This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've just had a read of this and found it rather disquieting.
http://www.thecanary.co/2015/10/26/our-country-just-tried-to-jail-a-woman-o...
4
2
In reply to Timmd:
If they can ban satire we're living under a totalitarian regime. It makes me want to skulk away from the telescreen and write a diary.
If they can ban satire we're living under a totalitarian regime. It makes me want to skulk away from the telescreen and write a diary.
2
In reply to broken spectre:
It just seems really unsettling, that the police can profile somebody from the protests they go to, and then decide to charge them via joint enterprise for something they haven't done.
It feels like something from another country which is less free, rather than the country I'd thought I'd grown up in.
It makes me want to go and peacefully protest...
It just seems really unsettling, that the police can profile somebody from the protests they go to, and then decide to charge them via joint enterprise for something they haven't done.
It feels like something from another country which is less free, rather than the country I'd thought I'd grown up in.
It makes me want to go and peacefully protest...
Post edited at 18:24
5
2
In reply to Timmd:
Are you kidding? Where have you been for the last 15 years, living under a rock?
D
Are you kidding? Where have you been for the last 15 years, living under a rock?
D
3
1
In reply to Timmd:
....
A protester tried under joint enterprise for causing criminal damage, after a sticker was fixed on the window of an upmarket block of London flats during a demonstration against £poor doors£, has been found not guilty.
Lisa McKenzie, a research fellow at the London School of Economics, was accused of assisting an unknown person in putting the sticker on a newly built block of flats which has separate doors for private and social-housing tenants.
McKenzie was also charged with two offences under the Public Order Act, including intent to cause alarm and distress and causing alarm and distress, which were thrown out by the judge due to a lack of evidence.
£The judge said at the end of the day that he was extremely uncomfortable that I had been profiled,£ McKenzie told the Guardian from a pub in east London where she was celebrating after winning her case at Stratford magistrates court.
£The police were asked how they knew it was me and how they knew my name, and they said that I had been profiled in the meetings earlier, and the judge said he was very, very uncomfortable with how I had been profiled.£
McKenzie had been arrested two weeks after taking part in a protest organised by the anarchist group Class War on 19 February outside One Commercial Street, a 21-storey block of flats at the junction of Commercial Street and Whitechapel High Street in east London.
Described by its developers, Redrow, as a flagship project that is £like a blade of light£, the building had been criticised after it emerged that residents living in an affordable housing section would only be able to gain entry through a segregated entrance.
The development had only been granted planning permission after it was agreed that it would include a section of affordable housing.
The Crown Prosecution Service alleged that during the demonstration a sticker was stuck to a window on the building which had caused criminal damage. While it accepted that there was no evidence to show that McKenzie had affixed the sticker herself, it claimed that she had helped a masked person to do so.
£They said it caused £50 worth of criminal damage because the window had to be cleaned,£ McKenzie said. £My counsel argued that there was no damage at all. The £50 of damage was not actually done because the builders next door had pulled the sticker off.£
McKenzie was found not guilty of the criminal damage charge after the judge decided that there was no evidence against her, even under joint enterprise.
Under the doctrine of joint enterprise, a person may be found guilty for another person£s crime if it is judged that each shared a common purpose. It is more commonly used in serious cases involving gangs, violence and murder. However, its use is controversial and there are a number of cases where it is claimed that application of the doctrine has resulted in miscarriages of justice.
....
Really, it amounts to an attempted stitch up by the police.
....
A protester tried under joint enterprise for causing criminal damage, after a sticker was fixed on the window of an upmarket block of London flats during a demonstration against £poor doors£, has been found not guilty.
Lisa McKenzie, a research fellow at the London School of Economics, was accused of assisting an unknown person in putting the sticker on a newly built block of flats which has separate doors for private and social-housing tenants.
McKenzie was also charged with two offences under the Public Order Act, including intent to cause alarm and distress and causing alarm and distress, which were thrown out by the judge due to a lack of evidence.
£The judge said at the end of the day that he was extremely uncomfortable that I had been profiled,£ McKenzie told the Guardian from a pub in east London where she was celebrating after winning her case at Stratford magistrates court.
£The police were asked how they knew it was me and how they knew my name, and they said that I had been profiled in the meetings earlier, and the judge said he was very, very uncomfortable with how I had been profiled.£
McKenzie had been arrested two weeks after taking part in a protest organised by the anarchist group Class War on 19 February outside One Commercial Street, a 21-storey block of flats at the junction of Commercial Street and Whitechapel High Street in east London.
Described by its developers, Redrow, as a flagship project that is £like a blade of light£, the building had been criticised after it emerged that residents living in an affordable housing section would only be able to gain entry through a segregated entrance.
The development had only been granted planning permission after it was agreed that it would include a section of affordable housing.
The Crown Prosecution Service alleged that during the demonstration a sticker was stuck to a window on the building which had caused criminal damage. While it accepted that there was no evidence to show that McKenzie had affixed the sticker herself, it claimed that she had helped a masked person to do so.
£They said it caused £50 worth of criminal damage because the window had to be cleaned,£ McKenzie said. £My counsel argued that there was no damage at all. The £50 of damage was not actually done because the builders next door had pulled the sticker off.£
McKenzie was found not guilty of the criminal damage charge after the judge decided that there was no evidence against her, even under joint enterprise.
Under the doctrine of joint enterprise, a person may be found guilty for another person£s crime if it is judged that each shared a common purpose. It is more commonly used in serious cases involving gangs, violence and murder. However, its use is controversial and there are a number of cases where it is claimed that application of the doctrine has resulted in miscarriages of justice.
....
Really, it amounts to an attempted stitch up by the police.
Post edited at 18:42
8
2
In reply to Dauphin:
Dealing with anxiety and panic attacks, so more or less, yes.
I've had other things on my mind, you could say. Sorted now, though.
Back to the topic, I knew there'd been different legislations passed, but it takes the biscuit when somebody can be charged with joint enterprise over another person placing a sticker during a protest.
Edit: It's a 'sticker', FFS.
> Are you kidding? Where have you been for the last 15 years, living under a rock?
> D
Dealing with anxiety and panic attacks, so more or less, yes.
I've had other things on my mind, you could say. Sorted now, though.
Back to the topic, I knew there'd been different legislations passed, but it takes the biscuit when somebody can be charged with joint enterprise over another person placing a sticker during a protest.
Edit: It's a 'sticker', FFS.
Post edited at 19:02
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
The feeling I got during the student marches of 2010, more from the national press and the politicians than from the police themselves, was that peaceful protest wasn't really welcome.
The feeling I got during the student marches of 2010, more from the national press and the politicians than from the police themselves, was that peaceful protest wasn't really welcome.
3
In reply to Timmd:
If I remember rightly Joint Enterprise was originally invented for to prevent duelling. The idea was that you could charge the winner, their seconds, any doctors who turned up etc. Fair enough - the whole point of a fight to the death killing someone.
Later on it was applied to things like murders by groups of criminals. Group of people commits and armed robery or beats someone up and you can't prove which one of them did it you charge the lot. Also fair enough - everyone is there for a bit of violent crime.
This case is just stupid though. Gross overreach by the police.
In reply to Trevers:
A while ago someone explained to me that it was OK for the police to violently attack non violent protesters because "protests always turn violent". She could not understand why I started laughing at her.
If I remember rightly Joint Enterprise was originally invented for to prevent duelling. The idea was that you could charge the winner, their seconds, any doctors who turned up etc. Fair enough - the whole point of a fight to the death killing someone.
Later on it was applied to things like murders by groups of criminals. Group of people commits and armed robery or beats someone up and you can't prove which one of them did it you charge the lot. Also fair enough - everyone is there for a bit of violent crime.
This case is just stupid though. Gross overreach by the police.
In reply to Trevers:
A while ago someone explained to me that it was OK for the police to violently attack non violent protesters because "protests always turn violent". She could not understand why I started laughing at her.
Post edited at 18:56
4
1
In reply to davidbeynon:
What worries me is the apparent lack of alarm in the general population to do with how restrictive things are becoming.
What worries me is the apparent lack of alarm in the general population to do with how restrictive things are becoming.
6
2
In reply to Timmd:
That is because the papers tell them "protests always turn violent", and everyone knows deep in their heart of hearts that these powers will never, ever be used against them.
Depressing isn't it?
That is because the papers tell them "protests always turn violent", and everyone knows deep in their heart of hearts that these powers will never, ever be used against them.
Depressing isn't it?
2
1
In reply to Timmd:
Is peaceful protest potentially under threat in the UK ?
No.
Should those who organise protests which turn violent or cause damage to property bear some responsibility for what has occurred during "their" protest?
Doesn't seem massively unreasonable to me.
> I've just had a read of this and found it rather disquieting.
Is peaceful protest potentially under threat in the UK ?
No.
Should those who organise protests which turn violent or cause damage to property bear some responsibility for what has occurred during "their" protest?
Doesn't seem massively unreasonable to me.
6
23
In reply to off-duty:
The right of peaceful protest does indeed seem under threat. Here is one example of someone being taken to court for expressing his opinion in public in a non-violent way:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/03/satanic-islam-belfast-preach...
The right of peaceful protest does indeed seem under threat. Here is one example of someone being taken to court for expressing his opinion in public in a non-violent way:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/03/satanic-islam-belfast-preach...
3
In reply to Timmd:
It's not really new. In the miners' strike police tried to prosecute miners for damaging police property after slamming into benches etc.
It's when people are convicted for this stuff you need to worry.
> It just seems really unsettling, that the police can profile somebody from the protests they go to, and then decide to charge them via joint enterprise for something they haven't done.
> It feels like something from another country which is less free, rather than the country I'd thought I'd grown up in.
It's not really new. In the miners' strike police tried to prosecute miners for damaging police property after slamming into benches etc.
It's when people are convicted for this stuff you need to worry.
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Seems to be far more of a freedom of speech issue than a protest issue. He's being prosecuted under Malicious Communications Act for a "grossly offensive" broadcast.
Seem to have been an awful lot of peaceful protestors allowed to protest, peacefully, at his various court appearances.
> The right of peaceful protest does indeed seem under threat. Here is one example of someone being taken to court for expressing his opinion in public in a non-violent way:
> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/03/satanic-islam-belfast-preacher-james-mcconnell-says-w...
Seems to be far more of a freedom of speech issue than a protest issue. He's being prosecuted under Malicious Communications Act for a "grossly offensive" broadcast.
Seem to have been an awful lot of peaceful protestors allowed to protest, peacefully, at his various court appearances.
2
In reply to off-duty:
Given the content of the link I've posted, that you've written the above after (presumably) reading what is in the link, strikes me as a little bit concerning.
Can I take from what you've posted, that you think joint enterprise should be used to bring charges to somebody who organises a protest (with the intention of it being a peaceful one), if somebody else turns up and causes criminal damage?
If the answer is 'yes', wouldn't this leave anybody who organises a protest in fear of charges being brought for any number of things in which they've played no part, other than wanting to protest (the right to peaceful protest is something enshrined in the UN charter of human rights)?
What are you saying should happen?
