Sir Mike speaks out

In the article the journalist said:
In February this year, a group of British soldiers were found guilty of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Camp Bread Basket.

Notorious images of a detainee being strung from a forklift truck and of an Iraqi being stood upon by one of the troops were revealed.
In what way does that contribute to the theme of the article and/or why was it necessary to mention it at all?

If the Sun had done that we would be screaming about them all day long - this was the BBC 8O


Sir Mike isn't speaking out,
He's attempting to defend the indefensible, looks to me like he's a little rattled by the fact that he is one of the Senior Officers the troops consider to be under political influence. If he'd spoken out about the outrageous decision to prosecute the Para Regt boys or other troops who have clearly complied with the rules of engagement but still face prosecution then he might have some credibility. As it is, looks a little like he has sold out and is toing the party line (Pun intended) A Knighthood comes with a price I guess, in Sir Mikes case... his soul.


To quote him previously:

"Let me finish. The Army sets high standards and demands that they are met.

"Those who fail to meet these standards are and will be called to account.

"I believe that this courts-martial illustrates plainly our approach of transparency and accountability: it was held in open court, in the full glare of public scrutiny, and to the same standards of justice and independence that are present in the civilian judicial system.

"I hope what I have said today reinforces our commitment to openness and our desire to maintain the highest standards of conduct in the Army."

So Sir Mike, When the APA squanders £10 million of taxpayers hard earned cash on evidence that would never have reached a civilian court, the officers responsible will be held to account?
H, I wasn't attempting to vindicate Sir Mike.In fact quite the opposite. I still remain hopeful that he is just "playing the game" with the politico's. How long would he last if he were to openly condemn the government and speak out against the Bliarites who are doing their best to ruin this man's army?


How many of us have been shafted by standing up for the troops when some ******** has been giving them a hard time? A fair few ruined careers on here no doubt but at least we can look ourselves in the shaving mirror in the morning. It's amazing how many senior officers only develop a conscience once they have their Knighthood and retire. The reason there are so many high level denials about political prosecutions is because we are hitting near the mark. The cap fits, but they don't want to admit they are wearing it. It's not the press who are making this an issue, it is the troops on the ground.
Salary/postion/next position/honours list/lucrative directors job with multinational company on retirement plus the will of political bosses are all factors that todays modern high ranking commanders must take into account to get the job done.All this members of the forces must take into account and not look upwards for any support from powers that be in the event of pending legal action against them.
Is not leadership being responsible for all under your command and giving support regardless of actions/guilt?


To emphasise my point:

"It is a calumny to imply that people are dancing to a political tune," Gen Jackson said yesterday. But he added that he sympathised with the predicament in which officers and soldiers who were charged found themselves.

The general was speaking as defence officials unveiled an armed forces bill, to be tabled this month. Under the bill, army commanders will no longer have the power to block the court martial of any soldiers accused of serious offences.

The bill should speed up the military justice system. It will set up one standing court martial - a permanent military court - for all three services. But the attorney general will continue to supervise the army prosecuting authority. It is a power critics of prosecutions against British soldiers do not like since the attorney is a member of the government.

If as Sir Mike says, the system is fair, why is it being changed and why is it being overseen by a member of the government?

The prosecution rests its case!
Did you see the Adjutant General's arrse licking 'I must be next for a Knighthood' letter in the Telegraph the other day? Written along the lines of : 'I've been hanging out of his backside for 20 years, he writes my confidential and he can do no wrong.' Then the following day, a wonderful questioning rebuttal of the Adjt Gen's epistle. Chod.
To put things in perspective, if the latest set of Furher Blair's public sector reforms go through he will have created 800,000 public sector jobs since coming to power.

That's almost eight times the size of the army and not one of those jobs has a starting salary as low as a private soldier's.


Most of these jobs are given to members or supporters of his party no doubt, fill key posts with these people, bring in legislation against free speech, then you have a very subtle and insidious form of control. The Ministry of Truth lives!
There is another article on this in the Guardian which has just been posted by MOD oracle. It also mentions Col and Mrs Mendonca.
Private_Pike said:
There is another article on this in the Guardian which has just been posted by MOD oracle. It also mentions Col and Mrs Mendonca.
What are the chances of Parttimepongo asking for the whole print run of the Grauniad to be withdrawn for sale and pulped to comply with his present history supression mania?
I wonder if Sir Mike has read this letter in today's Telegraph?

Army justice denied

Sir - In June 2000 the then Lord Chancellor gave a speech to the Conference of European Ministers of Justice.

In it he said: "Court proceedings in many parts of Europe fail to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for a trial within a reasonable time. An old English adage puts it rather more succinctly: 'Justice delayed is justice denied.' Yet in some countries we see people having to wait years for their cases to be determined."

The Armed Forces Act 1996 made substantial changes to service disciplinary procedures, including the formation of the Army Prosecuting Authority, specifically to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

What went wrong?

Philip Corp, Salisbury
Curious, ain't it, that whilst CGS is busting a gut to tell us all how fair the system is, he's forgotten that bit in QRs about how charges should be dealt with quickly. Ah well, he's in good company; the Attorney General, Lord Cronysmith, wrote to the Times the other day to rebut suggestions that he has any influence over APA - I mean, how could anyone suggest that an unelected member of the government could have any influence over a department he's in charge of?
PartTimePongo said:
Not sure if anyone else caught the series of exchanges between the honourable member for Blaby and the assembled attack dogs of Neu Arbeit yesterday?

For those that missed it, Hansard is here


and here

Deputy speaker intervenes on occasion to invite Ministers of the Crown to be a bit less necky :D

Like Ingrams advice to the guy you criticised PoD as to what sort of greeting he is likely to get at a forthcoming interview - maybe with cold coffee and stale biscuits?

Well in Sir :D
Thanks for the Hansard link, PTP - it might usefully be repeated in the 'Westminster' thread, if the hon. member for Hackleshire will forgive you for getting to it before him!

The whole debate is worth reading, if only because it shows that a number of MPs (most of whom have served), genuinely have the interests of the Armed Forces at heart, and ask relevant and searching questions. It also shows what a feeble creature Touhig is.


Book Reviewer
For those who can't be doing with it - Sir Michael Lord (Con, North Ipswich) talking to Doctor John:
Order. The Secretary of State will take his seat when I am on my feet. I am not going to allow a debate to develop on this matter now. What both Members have said is on the record. We have a defence debate later this afternoon in which these matters can be raised, if necessary, and we must now proceed to that.
I doubt if Gorbals Mick had been present, that Sec of State would have been put back in his box with quite the same aplomb...:)

Bravo Zulu that deputy Speaker chappy, what !

Lee Shaver
Order. The Secretary of State will take his seat when I am on my feet. I am not going to allow a debate to develop on this matter now. What both Members have said is on the record. We have a defence debate later this afternoon in which these matters can be raised, if necessary, and we must now proceed to that.
I'm moderately surprised that Hansard doesn't go on to say:

Mr Reid: Mr Speaker, Outside! Now!

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads