Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Have your say on the Overseas Operations Bill

URGENT - Do you have relevant expertise and experience or a special interest in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament?

If so, you can submit your views in writing to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee which is going to consider this Bill.

If you want to submit evidence, you need to be quick:

The first sitting of the Public Bill Committee is on Tuesday 6 October 2020 and the Committee is scheduled to report by Thursday 22 October 2020. However, the Committee may well complete its consideration of the Bill earlier than the expected deadline of 5.00pm on Thursday 22 October 2020. You are strongly advised to submit your written evidence as soon as possible.

House of Commons link:


British Armed Forces Federation link:
 
Any legislation that protects British military personal while serving either in a peace time, or theatre of war location is welcome. However the underlying and unseen presence of legal proceeding that might be implemented, when Tommy Atkins under extreme pressure , and with only seconds to act to protect himself and his muckers, that might result in a non combatant, or an opposing nasty getting slotted, in highly debatable circumstances, will be at the back of his mind, and just might cloud his judgement weather to act aggressively, There should be no thoughts of any prosecutions, on any soldier who comes under fire, for any reason whatsoever, when he returns fire, full stop.
 
Last edited:
Any legislation that protects British military personal while serving either in a peace time, or theatre of war location is welcome. However the underlying and unseen presence of legal proceeding that might be implemented, when Tommy Atkins under extreme pressure , and with only seconds to act to protect himself and his muckers, that might result in a non combatant, or an opposing nasty getting slotted, in highly debatable circumstances, will be at the back of his mind, and just might cloud his judgement weather to act aggressively, There should be no thoughts of any prosecutions, on any soldier who comes under fire, for any reason whatsoever, when he returns fire, full stop.
Thanks! What cases did you have in mind, of soldiers being prosecuted for returning fire? The Battle of Danny Boy is one example of unjustified allegations, but it didn't result in any actual prosecutions. (Op Banner is outwith the scope of the legislation under discussion, but the government intends to deal with that separately.)
 
Any legislation that protects British military personal while serving either in a peace time, or theatre of war location is welcome. However the underlying and unseen presence of legal proceeding that might be implemented, when Tommy Atkins under extreme pressure , and with only seconds to act to protect himself and his muckers, that might result in a non combatant, or an opposing nasty getting slotted, in highly debatable circumstances, will be at the back of his mind, and just might cloud his judgement weather to act aggressively, There should be no thoughts of any prosecutions, on any soldier who comes under fire, for any reason whatsoever, when he returns fire, full stop.
(Alledgedly) Soldier F and/or a now deceased colleague had made statements to the contrary.

The Army aren't above the law, they need protection when they act within the rules of engagement and are subject to the law when they don't.

It's down to any evidence in relation to the case
 
(Alledgedly) Soldier F and/or a now deceased colleague had made statements to the contrary.

The Army aren't above the law, they need protection when they act within the rules of engagement and are subject to the law when they don't.

It's down to any evidence in relation to the case

This is true but the story of Danny Boy shows that the system is open to abuse. Essentially some lying Iraqi's told a sob story to a corrupt lawyer who then spun it to try to profit. It cost and unbelievable 30 Million quid (wtf?) to prove him wrong and for ten years the two patrols who were involved did not know if they would be hung out to dry because of it.

There needs to be a better system in place to weed out the ambulance chasers before it becomes serious in the first place.

I think that some sort of insurance scheme might help to protect soldiers on operations but it pains me to even think about the details that should not be necessary in the place.
 
So if a British soldier is thought to have breached the law of armed conflict they will be exempt from prosecution after 5 years have lapsed?

So is the U.K. going to withdraw from the Rome Statute?
 
Last edited:
So if a British soldier is taught to have breached the law of armed conflict they will be exempt from prosecution after 5 years have lapsed?

So is the U.K. going to withdraw from the Rome Statute?
One of the arguments by opponents of the Bill (or of parts of the Bill) is that it could in some circumstances make prosecution of British soldiers in the International Criminal Court more likely.
 
So if a British soldier is thought to have breached the law of armed conflict they will be exempt from prosecution after 5 years have lapsed?

So is the U.K. going to withdraw from the Rome Statute?
No, mores the pity.
 

Latest Threads

Top