> Is peaceful protest potentially under threat in the UK ?
> No.
> Should those who organise protests which turn violent or cause damage to property bear some responsibility for what has occurred during "their" protest?
> Doesn't seem massively unreasonable to me.
Given the content of the link I've posted, that you've written the above after (presumably) reading what is in the link, strikes me as a little bit concerning.
Can I take from what you've posted, that you think joint enterprise should be used to bring charges to somebody who organises a protest (with the intention of it being a peaceful one), if somebody else turns up and causes criminal damage?
If the answer is 'yes', wouldn't this leave anybody who organises a protest in fear of charges being brought for any number of things in which they've played no part, other than wanting to protest (the right to peaceful protest is something enshrined in the UN charter of human rights)?
What are you saying should happen?
Post edited at 22:16
7
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I've been reading the odd opinion peace from more right wing sources like The Spectator, opining that pigeons are coming home to roost in terms of people not being allowed to say certain things, with a climate of repression possibly seeming to start to gather.
I'm an organic cereal eating woolly jumper wearing liberal type, but I find it an interesting take on things, that what was intended as a benign way of stopping people from spreading discord or hate-speech can gradually change into something less benign, depending on who is in charge or on who has the power.
I agree, it does seem like peaceful protest may be under threat, that we may need to look again at people being able to say whatever they want, so long as 'a right to reply' is provided as well perhaps.
> The right of peaceful protest does indeed seem under threat. Here is one example of someone being taken to court for expressing his opinion in public in a non-violent way:
> ht tp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/03/satanic-islam-belfast-preacher-james-mcconnell-says-w...
I've been reading the odd opinion peace from more right wing sources like The Spectator, opining that pigeons are coming home to roost in terms of people not being allowed to say certain things, with a climate of repression possibly seeming to start to gather.
I'm an organic cereal eating woolly jumper wearing liberal type, but I find it an interesting take on things, that what was intended as a benign way of stopping people from spreading discord or hate-speech can gradually change into something less benign, depending on who is in charge or on who has the power.
I agree, it does seem like peaceful protest may be under threat, that we may need to look again at people being able to say whatever they want, so long as 'a right to reply' is provided as well perhaps.
Post edited at 22:24
1
2
In reply to off-duty:
It seems massively unreasonable to me, and the reason is obvious: it's creating a strong disincentive to protest by using factors outside the control of the protesters. In other words, it's using underhand tactics to intimidate potential protesters to discourage them from speaking out. It's vile, and it's disappointing that you can't see that.
> Should those who organise protests which turn violent or cause damage to property bear some responsibility for what has occurred during "their" protest?
> Doesn't seem massively unreasonable to me.
It seems massively unreasonable to me, and the reason is obvious: it's creating a strong disincentive to protest by using factors outside the control of the protesters. In other words, it's using underhand tactics to intimidate potential protesters to discourage them from speaking out. It's vile, and it's disappointing that you can't see that.
13
2
In reply to Timmd:
I suspect a lot of people would actually quite like things to become rather more restrictive. The problem it seems to me is groups, albeit possibly quite small in number, piggybacking on these protests to go far beyond anything that could be called legitimate or peaceful (eg a police car set on fire the other night at an anti-capitalism demo and fireworks allegedly thrown at police horses). People see that and worry about where the country is going.
I think there is also considerable disquiet about how basically undemocratic it feels. It's only 6 months since we elected a government for five years yet some of these groups appear to want to bring it down by undemocratic means and again that worries ordinary people who have little interest in politics but see the clearly-expressed will of the electorate as expressed at the ballot box being threatened by thugs who refuse to accept the result and opt for violence instead.
> What worries me is the apparent lack of alarm in the general population to do with how restrictive things are becoming.
I suspect a lot of people would actually quite like things to become rather more restrictive. The problem it seems to me is groups, albeit possibly quite small in number, piggybacking on these protests to go far beyond anything that could be called legitimate or peaceful (eg a police car set on fire the other night at an anti-capitalism demo and fireworks allegedly thrown at police horses). People see that and worry about where the country is going.
I think there is also considerable disquiet about how basically undemocratic it feels. It's only 6 months since we elected a government for five years yet some of these groups appear to want to bring it down by undemocratic means and again that worries ordinary people who have little interest in politics but see the clearly-expressed will of the electorate as expressed at the ballot box being threatened by thugs who refuse to accept the result and opt for violence instead.
3
2
In reply to Timmd:
I read that. I had a look at articles in the Guardian and the independent and a couple of blogs about it as well
Part of the charge against her appears to be that she did the damage with a masked man - not clear whether they had specific evidence in relation to that, but the more important element appears to be the (possibly alternative) angle of joint enterprise. In this case it would have to be that they were participating crime and in the course of it a second FORESEEABLE crime is committed.
The answer is "not really". However what I would add that if anyone is organising a peaceful protest, have liaised with council/police etc to notify them of their intentions and have done their best to ensure it is peaceful, then clearly they shouldn't be liable for the morons and rent-a-mobs that turn up.
Obviously this works well - those prosecuted in protests are those caught smashing stuff.
This case (though she was acquitted) appears to be a one-off certainly the only one I have seen. I'd have liked to know a bit more of the detail but strangely Dr. McKenzie appeared to want to spend most of the report complaining about "profiling" which appeared to be largely irrelevant to the actual charge she faced - though I have read there was possibly some sort of behaviour order they were trying to impose on her as well.
Hopefully explained above.
With my key point remaining - surely those organising protests should bear some responsibility for what occurs on them.
I'll bung in the caveat - that responsibility might be discharged by making some efforts to try and ensure it is peaceful.
> Given the content of the link I've posted, that you've written the above after (presumably) reading what is in the link, strikes me as a little bit concerning.
I read that. I had a look at articles in the Guardian and the independent and a couple of blogs about it as well
> Can I take from what you've posted, that you think joint enterprise should be used to bring charges to somebody who organises a protest (with the intention of it being a peaceful one), if somebody else turns up and causes criminal damage?
Part of the charge against her appears to be that she did the damage with a masked man - not clear whether they had specific evidence in relation to that, but the more important element appears to be the (possibly alternative) angle of joint enterprise. In this case it would have to be that they were participating crime and in the course of it a second FORESEEABLE crime is committed.
> If the answer is 'yes', wouldn't this leave anybody who organises a protest in fear of charges being brought for any number of things in which they've played no part, other than wanting to protest (the right to peaceful protest is something enshrined in the UN charter of human rights)?
The answer is "not really". However what I would add that if anyone is organising a peaceful protest, have liaised with council/police etc to notify them of their intentions and have done their best to ensure it is peaceful, then clearly they shouldn't be liable for the morons and rent-a-mobs that turn up.
Obviously this works well - those prosecuted in protests are those caught smashing stuff.
This case (though she was acquitted) appears to be a one-off certainly the only one I have seen. I'd have liked to know a bit more of the detail but strangely Dr. McKenzie appeared to want to spend most of the report complaining about "profiling" which appeared to be largely irrelevant to the actual charge she faced - though I have read there was possibly some sort of behaviour order they were trying to impose on her as well.
> What are you saying should happen?
Hopefully explained above.
With my key point remaining - surely those organising protests should bear some responsibility for what occurs on them.
I'll bung in the caveat - that responsibility might be discharged by making some efforts to try and ensure it is peaceful.
5
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The responsibility borne by the organisers can be quite properly discharged by making some efforts to regulate the protest.
It's not rocket science and I haven't seen any prosecutions of organisers of large scale protests with small contingents of morons.
> It seems massively unreasonable to me, and the reason is obvious: it's creating a strong disincentive to protest by using factors outside the control of the protesters. In other words, it's using underhand tactics to intimidate potential protesters to discourage them from speaking out. It's vile, and it's disappointing that you can't see that.
The responsibility borne by the organisers can be quite properly discharged by making some efforts to regulate the protest.
It's not rocket science and I haven't seen any prosecutions of organisers of large scale protests with small contingents of morons.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
it's certainly changing. 2 examples in the past week or so;
The marines a 1000 or them, past and present, silently march past parliament. They could certainly give the police a bit of a hard time, but they are honourable folk.
Then the bonfire night idiots for comparison. (who were dealt with far too softly IMHO).
it's certainly changing. 2 examples in the past week or so;
The marines a 1000 or them, past and present, silently march past parliament. They could certainly give the police a bit of a hard time, but they are honourable folk.
Then the bonfire night idiots for comparison. (who were dealt with far too softly IMHO).
3
1
In reply to summo:
Was that for the RM Sargent jailed for killing the injured taliban fighter?
> The marines a 1000 or them, past and present, silently march past parliament. They could certainly give the police a bit of a hard time, but they are honourable folk.
Was that for the RM Sargent jailed for killing the injured taliban fighter?
1
In reply to Timmd:
It may be that we are always told that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear! The mantra of oppressive regimes the world over
It may be that we are always told that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear! The mantra of oppressive regimes the world over
2
In reply to Timmd:
Got any links? It's a subject I'm interested in too. And as you say, it's the slow gradual creep of precedents that can be most dangerous and insidious.
It bothers me that a lot of people don't notice or care about politics or their rights on a general basis. I had one friend voting conservative at the last election because as he put it, everyone in the country is fine apparently and therefore it doesn't matter what government we have. Or my other friends who don't care for their right to protest and tend to regard protesters as people simply wanting to stir up trouble/cry oppression (it seems that if you protest peacefully and politely, you'll go unnoticed).
There were student protests this week mirroring the ones from 5 years ago, which I took part in. This time it was over the removal of grants for poorer students. I didn't even realise this was happening until the coverage of the protest. What a coup for the government, keeping that one quiet! Although this time I'd say it's because they've been indulging in so much other ideologically-driven nastiness that something small like disadvantaging poorer young people further is bound to fall through the gaps.
Noone seems prepared to tell it like it is these days, except for Stewart Lee and that Labour peer who called Osborne/Cameron liars. Am I being overly pessimistic, or is the state of the country/politics really worse than at any time I can remember (apart from Blair's WMD lies of course).
> I've been reading the odd opinion peace from more right wing sources like The Spectator, opining that pigeons are coming home to roost in terms of people not being allowed to say certain things, with a climate of repression possibly seeming to start to gather.
> I'm an organic cereal eating woolly jumper wearing liberal type, but I find it an interesting take on things, that what was intended as a benign way of stopping people from spreading discord or hate-speech can gradually change into something less benign, depending on who is in charge or on who has the power.
Got any links? It's a subject I'm interested in too. And as you say, it's the slow gradual creep of precedents that can be most dangerous and insidious.
It bothers me that a lot of people don't notice or care about politics or their rights on a general basis. I had one friend voting conservative at the last election because as he put it, everyone in the country is fine apparently and therefore it doesn't matter what government we have. Or my other friends who don't care for their right to protest and tend to regard protesters as people simply wanting to stir up trouble/cry oppression (it seems that if you protest peacefully and politely, you'll go unnoticed).
