Deserter life sentences

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Jacques_Bustard, May 22, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Armed Forces bill is being debated in parliament and there's talk of life sentences for those who desert from military service.
    The BBC News website states:-

    "Labour's Kevan Jones backed the life sentence sanction, saying there must be controls over people who had made a decision to join the armed forces.

    "We can't have a pick and choose army where people pick and choose where they do serve," he added"

    No we can't, but we've got politicians who do the choosing for them and what sanction is applied to them when they get that wrong? Hell hath no fury like a non-combatant. I think life is probably too harsh.
    Full story here
  2. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    On the other hand, you need to look at why soldiers desert or go absent in the first place.

    Incidentally, Kevan Jones is supportive of a Forces Ombudsman, and a Federation, so he's not anti-military at all.
  3. So long as they're the same 'life sentences' that get handed down to murderers, rapists and child abusers.
  4. Fair point, but knowing our judiciary, they'll make sure that the squaddie stays in longer.
  5. why bother giving them a life sentace when we could just revert back to standing them against a wall and shooting them, what a bunch of useless t*ts we have in this goverment.
  6. What about the RAF Doctor?,,200-2133812,00.html
  7. Ludicrous.

    The UK armed forces are volunteer professionals. Anyone who does not want to fight should not be compelled - they would be a danger to their comrades and themselves. The current system works well enough - the shame associated with avoiding duty and the proporitonate punishment awarded by CM are punishment enough.

    Something to do with stifling future dissent over more illegal wars I think. It won't work either - the conscientious objector route will be used more in future, with the active collaboration of those officers who do not wish to see anyone locked up for life. Even if someone did face CM, they would have this disproportionate sentence overturned on appeal. Why should someone who is not a threat to the public and who has not taken life be sent to jail for so long? Drunk drivers who kill get a fraction of this time.

    Typical initiative by the spineless snout-troughs who hide behind armed police and barricades, unlike the rest of us. These are the real cowards.
    This can only increase the support for a Federation.
  8. Spanish_Dave

    Spanish_Dave LE Good Egg (charities)

    I can remember when guys used to turn up at the gates after a year or two awol, do their time and then soldier on and soldier on well, however to do a runner in the face of impending ops for the sole reason of missing the op is a different matter, I only hope that it gets extended to certain members of our reserve forces who like the odd weekend in and then cry off when they have to deploy
  9. Me thinks they are getting the laws in place before we get the Arrse Armed forces federation up and running :)

  10. I took the reports to mean that life would be applied to those "deserting in the face of the enemy" as the old version went.

    Not those that just refuse to go into a combat area.

    Even when the early morning last cigarette parade was in vogue I don't think they shot anyone who didn't return from leave or did a bunk from the rear areas. Of course I could be mistaken but thought that the ultimate penalty was only used on those that legged it whilst the battle was in progress or just about to start.
  11. Being shot for desertion stopped in the 20's. During WW2 no Commonwealth/UK soldier was shot for desertion. Those executed were for murder etc. Even the mutiny in Salerno in '43 resulted in hard labour for those convicted but their sentences were later reduced and I think the longest serving had 12 years.

    As pointed out earlier, as ong as the sentence matches that in civvie st, ie life for murder then out in 4 then I have no problems, but I reckon it will be a case of using the Army as an example and if that is the case they will be onto a non-starter. The Human Rights act will kick in and it will all trun to r##sh#t as usual.

    I had the misfortune to be guard commander on a couple of occasions when deserters returned. They were immediately converted into AWOL for expediency, did 28 days in the nick until a paper discharge could be organised, then released.

    There is greater merit in some form of punishment for those disappearing on active service, however, but that already appears in the Army Act along with a scale of sentence and guidance for CM's. This seems like another attempt at headlines and detracting from the problems the Govt has in other areas. :roll:
  12. I can not belive what I am reading in the news this morning.

    Total removal of human rights, especially after what our grand fathers and great grand fathers went through during and after WW1. Who strived to ensure decent humanitarian rights for shell shocked soldiers in the trenches.

    There is nothing worse than a couch potatoe General, expecting security of the nation whilst butchering its own men and woman, while hiding behind their own political power, deeply embedded within the protection of government.

    Next they will be asking for the battle tactics of 1916 under General Haigh to be brought back.

    All I can say is bring back the Black Adder series which typifies the current strife UK forces are having to put up with this government.
  13. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Completly off topic, but where can i find out about this mutiny, i have never heard of it...
  14. Hmmm, an interesting picture for the press to play with as Cpl Shagnasty, or Capt Slackbladder is stood up in front of a Courts Martial and when asked why he "deserted" states that it was because he refused to take (further) part in an illegal and immoral war and as such was reflecting the view of a (very) large slice of the electorate. I have no dooubt that the new SofS for Defence, with his human rights lawyer background, will be very understanding.......
  15. Are you quite mad or is this just a failed attempt at being funny? The latter I think.