Actually Sparky, they were found guilty earlier in the week.
The sentences fitted the crime. I hope that any other incident is dealt with the same and the offenders locked up and discharged.
It's OK for you to blame the officer in charge, but something that may have slipped your mind is that the actions of these Fusiliers was used as publicity resulting in the murder of a Brit civvy in Saudi.
Nevr mind the blame culture, these fckers have caused immense damage to the reputation of the British Army.
totally disagree, although they should and have got done for it I feel the sentances are far too stiff. This remember is the same day that it is reported that yank that shot the injured man live on TV walks free.
these guys have been fcuked for the "greater good"
Slightly different LWM. We are talking about professional soldiers here, not some ruck by a bunch of p1ssed up chavs on a Friday night bender.
Could we excuse the goons at Dachau or Auschwitz for 'just carrying out orders'? One hopes we've moved on a bit from then.
Due to the political climate and the sensitivity of the issue, I think they got off lightly.
As an addition, they should have been done for being dumb fcuks too. Taking pictures??? Are they solid??
He was sentanced as the most senior there and not reporting several of the offenses. The Maj who ordered all of this (and undoubtedly knew about what was going on) got off scott free. Thats why I feel sorry for him.
Actually I totally agree with you and personally think that the guilty verdicts accurately reflect our recognition of unacceptable in the current 'PC' clime. What I do find unacceptable is that it appears that they have been overly harshly sentenced; they were stupid to pose for 'Punch and Kick' photo's, but really when does holding a cam pole constitute an offence?
We at the end of the war started to process bank robbers etc, because there were no guidelines with regard to their status and because we thought it was best to treat them as PW's until AL sorted it out I can quite easily understand the Maj's order to work them hard as he is entitled to do under the GC, even more so as the guy's were THIEVES.
However if the basis of the prosecution rests on the photographic evidence then I see very little in the way of a offence that deserves a 2 yr sentence.
I would suggest that the Maj should have been very careful in how he delivered his orders. I agree the buck should have stopped with him. Ambiguous? At present, he seems to have a pension. Even just having pictorial evidence, I believe is enough. Now we could counter it with 'The Mirror' case of attempting to condemn purely down to a few photos. But media publishing as a scoop and soldiers posing for real in theatre is a bit different. In this day and age, there is no excuse for soldiers or officers bringing this kind of attention to the Forces. We can't afford it. Days are gone where the Forces are respected by default by the plebian voting public. We need to have a savy PR marketing division akin to McFeckinDonalds.
BBC TV News is reporting that the maj concerned is facing administrative action. Although not charged with any offence (rightly or wrongly), it is inconcievable that this incident will not affect his career, and rightly so.
As far as the sentences go, if civilian offenders were given similar sentences, they may think twice before misbehaving. One of the reasons why alcohol-related crime is so prevalent is that the way the courts fail to deal with it makes the chavs think it's ok.