Protecting British Armed Forces (Derogation from European Convention on Human Rights)

#2
#4
I support this. I also agree (and many others won't agree) with the fact that if passed into legislation the Bill, as proposed, wouldn't remove the armed forces altogether from the scope and influence of the ECHR.

It also wouldn't affect investigations and prosecutions arising from operations in Northern Ireland, another bag of worms with its own unique complexities.
 
#6
Honestly I don't see why soldiers are so concerned with trials and investigation for their conduct. Just follow the rules and law and you will be fine in terms of justice. Soldiers that break the law should be prosecuted like any civilian.
Well let me explain it to you..

Members of the armed forces are required by their oath of attestation to fight in conflict situations when ordered to do so. In the course of this activity they are required to carry out acts and deeds which under normal conditions would be considered criminal. Acts such as damaging property, entering private land, carrying and using weapons and inflicting injury and death are not considered legal in normal peacetime contexts, however in conditions of armed conflict they are.

Battlefields are not, by definition, controlled spaces, and the application of rules and laws designed for peacetime civil use are neither applicable nor enforceable. That peacetime authorities attempt to do this is either an example of arrogance or deliberate malfeasance. This is not to say that war fighting should be carried out without reference to humanity and civilised behaviour, but the context is different, and the rules must be different.. It must also be borne in mind that those threatening us in conflict situations are seldom, if ever, placed under matching legal constraints.

What has happened in recent decades has been an effort to reduce the capabilities of established western armed forces by the application of deliberately restrictive legal restraints. In addition to this, it has been possible, mainly due to shockingly badly drafted law, for third parties to profit from speculative litigation.

Warfighting by western armies is carried out in a disciplined context, and individuals have constrained freedom of action. If they break the rules of armed conflict, then it is for the military authorities to deal with it. Peacetime law and civilian practices have no place in considering warfighting situations.

Soldiers are not civilians. They are acting and empowered by the state and have to operate in conditions that are anything but normal.

Your injunction to "Just follow the rules and law and you will be fine." is naive and frankly arrogant.
 
#7
You have to have a legitimate reason to enter the private land or that's illegal mate. The soldiers have the right to carry weapons as crown servants and use them in self defence. If they use them and its not defensive for theirself or others that's illegal.



Bollocks.

The law is the law and the army is not exempt from it. You receive money from taxpayers and are held to account by civilian parliament/the civilian government.



Its simple. If someone is an immediate threat to life you may defend yourself. If not you are not allowed to use lethal force. You are not allowed to break the law. You must not commit battery nor rape. You can shoot back at the enemy.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Gosh...!

...as if it were that simple....!
 
#10
Is there a substantial difference between European Human Rights legislation and the Law of Armed Conflict, or indeed QRs?
Even though it was largely drafted by Brits, EHR is continental law based on defined rights rather than UK law which is a mixture of precedent and statute law.

Military law is an extension to UK law, and is generally more restrictive. Military law exists to allow the military to administer themselves independently of the civil authorities, either by reason of isolation, or in cases where the civil authority is unable to operate. Modern communication is the excuse used to reduce the need for military law in the first case, however the need for the second is often forgotten. Never forget that the military are an agency of last resort, although this is politically a hard nut to swallow..

The root of most of this mess is the abandonment of the principle of Crown Immunity, which prevented the Crown or Crown servants to be challenged through the courts. This did not of course mean that complainants could not seek recompense or restitution, but that there were different and separate lines of complaint and appeal. What this arrangement prevented was vexatious or politically motivated attacks being launched at the crown or the military via the courts.

The change in influence of the civil service within the MoD is also a significant factor in the use of legal constraints on the military. As legal dealings are effectively a civil matter, they are handled by CS rather than the military. It had been "convenient" for the CS to allow more civil authority to reign over the military as this moves power and responsibility from the military chain of command to the civil authority. This is a stupid and short term strategy IMHO, as it does not develop or maintain the capability and competency of the military chain of command.

Our friend who thinks that the military is subject to Parliament and the "civilian government" is mistaken. The Services, like the Judiciary, have a direct allegiance only to the Sovereign, and are not in the same legal space as the population and the political and civil authorities.
 
Last edited:
#11
Well let me explain it to you..

Members of the armed forces are required by their oath of attestation to fight in conflict situations when ordered to do so. In the course of this activity they are required to carry out acts and deeds which under normal conditions would be considered criminal. Acts such as damaging property, entering private land, carrying and using weapons and inflicting injury and death are not considered legal in normal peacetime contexts, however in conditions of armed conflict they are.

Battlefields are not, by definition, controlled spaces, and the application of rules and laws designed for peacetime civil use are neither applicable nor enforceable. That peacetime authorities attempt to do this is either an example of arrogance or deliberate malfeasance. This is not to say that war fighting should be carried out without reference to humanity and civilised behaviour, but the context is different, and the rules must be different.. It must also be borne in mind that those threatening us in conflict situations are seldom, if ever, placed under matching legal constraints.

