Defending the indefensible [3]

Our wunnerful gummint:

Why in God’s name would any British person want to join any of our armed forces. I can think of NO other country that treats its veterans in this deplorable manner. Is the government too weak to send these lawyers packing. Its all about money.Bloody treason more like.

22 comments for “Defending the indefensible [3]

  1. The Blocked Dwarf
    May 20, 2018 at 15:05

    I have no moral qualms about the judiciary going after any soldier of either side(s) in any conflict. Nor is it justified to dailyheil whine about it being ‘unfair’. However the example quoted is surely an open and shut case of a soldier doing his job and if an ‘innocent’ civilian was killed by his or his colleagues actions it is regrettable of course (and the government should pay compo) but there can be no justification for anything other than the letters “NFA” being scrawled on the case file. Go after those soldiers who knowingly murdered innocents, I’ll hold your horse hair wig for you whilst you do.

    Addendum: in such cases I feel it would be better that the military judiciary try such cases. That whole ‘peers’ thing.

  2. Penseivat
    May 20, 2018 at 15:51

    For quite a number of years, there have been concerns over a lack of recruitment for the Armed Forces and the cretins in government wonder why. Up until the Blair days, I always believed that “There is no more honourable profession than in the service of the Crown”. No more do I believe that and have actively persuaded young people not to join the military. Just look at how Dim Dave “Hug a hoody” Cameron treated the forces. Imagine being in a theatre of operations where your life was at risk every day and receiving notification that when your tour of duty was over, in 3 months time, you will be made redundant? What an incentive. Imagine approaching the end of your service, eligible for a retirement package to be told your termination of service is being brought forward by a few weeks, or even days, which will greatly reduce your pension and commutation and affecting the possibility of housing and supporting your family? Imagine surviving an arduous and dangerous tour of duty and looking forward to spending time with your family, only to be told you will spend the next 6 weeks sleeping on a camp bed in a warehouse because Dim Dave’s mates couldn’t provide the promised security for the Olympic Games and you would be doing that? All to save a comparatively small amount of taxpayers money.
    These are only 3 examples of many where the governments of the day have done their best to destroy the Armed Forces, treating them with contempt and disdain. Loyalty works both ways, or it should do, but politicians can’t, or won’t accept or understand that. I served 27 years in different theatres, some dangerous and some not. I wear my campaign and service decorations with pride, but only for the honour of serving my Queen and country, and for the memories of comradeship and friendship of colleagues I could rely on, as they could rely on me. There are few politicians today with a military background and so have no concept of what veterans have suffered or done without.
    Fortunately, I have not (yet) found myself in a similar situation as many ex service personnel have done, but perhaps that list is, indeed, very long and they will visit me in due course. Interesting times ahead, I fear.

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      May 20, 2018 at 16:35

      It may surprise you to learn I don’t disagree overly with what you say. However I would go a bit further and say we, the civilian population, are as guilty as Blair or Cameroon. For as long as people are prepared to support charities/fake charities such as the Poppy Appeal or Help For Heroes, we provide the government with an alibi to dishonour their moral contract with servicemen.

      To misquote Brecht: “Unhappy the land that *needs* Help For Heroes”.

  3. May 20, 2018 at 17:19

    Which is a far cry from old soldiers being prosecuted for what they operationally had to.

  4. Bill
    May 20, 2018 at 19:21

    “Of his siblings, only one — a sister, aged 92 — remains alive. ‘This would worry her,’ he says. ‘I hope she’ll never find out that her youngest brother is being pursued because it’s so bloody ridiculous that they’re chasing me.

    ‘I’ve kept it away from my family, my nieces and nephews, too.”

    Bloody hell. He goes into the Daily Mail and tells all. Talk about letting the cat out of the bag.

    Does have the look of Tim Brooke Taylor about him. https://www.shropshirestar.com/resizer/nIvFFsNHHx-CBPHGjt5bcQ4ACtA=/1200×0/filters:quality%28100%29/https%3a%2f%2farc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-shropshirestar-mna.s3.amazonaws.com%2fpublic%2fB5RMWVUGFJA6JA3QFJ3VUTVMTI.jpg

  5. Bill
    May 20, 2018 at 19:26

    “Of his siblings, only one — a sister, aged 92 — remains alive. ‘This would worry her,’ he says. ‘I hope she’ll never find out that her youngest brother is being pursued because it’s so bloody ridiculous that they’re chasing me.

    ‘I’ve kept it away from my family, my nieces and nephews, too.”

    Bloody hell. He goes into the Daily Mail and tells all. Talk about letting the cat out of the bag.

