Brits Jailed in India

ches

LE
As they always have done and will continue to do. Have you read the book Blackwater? What they got away with is goppin! Im not 100% but I'm pretty sure I read in a UK PSD book that there is some loophole in law that means PSD companies do not have to report the injuries and or deaths of their foreign based employees through the normal channels hence why we rarely hear of injured or killed PSD operators which apparently happens with worrying regularity.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
I only did a bit of sec work, last time in 05 in Iraq when rates were falling fast & it was shit. Death rates were approx 800 pers a year back then if i remember right, but part of the time i was there was during one of the Mahdi army ding dongs. In some cases some companies weren't even providing insurance cover for blokes. It was a case of provide your own. Bigger outfits obviously bit better.
Only notification that i was aware of for CAS was NOK & UK H&SE - which was a moot point being outside UK. We had a Polish bloke KIA while i was there & that was NOK only & that was mainly off the back of the blokes on the ground & our ops room back in the GZ staffed by ex UK & Fr mob. There was nothing communicated to the polish authorities as far as i know.
 

ches

LE
Back OT, i thought the ship had sought shelter (as well as needing replen) after heavy weather in the Indian Ocean. In effect ship was forced to enter Indian waters.

On another note, maritime jobs aren't that well paid at all.
 

walrusboy

War Hero
It's not the same thing but as a side note you will find that If PSD workers are lifted by some terrorist group they fall to the bottom of the rescue file because it is felt amongst the powers that be that they deliberately put themselves in that position. Should you not agree with that genuinely ask some they will tell you they know nobody is coming for them straight away.
This might be a common perception, but is not always the case. Robert Semple a 64 year old ex-sapper was kidnapped by AQ in Yemen in 2014 and held for over a year. He was ultimately released after some diplomatic and military intervention. My understanding is that the ABF also quietly looked after his family in his absence.
 

ACAB

LE
It's not the same thing but as a side note you will find that If PSD workers are lifted by some terrorist group they fall to the bottom of the rescue file because it is felt amongst the powers that be that they deliberately put themselves in that position. Should you not agree with that genuinely ask some they will tell you they know nobody is coming for them straight away.




Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
One of my colleagues in Iraq, Peter T, had previously been kidnapped in Nigeria. It cost the firm 7 figures to get him back.
 
Back OT, i thought the ship had sought shelter (as well as needing replen) after heavy weather in the Indian Ocean. In effect ship was forced to enter Indian waters.
That was originally claimed, found to be untrue.

Their 'replen' was smuggled (illegal) fuel!
 
How "reputable" was the company? Ex booties I know have dabbled in the whole "maritime security" thing and from what I can gather...it descended into a charade with some companies taking on 8 months served ex-matelots who had simply passed an apwt - and could organise their own insurance. Walts were like moths to a flame. As I am led to believe and am happy to be corrected.
 
Firstly the ABF and other service charities support ex-servicemen and their families based on need.
The point is that in this case there shouldn't be any " need" because AdvanFort should have been paying the bills.

If they weren't, then instead of wasting effort trying to get India to let those who had broken its laws go that effort would have been better spent trying to get AdvanFort to meet its obligations.

Secondly, I suspect that neither of us know the full facts of this particular case beyond what is available in open sources.
Agreed, but none of the "full facts" of what actually occurred are contested. The only point of contention is how much or how little those involved knew about the illegalities of what they were doing and whether any ignorance should be a defence. You can blame the navigator for 'straying' into Indian waters, and the company for buying illegal fuel, but they were in the Bay of Bengal when they should have been in the Indian Ocean and they had 35 assorted weapons and 5,500 rounds of ammunition with them without authority. None arrested, charged and sentenced were 'passengers'.


Thirdly, the 'personal gain' you speak about is what? A well paid job?
Illegal.

Whether it is well paid or not, at 3k a month, is academic.

It was illegal, and would have been illegal under the same circumstances pretty well anywhere, east or west.

Finally, as I stated earlier Indian criminal justice does not meet international standards. You only have to read the widespread international reporting of Indian rape investigations to understand this.
Just because you stated it earlier doesn't make it correct!

There are no "international standards" for national justice systems - none, whether they're British, Estonian or Indian. Every country has its own standards and systems which those in their jurisdiction have to either accept or not enter. True, none if us know the full facts but according to just the apparently undisputed facts they clearly broke laws which are applied by most countries and which would have resulted in a similar verdict and a similar or longer sentence elsewhere, including in the West.

The introduction of "widespread international reporting of Indian rape investigations" really is clutching at straws to excuse what all too evidently happened, which nobody involved is denying. However flawed the Indian justice system may be, the basic facts simply aren't in dispute.

The key point is that service charities are a safety net for those in need. It doesn't matter what you think of the individuals, it's the families left behind that might need the support.
The "key point" is the first point - they shouldn't be "in need" because AdvanFort should be footing the bills, not the ABF.

Service charities are a safety net, but they are a safety net with finite, limited resources. If those resources are spent supporting the families of ex-servicemen who have broken the law, either deliberately, knowingly, or through ignorance, for no reason other than to make money, then that means less is available for others - particularly if that funding is "not insubstantial" as the ABF have said it is here.

