Judge halts court martial of Mirror pictures TA soldier

#1
COURT martial proceedings against the Territorial Army soldier allegedly behind the faked pictures published in the Daily Mirror of British troops mistreating an Iraq prisoner, which led to the sacking of Piers Morgan, the newspaper’s Editor, were halted yesterday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1580148,00.html

Looks like he hadn't signed on when they were taken.

msr
 
#3
Sounds about right, to the best of my knowledge TA soldiers are only subject to military law once they have signed the pay sheet for that day/days anything outside that, they are then untouchable and subject to normal civilian law.

Any smart arrsed lawyer would argue that the photos were taken on a day or time prior to signing any pay sheet. As an employee of the INLAND REVENUE I hope the sh1t gets what he deserves.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#4
The cnut Piers was on Radio 4 last night, whinging about losing hiss job, and implying that the photos were real...
 
#5
I also heard Piers Moron on Radio 4's PM, whining about the consequences of printing fake pictures. He claimed that the possibility that they were fake was not raised until '36 hours after publication'. However, I recall that ARRSE first called the authenticity of the photos into doubt at 1054 on the day of publication.

In any case, the pictures were subsequently proved to be fake; Moron was forced to resign; the Mirror apologised, and Clarkson punched Moron just for good measure.

It seems the episode has stuck in Moron's craw. Good.
 
#6
Surely, as a TA soldier, once you step onto TA Centre property you are subject to Military Law? And as for deployment, that means 24 hours a day. What about his insurance? Does PAX cover being a civvy for x hours a day? If he (or she) is injured on his time off, then he cannot claim against the Army and has to persue a claim in the civilian court. Is that up and running in Iraq? If you lose a finger you can get a nice few grand from the Army, but what will the local Shia court give you? A couple of sheep, a chicken and a guaranteed place in paradise?

It's a load of bollox and throws the One Army concept out of the window.
 
#7
Surely by the rational that you did not do the crime on Army time, no member of the TA can be sacked for failing a CDT as it would have to be proved tha they were taking the drugs whilst on duty!

This is absolute madness, and I have no faith the teh CPS will do anything about it - I do not think that there is a civi equivalent of Section 69.

And as for that P?">k Poers Morgan, i would like to get a copy of that trach and .... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Best go and cool down a little :evil:
 
#8
Rifle-Green-Sex-Machine said:
Surely, as a TA soldier, once you step onto TA Centre property you are subject to Military Law?
Once you sign in you are, when you are dismissed you aren't. It gets confusing when your on a weekend at your TAC, as soon as your dismissed on a Sat evening your also not under mil law until you parade again in the morning.

It was queried on here how the MOD thought they could charge these guys
 
#11
wooger said:
Surely by the rational that you did not do the crime on Army time, no member of the TA can be sacked for failing a CDT as it would have to be proved tha they were taking the drugs whilst on duty!
Nope. TA soldiers failing CDT face the same sanctions as regular ones.

msr
 
#12
wooger said:
Surely by the rational that you did not do the crime on Army time, no member of the TA can be sacked for failing a CDT as it would have to be proved tha they were taking the drugs whilst on duty!
Except that you are on duty and subject to military discipline with the drugs still in your system, otherwise you wouldn't get caught. The fact that you took them outside TA time is irrelevant.

I also hear that when TA Regs are reviewed they are looking at making the whole TA subject to Mil Law 24/7. At present this only applies to officers and they are looking at getting rid of the double standards (for once! :wink: )
 
#13
Regarding CDT: It's probably a case that it is against Mil Law to fail the CDT, as well as take narcotics-since TA soldiers are not subject to Mil Law 24/7 then they can't be prosecuted for taking drugs during civi time, but they can for failing a CDT taken in Mil time (or taking drugs if you're mad enough to on an exercise/drill night).

Once mobilised they are essentially regulars and subject to Mil Law like everyone else.

Since the faker was not actually in Iraq, and they can't prove the photo's were taken during mil time (although it is possible/likely) the court didn't have much choice.

It would have been different if he was an officer however as they are subject to Military law 24/7 regardless whether TA or Reg.
 
#16
msr said:
COURT martial proceedings against the Territorial Army soldier allegedly behind the faked pictures published in the Daily Mirror of British troops mistreating an Iraq prisoner, which led to the sacking of Piers Morgan, the newspaper’s Editor, were halted yesterday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1580148,00.html

Looks like he hadn't signed on when they were taken.

msr
I don't know much about this story. Simply heard about it a year ago. Photos are no doubt faked. But there are many questions:

1. Who namely made them?
2. Who played role of "Iraqi"?
3. Who played role of "abuser"?
4. Why photos are b/w? I personally have 5mpx not expensive Olympus and belive that originally photos were colour. Where are colour originals?
5. If usual cam was used then where are negatives?
6. Where is place of forgery?

What is a result of investigation? Does anybody (here) know answers?
 
#18
polar said:
Big_Al said:
They can to officers so don't see why not to soldiers.
They signed up for it? If they implement this then surely soldiers will need to sign a new contract.
Not sure of the detail but would asume the TA Soldier signs something to say he will abide by TA Regs and if they change the Regs...

Same as a civvy whose company change their code of conduct, I assume he ouwld not have to sign a new contract?

Am not a lawyer, just my interpretation and thoughts!!
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
1. Who namely made them?
2. Who played role of "Iraqi"?
3. Who played role of "abuser"?
These three questions are the most pertinent. Why is there only one bloke in front of the beaks?

msr
 
#20
Big_Al said:
They can to officers so don't see why not to soldiers.
I do have an issue with this change, maybe not for the right reasons. I've been in a unit where the current rules were pushed to the limit, the service test being used on a monthly.
Giving some people like that unit had, more power would be very wrong. (As an example during two years, a Sqn lost 10+ good soldiers throu misuse of current regulations and one wnaker (who was also using service test as a weapon))
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top