Sentances in

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by wellyhead, Feb 25, 2005.

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. Sorry forgot names

    Full Screw got 18 mths, One lance Jack 2 years and the other 5 mths


    All dismissed from service
     
  2. Have mixed feelings about this......1st one is they had a tough time out there, and its hard for anyone not there to understand.....2nd one is what they were doing was and is wrong, b ut hindsight is a great thing....too easy for people in their comfy armchairs back home critising what we do out there which is essentially a fecking hard job
     
  3. Does anyone think that 5 months for standing on a bloke (assault) think its a bit excessive ?

    He would have got less if he got into a scrap in town and done some damage to a bloke.
     
  4. Politics....I need say nothing more
     
  5. You know the score when you go to war with this Army....ITDs have covered the treatment of civilains etc, so no excuse. The reason for the harsh sentence is partly politics but due to the fact that we as Soldiers have a greater responsibility during and after war than civilians....we are supposed to up-hold order and as such the sentence must be harsher
     
  6. IMO the sentences were decided at a political level, on the grounds that we must be seen to be taking severe action.
    The officer who instigated "Ali Baba" looks likely to get a slapped wrist.
    Demotion & a term of "Corrective Training" for those involved would have been sufficient, rather than wrecking these young men's careers.

    Anyone know what the Iraqi thieves were sentenced to :?:
     
  7. Yes. One was stood on, one was hung from a fork lift , two were made to simulate sex with each other and the others got knees to chest.
     
  8. That wasn't their sentence, it was abuse.
    It doesn't expunge their criminal acts.
     
  9. I'm not expunging the criminal acts of the looters.

    But I am pointing out how we arrived at this sorry pass.

    The POD tonight apologised to 'Those affected AND the Iraqi people'

    I bet that nice Mr. Shiner will have no problems whatsoever finding those affected , will he.
     

  10. Way Harsh!!...............

    Incidently they do still have their theiving hands dont they?
     
  11. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator


    The Iraqis have already been found; there was a predictably naive story in either the Independent or Grauniad yesterday. Naturally, they were all innocent bystanders, none of whome are members of the Army Council etc. etc.
     
  12. I was under the impression that, historically, looters have been shot. I would say that the unspeakably harsh and degrading punishment of "being stood on" was actually not that bad in comparison.

    They are still kn*bs for sending their photos to a hight street shop though.
     
  13. The indesciscive found the victims of the abuse suprise surprise all
    innocent workman who were rounded up by mistake soundly beaten all
    had broken bones traumatised not able to work need compensation etc
    etc etc . :twisted:
     
  14. Unfortunately this has now given the usual suspects masses of ammunition to shoot up the Army with. In the Grauniad (where else?) Prof. Joanna Bourke makes it quite clear that the Army're all bstards and should be hanged for their insensitivity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1425905,00.html[/url]
     
  15. I've done years and years of ITDs and the occasional OPTAG trg when required and I have to say that the instruction on how to handle POWs and civilians is very clear indeed, as is what vicious and nasty things are going to be done to you if you are caught (ranging from a good beating to a bullet in the back of the head).

    What has never been taught, explained or even mentioned is where you stand if you are ordered to detain a civilian for what is in effect a civil offence, when there are no civilian police to hand them over to. I wouldn't have thought that being told to round up the looters and 'work them hard' was an illegal order, not until I sat down and had a good think about it anyway. Would I have had the oppertunity to do that thinking if I was given the order in the same situation? I don't think so.

    The fact is, the guys where put in a situation that their training didn't cover. And at the end of the day they did wrong, but you have to ask yorself why the sentences were so harsh when much worse things can happen on a night on the town and although you'll be in the deep and smelly, lose a tape, get fined or even a spell in nick, it's only repeat offenders that would lose their career and spend that long in prison. They are being made an example of and it's the whole world that has to see that something's being done.

    What sickens me, and right to the pit of my stomach, is that we are all told that there is a chain of command and when the guys do a good job, we see that chain working as the praise gets accepted by everyone in that chain, ending in commendations for those at the top, on the efforts of everyone at the bottom of the chain. I mean, how many promotions, awards or even knighthoods have been earned from other peoples effords (or blood?)

    But when things go wrong, this oneway chain fails to work. In this case, the officer that gave the order is still going to leave the army with a pension even if he does not get any further. The sub-unit officers who should have been on the ground to supervise are nowhere to be seen. Not even an SNCO has been brought to book for failing to control the actions of his soldiers. I could understand it if it was out on the streets, but are we to believe that a camp was being run by full-screws with a Major giving the order?

    Rank has it's privilages and the extra pay that goes with it. But with that goes responsibility to your men. If they mess up badly, it's your fault and you either jump on them while taking the flak, or you support them all the way and accept the flak that brings. You do not 'drop them like a stone' and leave them to be sh4t on. How can you expect your soldiers to risk their lives on your word if they can't rely on your support if things go wrong?