Finally Cleared

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by 252_me, Mar 13, 2007.

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. Now the MODs no longer have any excuse to lock or pull this thread, it's good to see our guys have just been cleared of any wrongdoing in Iraq.
  2. Here, here! They didn't deserve additional time at that gaff, especially seeing as most of the other buggers had been cleared!
  3. Typically, the BBC declared the outcome as a failure! Not from where I am sat it wasn't. Justice was served and the guys can go back to doing their jobs. One senses that they may not feel the same way about their jobs anymore though. The BBC were also crowing that the family of the "victim" were unhappy that no Brits could be held responsible for the death of their family member. Well one definitely can - step forward TB! He should also be charged with betraying his Armed Forces for political points. Tosser! :pissedoff:
  4. Well, good luck to 'em. It must be huge relief to have that enormous lowering cloud lifted.

    To be entirely serious, for once - and, mods, please pull this if it's out of order:

    I do still wonder, though, who gave the green light for "conditioning" and why he's not been asked some fairly penetrating questions, based all or in part on what the Hague had to say in the early 70s, with particular reference to hooding, sensory deprivation and stress positions (let's not even mention the beatings) constituting torture.

    I hold no particular brief for the unfortunate Iraqi who died in such unpleasant circumstances and I certainly feel a huge degree of both professional and personal sympathy with the luckless sods who ended up in front of a court martial, but I am worried by what appear to have been both sourceless and mixed messages coming down the chain of command with regard to prisoner handling and interrogation.

    I'm equally worried by the abrupt withdrawal of support when it all ended in tears (which was the inevitable and entirely predictable end state) and the way our mates were hung out to dry. My username applies in this case, for me, selfishly.
  5. Just to clarify one point on Glad's comments above, our two chaps have had the full support of the INT CORPS throughout the process each with an officer dedicated full time to assist them alongside their legal teams.

    The decision of the APS and the Attorney General to prosecute, along with the merits of the original investigation will clearly be the issue of much debate.
  6. NTTT
    Had this been a dead Int bloke, taken in by civplod to Aldershot nick in good condition when they got him, with no explanation for 96 injuries and with others in the Int group arrested bearing marks of assault with no explanation forthcoming except that they had been treated other than in accordance with civplod custodt rules, would you have expected a positive decision from the APS and AG? Where you talk of merits of the original investigation do you mean why was one carried out? If so, a death in custody - with the background mentioned above - demands some sort of inquiry. If you mean the effectiveness of the inquiry, the investigators were constrained by PACE and were not released by some nebulous figure higher up to resort to beating, hooding and disorientation techniques.
  7. and in your example, if you just took two random blokes from aldershot nick, who didn't work in the custody suite, and held them responsible for what had happened, presumably you would support that?
  8. ORC,

    You mis-understand my comment - I made no judgement on the issue but simply stated that it would be an issue of debate.

    However, it is absolutely right that this case was investigated to the full - one man was unlawfully killed (murder or manslaughter) and the others were cleared subjected to inhumane treatment. It is also absolutely correct that where the evidence exists to bring a prosecution that this is also done.

    However, it is evident from the judge's decision to throw out some of the cases after the prosecution case, and from his summing up at the conclusion, that there are issues with the investigation and over the decision to prosecute all but one of these particular individuals. It is these issues that will be much debated (On the Current Affairs forum for example).

    Your final comment suggesting that we find it acceptable to resort to physical violence to gain information fundamentally mis-understands how we do business.
  9. i find it particularly ironic that ORC, an ex-monkey from "the good old days", is preaching about people allegedly beating confessions out of suspects :)
  10. I don't think that this issue (as mentioned above) is over. I'd be very hesitant to make any sort of comment if I was still in the CoC.

    But I'm not, so I can say I'm glad that our people are now out of the nasty. One bloke isn't, though, and I don't think that the guilt rests with him alone, not by a long chalk.
  11. Don't get me wrong, I didn't have the Corps CoC in mind when I wrote what I did. My not so veiled accusation of CoC cowardice was directed considerably further up the op tree than even the Directorate, peace be upon them and may their beards and loins be blessed.

    As a B Pass graduate of the long I course some 16 years ago, of course, I can't help idly wondering when they took the bit about conditioning, legality of, out of the course as they clearly have in the interim...
  12. Bloody good news for our chaps.

    I haven't seen the full transcripts yet concerning the reasons for the acquital of our two chaps but any former RMPs and journos lurking here may wish to consider why the charges were dropped in respect of the infantry chaps.

    A submission of 'no case to answer' was made successfully to the court. This is allowed when there is no evidence upon which, if the evidence adduced were accepted, a reasonable jury,properly directed, could convict. The authority for this is R v. Galbraith which lays down two limbs of the test:
    a) If there is no evidence that the crime has been committed by the defendant there is no difficulty - the judge will stop the case.
    b) Where the evidence is such that jury could not properly convict - the judge will stop the case.

    It is a simple evidential test which in this case was failed. I agree with the consensus that an investigation should be made but did it really need to have gone to trial in the first place on the basis of what we now know to be non-existant or weak evidence?

    I subscribe to Glad's sentiments - I count myself lucky to be out of it all now.
  13. As you and I have previously discussed, date, time, place please for these allegations swept up off the canteen gossip room floor. However, I accept that barrack room lawyer chat regarding the possibility of robust means may well have ensured that we obtained results that current day interrogaters or interviewers seem to find elusive.
    With regard to beatings to obtain info useful to int, check back re Aden '66ish and French Pete and his mates or the place in Cyprus that sounds like Ormapheta. Ask someone who wears the tie with crocodile tears.
  14. The swallow sings cheerfully in the spring time in Kiev...
  15. Gosh you are old ORC! Did you serve in Cyprus during the EOKA thing? I only ask because my Grandfather was with the British Civpol element of the Cyprus police force and would be interested to know if you knew him being in the same line of work.