Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by OldRedCap, Apr 30, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Just on 5 Live. Single result Cpl Payne. 12 months. No pension rights
Send again, over . . .
Judge ruled no case to answer on 5 of 7 soldiers, I think Cpl Payne also, even though he admitted abuse. The judge said that his detention of the Iraqis was necessary and that force was also necessary due to an attempted escape.
The treatment or 'conditioning' of the prisoners was sanctioned at Brigade level and this is why it was ruled as 'no case to answer' for the individuals and CO.
Not a very tough sentence - maybe the point is that he is taking the rap, when other people should be held responsible.
He'll not lose his pension ORC.
Britain's first war criminal has been dismissed from the army and sentenced to one year in a civilian jail.
Corporal Donald Payne, 36, admitted a charge of inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians in Basra in 2003.
He was among the first soldiers in UK history to be charged with the offence, framed under the terms of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and his admission resulted in him being Britain's first convicted war criminal.
His sentence, announced today at a military court in Bulford in Wiltshire, will also result in the loss of approximately Â£300,000 in future earnings and pension.
I apologise for the cut & paste approach, hyperlinks were never my strong point. Feel free me to PM me on the intricacies.
However, i feel a great deal of sympathy for this poor chap. Apparently the Court martial cost in the region of Â£20 million, so therefore heads had to roll. I'm not advocating a witch-hunt however surely he was just a victim of circumstance.
Matthew Hopkins would be turning in his grave!!!
Aren't British soldiers taught to refuse to obey illegal orders, whether it be from NCOs, Officers or Brigade?
He did the deed, He admitted doing it and He will have to pay the price for doing it.
I do wonder why the Brigade officers that authorised the roughing up of prisoners weren't prosecuted though - the orders must have been written in order for them to have been produced at the courts marshal
My fault for trusting 5 Live. Typed it while listening to what they said.
Mind you - bloody D/Telegraph says it as well
He'll get his pension (at his current rank) if he has qualified timewise for it, when he's 65. They can't take it from him. Precident was set by a R SIGNALS WO a few years back and also by an Officer I recall.
He has been told he will lose all his pension.
Absolutely disgraceful sentence, some people involved in this case need to learn the meaning of integrity!
Is 'following orders' now a justifiable defence? The guy admitted to abuse, what sentence do You think He should have got, four months and soldier on?
Maybe he should have got the same punishment as everyone else who followed the same orders? The word "scapegoat" springs to mind.
By dropping the case against the other soldiers, they were in effect found not guilty. Payne admitted that He was guilty of abuse. Given that, I ask again - what would have been an appropriate sentence?
Obviously badly advised to make a guilty plea or he decided himself not to see how the trial went. Once he had made a guilty plea there was not much that could have been done. Directing that his guilty plea be rejected would have caused a might hoo ha. Judges would also have been influenced that he had legal support.
I'm not aware there were any orders to rough prisoners up. You identify yourself that any oredrs would have been written.
appropriate sentence? how about charging Blair with war crimes, or would his excuse of only following orders from Bush be a good enough excuse for you sven?
Separate names with a comma.