    Does have the look of Tim Brooke Taylor about him. http://www.dancingledge.com/_Media/timbt4_med.jpeg

  6. dearieme
    May 20, 2018 at 19:45

    One of my father’s men murdered some German prisoners. Does that make my father complicit in a war crime? Does it make General Montgomery complicit? General Eisenhower? HM George VI?

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      May 20, 2018 at 21:09

      “Does that make my father complicit in a war crime?”

      How far a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his men is , no doubt, tightly defined in military law. More likely your father might be found guilty of ‘dereliction of duty’ for not knowing/preventing the atrocity ? Being ‘complicit’ tends to mean at least ‘having turned a blind eye’, doesn’t it?

  7. wolfie
    May 20, 2018 at 19:47

    There are parts of government that think that having a military at all is a quaint anachronism.

    Open borders advocates abound.

    Perhaps if we give everyone everything we have they will love us so much we will never need to fight again?

  8. Mudplugger
    May 20, 2018 at 21:43

    A more honest man than my late father you would never meet, yet after 5 years of conscripted service, he looted various items of cut-glass from Cologne in 1945, items which now live in my dining-room.
    That made him a criminal (for which the advertised penalty at the time was death) but he reckoned that the Germans were stealing 6 vital years of his life, during which time they had tried every day to kill him – by that token, his relatively minor looting seemed small recompense.

    Others of his colleagues exacted their own personal vengeance in different ways, some by very inhumane treatment of their opponents, both military and civilian. That seems hard to defend in our 70-year distant and secure state but, if we had been through what they had all seen and endured, can we honestly say that we would behave differently?

    In such wartime, normally-humane men have their innate humanity trained and experienced out of them, that’s the only way an army can work. To revisit the acts of those men long after the fact, in wholly different times, with completely different mores, cannot produce a just outcome for any of the parties involved. War is a desperately ugly business, if you can’t take it, don’t do it.

  9. Penseivat
    May 20, 2018 at 22:37

    TBD,
    When you are called to the reported scene of a road traffic collision, involving a military vehicle, in which a child is badly injured, only to find that some terrorist scumbags have set it up to ambush and kill as many British soldiers as possible, it tends to concentrate the mind somewhat. The fact that 3 of the soldiers who turned up were unarmed paramedics, wearing white armbands with red crosses on them, meant not a jot to the ambushers. One medic was shot and killed, one shot and survived. My colleagues and I returned fire. I’m sure that someone, somewhere, called out the required warning. Two of the ambushers were killed, whether by me or one of my squad, I have no idea. Do I regret what happened? Of course I do. I regret we didn’t kill the rest of the bastards. What made it seem unrealistic was that this did not happen in some far flung sh*t hole, but in a town where people were sat in houses watching BBC or ITV or shopping in BRITISH high street shops. I may have killed someone that evening. I know I have killed people in other countries. Not because I hated them or what they stood for. I killed them because they were in the process of trying to kill me. My job was to protect my squad and myself. These people made a conscious decision to try and kill me. If they had not done so, they may still be alive. Does this make me a criminal, a murderer, a psychopath? I have to live with what I have done and only get through the days, and nights, because I believe I looked at the options and made the correct decisions.
    By the way, I am a fundraiser for Help for Heroes and proudly sell poppies each November. You may have seen me standing in some shopping arcade or outside a supermarket. You may even have passed the time of day with me. I am the steely eyed bloke with the killer’s expression (not).
    While I am proud of my military service, I am profoundly ashamed and disgusted with those who consider themselves my political masters, for the lies they have made and the betrayals they have shown.
    Rant over.

  10. May 21, 2018 at 06:29

    Penseivat. Thank you for your service sir. We British don’t say that with the same frequency and perhaps obsequiousness as our cousins in the western colonies, but my sincerity is meant. From one 20+ years man to another 27+years man.

    It is an appalling situation for a fine old soldier to find himself in, surrounded on all sides by ‘polite’ interrogators who have no idea what it was like. It makes a chap want to clean his weapons again.

  11. May 21, 2018 at 06:31

    I have some tales of this kind [Penseivat] too.

    Can’t help thinking this thread, of yesterday’s three, is an important issue to thrash out in the head. I must admit that because of my experiences, I’m most aligned with Penseivat here.

    One thing for sure – I’d have no compunction, why would I? It would be lunacy. Which is why moral codes become important, otherwise we become killing drones.

    I can’t be doing with the dishonouring of our servicemen and women.

