I'd put a note in your article stating that any inflammatory, abusive, offensive comments, or slurs against any ethnicity or religion will be deleted, because that's the way I see this discussion going. There' going to be massively conflicting views on this topic.
For what it's worth, I support the decision. We shouldn't hold troops in a war zone to the same standards we'd hold ourselves to walking down the high street. We can't possibly understand their state of mind, or the reasons why certain decisions are taken.
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 9 minutes ago
I'd put a note in your article stating that any inflammatory, abusive, offensive comments, or slurs against any ethnicity or religion will be deleted, because that's the way I see this discussion going. There' going to be massively conflicting views on this topic.
For what it's worth, I support the decision. We shouldn't hold troops in a war zone to the same standards we'd hold ourselves to walking down the high street. We can't possibly understand their state of mind, or the reasons why certain decisions are taken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair one, have amended it
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 10 seconds ago
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think between International Law, the Geneva convention and British law, we have more than enough to make our troops answerable for any misdemeanour they commit. If I understand it correctly, the problem with the ECHR was that it made it too easy for potentially spurious claims to be brought about.
I'm sure some will see this as giving the troops license to do as they please. However, our armed forces have always been held to very high standards and I don't foresee this having a dramatic impact on the behaviour of the men and women serving abroad. They'll still be held accountable under the Geneva convention, so I don't expect us to suddenly start hearing tales of our soldiers executing POWs, which I fear is how some might interpret this decision.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 13 seconds ago
I'm sure some will see this as giving the troops license to do as they please. However, our armed forces have always been held to very high standards and I don't foresee this having a dramatic impact on the behaviour of the men and women serving abroad. They'll still be held accountable under the Geneva convention, so I don't expect us to suddenly start hearing tales of our soldiers executing POWs, which I fear is how some might interpret this decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very much so.
Part of me initially did think of the potential issues of some in the armed forces taking advantage of this. However looking at it as a whole, it's probably the best way to go about it. They'll still be answerable but there won't be time wasted for what's not deemed an issue.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 10 seconds ago
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think between International Law, the Geneva convention and British law, we have more than enough to make our troops answerable for any misdemeanour they commit. If I understand it correctly, the problem with the ECHR was that it made it too easy for potentially spurious claims to be brought about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think some troops have already gotten away with some war crimes. I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation, if my mates have been killed, but there have been cases where troops have retaliated way beyond what is reasonable. And they've, in my mind, got away with murder.
It's a tough one to call though.
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 10 seconds ago
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think between International Law, the Geneva convention and British law, we have more than enough to make our troops answerable for any misdemeanour they commit. If I understand it correctly, the problem with the ECHR was that it made it too easy for potentially spurious claims to be brought about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think some troops have already gotten away with some war crimes. I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation, if my mates have been killed, but there have been cases where troops have retaliated way beyond what is reasonable. And they've, in my mind, got away with murder.
It's a tough one to call though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undoubtedly you're correct. But there isn't a conflict in history where this hasn't happened. It's an unfortunate by product of the incredible pressures soldiers are under when in theatre. All we can do is put our faith in our superiors to control the forces under their command. As someone who served, this generally works in the British Army. The bad eggs are a massive minority and mostly get weeded out.
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation
-
I think that's the crux of it. It's very hard to determine what an individual in that specific circumstance deems acceptable.
There's a movie called Rules of Engagement with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson, which covers this topic. It's quite a fascinating film in many ways and essentially poses two questions; is it acceptable to order your troops to fire into a crowd of women and children, if some of the women and children are armed and firing upon your own men, and is it acceptable to execute a single POW in a live combat situation if it gives you the leverage to get an enemy combatant to perform an action that will save the lives of a number of your fellow soldiers?
I'm not ashamed to say that, in both circumstances, I would be hard pressed to condemn the man that made those calls in order to save the lives of his fellows.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago
I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation
-
I think that's the crux of it. It's very hard to determine what an individual in that specific circumstance deems acceptable.
There's a movie called Rules of Engagement with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson, which covers this topic. It's quite a fascinating film in many ways and essentially poses two questions; is it acceptable to order your troops to fire into a crowd of women and children, if some of the women and children are armed and firing upon your own men, and is it acceptable to execute a single POW in a live combat situation if it gives you the leverage to get an enemy combatant to perform an action that will save the lives of a number of your fellow soldiers?
I'm not ashamed to say that, in both circumstances, I would be hard pressed to condemn the man that made those calls in order to save the lives of his fellows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, there are horrendous decisions that have to be made in wars. Governments do it with the comfort of generally not seeing or feeling the effects of their actions. The guys on the ground feel it first hand, and suffer the after effects long after they return home. That's why they need more protection. They may make a wrong call, but as long as they made that call with the best intentions, then their exposure should be limited as much as possible.