What has happened in recent decades has been an effort to reduce the capabilities of established western armed forces by the application of deliberately restrictive legal restraints. In addition to this, it has been possible, mainly due to shockingly badly drafted law, for third parties to profit from speculative litigation.

Warfighting by western armies is carried out in a disciplined context, and individuals have constrained freedom of action. If they break the rules of armed conflict, then it is for the military authorities to deal with it. Peacetime law and civilian practices have no place in considering warfighting situations.

Soldiers are not civilians. They are acting and empowered by the state and have to operate in conditions that are anything but normal.

Your injunction to "Just follow the rules and law and you will be fine." is naive and frankly arrogant.
Very well stated.
 
#12
Even though it was largely drafted by Brits, EHR is continental law based on defined rights rather than UK law which is a mixture of precedent and statute law.

Military law is an extension to UK law, and is generally more restrictive. Military law exists to allow the military to administer themselves independently of the civil authorities, either by reason of isolation, or in cases where the civil authority is unable to operate. Modern communication is the excuse used to reduce the need for military law in the first case, however the need for the second is often forgotten. Never forget that the military are an agency of last resort, although this is politically a hard nut to swallow..

The root of most of this mess is the abandonment of the principle of Crown Immunity, which prevented the Crown or Crown servants to be challenged through the courts. This did not of course mean that complainants could not seek recompense or restitution, but that there were different and separate lines of complaint and appeal. What this arrangement prevented was vexatious or politically motivated attacks being launched at the crown or the military via the courts.

The change in influence of the civil service within the MoD is also a significant factor in the use of legal constraints on the military. As legal dealings are effectively a civil matter, they are handled by CS rather than the military. It had been "convenient" for the CS to allow more civil authority to reign over the military as this moves power and responsibility from the military chain of command to the civil authority. This is a stupid and short term strategy IMHO, as it does not develop or maintain the capability and competency of the military chain of command.

Our friend who thinks that the military is subject to Parliament and the "civilian government" is mistaken. The Services, like the Judiciary, have a direct allegiance only to the Sovereign, and are not in the same legal space as the population and the political and civil authorities.
Also well said.
 
#13
You have to have a legitimate reason to enter the private land or that's illegal mate. The soldiers have the right to carry weapons as crown servants and use them in self defence. If they use them and its not defensive for theirself or others that's illegal.



Bollocks.

The law is the law and the army is not exempt from it. You receive money from taxpayers and are held to account by civilian parliament/the civilian government.



Its simple. If someone is an immediate threat to life you may defend yourself. If not you are not allowed to use lethal force. You are not allowed to break the law. You must not commit battery nor rape. You can shoot back at the enemy.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
We await your authority in support of your rather breathtaking proposition that military personnel can only use force for defensive purposes.
 
#14
[/QUOTE]
We await your authority in support of your rather breathtaking proposition that military personnel can only use force for defensive purposes.[/QUOTE]
That's for UN forces - at least it was in UNFICYP.
 
#15
The last encounter I had with armed British working class kids on our streets was twenty years ago on Ardoyne Road. Time flies.
Ironically, I had to intervene to save them, sustaining a broken arm in the process.
Among the items "liberated" from the Jeep that day was a five gallon jerry can.
It was full of coffee, the Jeep survived.
So you’re a common thief stealing from your fellow citizens it seems as the only Jeeps in NI are civilian, or you’re just a lying piece of shïte septic who enjoys trolling, I believe the later most likely......
 
#16
So you’re a common thief stealing from your fellow citizens it seems as the only Jeeps in NI are civilian, or you’re just a lying piece of shïte septic who enjoys trolling, I believe the later most likely......
He just PM'd me to tell me that he's a fugitive from Sinn Fein and HMRC who's a landed immigrant in the USA. Personally, I believe he's just a garden variety fantasist.
 
#17
Honestly I don't see why soldiers are so concerned with trials and investigation for their conduct. Just follow the rules and law and you will be fine in terms of justice. Soldiers that break the law should be prosecuted like any civilian.
You obviously have never heard of witch hunts.

You obviously have never heard of Phil Shiner.

Soldiers that break the law and are subsequently prosecuted are not the issue.

Ambulance chasing lawyers are the problem. Are you one of them ?
 
#19
The last encounter I had with armed British working class kids on our streets was twenty years ago on Ardoyne Road. Time flies.
Ironically, I had to intervene to save them, sustaining a broken arm in the process.
Among the items "liberated" from the Jeep that day was a five gallon jerry can.
It was full of coffee, the Jeep survived.
Jeep?????? FFS.....



 
#20

Latest Threads

Top