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      May 21, 2018 at 06:56

      “I’m most aligned with Penseivat here”

      I think we all are to a large extent, even I who perhaps represent the more loony right wing contingent on this one am in broad agreement with Penseivat. Only major difference between us is I see the aforementioned charities as part of the problem not the solution. The way (ex)servicemen are treated in this cuntry is a disgrace and shames us all.

  12. Bill
    May 21, 2018 at 08:10

    If you join up you have to kill people. That is the fundamental on which all military force is based.
    The lie that has been played out over my lifetime is that there is a Ministry of Defence. It is simply a re-branded Ministry for War.

    This is the Army oath
    “I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.”

    Doesn’t mention the nation, the people of these islands, the public, the citizen.
    Against ALL enemies so god help anyone who wants to be rid of the monarchy and acts to do something about it.
    Killing to protect a sovereign is the reality.

  13. Penseivat
    May 21, 2018 at 10:29

    Bill,
    (Sorry to keep on about this, folks), if you look at the oath again, it mentions the word ‘defend’. To me, this suggests that the oath is followed after an act of aggression by others. With the SJW s and snowflakes currently in Parliament, the act of aggression could be made by politicians or citizens of this country, rather than a foreign regime. I am willing to be corrected, but I cannot think of any incident in recent times, where the British military were used in a pre-emptive act, before any signs of aggression by others. I know that every occasion in which I used force, it was in response to a similar, and earlier, act by others.
    Perhaps you would prefer the oath to reflect the country? The Nazi party referred to The Fatherland, while the Soviet Union referred to the Motherland, irrespective of the political tyrants in power. The USA sing ‘My country, tis of thee’ because they have a rotating system of political power as head of state. The UK has a Royal Family and a Queen as head of state, devoid of political power. This is probably a good thing. Can you imagine Jeremy Corbyn or Diane ‘Miss Pillion 1962’ Abbott, or Alexander ‘but call me Boris’ Johnson, as head of state? With all their faults, the Royal Family are preferable to any other head of state. That is why I swore an oath to them on enlistment and renewed it when I became a Police officer.
    Since my first post on this subject, I have spoken to an ex-serviceman, now in his 80’s, who was invited some years ago for “a quiet chat” about his Northern Ireland experiences. He advised the nice young men that, when he left the Army, he signed the official secrets act. As any offence under that act is subject to a custodial sentence, he would not offer any information until, and unless, he was shown a document proclaiming that he would be absolved of any information he may give that would go against the act. He added that his son was a barrister and would carefully peruse the document to ensure that all relevant aspects were covered. So far, he’s still waiting for them to come back!

    • Bill
      May 21, 2018 at 11:37

      Not having a go at you old man simply pointing out what the oath does.
      The oath once sworn binds the swearer to the defence of the sovereign in the face of whatever enemy the sovereign defines as the enemy at the ultimate expense of their own life.
      It does not bind the swearer to defend their family, friends or indeed anyone else on this island other than allowed for in that oath.

      Devoid of political power indeed. Prince Charles ‘spider letters’ revelations rather put that myth to bed.

      I too signed that Act a long time ago.

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      May 21, 2018 at 12:16

      ” He advised the nice young men that, when he left the Army, he signed the official secrets act. As any offence under that act is subject to a custodial sentence, he would not offer any information until,”

      That brightened my morning, thank you !

  14. May 21, 2018 at 11:53

    Hmmmm, issue is a curly one.

  15. Bill
    May 21, 2018 at 12:20

    Just had a thought. This is likely how the laughingly termed ‘legal profession’ is pursuing soldiers. They speak the oath above and get bound by its words. Then they kill someone ‘under orders’ from a higher rank and the legals presume that the killing was outside the very precise limitation of the oath.

  16. Penseivat
    May 21, 2018 at 13:47

    “….they kill someone ‘under orders’…..”? Don’t think so, Bill. They may kill someone to defend themselves or others, but I doubt they are told on morning parade, “You’ve been lacking recently. Go out on patrol this morning and kill someone. That’s an order.”
    Quite a few years ago, as a young soldier, I was told by my platoon Sgt that conversation and not confrontation was the preferred way to go. What happened after that was up to the other bloke(s). I think Churchill used the mantra “Jaw jaw and not war war.” Perhaps that’s where the Sgt got it from?

    • Bill
      May 21, 2018 at 15:51

      Rules of engagement for opening fire in Northern Ireland aka the yellow card.
      https://mikeb302000.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/rules-of-engagement.html

      The higher rank is the Director of Operations.

      “and those whom it is your duty to protect” Specifically the sovereign, their heirs and successors as the oath states.
      This is how the legal vultures slither in. Soldiers possibly breaking their sworn oath of faithful allegiance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *