Words fail me.

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by CRmeansCeilingReached, May 3, 2007.

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. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1733730.ece

  2. If not getting them one way, they'll just try another. Someone obviously wants a scapegoat for this one!
  3. After the CGS made his statement on Monday I suppose we should have seen this coming.
  4. Did anyone on this forum really expect this to just go away?

    They want a hide nailed to the wall and don't mind who is the donor!

  5. This is typical of the coffee house fops in MOD.....lets get a pound of flesh...
  6. Me too, and I don't mind either.

    Wasn't TCH Sec Def at the time...? Or, since Blair is (this week at least) still in office, isn't it, ultimately, his responsibility?
  7. The burden of proof is lower for AGAI 67, "Balance of probability" rather than "Beyond all reasonable doubt" for a CM
  8. This will result in more wasted money and when this ultimately fails (which the defence solicitors/lawyers/barristers/QCs will insure) there will be more recriminations for the people who have sanctioned this circus to continue.

    Waste of time, effort and rations.

    Edited to add - No more double jepordy......that was lucky then.
  9. Probably worth posting the relevant extract from AGAI 67:

    try telling that to the poor sods going through it.

    i do note this sentence:
    so they have to endure a court martial, and are acquitted of any wrong-doing. was the court martial not regarding "clearly criminal matters", or am i being naive here?

    or are they saying that they shouldn't AGAI someone first, when they can potentially be court martialled... but if that doesn't get the desired result, they will try to punish them by the back door of admin action instead?

    i am concerned they will steer clear of the "clearly criminal matters" in the AGAI action... find them guilty of some minor professional quibble or technicality... and then give a vastly disproportionate punishment.

    i know our two were very strongly supported by the chain of command during the trial; i only hope this continues and that the guys can go on with their lives and put this debacle behind them.

    Letters to Soldier magazine anyone?
  11. Oh come now, you surely don't expect the buck to stop there? The CoC only extends so far, don'tcha know, and the buck’s resting place certainly isn't Whitehall or Westminster!

    I wonder whether Ms Cherie Booth QC will get in on the act, after all, she's not one to turn down a nice little earner, especially courtesy of the tax-payer... :roll:
  12. Sorry.

    [irony][frustration]... Wasn't TCH Sec Def at the time...? Or, since Blair is (this week at least) still in office, isn't it, ultimately, his responsibility? ...[/irony][/frustration]
  13. This stinks to high heaven. These people are found not guilty or had there prosecutions thrown out of court and yet either the chiefs of staff or more likely Blair still wants there scalps.
    If it is not a conspiracy what do the army hope to achieve by doing this?
  14. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    The problem remains that a man was brutally killed, others were badly mistreated and nobody in a position of authority has yet been held accountable. I'm not in favour of witch-hunts but justice, as well as good order and military discipline, demands that these incidents are fully investigated and subjected to due process. I don't see any way round it.
  15. My bold.

    I might be mistaken but wasn't that what the court martial was for?