There were student protests this week mirroring the ones from 5 years ago, which I took part in. This time it was over the removal of grants for poorer students. I didn't even realise this was happening until the coverage of the protest. What a coup for the government, keeping that one quiet! Although this time I'd say it's because they've been indulging in so much other ideologically-driven nastiness that something small like disadvantaging poorer young people further is bound to fall through the gaps.
Noone seems prepared to tell it like it is these days, except for Stewart Lee and that Labour peer who called Osborne/Cameron liars. Am I being overly pessimistic, or is the state of the country/politics really worse than at any time I can remember (apart from Blair's WMD lies of course).
Post edited at 11:15
In reply to off-duty:
Thanks for clarifying.
Your previous post gave the impression that you would be quite happy for organisers to be liable for the morons and rent-a-mobs that turn up. I'm not sure how they're meant to regulate things, but I don't have any insight here, having no experience of protests to speak of.
Thanks for clarifying.
> However what I would add that if anyone is organising a peaceful protest, have liaised with council/police etc to notify them of their intentions and have done their best to ensure it is peaceful
Your previous post gave the impression that you would be quite happy for organisers to be liable for the morons and rent-a-mobs that turn up. I'm not sure how they're meant to regulate things, but I don't have any insight here, having no experience of protests to speak of.
In reply to summo:
But I didn't hear about the Marine's protest, so what did it achieve?
> The marines a 1000 or them, past and present, silently march past parliament. They could certainly give the police a bit of a hard time, but they are honourable folk.
But I didn't hear about the Marine's protest, so what did it achieve?
1
2
In reply to Trevers:
What did the bloke is his £500 jacket smashing a police car achieve for his cause too?
What did the bloke is his £500 jacket smashing a police car achieve for his cause too?
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Is this same john Simpson? New middle name? Different log in?
As for the marine, at least they protest honourable, in public, in daylight, no masks etc.. and caused zero damage and cost how much in extra policing?
Is this same john Simpson? New middle name? Different log in?
As for the marine, at least they protest honourable, in public, in daylight, no masks etc.. and caused zero damage and cost how much in extra policing?
In reply to summo:
Well you've perfectly highlighted the problem there haven't you? Protest quietly and you're ignored, if a small minority cause trouble and break stuff then your entire movement will be discredited as thugs or anarchists, while doing nothing useful.
> What did the bloke is his £500 jacket smashing a police car achieve for his cause too?
Well you've perfectly highlighted the problem there haven't you? Protest quietly and you're ignored, if a small minority cause trouble and break stuff then your entire movement will be discredited as thugs or anarchists, while doing nothing useful.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
When you name your march a 'million masks', hold it on 5th nov and at that time of day... I'd say the organisers are very liable for the actions that took place.
When you name your march a 'million masks', hold it on 5th nov and at that time of day... I'd say the organisers are very liable for the actions that took place.
1
3
In reply to Trevers:
Change is more likely to be fostered through the ballot box, lobbying, online petitions(proper ones not that 38degrees junk) etc.. than shooting fireworks at a horse. Would be good to see some jail time for those involved with that.
Change is more likely to be fostered through the ballot box, lobbying, online petitions(proper ones not that 38degrees junk) etc.. than shooting fireworks at a horse. Would be good to see some jail time for those involved with that.
3
1
In reply to Treves:
not to mention the state infiltration of peaceful movements to cause trouble..
not to mention the state infiltration of peaceful movements to cause trouble..
1
1
In reply to summo:
Fine, but please don't assume that just because my political views may be broadly similar to those people that I therefore condone everything they did.
It's straying from the topic slightly, but do you really have faith in our political system to effect positive change for the many, not the few? The Labour leadership contest was the first time I felt my vote meant anything, and I may still be proven wrong on that front. Do you think that radicalisation and violent protest may be related to a feeling (rightly or wrongly) that it might be the only way to get heard?
> Change is more likely to be fostered through the ballot box, lobbying, online petitions(proper ones not that 38degrees junk) etc.. than shooting fireworks at a horse. Would be good to see some jail time for those involved with that.
Fine, but please don't assume that just because my political views may be broadly similar to those people that I therefore condone everything they did.
It's straying from the topic slightly, but do you really have faith in our political system to effect positive change for the many, not the few? The Labour leadership contest was the first time I felt my vote meant anything, and I may still be proven wrong on that front. Do you think that radicalisation and violent protest may be related to a feeling (rightly or wrongly) that it might be the only way to get heard?
1
In reply to summo:
Been a geek I just decided to add my middle name
Oh yes, I have a lot of good friends that have served with Royal, I did an 7 year stint myself with 3 Cdo Bge, along with Reg they are the cornerstone of the British empire. This guy should never have been jailed, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with the first world. He'll be treated like an royalty inside, but that's not the point, he should be a freeman!
> Is this same john Simpson? New middle name? Different log in?
Been a geek I just decided to add my middle name
> As for the marine, at least they protest honourable, in public, in daylight, no masks etc.. and caused zero damage and cost how much in extra policing?
Oh yes, I have a lot of good friends that have served with Royal, I did an 7 year stint myself with 3 Cdo Bge, along with Reg they are the cornerstone of the British empire. This guy should never have been jailed, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with the first world. He'll be treated like an royalty inside, but that's not the point, he should be a freeman!
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
when did you realise you didn't want to kill people for a living?
when did you realise you didn't want to kill people for a living?
1
2
In reply to Trevers:
It's because you're a freak. Sorry about that but statistically anyone who is sufficiently interested in this to discuss it on a forum is an oddball. Most people don't care about politics. Look how small party memberships are. Even Labour's bounce from Corbynmania that everyone was so excited about is a drop in the bucket in a country of 60m. So, basically, to most people you're just a bit wierd. As I suppose I am for answering you.
They are not interested in the mechanics protests because they don't go on them. They do more important stuff with their weekends like go to IKEA or the Etihad or watch Strictly. All they want is a quiet orderly life in a country with the rule of law and th trains run on time. Masked rent-a-mobs smashing windows of people they have in their superior wisdom judged legitimate targets has no part in that orderly life
> It bothers me that a lot of people don't notice or care about politics or their rights on a general basis......Or my other friends who don't care for their right to protest and tend to regard protesters as people simply wanting to stir up trouble
It's because you're a freak. Sorry about that but statistically anyone who is sufficiently interested in this to discuss it on a forum is an oddball. Most people don't care about politics. Look how small party memberships are. Even Labour's bounce from Corbynmania that everyone was so excited about is a drop in the bucket in a country of 60m. So, basically, to most people you're just a bit wierd. As I suppose I am for answering you.
They are not interested in the mechanics protests because they don't go on them. They do more important stuff with their weekends like go to IKEA or the Etihad or watch Strictly. All they want is a quiet orderly life in a country with the rule of law and th trains run on time. Masked rent-a-mobs smashing windows of people they have in their superior wisdom judged legitimate targets has no part in that orderly life
3
1
In reply to malk:
I never wanted to kill people for a living, I'm a peace loving hippy, I grew up through the strike and in 85 when i left school there was no work round here, it was really poor, I did a factory job which was pretty shit, but a great set of lads, and on the way home i'd walk past the recruitment centre, and it said you can get £112 a week as a basic solider, back then i was on about £70 a week, so I thought f*ck it, my grandparents had been in the first and second war, I'm going to sign up, I signed for 6, and with training did just under 8 years into total. I joined the Royal engineers and volunteered for the all arms commando course, it was stiff, lots of bullying back then. I was in military engineering, dems, combat engineering, bridge building, water supply, arctic warfare training, jungle training, OP Haven, but my trade was heavy plant. this is what i spent the most of my time operating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV180_Combat_Engineer_Tractor
Coming from Barnsley I was blunt that is for sure, so I told more than one stuck up officer to f*ck off, no career progress for people like me, unless you do your full time. I was in for the experience, not to kill anyone. I did shoot a seagull in the Falklands in 95 as someone else had wounded it so sorry Mr seagull bird. I had to put you down!
I never wanted to kill people for a living, I'm a peace loving hippy, I grew up through the strike and in 85 when i left school there was no work round here, it was really poor, I did a factory job which was pretty shit, but a great set of lads, and on the way home i'd walk past the recruitment centre, and it said you can get £112 a week as a basic solider, back then i was on about £70 a week, so I thought f*ck it, my grandparents had been in the first and second war, I'm going to sign up, I signed for 6, and with training did just under 8 years into total. I joined the Royal engineers and volunteered for the all arms commando course, it was stiff, lots of bullying back then. I was in military engineering, dems, combat engineering, bridge building, water supply, arctic warfare training, jungle training, OP Haven, but my trade was heavy plant. this is what i spent the most of my time operating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV180_Combat_Engineer_Tractor
Coming from Barnsley I was blunt that is for sure, so I told more than one stuck up officer to f*ck off, no career progress for people like me, unless you do your full time. I was in for the experience, not to kill anyone. I did shoot a seagull in the Falklands in 95 as someone else had wounded it so sorry Mr seagull bird. I had to put you down!
Post edited at 12:37
2
In reply to off-duty:
Hi Off Duty,
If you were ordered to go undercover wear a mask and cause a bit of trouble on a peaceful protest by being one of the morons you talk about, would you?
genuine question,
and do you know if this has ever happened as a tactic to discredit a protest?
Hi Off Duty,
If you were ordered to go undercover wear a mask and cause a bit of trouble on a peaceful protest by being one of the morons you talk about, would you?
genuine question,
and do you know if this has ever happened as a tactic to discredit a protest?
In reply to gd303uk:
I don't think I would, no.
But the difficulty in answering that question is that I can't possibly see how an operation of that sort would possibly be authorised through the RIPA process, let alone why anyone would even think to suggest it in the first place.
Even the cowboy-like practices that have been exposed in the NPOIU /SDS who were involved in undercover policing in protest movements were not even suggesting that type of involvement. Not acting like an agent provocateur is fairly central to that type of work.
So - has it ever been used to discredit a protest? Not that I am aware of, and I really can't see why it would be.
> Hi Off Duty,
> If you were ordered to go undercover wear a mask and cause a bit of trouble on a peaceful protest by being one of the morons you talk about, would you?
> genuine question,
> and do you know if this has ever happened as a tactic to discredit a protest?
I don't think I would, no.
But the difficulty in answering that question is that I can't possibly see how an operation of that sort would possibly be authorised through the RIPA process, let alone why anyone would even think to suggest it in the first place.
Even the cowboy-like practices that have been exposed in the NPOIU /SDS who were involved in undercover policing in protest movements were not even suggesting that type of involvement. Not acting like an agent provocateur is fairly central to that type of work.
So - has it ever been used to discredit a protest? Not that I am aware of, and I really can't see why it would be.
2
In reply to off-duty:
Like you're trying to make out on the other threads you live in a dream world if those are your true thoughts, everything is infiltrated by the spooks, taliban, green peace, bnp, the snoreys, the feds, the mafia, the list could go on and on.
> So - has it ever been used to discredit a protest? Not that I am aware of, and I really can't see why it would be.
Like you're trying to make out on the other threads you live in a dream world if those are your true thoughts, everything is infiltrated by the spooks, taliban, green peace, bnp, the snoreys, the feds, the mafia, the list could go on and on.
