wrong thing to do. Actually I think very few people would. Where does your "it's what people do" come from?

[amateur51]

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

But people are people!

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

Strange isn't it how often people miscontrue what you say, according to you.

[ahinton]

Oh right, so since he chose to join the Royal Marines, it's all his fault.

Where did I write, or even imply, that joining the Marines was "his fault" or, for that matter, his commission of murder was the fault of his having joined? What I did write was that he joined of his own volition in the full understanding of the contractual obligations that doing so would place upon him, which is quite clearly another matter altogether.

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.

In so saying, you conveniently ignore that all of his forces colleagues on active service in Afghanistan where they have no business to be have the same kinds of experience, the sheer horror of which I have never sought to undermine but, as I have suggested above and elsewhere, such experiences would hardly have come as a surprise to any member of the armed forceds on active service. I am sure that there are no armed forces equivalents to The Samaritans and I therefore have no idea why you mention them in this context; I was referring, on the contrary, to the kind of ongoing psychological support that is the right of every member of active armed services personnel and which is an essential service that they require, not least in the light of the experiences that you note that they have while on active service.

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.

Of course it doesn't - but it also doesn't mean that there's an excuse to invent a circumstance for the specific purpose of seeking to turn it into a mitigating one in the context of sentencing a convincted murderer; a mitigating circumstance in such circumstances has specifically to be - and to be accepted as - a mitigating circumstance and not a coincidental misfortune.

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?

No, it doesn't, because it wouldn't be but, as I said before, one man's or woman's mitigating circumstance is another's excuse.

Have you started taking The Daily Mail?

Good grief! No, of course not! And if I did, I'd know in advance where to take it!

I'm glad you at least admit that battlefield pressures are unique in their nature

]How could I not? They are. That's an obvious and unarguable fact.

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.

Comparisons - or attempts at them - can indeed be odious - and it should be obvious from what even you appreciate my having written that, as battlefield pressure are unique, they cannot be "compared" as such to any other professional pressures and that I did not seek to do any such thing. Since you ask, whilst your reference to daily commutes and instrumentation decisions on works of mine are just too silly to take seriously, the kinds of professional pressures to which I refer are those upon serving police officers, social workers and others in high crime areas, those of hospital doctors and surgeons working improbably and sometimes dangerously long hours - indeed, anyone whose professional responsibilities can have grave humanitarian consequences if not carried out to the latter at all times. The fact also remains that there are many thousands of people under the professional pressures from which armed service personnel on active service in war situations suffer but the proportion of such people who commit murder in cold blood and the full knowledge that they are breaching the Geneva Convention and thereby their contracts in so doing is vanishingly small - smaller, indeed, than that of those who commit suicide within that profession, as I also mentioned previously but which you chose to ignore.

Ultimately, it will be for the court to decide Marine A's fate, just as it was to decide to convict him; this decision may include consideration not only of mitigating circumstances, if any, but the need to decide whether any circusmtance can be regarded as mitigating the crime for which its has convicted Marine A.

There was recent discussion of whether a special offence of murdering a police office while that officer is on active duty should be considered. It shouldn't, any more than should be one for police officers on active duty murdering anyone. Would you nevertheless advocate the introduction of one or the other or both? Should some exceptional offence be made for murdering the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen - or indeed being murdered by any of these? Absolutely not; this would gravely undermine one aspect of British criminal justice by introducing a sense of one rule for some, another rule fo others, the inherent danger of which should be blindingly obvious to most people.

[ahinton]

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

I have myself observed that it will do so but my views, which are clear though by no stretch of most people's imaginations "very strong", will of course have no bearing upon the court's decision, but then I've not suggested that they would or should do so!

[ahinton]

I've signed a petition for clemency. It's what people do.

It's what some people do.

Doesn't make it right.

It's perfectly "right" to sign such a petition if its legal to do so and you believe in its purpose and intent; what it doesn't make "right" is the question of the application or otherwise of clemency which, as we all accept, is for the court alone to decide and which it will presumably do irrespective of the number of signatories on such a petition.

Alistair doesn't seem to be aware of it though, hence my comment.

Were I really unaware of it, it would surely have been rather difficult for me to comment on it!

[ahinton]

Not all people will sign a petition attempting to influence the result of a legal process when they know this to be a wrong thing to do.

Whilst you are right about that, signing a petition for the purpose of declaring one's opinion on such an issue is presumably not illegal in itself, otherwise the law would presumably have clamped down on the issue of such a petition and the collection of signatures on it; furthermore, whatever its intent might be, it's not obvious that it could hope to influence the result of that legal process when it has no direct legal powers of influence over those charged with making the decision on sentencing.

[french frank]

It's an interesting judicial concept: you could have an alternative petition saying they should lock him up and throw away the key, and see which one got the most signatures. All signatories to swear an affidavit that they had not been in court to hear the evidence.

[amateur51]

It's an interesting judicial concept: you could have an alternative petition saying they should lock him up and throw away the key, and see which one got the most signatures. All signatories to swear an affidavit that they had not been in court to hear the evidence.

Great idea, french frank.

[MrGongGong]

This

I'm glad you at least admit that battlefield pressures are unique in their nature

Is a very dangerous assumption
If you believe that one set of experiences are really unique and bear no comparison or understanding outside those who have experienced them then you surely are playing the same card that many terrorists also play. It reminds me of those who campaigned to prevent holocaust memorial day including those from Rwanda etc as what happened in WW2 was a "singularity" and any comparison is by definition "anti-semitic"....... very dangerous thinking indeed IMV

I also missed this

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.

Indeed
So i'm also assuming that you extend the same empathy and understanding to those Afghans who live under the constant threat of "accidental" attack from drone strikes ? or children in Palestine ?
OR is it more another case of your oft quoted
"nothing to hide , nothing to fear ? "

Feeling empathy for someone who has a very difficult life is a most human characteristic BUT confining this to "our boys" is indicative of something else entirely which is one of the reasons that some people feel that no one cares about their concerns giving rise to all sorts of terrorist acts etc

The fact (getting back to the subject of the starting of this ) that people CHOOSE to do a certain job IS important , it doesn't make it someones "fault" (as mr Hinton points out) but it does make indicate a vast difference between "professional soldiers" and those conscripted in WW1.

[Mr Pee]

Great idea, french frank.

6,000 and rising steadily on the Telegraph's petition.

Of course it's quite possible that a counter-petition as suggested by FF would raise as many, and possibly more, signatories. We all know that lefties love nothing more than mustering the mob when it comes to matters like this.

[Beef Oven!]

Great idea, french frank.

I'm seeing a professional about my self-absorption, victim syndrome arrogance etc. Do you want me to PM you his number?

He'd really help you with your passive-aggressive issues - it's origin, pathology and treatment etc.

[Mr Pee]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100245836/why-are-people-still-arguing-about-poppies/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[MrGongGong]

I'm seeing a professional about my self-absorption, victim syndrome arrogance etc. Do you want me to PM you his number?

He'd really help you with your passive-aggressive issues - it's origin, pathology and treatment etc.

I thought you were doing "co counselling" in the gents with the peester ?



Some interesting comments there Peester


"I don't need to wear a poppy and beat my breast in public like this author; nor do I need to be told by an officious HR pimply person to stand for 2 minutes silence over the Tannoy at work. I will happily continue to contribute to the British Legion appeal, but feel no need to parade my virtue with a tacky and shabby bit of red cardboard on my lapel."

[ahinton]

This
I'm glad you at least admit that battlefield pressures are unique in their nature
Is a very dangerous assumption
If you believe that one set of experiences are really unique and bear no comparison or understanding outside those who have experienced them then you surely are playing the same card that many terrorists also play. It reminds me of those who campaigned to prevent holocaust memorial day including those from Rwanda etc as what happened in WW2 was a "singularity" and any comparison is by definition "anti-semitic"....... very dangerous thinking indeed IMV

I think that one of us has missed the point and I hope that it isn't me! My point was that these experiences are unique in nature; I didn't say that they were unique in gravity or effect. The purpose of making that point was to observe that using those particular experiences as an excuse for trying to persuade others of the existence of an "extenuating circumstance" to cold blooded murder is the real potential danger; special pleading has no place here, nor should it. That said, I do accept Me Pee's point that being obliged to watching one's professional colleagues (and also those on the other side, presumably) being blown to bits as part of one's contractual responsibilities is indeed unique; what I do not accept is that they provide any kind of mitigatory excuse for cold blooded murder. As I have also notes, one person's mitigating circumstance is another's lame excuse in any case - a fact of which the court will, of course, already be well aware.

I also missed this
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.
Indeed
So i'm also assuming that you extend the same empathy and understanding to those Afghans who live under the constant threat of "accidental" attack from drone strikes ? or children in Palestine ?
OR is it more another case of your oft quoted
"nothing to hide , nothing to fear ? "

Feeling empathy for someone who has a very difficult life is a most human characteristic BUT confining this to "our boys" is indicative of something else entirely which is one of the reasons that some people feel that no one cares about their concerns giving rise to all sorts of terrorist acts etc

Fair point, of course, but one for Mr Pee himself to answer.

The fact (getting back to the subject of the starting of this ) that people CHOOSE to do a certain job IS important , it doesn't make it someones "fault" (as mr Hinton points out) but it does make indicate a vast difference between "professional soldiers" and those conscripted in WW1.

That difference is indeed important, although the outcome for each might not be so very different in all cases apart from the fact that such conscriptees were far less likely ever to receive any support for the psychological effects of what they were doing.

[ahinton]

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Mark Twain.

What do you suppose that "supporting one's country" (assuming that one has one one such to "support") actually means, with particular reference to the apparent perceived difference between it and "supporting one's government"? Just curious!