About time this was done.
I think all spurious ECHR cases should be thrown out and the lawyers should be prosecuted for wasting the court's time. Whether they be military or civil.
If you want to fight outside of the Geneva convention (or ant other code of combat) then you should forfeit your rights to be treated civilly.
Likewise if you commit a crime against a person then you should have less rights than the person you have harmed.
I know that is a simplistic way of looking at things but why should it be any other way. It's only the lowlife lawyers who make things complicated.
Mainly so they can make more money out of a (usually innocent) person's suffering for the benefit of the person who caused the suffering.
It makes my blood boil
Actually, 'Rules of engagement' is the phrase I was looking for when I put 'code of combat'
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure TBH. I'm pretty sure this has been ongoing long before the referendum, so IMO would have happened regardless???
But I'll ask you, what makes several men take a kid for alleged looting and then force him into water, see him struggle and then let him drown?
I would like to think that, whatever the circumstances, I wouldn't be party to such an atrocity.
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 17 seconds ago
But I'll ask you, what makes several men take a kid for alleged looting and then force him into water, see him struggle and then let him drown?
I would like to think that, whatever the circumstances, I wouldn't be party to such an atrocity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and I think those soldiers were aquitted too. But there is a secondary investigation ongoing. But certainly such action is in breach of international law irrespective of echr arrangements.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure TBH. I'm pretty sure this has been ongoing long before the referendum, so IMO would have happened regardless???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it has been ongoing for a long time and I totally agree with this move but I thought, maybe wrongly, that the leave vote allows us to pick and choose which parts of the ECHR we will abide by, rather than being bound by it in it's entirety.
As I said, I may have this around my neck.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 17 seconds ago
But I'll ask you, what makes several men take a kid for alleged looting and then force him into water, see him struggle and then let him drown?
I would like to think that, whatever the circumstances, I wouldn't be party to such an atrocity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and I think those soldiers were aquitted too. But there is a secondary investigation ongoing. But certainly such action is in breach of international law irrespective of echr arrangements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one of a right mind would condone or carry out such actions, and hopefully justice will get there in the end. But as you said yourself, none of us know how any individual will react until you're in a particular situation. These soldiers were either rotten to begin with, or just not able to cope with the environment they find themselves in. Unfortunately if it's the latter, we don't realise until it's too late. Either way though, they still have to pay the price.
I think it could be the case that the ECHR, and the sheer amount of spurious cases, actually helped this case slip through the net. With all the spurious claims being dismissed, the chances of genuine crimes being missed will be greatly reduced.
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure TBH. I'm pretty sure this has been ongoing long before the referendum, so IMO would have happened regardless???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it has been ongoing for a long time and I totally agree with this move but I thought, maybe wrongly, that the leave vote allows us to pick and choose which parts of the ECHR we will abide by, rather than being bound by it in it's entirety.
As I said, I may have this around my neck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this may be the case when we have actually left. But I'm not sure TBH.....
This is more about protecting the government from private litigation companies. They can dress it up as much as they like, it's only come about because of the sheer numbers of cases being brought against the MOD. Troops are still bound by the Geneva convention, NATO and UN membership rules and UK law.
comment by Taggs - Bumbag Boy (U1183)
posted 1 minute ago
This is more about protecting the government from private litigation companies. They can dress it up as much as they like, it's only come about because of the sheer numbers of cases being brought against the MOD. Troops are still bound by the Geneva convention, NATO and UN membership rules and UK law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe the last bit to be true at all. We may say we've signed up to this and that, but the case I highlighted above seems to disprove that. Then there was the Baha Mousa case where no-one got properly punished. All denied responsibility and 'got off'.
I remember an arson case where everyone present, even those that didn't actually torch the house, were sent down for many years after several people died inside the house they torched.
In an ordinary court of law, I think there may have been a different outcome in the Baha Mousa case.
U2. You're clearly well over on one side of the fence, and that's your right. But you need a bit of balance. The cases you highlight are so rare, which is why they're so newsworthy. You seem to be tarring everyone with the same brush.
Sign in if you want to comment
Sense at last......
Page 1 of 4
posted on 4/10/16
I'd put a note in your article stating that any inflammatory, abusive, offensive comments, or slurs against any ethnicity or religion will be deleted, because that's the way I see this discussion going. There' going to be massively conflicting views on this topic.
For what it's worth, I support the decision. We shouldn't hold troops in a war zone to the same standards we'd hold ourselves to walking down the high street. We can't possibly understand their state of mind, or the reasons why certain decisions are taken.
posted on 4/10/16
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 9 minutes ago
I'd put a note in your article stating that any inflammatory, abusive, offensive comments, or slurs against any ethnicity or religion will be deleted, because that's the way I see this discussion going. There' going to be massively conflicting views on this topic.