Post edited at 13:08
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
There is a large difference between infiltrating an organisation and acting as an agent provacateur, regardless of whether it's being done by a spook or an alien.
> Like you're trying to make out on the other threads you live in a dream world if those are your true thoughts, everything is infiltrated by the spooks, taliban, green peace, bnp, the snoreys, the feds, the mafia, the list could go on and on.
There is a large difference between infiltrating an organisation and acting as an agent provacateur, regardless of whether it's being done by a spook or an alien.
4
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
>. This guy should never have been jailed, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with the first world. He'll be treated like an royalty inside, but that's not the point, he should be a freeman!
a rare moment, I agree with you!
>. This guy should never have been jailed, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with the first world. He'll be treated like an royalty inside, but that's not the point, he should be a freeman!
a rare moment, I agree with you!
In reply to off-duty:
Hi Off Duty ,
thank you for your reply, it is good to hear your thoughts i appreciate your views .
however would you accept that "Agent Provocateurs" Like Mark Kennedy have played a part in some protest groups.
I would like to know more about stories like this
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacat...
Hi Off Duty ,
thank you for your reply, it is good to hear your thoughts i appreciate your views .
however would you accept that "Agent Provocateurs" Like Mark Kennedy have played a part in some protest groups.
I would like to know more about stories like this
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacat...
Post edited at 13:49
1
In reply to gd303uk:
It's not in dispute that members of the SDS/NPOIU were involved in the infiltration of protest groups.
It's also not in dispute that there were massive issues with some of their oversight and regulation.
It is in dispute that they acted as agent provocateurs within those organisations.
Unsurprisingly because of the risk of incriminating innocent people there is a fairly decent amount of case law about the involvement that undercover officers can have in organisations planning criminal acts.
> Hi Off Duty ,
> thank you for your reply, it is good to hear your thoughts i appreciate your views .
> however would you accept that "Agent Provocateurs" Like Mark Kennedy have played a part in some protest groups.
It's not in dispute that members of the SDS/NPOIU were involved in the infiltration of protest groups.
It's also not in dispute that there were massive issues with some of their oversight and regulation.
It is in dispute that they acted as agent provocateurs within those organisations.
Unsurprisingly because of the risk of incriminating innocent people there is a fairly decent amount of case law about the involvement that undercover officers can have in organisations planning criminal acts.
1
In reply to gd303uk:
In response to the Guardian article, if people are waving what is alleged to be warrant cards - they are plain clothed cops, not undercover. (If they are cops at all).
This is what the relevant commanders said at the house of commons :
Q350 Tom Brake: Presumably there were plain clothes officers in the crowd. I would expect there to be to spot the worst trouble makers.
Sir Paul Stephenson: I just have to say the idea that we would put agent provocateurs in the crowd is wholly antithetic to everything I have known about policing for the best part of 34 years.
Q351 Tom Brake: Can I ask Commander Broadhurst, please?
Commander Broadhurst: I was obviously the Gold Commander. We had no plain clothes officers deployed within the crowd. It would have been dangerous for them to put plain clothes officers in a crowd like that. The only officers we deploy for intelligence purposes at public order are forward intelligence team officers who are wearing full police uniforms with a yellow jacket with blue shoulders. There were no plain clothes officers deployed at all.
Actually, I'll amend that - he later apologised. There were undercover officers deployed and City of London Police. It's not clear if they were undercover or plain clothes, though it would be surprising if plain clothes cops were deployed in a protest.
I'm guessing there will be a report or an iPCC investigation somewhere....
In response to the Guardian article, if people are waving what is alleged to be warrant cards - they are plain clothed cops, not undercover. (If they are cops at all).
This is what the relevant commanders said at the house of commons :
Q350 Tom Brake: Presumably there were plain clothes officers in the crowd. I would expect there to be to spot the worst trouble makers.
Sir Paul Stephenson: I just have to say the idea that we would put agent provocateurs in the crowd is wholly antithetic to everything I have known about policing for the best part of 34 years.
Q351 Tom Brake: Can I ask Commander Broadhurst, please?
Commander Broadhurst: I was obviously the Gold Commander. We had no plain clothes officers deployed within the crowd. It would have been dangerous for them to put plain clothes officers in a crowd like that. The only officers we deploy for intelligence purposes at public order are forward intelligence team officers who are wearing full police uniforms with a yellow jacket with blue shoulders. There were no plain clothes officers deployed at all.
Actually, I'll amend that - he later apologised. There were undercover officers deployed and City of London Police. It's not clear if they were undercover or plain clothes, though it would be surprising if plain clothes cops were deployed in a protest.
I'm guessing there will be a report or an iPCC investigation somewhere....
Post edited at 14:10
1
In reply to off-duty:
No there's not infiltration, leads to manipulation, its just the natural order of things, it's exactly whats been going on since ancient Sumeria, divide and conquer, and the way it goes every day thousands of people wake up to the truth, and once you've woke up, you don't go back to sleep again, the system may try to mask it by saying these people have psychological problems and dope them up with all sorts of pharmaceuticals, but they're still awake. What you've got to remember is there's 7 billion of us the great unwashed and maybe only 500 thousand at the top who really know the score.
Like I've said before I like you, you add a lot to the forum and you have a good attitude, but you're still a yes man, just repeating what your criminal masters tell you to say.
> There is a large difference between infiltrating an organisation and acting as an agent provacateur, regardless of whether it's being done by a spook or an alien.
No there's not infiltration, leads to manipulation, its just the natural order of things, it's exactly whats been going on since ancient Sumeria, divide and conquer, and the way it goes every day thousands of people wake up to the truth, and once you've woke up, you don't go back to sleep again, the system may try to mask it by saying these people have psychological problems and dope them up with all sorts of pharmaceuticals, but they're still awake. What you've got to remember is there's 7 billion of us the great unwashed and maybe only 500 thousand at the top who really know the score.
Like I've said before I like you, you add a lot to the forum and you have a good attitude, but you're still a yes man, just repeating what your criminal masters tell you to say.
3
3
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Your entitled to your opinion which appears to be based on your understanding and interpretation of news reports and other, apparently internet based, opinion pieces, as well as your view of history and how you believe it may relate to the 21st century.
My views are based on direct experience, knowledge of the regulatory regimes in place, understanding of various reports and investigations into conduct, and case law.
Your entitled to your opinion which appears to be based on your understanding and interpretation of news reports and other, apparently internet based, opinion pieces, as well as your view of history and how you believe it may relate to the 21st century.
My views are based on direct experience, knowledge of the regulatory regimes in place, understanding of various reports and investigations into conduct, and case law.
Post edited at 15:42
2
In reply to off-duty:
Yes this his how it operates, it's highly compartmentalized, so what you say from your experience is probably 100% truthful and accurate, however at higher levels of classification further levels of understanding are given to those with the clearance. For example there are something like 23 levels of classification above top secret, so our PM may be allowed access to 1 or 2 levels above but due to the official secrets act he isn't allowed to reveal to the public so this is where the political spin machine comes into play. I seem to remember reading the top level is Cosmic and there are maybe a few thousand with that clearance at any time. the majority are either in the cabals or the various secret space programs.
> Your entitled to your opinion which appears to be based on your understanding and interpretation of news reports and other, apparently internet based, opinion pieces, as well as your view of history and how you believe it may relate to the 21st century.
> My views are based on direct experience, knowledge of the regulatory regimes in place, understanding of various reports and investigations into conduct, and case law.
Yes this his how it operates, it's highly compartmentalized, so what you say from your experience is probably 100% truthful and accurate, however at higher levels of classification further levels of understanding are given to those with the clearance. For example there are something like 23 levels of classification above top secret, so our PM may be allowed access to 1 or 2 levels above but due to the official secrets act he isn't allowed to reveal to the public so this is where the political spin machine comes into play. I seem to remember reading the top level is Cosmic and there are maybe a few thousand with that clearance at any time. the majority are either in the cabals or the various secret space programs.
1
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
I think you're a bit out of date there. The new top level is Super Duper Extra Cosmiceroonio (at least that's wjhat it said on the bag my Bacofoil hat came in)
> I seem to remember reading the top level is Cosmic and there are maybe a few thousand with that clearance at any time. the majority are either in the cabals or the various secret space programs.
I think you're a bit out of date there. The new top level is Super Duper Extra Cosmiceroonio (at least that's wjhat it said on the bag my Bacofoil hat came in)
5
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
What drivel about levels of security classification, it is not the caveat that dictates who sees it, but 'if they need to know' in the first. The caveat is generally related to how that given data may be stored, accessed, copied, destroyed, moved etc.. not the people who actually see it. 99.999% of the mod might be cleared to secret level, but they might never see anything above restricted, unless it relates to their job.
What drivel about levels of security classification, it is not the caveat that dictates who sees it, but 'if they need to know' in the first. The caveat is generally related to how that given data may be stored, accessed, copied, destroyed, moved etc.. not the people who actually see it. 99.999% of the mod might be cleared to secret level, but they might never see anything above restricted, unless it relates to their job.
3
In reply to summo:
Like anybody else you're allowed your view, but you have to remember you're trying to state your opinion as fact. What I posted is taken from extensive witness testimony from people who have had the clearance and have described the system.
> What drivel about levels of security classification, it is not the caveat that dictates who sees it, but 'if they need to know' in the first. The caveat is generally related to how that given data may be stored, accessed, copied, destroyed, moved etc.. not the people who actually see it. 99.999% of the mod might be cleared to secret level, but they might never see anything above restricted, unless it relates to their job.
Like anybody else you're allowed your view, but you have to remember you're trying to state your opinion as fact. What I posted is taken from extensive witness testimony from people who have had the clearance and have described the system.
1
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
pretty sure my experience is not 'extensive', but I can differentiate between security classifications, prefixs and caveats. I think the newer system has only 3 classifications. Things have almost certainly moved on since I has DV'd and strap cleared for some specific work many moons ago.
> Like anybody else you're allowed your view, but you have to remember you're trying to state your opinion as fact. What I posted is taken from extensive witness testimony from people who have had the clearance and have described the system.
pretty sure my experience is not 'extensive', but I can differentiate between security classifications, prefixs and caveats. I think the newer system has only 3 classifications. Things have almost certainly moved on since I has DV'd and strap cleared for some specific work many moons ago.
Post edited at 18:22
In reply to summo:
What exactly do you do? as you spend a lot of time on here but seem to make out that you're an expert on everything. How many times have you been on the moon just out of interest?
> pretty sure my experience is not 'extensive', but I can differentiate between security classifications, prefixs and caveats. I think the newer system has only 3 classifications. Things have almost certainly moved on since I has DV'd and strap cleared for some specific work many moons ago.
What exactly do you do? as you spend a lot of time on here but seem to make out that you're an expert on everything. How many times have you been on the moon just out of interest?