It's a simple equation - what's given to one is no longer available to be given to another, and in my view it's not just the 'need' that has to be considered but the reason for it.
 

walrusboy

War Hero
There are no "international standards" for national justice systems - none, whether they're British, Estonian or Indian. Every country has its own standards and systems which those in their jurisdiction have to either accept or not enter. True, none if us know the full facts but according to just the apparently undisputed facts they clearly broke laws which are applied by most countries and which would have resulted in a similar verdict and a similar or longer sentence elsewhere, including in the West.
I sense you are becoming enraged about this and without wishing to add to your fury I would point out that India is one of the countries that is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

However, the UK and Estonia are both signatories. In this sense the UK and Estonia accept an international authority and their criminal justice systems are broadly comparable, whilst India's is not. Don't shoot the messenger.

On another point you raise, if we apply the element of need to service charity funding applications then I would prefer to see my donations go to the families of those convicted, say Blackman as an example, than a disabled ex-serviceman who wants a 3 grand pedal-cycle to compete in the 'warrior games'. That's just me though and I accept that others, like yourself, will hold a different view which I accept, and respect.
 

Gunner82

War Hero
I feel we should remember that India has the finest legal system money can buy.
 

crazy_chester

Old-Salt
I agree with you about service charities providing help in a time of need, on that you won't get an argument from me and as I said if it is means tested and needed then good on the abf! My argument of " leave them to it" is nothing to do with their occupation what I am saying is if the families are means tested and found wanting then if help can be given then it should be however for the sake of conversation should they be means tested and have thousands in the bank with the family home bought and paid for then in my opinion they should receive charitable help and advice but not financial! This is my own opinion however I do believe most if not all service charities now means tests the applicant before deciding on any financial outlay commitment!

It's not the same thing but as a side note you will find that If PSD workers are lifted by some terrorist group they fall to the bottom of the rescue file because it is felt amongst the powers that be that they deliberately put themselves in that position. Should you not agree with that genuinely ask some they will tell you they know nobody is coming for them straight away.

Agreed ref westerners being imprisoned to gain a diplomatic and or political heads up or just to embarrass the government and seek an advantage, every country is guilty of that having said that the uk doesn't tend to imprison them (unless a law has clearly been broken) we seem to prefer quietly returning said person to their own country with a UK banning order!

Like you I don't know if these people are entirely guilty (none of us do!) but I personally believe if they are guilty as in caught bang to rights or found guilty in a criminal trial in which the foreign office oversees (common practice) then they should face the law of the land! I am very aware that the Indian justice system dies not equate to the uk justice system and this is when embassy staff ensure that they are dealt with fairly but at the end of the day IF they have broken Indian laws in Indian land/waters then they should face Indian courts and if found guilty accept their lumps the same as anyone else anywhere else in the world! The fact they are ex forces and as is constantly repeated have fought for their country matters not you break the law you answer for it.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Anyone who has knowledge of the efforts to rescue the GW boys who were taken with Peter Moore in 2009 will strongly disagree with your second paragraph.
 

crazy_chester

Old-Salt
How "reputable" was the company? Ex booties I know have dabbled in the whole "maritime security" thing and from what I can gather...it descended into a charade with some companies taking on 8 months served ex-matelots who had simply passed an apwt - and could organise their own insurance. Walts were like moths to a flame. As I am led to believe and am happy to be corrected.
Advantfort were widely seen as bottom of the league. Companies such as Mast and PVI were generally considered as the better end of the spectrum.
 
I sense you are becoming enraged about this and without wishing to add to your fury I would point out that India is one of the countries that is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

However, the UK and Estonia are both signatories. In this sense the UK and Estonia accept an international authority and their criminal justice systems are broadly comparable, whilst India's is not.
Not "enraged" in the slightest, and no "fury" - just mild amusement at your introduction of the ICC.


In this sense the UK and Estonia accept an international authority and their criminal justice systems are broadly comparable, whilst India's is not. Don't shoot the messenger.
Sorry, but this really is absolute and utter nonsense.

The ICC doesn't have anything to do with national "criminal justice systems". Its role is to prosecute war crimes and genocide.

Saying that because they have signed up to it all the 120+ countries that have done so must have a "broadly comparable ... criminal justice system" while those that haven't have one which is inherently somehow worse is without any doubt either the most ill-informed or the most contrived claim I have ever read here, bar none.

Sorry if that sounds "enraged" to you, but it's genuinely so absurd it's funny.

Advantfort were widely seen as bottom of the league. Companies such as Mast and PVI were generally considered as the better end of the spectrum.
But let's be realistic, even if that's difficult after @wb's post about the ICC. None of the six were in the '8 month served ex-matelot" class - all were old enough and experienced enough that they should have known what they were doing. They genuinely may not have known some things were not correctly documented, but that isn't an excuse in any court.
 

crazy_chester

Old-Salt
Not "enraged" in the slightest, and no "fury" - just mild amusement at your introduction of the ICC.