For what it's worth, I support the decision. We shouldn't hold troops in a war zone to the same standards we'd hold ourselves to walking down the high street. We can't possibly understand their state of mind, or the reasons why certain decisions are taken.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair one, have amended it
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 10 seconds ago
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think between International Law, the Geneva convention and British law, we have more than enough to make our troops answerable for any misdemeanour they commit. If I understand it correctly, the problem with the ECHR was that it made it too easy for potentially spurious claims to be brought about.
posted on 4/10/16
I'm sure some will see this as giving the troops license to do as they please. However, our armed forces have always been held to very high standards and I don't foresee this having a dramatic impact on the behaviour of the men and women serving abroad. They'll still be held accountable under the Geneva convention, so I don't expect us to suddenly start hearing tales of our soldiers executing POWs, which I fear is how some might interpret this decision.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 13 seconds ago
I'm sure some will see this as giving the troops license to do as they please. However, our armed forces have always been held to very high standards and I don't foresee this having a dramatic impact on the behaviour of the men and women serving abroad. They'll still be held accountable under the Geneva convention, so I don't expect us to suddenly start hearing tales of our soldiers executing POWs, which I fear is how some might interpret this decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very much so.
posted on 4/10/16
Part of me initially did think of the potential issues of some in the armed forces taking advantage of this. However looking at it as a whole, it's probably the best way to go about it. They'll still be answerable but there won't be time wasted for what's not deemed an issue.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 10 seconds ago
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think between International Law, the Geneva convention and British law, we have more than enough to make our troops answerable for any misdemeanour they commit. If I understand it correctly, the problem with the ECHR was that it made it too easy for potentially spurious claims to be brought about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think some troops have already gotten away with some war crimes. I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation, if my mates have been killed, but there have been cases where troops have retaliated way beyond what is reasonable. And they've, in my mind, got away with murder.
It's a tough one to call though.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 10 seconds ago
Most of my family have served in the forces. My father in the army, my brothers in the army and navy.
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in the long run, however the Geneva convention and International Law should at least ensure service personnel are held to account.
Its important for the safety of our troops that those even in war zones are held to a high standard of conduct. In the world of mass media, any time troops fall short it becomes global news and puts lives at risk. This is irrespective of whether they are prosecuted under Echr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think between International Law, the Geneva convention and British law, we have more than enough to make our troops answerable for any misdemeanour they commit. If I understand it correctly, the problem with the ECHR was that it made it too easy for potentially spurious claims to be brought about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think some troops have already gotten away with some war crimes. I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation, if my mates have been killed, but there have been cases where troops have retaliated way beyond what is reasonable. And they've, in my mind, got away with murder.
It's a tough one to call though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Undoubtedly you're correct. But there isn't a conflict in history where this hasn't happened. It's an unfortunate by product of the incredible pressures soldiers are under when in theatre. All we can do is put our faith in our superiors to control the forces under their command. As someone who served, this generally works in the British Army. The bad eggs are a massive minority and mostly get weeded out.
posted on 4/10/16
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
posted on 4/10/16
I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation
-
I think that's the crux of it. It's very hard to determine what an individual in that specific circumstance deems acceptable.
There's a movie called Rules of Engagement with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson, which covers this topic. It's quite a fascinating film in many ways and essentially poses two questions; is it acceptable to order your troops to fire into a crowd of women and children, if some of the women and children are armed and firing upon your own men, and is it acceptable to execute a single POW in a live combat situation if it gives you the leverage to get an enemy combatant to perform an action that will save the lives of a number of your fellow soldiers?
I'm not ashamed to say that, in both circumstances, I would be hard pressed to condemn the man that made those calls in order to save the lives of his fellows.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago
I understand that I don't know how I'd react in a similar situation
-
I think that's the crux of it. It's very hard to determine what an individual in that specific circumstance deems acceptable.
There's a movie called Rules of Engagement with Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson, which covers this topic. It's quite a fascinating film in many ways and essentially poses two questions; is it acceptable to order your troops to fire into a crowd of women and children, if some of the women and children are armed and firing upon your own men, and is it acceptable to execute a single POW in a live combat situation if it gives you the leverage to get an enemy combatant to perform an action that will save the lives of a number of your fellow soldiers?
