TWAG Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 I do not know whether you guys have been following this but I didn't realise until recently that the chairman of BASC was the junior defence barrister defending our marine A Blackman. Things seem to be looking up considerably for Marine Blackman. Things don't look so good for Peter Glenser see the link below to the Telegraph article of today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/jailed-marine-alexander-blackmans-defence-team-fell-standard/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 I for one feel very sorry for these soldiers, how a judge and jury can convict and sentence someone, for crimes during war when they've never themselves in all likelihood had to so much as defend themselves from an assault, let alone defend their colleagues and own lives on a daily basis, is beyond me, maybe the sentencing judge should have to of served on the front line of Afghanistan or the like to qualify them, see if they still sentence them the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wb123 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 I for one feel very sorry for these soldiers, how a judge and jury can convict and sentence someone, for crimes during war when they've never themselves in all likelihood had to so much as defend themselves from an assault, let alone defend their colleagues and own lives on a daily basis, is beyond me, maybe the sentencing judge should have to of served on the front line of Afghanistan or the like to qualify them, see if they still sentence them the same. If only we could come up with military courts, without a jury of common people, where soldiers can be tried by people experienced in war and able to understand the conditions these men operate in by personal experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 We could call them Courts Martial! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 A long way to go, but it does look a little more optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Peter Glenser was junior counsel so we don't know if his opinions were over-ruled? The other problem I have and it has nothing to do with this case as it is sub-judice but we have to accept that we have to have certain standards in our military if we are not to descend to the level of ISIL, This was shown in todays verdict in Israel. David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Peter Glenser was junior counsel so we don't know if his opinions were over-ruled? The other problem I have and it has nothing to do with this case as it is sub-judice but we have to accept that we have to have certain standards in our military if we are not to descend to the level of ISIL, This was shown in todays verdict in Israel. David. Yes. But then the PM and others called for an immediate pardon. And they wonder why Hamas dislike them so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Sounds like a good time to take the Jury for a 'site visit'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) If only we could come up with military courts, without a jury of common people, where soldiers can be tried by people experienced in war and able to understand the conditions these men operate in by personal experience. I thought he was tried by a Military Court - to the same standards as a Civilian court but a jury only made up of 7 not 12 people who were all military, as well as the judge being military? Edited January 4, 2017 by ph5172 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkfanz Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 in the theatre of war i dont think any of our soldiers should be on trial,after all they are there to kill the enemy,the whole system is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 If only we could come up with military courts, without a jury of common people, where soldiers can be tried by people experienced in war and able to understand the conditions these men operate in by personal experience. We could call them Courts Martial! By george i think we have stumbled on the ideal solution. in the theatre of war i dont think any of our soldiers should be on trial,after all they are there to kill the enemy,the whole system is flawed. We still have rules,or we are no better than the enemy we fight against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) By george i think we have stumbled on the ideal solution. We still have rules,or we are no better than the enemy we fight against. Losers fight by the rules! War is not a game, it is the final solution when all else fails...........do we want to win.......or do we want to be known as gallant losers?If the enemy fight by the rules then so should we! If the enemy fight dirty...........we should fight dirtier! Edited January 4, 2017 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Losers fight by the rules! War is not a game, it is the final solution when all else fails...........do we want to win.......or do we want to be known as gallant losers? If the enemy fight by the rules then so should we! If the enemy fight dirty...........we should fight dirtier! Then we are no better than the scum we fight against, we are professionals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 The judges who preside over all hearings of the Service courts are known while they are sitting as "judge advocates". In the same way as other judges they are appointed by the Lord Chancellor following a process conducted by the Judicial Appointments Commission or, in the case of the Judge Advocate General, appointed by the Queen. They are always legally qualified civilians solicitors, barristers or advocates of at least seven years standing. A High Court Judge may also sit as a judge advocate if requested to do so by the Judge Advocate General in a particularly serious case.[19] Cut and paste from Wikipedia. That's not to say some haven't done service but many haven't. And who's to say they've ever really been in the thick of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 The judge and jury can only act upon the evidence presented in front of them! They can't look at blantant evidence and rule the contrary. The idiots should have never filmed it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthedark Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Losers fight by the rules! War is not a game, it is the final solution when all else fails...........do we want to win.......or do we want to be known as gallant losers? If the enemy fight by the rules then so should we! If the enemy fight dirty...........we should fight dirtier! I think this happened at Agincourt where the French were gallant and chivalrous despite being sneakily murdered at a distance by our archers. We go on to build a world wide Empire, they are forever known as cheese eating surrender monkeys because they played by the 'rules' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Then we are no better than the scum we fight against, we are professionals.Fair enough if you've seen active service, but if you haven't I don't think your qualified to make a judgement, if you have fair enough imho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 The judge and jury can only act upon the evidence presented in front of them! They can't look at blantant evidence and rule the contrary. The idiots should have never filmed it! Yes they should not have filmed it, or perhaps they should damaged the camera when they realised they had. But to call them idiots is not right and a real insult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Yes they should not have filmed it, or perhaps they should damaged the camera when they realised they had. But to call them idiots is not right and a real insult. Perhaps foolish is more suitable! The law is the law, anyone filming themselves breaking it and allowing it to go public is certainly acting foolishly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Fair enough if you've seen active service, but if you haven't I don't think your qualified to make a judgement, if you have fair enough imho I have a couple of medals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 Well that's me told then 🖒 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Well that's me told then 🖒 Have you served? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 It's only a few weeks ago the German police were condemned on here for not shooting an arrested suspect terrorist only to find later he was an innocent man. Now we are supporting soldiers being judge, jury and executor of prisoners. What's going to happen when an innocent man is shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Then we are no better than the scum we fight against, we are professionals. Exactly, in the balkans the Serbs did some bad things I can't believe people think we should sink to their level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sou'Wester Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Al Blackman was tried by Courts Martial, a civilian judge sat advised by military counsel all of whom were serving, some under the same cap badge. The defence was abysmal, he was never going to get off saying he thought the taliban was dead. Some of the things that occurred during that tour, at that CP were horrendous which can't have failed to influence the way the blokes were thinking/acting. Lloyd90, I would refrain from calling them idiots. Welsh1 I agree with you on the whole and that it is a standard to aspire too but it is naive to think that good men don't make flawed decisions when under severe stress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.