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
that's a daft question, as any conspiracy expert will know only elvis has been there. And I ain't elvis. To summarise, think I am jack of many, almost master of a few, but master of none. I started heading into finance, but disliked desks and indoors, so drifted outdoors, did a whole range of stuff related to mountaineering and aircraft. I like variety, so I've always studied whilst I've worked, or used holidays to go on more courses and learn new things etc.. some become or became work, others didn't. I plodded through a range outdoor quals in mtns, caving and kayaking, whilst also doing OU science courses and a Cert Ed. Plus some house renovation; falling back on skills learnt as youth on evenings and weekends when I was doing A levels, only I reap the benefits now. Courses in more recent times range from beekeeping, welding and a hunting licence.. Now, I have a small farm and forest, making a bit of extra money trading here and there.
> . How many times have you been on the moon just out of interest?
that's a daft question, as any conspiracy expert will know only elvis has been there. And I ain't elvis. To summarise, think I am jack of many, almost master of a few, but master of none. I started heading into finance, but disliked desks and indoors, so drifted outdoors, did a whole range of stuff related to mountaineering and aircraft. I like variety, so I've always studied whilst I've worked, or used holidays to go on more courses and learn new things etc.. some become or became work, others didn't. I plodded through a range outdoor quals in mtns, caving and kayaking, whilst also doing OU science courses and a Cert Ed. Plus some house renovation; falling back on skills learnt as youth on evenings and weekends when I was doing A levels, only I reap the benefits now. Courses in more recent times range from beekeeping, welding and a hunting licence.. Now, I have a small farm and forest, making a bit of extra money trading here and there.
Post edited at 18:41
In reply to summo:
So let me get this right, you've had permission to use the office photocopier. So you know all about the levels of classifications in the black budget classified projects that don't officially exist?
> that's a daft question, as any conspiracy expert will know only elvis has been there. And I ain't elvis.
So let me get this right, you've had permission to use the office photocopier. So you know all about the levels of classifications in the black budget classified projects that don't officially exist?
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
you should know you are not cleared to that level, I can neither confirm or deny that Elvis went to the moon. It will have to remain a known unknown.
> So let me get this right, you've had permission to use the office photocopier. So you know all about the levels of classifications in the black budget classified projects that don't officially exist?
you should know you are not cleared to that level, I can neither confirm or deny that Elvis went to the moon. It will have to remain a known unknown.
In reply to summo:
I have no security clearance, and you have made it quite clear here that neither do you and with this pointless talk of Elvis as usual you have no idea about the subject that you're trying to make out you're an expert on. How do you make it through the day?
> you should know you are not cleared to that level, I can neither confirm or deny that Elvis went to the moon. It will have to remain a known unknown.
I have no security clearance, and you have made it quite clear here that neither do you and with this pointless talk of Elvis as usual you have no idea about the subject that you're trying to make out you're an expert on. How do you make it through the day?
1
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
luckily breathing is an automatic system (we'll avoid the somatic discussion).
> . How do you make it through the day?
luckily breathing is an automatic system (we'll avoid the somatic discussion).
1
In reply to summo:
You did a big edit earlier, you like doing courses can you not work out stuff for yourself, next you'll be telling me you can stack dimes like a pro, obviously I don't need to mention which course I'm referring to.
You did a big edit earlier, you like doing courses can you not work out stuff for yourself, next you'll be telling me you can stack dimes like a pro, obviously I don't need to mention which course I'm referring to.
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
work out stuff for myself? I don't think many people obtain a science degree without signing up to some course. Know many self taught decent welders who've never had a lesson? Hunting licence course and exam is mandatory here before you can even put the application into the police. Beekeeping - could be painful if you get it wrong and as I'm discovering now that I have 7 hives, there is quite a bit involved at times. Chainsaw and forestry stuff, one mistake and you'll probably bleed out, so it's better to learn properly. The same applies to most things. Never done a building course in my life though, but can quite happily renovate an entirely house or building, some skills you can learn as you go along, but often a few hours one 2 one, can save days or weeks of wasted time. I still pay for the occasional 1-2-1 ski lesson, to refine things or pick faults. It's good to learn new things and improve in general. Life gets a little dull if you just coast along through it. But, each to their own.
> You did a big edit earlier, you like doing courses can you not work out stuff for yourself, next you'll be telling me you can stack dimes like a pro, obviously I don't need to mention which course I'm referring to.
work out stuff for myself? I don't think many people obtain a science degree without signing up to some course. Know many self taught decent welders who've never had a lesson? Hunting licence course and exam is mandatory here before you can even put the application into the police. Beekeeping - could be painful if you get it wrong and as I'm discovering now that I have 7 hives, there is quite a bit involved at times. Chainsaw and forestry stuff, one mistake and you'll probably bleed out, so it's better to learn properly. The same applies to most things. Never done a building course in my life though, but can quite happily renovate an entirely house or building, some skills you can learn as you go along, but often a few hours one 2 one, can save days or weeks of wasted time. I still pay for the occasional 1-2-1 ski lesson, to refine things or pick faults. It's good to learn new things and improve in general. Life gets a little dull if you just coast along through it. But, each to their own.
In reply to John Andrew Simpson.
What is the evidence for a top level super elite, manipulating things from the shadows?
What is the evidence for a top level super elite, manipulating things from the shadows?
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
After years as a minor flunky in the New World Order I never realised I had been inducted into the elite many years ago. Alternatively COSMIC is, (or was), the prefix used to denote protectively marked documents relating to NATO.
> I seem to remember reading the top level is Cosmic and there are maybe a few thousand with that clearance at any time. the majority are either in the cabals or the various secret space programs.
After years as a minor flunky in the New World Order I never realised I had been inducted into the elite many years ago. Alternatively COSMIC is, (or was), the prefix used to denote protectively marked documents relating to NATO.
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Interesting take. General consensus amongst my ex-reg friends and acquaintances is that ex-Sgt. Blackman got off very lightly for murdering a wounded prisoner. Whilst we all sympathise and couldn't give a shit about the dead Taliban, shooting people for a laugh isn't exactly adhering to the various laws and protocols surrounding armed conflict. If we let him off with a pat on the back what's next, a free pass on raping and torture?
> Oh yes, I have a lot of good friends that have served with Royal, I did an 7 year stint myself with 3 Cdo Bge, along with Reg they are the cornerstone of the British empire. This guy should never have been jailed, it is a perfect example of what is wrong with the first world. He'll be treated like an royalty inside, but that's not the point, he should be a freeman!
Interesting take. General consensus amongst my ex-reg friends and acquaintances is that ex-Sgt. Blackman got off very lightly for murdering a wounded prisoner. Whilst we all sympathise and couldn't give a shit about the dead Taliban, shooting people for a laugh isn't exactly adhering to the various laws and protocols surrounding armed conflict. If we let him off with a pat on the back what's next, a free pass on raping and torture?
3
1
In reply to Ridge:
Ok so by your logic, we should have jail 100s of ww2 veterans. Once the roll into Germany was upto full speed, the advancing troops found many Germans not injured who surrendered. Due to the logistics of moving them to the rear they were lined up and executed. Often allied troops protested about this, to which they were bluntly told either do the job or you get executed with the rest of them.
> Interesting take. General consensus amongst my ex-reg friends and acquaintances is that ex-Sgt. Blackman got off very lightly for murdering a wounded prisoner. Whilst we all sympathise and couldn't give a shit about the dead Taliban, shooting people for a laugh isn't exactly adhering to the various laws and protocols surrounding armed conflict. If we let him off with a pat on the back what's next, a free pass on raping and torture?
Ok so by your logic, we should have jail 100s of ww2 veterans. Once the roll into Germany was upto full speed, the advancing troops found many Germans not injured who surrendered. Due to the logistics of moving them to the rear they were lined up and executed. Often allied troops protested about this, to which they were bluntly told either do the job or you get executed with the rest of them.
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Yeah we should. They were war criminals.
We prosecuted plenty of Germans for doing the same thing.
Yeah we should. They were war criminals.
We prosecuted plenty of Germans for doing the same thing.
2
1
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Seriously? Yes we should have prosecuted those giving the orders and those pulling the trigger. The law applies to all, victor included or at least it bloody well should!
jk
> Ok so by your logic, we should have jail 100s of ww2 veterans. Once the roll into Germany was upto full speed, the advancing troops found many Germans not injured who surrendered. Due to the logistics of moving them to the rear they were lined up and executed. Often allied troops protested about this, to which they were bluntly told either do the job or you get executed with the rest of them.
Seriously? Yes we should have prosecuted those giving the orders and those pulling the trigger. The law applies to all, victor included or at least it bloody well should!
jk
1
1
In reply to jkarran:
Deary me, do you know nothing of the history of the wars, War is a crime end of!
> Seriously? Yes we should have prosecuted those giving the orders and those pulling the trigger. The law applies to all, victor included or at least it bloody well should!
> jk
Deary me, do you know nothing of the history of the wars, War is a crime end of!
1
3
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Are you suggesting we should have prosecuted all the veterans then?
> Deary me, do you know nothing of the history of the wars, War is a crime end of!
Are you suggesting we should have prosecuted all the veterans then?
In reply to davidbeynon:
Of course not, once you are in a war zone or at war all the peace time laws do not apply. What about bombing of civilian populations?
Of course not, once you are in a war zone or at war all the peace time laws do not apply. What about bombing of civilian populations?
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
There are certain conventions and protocols named after a place in Switzerland that spring to mind, and I seem to recall ROE cards being issued when visiting places where 'all the peace time laws' apparently don't apply. Never took you as a fan of total war like those chaps in the natty black Hugo Boss uniforms.
> Of course not, once you are in a war zone or at war all the peace time laws do not apply.
There are certain conventions and protocols named after a place in Switzerland that spring to mind, and I seem to recall ROE cards being issued when visiting places where 'all the peace time laws' apparently don't apply. Never took you as a fan of total war like those chaps in the natty black Hugo Boss uniforms.
In reply to Ridge:
Yes we know all about that, so out in Afgan, two different sets of rules, one on our side, the other was proper dirty, they thought Royal and Reg were f*ckin pussies, so the RM Sargent who got sent down, for using a typical on the ground Booty skillset, half the world away from Whitehall was made a scrap goat, for doing his f*cking job man! Which was doing his upmost to keep his young men safe. And for that he was made a scrapegoat of. This story should never have got out. It should have been kept inside. It shows the typical failure of the Officer class. Nothing really has changed since 1914!
Yes we know all about that, so out in Afgan, two different sets of rules, one on our side, the other was proper dirty, they thought Royal and Reg were f*ckin pussies, so the RM Sargent who got sent down, for using a typical on the ground Booty skillset, half the world away from Whitehall was made a scrap goat, for doing his f*cking job man! Which was doing his upmost to keep his young men safe. And for that he was made a scrapegoat of. This story should never have got out. It should have been kept inside. It shows the typical failure of the Officer class. Nothing really has changed since 1914!
Post edited at 06:36
1
2
In reply to off-duty:
Shame on you. I always thought you spoke common sense in threads where I've seen your comments until now. I will never have the same respect for your comments again.
Shame on you. I always thought you spoke common sense in threads where I've seen your comments until now. I will never have the same respect for your comments again.
1
1
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
I take it you have read the caveat? ie "some responsibility" can be discharged by at least making some effort to run it peacefully.
I'm surprised by the number of people who seem to think that organising violent protest should be an entirely risk free activity.