I'm not ashamed to say that, in both circumstances, I would be hard pressed to condemn the man that made those calls in order to save the lives of his fellows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, there are horrendous decisions that have to be made in wars. Governments do it with the comfort of generally not seeing or feeling the effects of their actions. The guys on the ground feel it first hand, and suffer the after effects long after they return home. That's why they need more protection. They may make a wrong call, but as long as they made that call with the best intentions, then their exposure should be limited as much as possible.
posted on 4/10/16
About time this was done.
I think all spurious ECHR cases should be thrown out and the lawyers should be prosecuted for wasting the court's time. Whether they be military or civil.
If you want to fight outside of the Geneva convention (or ant other code of combat) then you should forfeit your rights to be treated civilly.
Likewise if you commit a crime against a person then you should have less rights than the person you have harmed.
I know that is a simplistic way of looking at things but why should it be any other way. It's only the lowlife lawyers who make things complicated.
Mainly so they can make more money out of a (usually innocent) person's suffering for the benefit of the person who caused the suffering.
It makes my blood boil
posted on 4/10/16
Actually, 'Rules of engagement' is the phrase I was looking for when I put 'code of combat'
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure TBH. I'm pretty sure this has been ongoing long before the referendum, so IMO would have happened regardless???
posted on 4/10/16
But I'll ask you, what makes several men take a kid for alleged looting and then force him into water, see him struggle and then let him drown?
I would like to think that, whatever the circumstances, I wouldn't be party to such an atrocity.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 17 seconds ago
But I'll ask you, what makes several men take a kid for alleged looting and then force him into water, see him struggle and then let him drown?
I would like to think that, whatever the circumstances, I wouldn't be party to such an atrocity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and I think those soldiers were aquitted too. But there is a secondary investigation ongoing. But certainly such action is in breach of international law irrespective of echr arrangements.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure TBH. I'm pretty sure this has been ongoing long before the referendum, so IMO would have happened regardless???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it has been ongoing for a long time and I totally agree with this move but I thought, maybe wrongly, that the leave vote allows us to pick and choose which parts of the ECHR we will abide by, rather than being bound by it in it's entirety.
As I said, I may have this around my neck.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by U2 (U20610)
posted 17 seconds ago
But I'll ask you, what makes several men take a kid for alleged looting and then force him into water, see him struggle and then let him drown?
I would like to think that, whatever the circumstances, I wouldn't be party to such an atrocity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and I think those soldiers were aquitted too. But there is a secondary investigation ongoing. But certainly such action is in breach of international law irrespective of echr arrangements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one of a right mind would condone or carry out such actions, and hopefully justice will get there in the end. But as you said yourself, none of us know how any individual will react until you're in a particular situation. These soldiers were either rotten to begin with, or just not able to cope with the environment they find themselves in. Unfortunately if it's the latter, we don't realise until it's too late. Either way though, they still have to pay the price.
I think it could be the case that the ECHR, and the sheer amount of spurious cases, actually helped this case slip through the net. With all the spurious claims being dismissed, the chances of genuine crimes being missed will be greatly reduced.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 minute ago
The first tangible benefit of brexit?
I personally wouldn't object if some of the parasitic pondlife were to 'disappear'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're still in Europe, so no.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the vote to leave is what has prompted and allowed the government to reach this decision .... no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure TBH. I'm pretty sure this has been ongoing long before the referendum, so IMO would have happened regardless???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it has been ongoing for a long time and I totally agree with this move but I thought, maybe wrongly, that the leave vote allows us to pick and choose which parts of the ECHR we will abide by, rather than being bound by it in it's entirety.
As I said, I may have this around my neck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this may be the case when we have actually left. But I'm not sure TBH.....
posted on 4/10/16
This is more about protecting the government from private litigation companies. They can dress it up as much as they like, it's only come about because of the sheer numbers of cases being brought against the MOD. Troops are still bound by the Geneva convention, NATO and UN membership rules and UK law.
posted on 4/10/16
comment by Taggs - Bumbag Boy (U1183)
posted 1 minute ago
This is more about protecting the government from private litigation companies. They can dress it up as much as they like, it's only come about because of the sheer numbers of cases being brought against the MOD. Troops are still bound by the Geneva convention, NATO and UN membership rules and UK law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe the last bit to be true at all. We may say we've signed up to this and that, but the case I highlighted above seems to disprove that. Then there was the Baha Mousa case where no-one got properly punished. All denied responsibility and 'got off'.
I remember an arson case where everyone present, even those that didn't actually torch the house, were sent down for many years after several people died inside the house they torched.
In an ordinary court of law, I think there may have been a different outcome in the Baha Mousa case.
posted on 4/10/16
U2. You're clearly well over on one side of the fence, and that's your right. But you need a bit of balance. The cases you highlight are so rare, which is why they're so newsworthy. You seem to be tarring everyone with the same brush.
Page 1 of 4