Time for public perception to take a dive for the Army?

just after the cease fire on the FI, a working party of argie troops were tasked with clearing a ammo dump that was in shit order, during which something was set off, leaving a argie with multipe life ending injures and in serve pain iirc it was also that any attempt to help him has dangerous given the ammo involved, a british snco grabbed a rifle and ended his suffering if irrc both sides accepted the snco action was right and in the best interest of the drying man
I don't know the right "ins and outs" (because I wasn't there) but good luck getting that past the system nowadays.
 
Da phuq? Why were they down there? Just for that memorial?
Nicking motorbikes mainly, but caused some trouble for local kids as well. I'm told that it was suggested to the Tims that they were going to be shot, and they haven't come back. I do know for a fact that there were certain people out looking for them.
 
Nicking motorbikes mainly, but caused some trouble for local kids as well. I'm told that it was suggested to the Tims that they were going to be shot, and they haven't come back. I do know for a fact that there were certain people out looking for them.
Hoods rather than republicans then? That being the case they were most likely under the eye of "certain people" back on their own turf.
 
This is how it should be done:


* If you have not seen this - I seriously advise you to do so.
 
Errrm, no. Casualty crawling away after a burst of 30mm from an AH. No one of right mind would've considered him a threat. This Inf Lt Col's point was that the bloke should've been finished off, and he gave scant concern to the protection of the casualty, under our RoE, of their being hors de combat.
Surely it is a matter of perspective? You might not have considered the guy to be a threat looking at gun camera footage. But you said he was crawling- could you be 100% sure that he was no further threat? Perhaps the infantry officer was imagining commanding an assault on the enemy position and thinking that a man who could crawl might also be able to operate his weapon or detonate a device enabling him to kill one or more friendlies.
The Colonel might not have expressed it well but if the Taliban wasn’t captured, he’d obviously have preferred him reduced to his component parts. I think that’s fair enough.
 
Surely it is a matter of perspective? You might not have considered the guy to be a threat looking at gun camera footage. But you said he was crawling- could you be 100% sure that he was no further threat? Perhaps the infantry officer was imagining commanding an assault on the enemy position and thinking that a man who could crawl might also be able to operate his weapon or detonate a device enabling him to kill one or more friendlies.
The Colonel might not have expressed it well but if the Taliban wasn’t captured, he’d obviously have preferred him reduced to his component parts. I think that’s fair enough.
I'll say it again.

Errm, no. In the British military (and you can unearth whatever tangential sh**e you like) we do not do mercy killing, however well intended. If you do so, you're in Court Martial territory. If someone is wounded, and are no threat to friendlies, then they are protected, however unpalatable you think that might be to the infantry.

The Colonel in this case absolutely knew the incapacitation of the victim in question; he simply had bloodlust and wanted the wounded bloke executing.

No. Just, no.

Edited - removing vino fuelled sarky comments
 
Last edited:
The Para's shooting a poster of Corbyn, that's just squaddie humour isn't it? Wouldn't have been an issue if the video hadn't been posted on social media of course. They should really have had another poster of Boris or Farage to balance things up a bit though.

As for the alleged sexual assualt it is just alleged at this stage. Terrible if true, of course, but let's not jump to conclusions.

It all seems - at this stage - a bit out of proportion. What does the general public think? I doubt much at all to be honest.
 
Debbie Harry rang that bell.



I'll get my coat.
 
I'll say it again.

Errm, no. In the British military (and you can unearth whatever tangential sh**e you like) we do not do mercy killing, however well intended. If you do so, you're in Court Martial territory. If someone is wounded, and are no threat to friendlies, then they are protected, however unpalatable you think that might be to the poor snivelling infantry.

The Colonel (I note your simpering) in this case absolutely knew the incapacitation of the victim in question; he simply had bloodlust and wanted the wounded bloke executing.