> Shame on you. I always thought you spoke common sense in threads where I've seen your comments until now. I will never have the same respect for your comments again.
I take it you have read the caveat? ie "some responsibility" can be discharged by at least making some effort to run it peacefully.
I'm surprised by the number of people who seem to think that organising violent protest should be an entirely risk free activity.
3
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Except war isn't actually a crime whereas murdering people in a theater of conflict is whether you're on the winning team or not.
To be totally honest John I don't understand your position, you seem to be defending murder 'because war is bad and someone else will always be willing to stoop lower' to paraphrase. I wouldn't have expected this from you.
jk
> Deary me, do you know nothing of the history of the wars, War is a crime end of!
Except war isn't actually a crime whereas murdering people in a theater of conflict is whether you're on the winning team or not.
To be totally honest John I don't understand your position, you seem to be defending murder 'because war is bad and someone else will always be willing to stoop lower' to paraphrase. I wouldn't have expected this from you.
jk
2
In reply to jkarran:
Taking someones life is taking someones life regardless of if the boss man has ok'd it
Any person who is killed in war is dead, murdered by a break down of communication by politicians. Any war which is fought means politicians have failed in their basic job descriptions and sanctioned mass murder.
> Except war isn't actually a crime whereas murdering people in a theater of conflict is whether you're on the winning team or not.
Taking someones life is taking someones life regardless of if the boss man has ok'd it
> To be totally honest John I don't understand your position, you seem to be defending murder 'because war is bad and someone else will always be willing to stoop lower' to paraphrase. I wouldn't have expected this from you.
Any person who is killed in war is dead, murdered by a break down of communication by politicians. Any war which is fought means politicians have failed in their basic job descriptions and sanctioned mass murder.
> jk
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
You say this yet seem to be unambiguously supporting the summary execution of prisoners as part of a 'typical on the ground booty skillset'. It isn't. It's murder.
jk
> Any person who is killed in war is dead, murdered by a break down of communication by politicians. Any war which is fought means politicians have failed in their basic job descriptions and sanctioned mass murder.
You say this yet seem to be unambiguously supporting the summary execution of prisoners as part of a 'typical on the ground booty skillset'. It isn't. It's murder.
jk
1
1
In reply to jkarran:
That's war, put one injured man down who's under his own free will decided to enter a combat zone, or risk the safety of your whole troop.
Have you ever walked into a hot zone with your gun set on automatic?
> You say this yet seem to be unambiguously supporting the summary execution of prisoners as part of a 'typical on the ground booty skillset'. It isn't. It's murder.
> jk
That's war, put one injured man down who's under his own free will decided to enter a combat zone, or risk the safety of your whole troop.
Have you ever walked into a hot zone with your gun set on automatic?
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
That's clearly defined as murder. You don't have to like that but it's reality, that's what you signed up to. The laws that bind you might change but they still bind you.
No. What's the relevance?
jk
> That's war, put one injured man down who's under his own free will decided to enter a combat zone, or risk the safety of your whole troop.
That's clearly defined as murder. You don't have to like that but it's reality, that's what you signed up to. The laws that bind you might change but they still bind you.
> Have you ever walked into a hot zone with your gun set on automatic?
No. What's the relevance?
jk
2
In reply to jkarran:
No it's not the legal system can let murderers off for manslaughter and convict one of the finest men this country has produced because the system needed a scapegoat
The relevance is you have no idea what you're talking about, it's quite a common theme with you billy bullshit!
> That's clearly defined as murder. You don't have to like that but it's reality, that's what you signed up to. The laws that bind you might change but they still bind you.
No it's not the legal system can let murderers off for manslaughter and convict one of the finest men this country has produced because the system needed a scapegoat
> No. What's the relevance?
The relevance is you have no idea what you're talking about, it's quite a common theme with you billy bullshit!
> jk
1
In reply to jkarran:
I don't have the time for this either too much work on, but you can keep your head in the sand talking shit all day, I'm sure your employer would approve.
I don't have the time for this either too much work on, but you can keep your head in the sand talking shit all day, I'm sure your employer would approve.
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Would there be a need for a scapegoat if he hadn't murdered his prisoner?
And we're into personal insults as usual. Nice.
jk
> No it's not the legal system can let murderers off for manslaughter and convict one of the finest men this country has produced because the system needed a scapegoat
Would there be a need for a scapegoat if he hadn't murdered his prisoner?
> The relevance is you have no idea what you're talking about, it's quite a common theme with you billy bullshit!
And we're into personal insults as usual. Nice.
jk
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
That "might" be an arguable position. In this case his defence was that he shot the insurgent at close range in the chest because he thought he was already dead.
Edited to add : The problem for Marine A is that from the chat and subsequent diary recordings it appears that he knew exactly what he was doing.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c92_1383835630
> That's war, put one injured man down who's under his own free will decided to enter a combat zone, or risk the safety of your whole troop
That "might" be an arguable position. In this case his defence was that he shot the insurgent at close range in the chest because he thought he was already dead.
Edited to add : The problem for Marine A is that from the chat and subsequent diary recordings it appears that he knew exactly what he was doing.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c92_1383835630
Post edited at 10:40
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Have you?
> Have you ever walked into a hot zone with your gun set on automatic?
Have you?
In reply to JoshOvki:
No thankfully not, I got out before the recent wars started, I've walked in and out of some tough jams but never fired any live weapon at another person.
I remember back in 95 on one of my last overseas tours, Tony Blair was a rising star, and I never liked the man, you could see it in his eyes. He wasn't the reason I got out, but I'm glad i did. I was completely against the Iraq war from the start, just no need. Being the person I am if I'd have stayed in by now I could well have been dead or more likely with a great deal of emotional baggage, as the only real challenge I considered was to go up the road with some of my closest peers.
> Have you?
No thankfully not, I got out before the recent wars started, I've walked in and out of some tough jams but never fired any live weapon at another person.
I remember back in 95 on one of my last overseas tours, Tony Blair was a rising star, and I never liked the man, you could see it in his eyes. He wasn't the reason I got out, but I'm glad i did. I was completely against the Iraq war from the start, just no need. Being the person I am if I'd have stayed in by now I could well have been dead or more likely with a great deal of emotional baggage, as the only real challenge I considered was to go up the road with some of my closest peers.
1
In reply to jkarran:
He killed his prisoner, manslaughter.
well there you go, I'm a bit bored with your yes man attitude, so if you don't like it tough, go and find someone else to bother.
> Would there be a need for a scapegoat if he hadn't murdered his prisoner?
He killed his prisoner, manslaughter.
> And we're into personal insults as usual. Nice.
well there you go, I'm a bit bored with your yes man attitude, so if you don't like it tough, go and find someone else to bother.
> jk
1
In reply to off-duty:
Of course he knew what he was doing, calling in a casivac for a wounded enemy and possibly either getting ambushed or flanked and taken out and losing maybe his and his mens lives. F*cked either way. They were right out on a limb. You're not going to sit around taking happy snaps.
Of course he knew what he was doing, calling in a casivac for a wounded enemy and possibly either getting ambushed or flanked and taken out and losing maybe his and his mens lives. F*cked either way. They were right out on a limb. You're not going to sit around taking happy snaps.
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Fine words except of course it's bollocks and that's precisely what they did do: They recorded a souvenir video of Blackman deliberately executing a prisoner of war knowingly in breach of the Geneva convention.
jk
> They were right out on a limb. You're not going to sit around taking happy snaps.
Fine words except of course it's bollocks and that's precisely what they did do: They recorded a souvenir video of Blackman deliberately executing a prisoner of war knowingly in breach of the Geneva convention.
jk
1
In reply to jkarran:
Yes they broke the Geneva convention, it happens pretty much every day in war, the Taliban did not respect the Geneva convention so if they don't respect it it doesn't really apply.
> Fine words except of course it's bollocks and that's precisely what they did do: They recorded a souvenir video of Blackman deliberately executing a prisoner of war knowingly in breach of the Geneva convention.
> jk
Yes they broke the Geneva convention, it happens pretty much every day in war, the Taliban did not respect the Geneva convention so if they don't respect it it doesn't really apply.
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Rather than fitting events to a narrative that you think justifies his actions, why not read the account of actual events.
> Of course he knew what he was doing, calling in a casivac for a wounded enemy and possibly either getting ambushed or flanked and taken out and losing maybe his and his mens lives. F*cked either way. They were right out on a limb. You're not going to sit around taking happy snaps.
Rather than fitting events to a narrative that you think justifies his actions, why not read the account of actual events.
In reply to off-duty:
I've read the narrative, I am summarizing the narrative with my own understanding of warfare, also from having conversations with another RM sergeant who spent 2 years in Afgan, he was lucky and brought all his men home.
This is how cases are built, as you well know. I'm nothing to do with legality as you also well know, But I can see the real charge should be manslaughter, not murder. He was badly represented and deserves a retrial.
I've read the narrative, I am summarizing the narrative with my own understanding of warfare, also from having conversations with another RM sergeant who spent 2 years in Afgan, he was lucky and brought all his men home.
This is how cases are built, as you well know. I'm nothing to do with legality as you also well know, But I can see the real charge should be manslaughter, not murder. He was badly represented and deserves a retrial.
Post edited at 15:53
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
You aren't summarising the narrative, you are altering the account of events. It's not the account he used in his defence, and it isn't what happened.
Whilst I have got a lot a of sympathy for the Royal Marines, in difficult and dangerous conditions, his actions - as documented on live video and audio, as well as written about in some detail in the diary of one of the marines are unquestionably far below the standards that I would expect our soldiers to keep.
I'm not sure why it should be manslaughter. It appears he shot the insurgent to kill him, rather than call in medical aid. He didn't run a defence of "I did it to save lives of my men" - his defence was that he shot him because he thought he was already dead - something that was blatantly untrue, as per his own words.
> I've read the narrative, I am summarizing the narrative with my own understanding of warfare, also from having conversations with another RM sergeant who spent 2 years in Afgan, he was lucky and brought all his men home.
You aren't summarising the narrative, you are altering the account of events. It's not the account he used in his defence, and it isn't what happened.
Whilst I have got a lot a of sympathy for the Royal Marines, in difficult and dangerous conditions, his actions - as documented on live video and audio, as well as written about in some detail in the diary of one of the marines are unquestionably far below the standards that I would expect our soldiers to keep.
> This is how cases are built, as you well know. I'm nothing to do with legality as you also well know, But I can see the real charge should be manslaughter, not murder. He was badly represented and deserves a retrial.
I'm not sure why it should be manslaughter. It appears he shot the insurgent to kill him, rather than call in medical aid. He didn't run a defence of "I did it to save lives of my men" - his defence was that he shot him because he thought he was already dead - something that was blatantly untrue, as per his own words.
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
That's a very disappointing attitude.
jk
> Yes they broke the Geneva convention, it happens pretty much every day in war, the Taliban did not respect the Geneva convention so if they don't respect it it doesn't really apply.
That's a very disappointing attitude.
jk
1
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
I've got to be reading this wrong, haven't I? Someone tell me I'm reading it wrong.