Sorry, but this really is absolute and utter nonsense.

The ICC doesn't have anything to do with national "criminal justice systems". Its role is to prosecute war crimes and genocide.

Saying that because they have signed up to it all the 120+ countries that have done so must have a "broadly comparable ... criminal justice system" while those that haven't have one which is inherently somehow worse is without any doubt either the most ill-informed or the most contrived claim I have ever read here, bar none.

Sorry if that sounds "enraged" to you, but it's genuinely so absurd it's funny.



But let's be realistic, even if that's difficult after @wb's post about the ICC. None of the six were in the '8 month served ex-matelot" class - all were old enough and experienced enough that they should have known what they were doing. They genuinely may not have known some things were not correctly documented, but that isn't an excuse in any court.
The guys were not operational when they were lifted. Essentially the were marking time, resting before the next transit. If the vessel had not entered Indian waters there would have been no issue. The Master of the vessel was responsible for entering Indian waters not the off duty shooters.

Its not the first time this has happened, we have had lads detained in Eritrea (Marsec) Iraq (C.P repeatedly) Afghan (C.P repeatedly), Nigeria (Marsec repeatedly. SY Consultancy repeatedly).
 

crazy_chester

Old-Salt
Not "enraged" in the slightest, and no "fury" - just mild amusement at your introduction of the ICC.




Sorry, but this really is absolute and utter nonsense.

The ICC doesn't have anything to do with national "criminal justice systems". Its role is to prosecute war crimes and genocide.

Saying that because they have signed up to it all the 120+ countries that have done so must have a "broadly comparable ... criminal justice system" while those that haven't have one which is inherently somehow worse is without any doubt either the most ill-informed or the most contrived claim I have ever read here, bar none.

Sorry if that sounds "enraged" to you, but it's genuinely so absurd it's funny.



But let's be realistic, even if that's difficult after @wb's post about the ICC. None of the six were in the '8 month served ex-matelot" class - all were old enough and experienced enough that they should have known what they were doing. They genuinely may not have known some things were not correctly documented, but that isn't an excuse in any court.
Plus in the UK we have let security workers off who have entered the UK mainland with firearms in recent memory. Including a guy working for a competitor of Advanfort.
 

walrusboy

War Hero
Its role is to prosecute war crimes and genocide.
That's true, but it gives a good indication of the country's commitment to dealing with those criminal activities specified in the Rome Statute. India's record in Kashmir might have some bearing on this (Likewise, Pakistan is not a signatory either). My original point in respect of Indian criminal justice remains extant. It cannot be considered comparable in quality or fairness to that of Western nations.
 

INSANITY

Swinger
That's true, but it gives a good indication of the country's commitment to dealing with those criminal activities specified in the Rome Statute. India's record in Kashmir might have some bearing on this (Likewise, Pakistan is not a signatory either). My original point in respect of Indian criminal justice remains extant. It cannot be considered comparable in quality or fairness to that of Western nations.
What about US, Israel, Russia, China? Are those a signatory?
 

walrusboy

War Hero
What about US, Israel, Russia, China? Are those a signatory?
No they aren't. I suspect that if the ICC charged all the individuals from these nations who are responsible for committing war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression, the cells at The Hague would be stacked to the rafters.
 
If the vessel had not entered Indian waters there would have been no issue.
Presumably that's a joke?

The guys were not operational when they were lifted. Essentially the were marking time, resting before the next transit.
So it's claimed, and it's the one part of the story which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is never explained.

If they were "marking time" what were they (and the ship) doing in the Bay of Bengal at all? Having a guided tour?

The Master of the vessel was responsible for entering Indian waters not the off duty shooters.
Unfortunately for the security guards that's not relevant to their charge / offence and not a defence in any country.

Plus in the UK we have let security workers off who have entered the UK mainland with firearms in recent memory. Including a guy working for a competitor of Advanfort.
Any comparable examples?
 
That's true, but it gives a good indication of the country's commitment to dealing with those criminal activities specified in the Rome Statute. India's record in Kashmir might have some bearing on this (Likewise, Pakistan is not a signatory either).
That's as irrelevant to this case as it is absurd - you may as well highlight their failure to address global warming or child labour as an excuse for someone committing any offence.

Have you looked at the list of 120 signatories for examples of countries with an evident "commitment to dealing with" genocide, etc?

Do you realise that three-quarters of the signatories don't have any legislation supporting that supposed "commitment" ?

Or that the non-signatories include the Vatican City, and Jersey and Guernsey are not included, so presumably by your rationale anyone committing a crime there should get a 'bye' as well?

My original point in respect of Indian criminal justice remains extant. It cannot be considered comparable in quality or fairness to that of Western nations.
That's your opinion, but whether it is or not is no excuse as there is no question of the incident and the offence not having taken place - the only defence put forward is ignorance.

By your argument a 'Westerner' should be let off any offence in India or any other 'non-Western' country even if proven beyond any doubt and they are caught in the act (as these were) just because their system is different to the West's.

That sort of arrogance doesn't work any more.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top