No. Just, no.
No need for your snide ‘simpering’ / ‘snivelling’ comments matey. You’re not reading my posts properly before diving in with your pish.
I’m not questioning the rights and wrongs of so-called mercy killings. I’m questioning your ability to identify a threat whilst viewing gun camera footage sat on your backside. You assert that the bloke you judged to be wounded was no threat but lucky for you, you’re not the one who has to clear the position on the ground- that’s the job of “the poor snivelling infantry” as you so charmingly put it. I am questioning your apparent certainty that the fellow was no threat.
Do you understand?
 
Yep that's how most old farts feel, but we also have a duty to those younger generations who will hopefully pick up the reins, to present Her Majesty's Armed Forces in a positive light.
We don’t have a duty to the young generation at all, the Army will always yo-yo in the public’s interest and I’m sure none of our younger generation have joined to be heroes or be public icons, they have joined for the same reasons we did, a job, adventure, for shits and giggles or to join a brotherhood that lasts for life, we owe them nothing and they owe us nothing, but we will give each other the World!
 
Writen up in "Don't Cry for me Sergeant-Major" I believe. Though I think its an RMP SNCO and his side arm in that version. The PW had been blown in half and there was no possible doubt about the ultimate outcome.
I've heard it as a medic being the one to deliver the coup de grace with a pistol - a few other versions along broadly similar lines too. Im not sure if any of them are actually based on fact
 
Would the Hansard Report suffice for you?
Argentine Prisoners (Death and Injury) (Hansard, 11 April 1983)

Argentine Prisoners (Death and Injury)
HC Deb 11 April 1983 vol 40 cc305-7W305W
§Mr. Heddle
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether inquiries into the death and injury of Argentine prisoners of war while in British custody on the Falkland Islands have been completed; and if he will make a statement.​
§Mr. Heseltine
Inquiries into the death and injury of Argentine prisoners of war at Goose Green on 1 June 1982 and into the injury of one prisoner of war at Pebbly Pond have been completed.
Following the action at Darwin and Goose Green large quantities of Argentine arms and ammunition were found scattered in and around the settlement. This posed an extremely serious threat to the civilian population who could not return home until the houses had been checked and cleared. The British forces had to give high priority to the task of making the ammunition safe and clearing it to a central collection point at the airfield, and in additon they had to guard the large number of Argentine prisoners of war hwo were accommodated in a large sheep-shearing shed.
306W
On the afternoon of 1 June 1982, a prisoner of war work detail under the supervision of an Argentine officer and guarded by three British solders was engaged on the task of moving ammunition from near the sheep-shearing shed when there was a loud explosion. A very fierce fire began and although rescuers managed to pull the injured clear one prisoner of war was seen to stagger back into the flames. Attempts to reach failed and a sergeant of the British forces, who had, over a period of some minutes, been repeatedly driven back by the heat and flames and who thought the prisoner was beyond assistance but still alive and in agony, obtained a rifle and fired three or four shots at the man.
Three prisoners of war died in the incident and a fourth died later at Ajax Bay. A further eight members of the detail were injured and received immediate first aid from the doctor and other medical staff present.
Shortly after the incident an Argentine officer complained that a British soldier had shot a prisoner of war. Eye-witnesses, including the sergeant, were interviewed and the facts explained to Argentine officers who accepted them and did not pursue the matter further.
As soon as practicable after hostilities had ceased an inquiry was convened which was unable to interview all the witnesses since the Argentinian prisoners of war had been repatriated. Further investigations were therefore made as units and individuals returned from the Falklands. The resulting full reports have been carefully considered, and it has been concluded that the work undertaken by the detail could be classed as dangerous for the purposes of article 52 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 but that the prisoners of war undertook the task without coercion. The explosion was probably caused by a mine initiated by a faulty or mishandled grenade: phosphorus from charge bags probably coused the ferocity of the fire.
The full results of all these inquiries have been studied by the competent legal authorities, who have concluded that no proceedings (whether in a civil court or by court martial or through military disciplinary proceedings) should be instituted against any individual involved. The problems created by the inadequate recording and marking of the extensive Argentine minefields are well known.​
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top