> the Taliban did not respect the Geneva convention so if they don't respect it it doesn't really apply.
I've got to be reading this wrong, haven't I? Someone tell me I'm reading it wrong.
1
2
In reply to off-duty:
Yes it is he killed the injured taliban in a rush of blood to the head because his stress levels were off the chart, and those old school booties don't like to show weakness. It was a mistake, it wasn't pre meditated murder. it was combat stress related manslaughter
Under the combat stress of way your journal is going to be all over the place.
Effectively he was dead, he'd have bled out in 20 minutes. Also the booty may have some psychological problems but these guys are human beings not robots.
> You aren't summarising the narrative, you are altering the account of events. It's not the account he used in his defence, and it isn't what happened.
Yes it is he killed the injured taliban in a rush of blood to the head because his stress levels were off the chart, and those old school booties don't like to show weakness. It was a mistake, it wasn't pre meditated murder. it was combat stress related manslaughter
> Whilst I have got a lot a of sympathy for the Royal Marines, in difficult and dangerous conditions, his actions - as documented on live video and audio, as well as written about in some detail in the diary of one of the marines are unquestionably far below the standards that I would expect our soldiers to keep.
Under the combat stress of way your journal is going to be all over the place.
> I'm not sure why it should be manslaughter. It appears he shot the insurgent to kill him, rather than call in medical aid. He didn't run a defence of "I did it to save lives of my men" - his defence was that he shot him because he thought he was already dead - something that was blatantly untrue, as per his own words.
Effectively he was dead, he'd have bled out in 20 minutes. Also the booty may have some psychological problems but these guys are human beings not robots.
1
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
It might have been a "rush of blood to the head" or similar - but again that's not what he said in his defence.
The sequence of events appeared to involve: finding the insurgents body, rolling him over and checking him for injuries. With a number of other marines dragging him into the treeline. Having a bit of a chat about things until the live feed to HQ moves away. Walking up to him an shooting him in the chest with his 9mm.
Which seems quite a long "rush of blood" to me.
Quite possibly. The head cam video that Marine C took of everything that went on tends to corroborate his journal though.
I agree - I've got a some sympathy for the marine.
> Yes it is he killed the injured taliban in a rush of blood to the head because his stress levels were off the chart, and those old school booties don't like to show weakness. It was a mistake, it wasn't pre meditated murder. it was combat stress related manslaughter
It might have been a "rush of blood to the head" or similar - but again that's not what he said in his defence.
The sequence of events appeared to involve: finding the insurgents body, rolling him over and checking him for injuries. With a number of other marines dragging him into the treeline. Having a bit of a chat about things until the live feed to HQ moves away. Walking up to him an shooting him in the chest with his 9mm.
Which seems quite a long "rush of blood" to me.
> Under the combat stress of way your journal is going to be all over the place.
Quite possibly. The head cam video that Marine C took of everything that went on tends to corroborate his journal though.
> Effectively he was dead, he'd have bled out in 20 minutes. Also the booty may have some psychological problems but these guys are human beings not robots.
I agree - I've got a some sympathy for the marine.
In reply to off-duty:
Yes because he was suffering from PTSD and his defence team didn't sort it out as they should have
It may be a long rush but that's ultimately what it was, lack of critical judgement due to combat stress
Yes on tours like this there's not a lot of love between certain factions within troops, one head cam doesn't show the full story, just a viewpoint from a certain angle.
Likewise, I'm not trying to make out this guy was a saint he was a British Government trained killer operating on the fuzzy edge of life, the thin red line.
> It might have been a "rush of blood to the head" or similar - but again that's not what he said in his defence.
Yes because he was suffering from PTSD and his defence team didn't sort it out as they should have
> The sequence of events appeared to involve: finding the insurgents body, rolling him over and checking him for injuries. With a number of other marines dragging him into the treeline. Having a bit of a chat about things until the live feed to HQ moves away. Walking up to him an shooting him in the chest with his 9mm.
> Which seems quite a long "rush of blood" to me.
It may be a long rush but that's ultimately what it was, lack of critical judgement due to combat stress
> Quite possibly. The head cam video that Marine C took of everything that went on tends to corroborate his journal though.
Yes on tours like this there's not a lot of love between certain factions within troops, one head cam doesn't show the full story, just a viewpoint from a certain angle.
> I agree - I've got a some sympathy for the marine.
Likewise, I'm not trying to make out this guy was a saint he was a British Government trained killer operating on the fuzzy edge of life, the thin red line.
Post edited at 17:11
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Just to clarify, you're saying the Geneva Convention should only be applied if the 'other side' chooses to apply it?
> So can you explain why one side in a war should effectually be handicapped?
Just to clarify, you're saying the Geneva Convention should only be applied if the 'other side' chooses to apply it?
In reply to ThunderCat:
I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void. It's armed warfare kill or be killed not a thought exercise in the ethics of fair play.
I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void. It's armed warfare kill or be killed not a thought exercise in the ethics of fair play.
Post edited at 17:18
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
So, you ARE saying the Geneva Convention should only be applied if the 'other side' chooses to apply it?
> I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void. It's armed warfare kill or be killed not a thought exercise in the ethics of fair play.
So, you ARE saying the Geneva Convention should only be applied if the 'other side' chooses to apply it?
1
In reply to off-duty:
I think what he's saying is that the Geneva Convention should only be applied if the 'other side' chooses to apply it.
I think what he's saying is that the Geneva Convention should only be applied if the 'other side' chooses to apply it.
In reply to ThunderCat:
No I'm saying the Geneva Convention is a guide line which should be followed when ever possible, but occasionally there are extenuating circumstances when this guideline can be overlooked for conditions of safe passage.
No I'm saying the Geneva Convention is a guide line which should be followed when ever possible, but occasionally there are extenuating circumstances when this guideline can be overlooked for conditions of safe passage.
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
...which is a world away from "I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void" (which is what you said originally)
> No I'm saying the Geneva Convention is a guide line which should be followed when ever possible, but occasionally there are extenuating circumstances when this guideline can be overlooked for conditions of safe passage.
...which is a world away from "I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void" (which is what you said originally)
Post edited at 17:24
In reply to ThunderCat:
Yes because at least three of you are trying to misinterpretation what I'm trying to say, this is going down in real time, the discussion is based around soundbites, interpretation and misinterpretation.
How long has he been inside now? don't you think he's suffered enough?
Because at the end of the day he put a very soon to be dead man out of his pain and trauma.
Yes because at least three of you are trying to misinterpretation what I'm trying to say, this is going down in real time, the discussion is based around soundbites, interpretation and misinterpretation.
How long has he been inside now? don't you think he's suffered enough?
Because at the end of the day he put a very soon to be dead man out of his pain and trauma.
Post edited at 17:31
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Now I have some sympathy with this view. I can think of a few scenarios where, in the interests of self preservation, the only sensible course of action might be to get rid of an inconvenient prisoner or two. That may well offend some sensibilities, but if the consequences of not doing so mean you're going to end up tortured, raped and killed then it's entirely justified. You'd also have a pretty good defence, assuming you were stupid enough to mention it afterwards, or even more stupidly film it.
Unfortunately this case is nothing like that. It's about deciding to hang around for a bit in no imminent danger, think up a pithy one-liner, wake the victim up and shoot him. All this 'he was dead anyway' stuff is clearly bollocks. A better defence might well have been having the balance of his mind disturbed at the time, which would certainly go a long way towards your manslaughter claim.
The other antics of Phil Shiner and the other odious creatures in Public Interest Lawyers or Matrix chambers in bringing spurious claims against people just doing their job cause me far more outrage than this particular case.
> No I'm saying the Geneva Convention is a guide line which should be followed when ever possible, but occasionally there are extenuating circumstances when this guideline can be overlooked for conditions of safe passage.
Now I have some sympathy with this view. I can think of a few scenarios where, in the interests of self preservation, the only sensible course of action might be to get rid of an inconvenient prisoner or two. That may well offend some sensibilities, but if the consequences of not doing so mean you're going to end up tortured, raped and killed then it's entirely justified. You'd also have a pretty good defence, assuming you were stupid enough to mention it afterwards, or even more stupidly film it.
Unfortunately this case is nothing like that. It's about deciding to hang around for a bit in no imminent danger, think up a pithy one-liner, wake the victim up and shoot him. All this 'he was dead anyway' stuff is clearly bollocks. A better defence might well have been having the balance of his mind disturbed at the time, which would certainly go a long way towards your manslaughter claim.
The other antics of Phil Shiner and the other odious creatures in Public Interest Lawyers or Matrix chambers in bringing spurious claims against people just doing their job cause me far more outrage than this particular case.
Post edited at 18:17
2
In reply to Ridge:
No imminent danger are you sure about that you have one head cam to base your whole case on, he may have lived if they'd rushed a med team out, and then fly a chopper in, which could have got taken out by ambush, you just don't know, you know they aren't going use their own first field dressings on him. They were holed up in the equivalent of hell on earth wondering if today would be their last, so you've seen a bit of gallows humor, you'd very quickly desensitize and see them as sub human, It's not the first time that I've heard the phrase 'shooting gollywogs'
But then of course you'd have been a paragon of virtue, like the other highly noble posters on here who can't see that this was a short burst of madness in months of wondering if today was going to be your last in a shithole fighting for a forlorn hope. I really thought you had a bit more about you then to join the sold out PC crew on here, guess I got you wrong all these years, but then wasn't you a craphat?
> Now I have some sympathy with this view. I can think of a few scenarios where, in the interests of self preservation, the only sensible course of action might be to get rid of an inconvenient prisoner or two. That may well offend some sensibilities, but if the consequences of not doing so mean you're going to end up tortured, raped and killed then it's entirely justified. You'd also have a pretty good defence, assuming you were stupid enough to mention it afterwards, or even more stupidly film it.
> Unfortunately this case is nothing like that. It's about deciding to hang around for a bit in no imminent danger, think up a pithy one-liner, wake the victim up and shoot him. All this 'he was dead anyway' stuff is clearly bollocks. A better defence might well have been having the balance of his mind disturbed at the time, which would certainly go a long way towards your manslaughter claim.
No imminent danger are you sure about that you have one head cam to base your whole case on, he may have lived if they'd rushed a med team out, and then fly a chopper in, which could have got taken out by ambush, you just don't know, you know they aren't going use their own first field dressings on him. They were holed up in the equivalent of hell on earth wondering if today would be their last, so you've seen a bit of gallows humor, you'd very quickly desensitize and see them as sub human, It's not the first time that I've heard the phrase 'shooting gollywogs'
But then of course you'd have been a paragon of virtue, like the other highly noble posters on here who can't see that this was a short burst of madness in months of wondering if today was going to be your last in a shithole fighting for a forlorn hope. I really thought you had a bit more about you then to join the sold out PC crew on here, guess I got you wrong all these years, but then wasn't you a craphat?
> The other antics of Phil Shiner and the other odious creatures in Public Interest Lawyers or Matrix chambers in bringing spurious claims against people just doing their job cause me far more outrage than this particular case.
Post edited at 18:34
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Was just trying to find out exactly what you meant John.
