Conscientious Objectors

#2
Confusion in battle is what pain is in childbirth - the natural order of things
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
IIRC objection would be likely to fail if it was based on one Op or action. You could not claim that you are willing to serve in Afghanistan but conscientiously object to serving in Iraq because you believe invading it was illegal.
 
#5
IIRC objection would be likely to fail if it was based on one Op or action. You could not claim that you are willing to serve in Afghanistan but conscientiously object to serving in Iraq because you believe invading it was illegal.
But if their objection is based on war itself, rather than one specific Op / action, then what the **** are they doing in the Armed Forces?
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#6
But if their objection is based on war itself, rather than one specific Op / action, then what the **** are they doing in the Armed Forces?
Well quite. However we cannot rule out people changing their minds. They get religion etc.
 
#7
But if their objection is based on war itself, rather than one specific Op / action, then what the **** are they doing in the Armed Forces?
Maybe they joined to defend kith and kin and want no part in foreign adventures started by untrustworthy politicians for dubious purposes?
 
#8
These people weren't conscripted, they volunteered (during 'wartime' if you will), so it strikes me as ridiculous that they now wish to be regarded as conscientious objectors. Actual conscientious objectors would hardly volunteer to join any military now, would they?

There are four possibilities here:

1 - they are fools
2 - they are cowards
3 - they are both
4 - they want to make a name and career for themselves off the back of this posturing, and ponce about the anti-war political fringe, droning on to rooms half-full of unwashed leftists about how they took a moral stand against becoming 'war criminals'.
 
#9
These people weren't conscripted, they volunteered (during 'wartime' if you will), so it strikes me as ridiculous that they now wish to be regarded as conscientious objectors. Actual conscientious objectors would hardly volunteer to join any military now, would they?

There are four possibilities here:

1 - they are fools
2 - they are cowards
3 - they are both
4 - they want to make a name and career for themselves off the back of this posturing, and ponce about the anti-war political fringe, droning on to rooms half-full of unwashed leftists about how they took a moral stand against becoming 'war criminals'.

No gold codpieces for my Judge Dredd,
 
#10
These people weren't conscripted, they volunteered (during 'wartime' if you will), so it strikes me as ridiculous that they now wish to be regarded as conscientious objectors. Actual conscientious objectors would hardly volunteer to join any military now, would they?

There are four possibilities here:

1 - they are fools
2 - they are cowards
3 - they are both
4 - they want to make a name and career for themselves off the back of this posturing, and ponce about the anti-war political fringe, droning on to rooms half-full of unwashed leftists about how they took a moral stand against becoming 'war criminals'.
However Conscientious Objectors can be extreamly brave in WW1 a man by the name of William Coultman joined the North Staffordshire Regt voluntairly he then declared he he was a conscientious objector and could not kill so he became a streacher bearer and ended up with 2 Milltary Medals 2 Distinguished Conduct Medals and a Victoria Cross it makes you wonder though why these 9 are not medics they dont have to like war to help people that are hurt
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
However Conscientious Objectors can be extreamly brave in WW1 a man by the name of William Coultman joined the North Staffordshire Regt voluntairly he then declared he he was a conscientious objector and could not kill so he became a streacher bearer and ended up with 2 Milltary Medals 2 Distinguished Conduct Medals and a Victoria Cross it makes you wonder though why these 9 are not medics they dont have to like war to help people that are hurt
Dad's Army's Pte Godfrey was a conscientious objector in the Great War who won an MM as a stretcher bearer. I don't need reminding that it's a fictitious story but as with many good fictions it carries a greater truth.

That said I'm inclined to be sceptical about people in an all volunteer army who suddenly find a conscientious objection to bearing arms.
 
#12
IMO, they are not conscripts and should therefore be forced to soldier on. The Navy guys unless serving ashore in A'stan is unlikely to come into contact with the enemy and are more likely to kill someone driving a car than serving on board HM ships. Make them go to the war zone as non-combatants.
 
#13
However Conscientious Objectors can be extreamly brave in WW1 a man by the name of William Coultman joined the North Staffordshire Regt voluntairly he then declared he he was a conscientious objector and could not kill so he became a streacher bearer and ended up with 2 Milltary Medals 2 Distinguished Conduct Medals and a Victoria Cross it makes you wonder though why these 9 are not medics they dont have to like war to help people that are hurt
And service personnel such as William Coultman should be justly honoured - however, I would not bracket those cited in the original article with him, as they seem to want out completely. Coultman's moral objection was against killing, not service in the Forces in which he served gallantly, whereas the nine personnel in question seem to have somewhat broader objections - "Six of them....were granted the right to leave the armed forces because of moral, political or religious objections."
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#14
IMO, they are not conscripts and should therefore be forced to soldier on. The Navy guys unless serving ashore in A'stan is unlikely to come into contact with the enemy and are more likely to kill someone driving a car than serving on board HM ships. Make them go to the war zone as non-combatants.
I don't think I want any of these people in a war-zone. Not if anybody else has to rely on them. I also don't want them to continue to draw pay if they are not willing to do the hard business of soldiering (or whatever the matelot or crab version of soldiering is called)
 
#15
I'm struggling a wee bit to get my head around how in an all-volunteer armed forces we can still have COs..? I get that "people change and get religion etc......but to be honest, it still doesnt wash....what comes out from the figures though is that some meet the criteria, whatever it is and some don't.....I say don't let anyone serve that doesn't want to - but do extract any penalties from them for not fulfilling their contracts...
 
#16
A mate of mine was a conscientious objector in the Salvation Army.
 
#17
If these 9 individuals were hoping to 'make a name for themselves' they were singularly unsuccessful, because we have never heard of most of them. The mere fact that there had been 9 applications since late 2001 came as a surprise to many here.

Of these 9 applications, 8 were granted by their chain of command. The remaining applicant, having had his request rejected by his CO, pursued it to the Advisory Committee as he was fully entitled to; the Advisory Committee upheld the CO's decision, so the serviceman is required to stag on. (Good luck to that individual BTW).

The comments from anti-war campaigners, based on those figures, are predictable and also obviously wrong. There have been very few applications, the case which got as far as the Advisory Committee was the first in 14 years, and it was unsuccessful.

On these figures I dont feel there is so much to worry about. One way of looking at it is that although the conscientious objection system has hardly been used even in a busy time for the armed forces, it is required to underpin any potential larger callout (long-term reservists etc) in a time of extreme national emergency.
 
#18
I get the impression that in many of these cases, it was intended as a publicity stunt, no doubt encouraged by the numerous anti-war bodies, as opposed to a genuine desire to leave the mob. I dont beleive that any CO would force a soldier to err.....soldier on if his heart wasnt in it and would rather seek their termination some other way than to challenge the MOD in court on the grounds of CO.
 
#19
I get the impression that in many of these cases, it was intended as a publicity stunt, no doubt encouraged by the numerous anti-war bodies, as opposed to a genuine desire to leave the mob. I dont beleive that any CO would force a soldier to err.....soldier on if his heart wasnt in it and would rather seek their termination some other way than to challenge the MOD in court on the grounds of CO.
You get this at the job centre = Conscientious Objectors
 
#20

Similar threads

New Posts

Top