For what it's worth, I have absolute sympathy with the guy. I think it's very easy to sit here in the safety of our nice comfy lives having never been anywhere near a warzone (I know there are a lot of service folk on the forum, but probably the majority haven't) and judge him
He has done a terrible wrong, but after so long in such an insane environment, expecting to have limbs blown off or shots fired at you all the time your patrolling, seeing mates die, day after day, month after month...to expect him to behave the same way as a balanced, 9-5 white collar worker is perhaps asking a lot.
Punishment, yes, but perhaps a little bit of mercy and understanding as well.
Or maybe he's a complete bell end who just joined up with the specific intention of murdering brown people. Who knows. I'd like to think not.
But to suggest the Geneva Convention should not be observed 'just because the baddies dont' doesn't sit very comfortably with me I'm afraid.
> Yes because at least three of you are trying to misinterpretation what I'm trying to say, this is going down in real time, the discussion is based around soundbites, interpretation and misinterpretation.
Was just trying to find out exactly what you meant John.
For what it's worth, I have absolute sympathy with the guy. I think it's very easy to sit here in the safety of our nice comfy lives having never been anywhere near a warzone (I know there are a lot of service folk on the forum, but probably the majority haven't) and judge him
He has done a terrible wrong, but after so long in such an insane environment, expecting to have limbs blown off or shots fired at you all the time your patrolling, seeing mates die, day after day, month after month...to expect him to behave the same way as a balanced, 9-5 white collar worker is perhaps asking a lot.
Punishment, yes, but perhaps a little bit of mercy and understanding as well.
Or maybe he's a complete bell end who just joined up with the specific intention of murdering brown people. Who knows. I'd like to think not.
But to suggest the Geneva Convention should not be observed 'just because the baddies dont' doesn't sit very comfortably with me I'm afraid.
Post edited at 20:04
In reply to ThunderCat:
These are your words not mine, if you going to quote me please use the last quote rather than this rather poor troll like misquote.
OK just been speaking to a good friend at senior NCO level still serving RM, he said i could post some info.
along the lines of
The guy had done 4 tours and was pretty much shot to pieces mentally before this deployment he should have not been there but they had lost so many JNCO that he had to go.
Royal often followed other less elite units who hadn't been doing their jobs as they should as in not patrolling so when they turned up they were used as bait to lure the Taliban out.
Almost every morning before they went on patrol they would puke up with the fear
They'd would already apply tourniquet protection to all four limbs just with the pull strips still attached as every day they were fully prepared for the worst.
The jailed marine was almost like a father figure to the young 19 year olds, and none of them signed up for this deployment, they wanted to join up as you do because if men hadn't joined up in the past we'd all be speaking German now, its service to queen and country. And he mentioned the Orwell quote, something like all us on here are free to say whatever as violent men are prepared to die for your freedom
The Taliban want to be there to fight, but when they'd run out of ammo, they'd roll over and try and pull the Geneva convention line
Pretty much none of the Taliban came from Afgan, mainly Chechcan, Saudi, and believe it or not Yorkshire places like Bradford, and when they'd get injured it would be like 'dont hurt me bro, help'
One patrol went out as a snatch squad, and a SB guy and a 14 int guy were at the back of the patrol, they bumped into a Taliban patrol at night and the two guys were tail end charlie and one in front, and got cut off from the rest of the patrol. They fought all night till they were out of ammo, then the Taliban cut them into pieces while they were still alive and started swinging body parts around all watched by the air cover, they got a good kicking that night mind with a 1000lb bomb and SB went out in company strength and finished the job.
Body parts were often hung out in the local patrol areas
This was day in day out
Put that all into context and if you think this guys a murderer well you're not right in the head. The Geneva convention is a theoretical guideline at best, the real world often requires a case by case assessment, not a blanket application.
If anything this fine Marine requires care to get him back to been a normal functioning human being what he saw none of us could imagine.
Like I said I served with 3 commando brigade and without a shadow of a doubt this brotherhood is one of the finest gentleman's organizations in the world, and I am very honored to have spent time with guys like this jailed man.
This is my last post on this thread. Nothing more to add.
> But to suggest the Geneva Convention should not be observed 'just because the baddies dont' doesn't sit very comfortably with me I'm afraid.
These are your words not mine, if you going to quote me please use the last quote rather than this rather poor troll like misquote.
OK just been speaking to a good friend at senior NCO level still serving RM, he said i could post some info.
along the lines of
The guy had done 4 tours and was pretty much shot to pieces mentally before this deployment he should have not been there but they had lost so many JNCO that he had to go.
Royal often followed other less elite units who hadn't been doing their jobs as they should as in not patrolling so when they turned up they were used as bait to lure the Taliban out.
Almost every morning before they went on patrol they would puke up with the fear
They'd would already apply tourniquet protection to all four limbs just with the pull strips still attached as every day they were fully prepared for the worst.
The jailed marine was almost like a father figure to the young 19 year olds, and none of them signed up for this deployment, they wanted to join up as you do because if men hadn't joined up in the past we'd all be speaking German now, its service to queen and country. And he mentioned the Orwell quote, something like all us on here are free to say whatever as violent men are prepared to die for your freedom
The Taliban want to be there to fight, but when they'd run out of ammo, they'd roll over and try and pull the Geneva convention line
Pretty much none of the Taliban came from Afgan, mainly Chechcan, Saudi, and believe it or not Yorkshire places like Bradford, and when they'd get injured it would be like 'dont hurt me bro, help'
One patrol went out as a snatch squad, and a SB guy and a 14 int guy were at the back of the patrol, they bumped into a Taliban patrol at night and the two guys were tail end charlie and one in front, and got cut off from the rest of the patrol. They fought all night till they were out of ammo, then the Taliban cut them into pieces while they were still alive and started swinging body parts around all watched by the air cover, they got a good kicking that night mind with a 1000lb bomb and SB went out in company strength and finished the job.
Body parts were often hung out in the local patrol areas
This was day in day out
Put that all into context and if you think this guys a murderer well you're not right in the head. The Geneva convention is a theoretical guideline at best, the real world often requires a case by case assessment, not a blanket application.
If anything this fine Marine requires care to get him back to been a normal functioning human being what he saw none of us could imagine.
Like I said I served with 3 commando brigade and without a shadow of a doubt this brotherhood is one of the finest gentleman's organizations in the world, and I am very honored to have spent time with guys like this jailed man.
This is my last post on this thread. Nothing more to add.
2
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
> No imminent danger are you sure about that you have one head cam to base your whole case on, he may have lived if they'd rushed a med team out, and then fly a chopper in, which could have got taken out by ambush, you just don't know, you know they aren't going use their own first field dressings on him. They were holed up in the equivalent of hell on earth wondering if today would be their last, so you've seen a bit of gallows humor, you'd very quickly desensitize and see them as sub human, It's not the first time that I've heard the phrase 'shooting gollywogs'
> But then of course you'd have been a paragon of virtue, like the other highly noble posters on here who can't see that this was a short burst of madness in months of wondering if today was going to be your last in a shithole fighting for a forlorn hope. I really thought you had a bit more about you then to join the sold out PC crew on here, guess I got you wrong all these years, but then wasn't you a craphat?
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
No problem with that. My first field dressing is my first field dressing, and I wouldn't waste it on a piece of shit. I'm actually with you on this John.
Didn't realise you were para reg, but yes, mea culpa, the sum total of my somewhat miserable, (and short), military career is one round fired in contact 17 years ago. (Which is probably one more than the hoards on Facebook who get into a froth of indignation over the petal on a poppy not pointing at some approved angle that has just appeared 97 years after the Armistice, but I digress). In all honesty I don't know how I'd react in those circumstances, and I suspect if Blackman went for the PTSD defence then he'd probably have gotten away with it. I agree with your points around body parts being waved about, but the same shit was pulled in NI by Corben's heroic comrades in PIRA and there was no chance of getting retribution for your mates. At least in AFG Blackman had ample opportunity to legitimately turn gobshites from Bradford into pink mist on a daily basis.
Probably not worth continuing this discussion much further. No, I have no sympathy for Mr Taliban, (and TBH I hope he died painfully, aren't I a bad person?), but Blackman crossed a very distinct line. To me his actions don't seem to tally with your interpretation. Let's leave it that, and maybe we'll have a pint at some point in the future.
> No imminent danger are you sure about that you have one head cam to base your whole case on, he may have lived if they'd rushed a med team out, and then fly a chopper in, which could have got taken out by ambush, you just don't know, you know they aren't going use their own first field dressings on him. They were holed up in the equivalent of hell on earth wondering if today would be their last, so you've seen a bit of gallows humor, you'd very quickly desensitize and see them as sub human, It's not the first time that I've heard the phrase 'shooting gollywogs'
No problem with that. My first field dressing is my first field dressing, and I wouldn't waste it on a piece of shit. I'm actually with you on this John.
> But then of course you'd have been a paragon of virtue, like the other highly noble posters on here who can't see that this was a short burst of madness in months of wondering if today was going to be your last in a shithole fighting for a forlorn hope. I really thought you had a bit more about you then to join the sold out PC crew on here, guess I got you wrong all these years, but then wasn't you a craphat.
Didn't realise you were para reg, but yes, mea culpa, the sum total of my somewhat miserable, (and short), military career is one round fired in contact 17 years ago. (Which is probably one more than the hoards on Facebook who get into a froth of indignation over the petal on a poppy not pointing at some approved angle that has just appeared 97 years after the Armistice, but I digress). In all honesty I don't know how I'd react in those circumstances, and I suspect if Blackman went for the PTSD defence then he'd probably have gotten away with it. I agree with your points around body parts being waved about, but the same shit was pulled in NI by Corben's heroic comrades in PIRA and there was no chance of getting retribution for your mates. At least in AFG Blackman had ample opportunity to legitimately turn gobshites from Bradford into pink mist on a daily basis.
Probably not worth continuing this discussion much further. No, I have no sympathy for Mr Taliban, (and TBH I hope he died painfully, aren't I a bad person?), but Blackman crossed a very distinct line. To me his actions don't seem to tally with your interpretation. Let's leave it that, and maybe we'll have a pint at some point in the future.
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
but then wasn't you a craphat?
isn't that the pot calling the kettle a craphat?
but then wasn't you a craphat?
isn't that the pot calling the kettle a craphat?
Post edited at 00:55
1
In reply to Ridge:
Ps no not reg.
59 indep cdo sqn re 1989-97
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Crap_Hat
Yes we had a beer and a chat at the Leeds Christmas drinks do about 10 years ago.
If you're near your old home Wakey on 6 Dec this year there's a drinks meet in Barnsley organised by some dude somewhere I read. Long overdue a catch up. Regards.
> No problem with that. My first field dressing is my first field dressing, and I wouldn't waste it on a piece of shit. I'm actually with you on this John.
> Didn't realise you were para reg, but yes, mea culpa, the sum total of my somewhat miserable, (and short), military career is one round fired in contact 17 years ago. (Which is probably one more than the hoards on Facebook who get into a froth of indignation over the petal on a poppy not pointing at some approved angle that has just appeared 97 years after the Armistice, but I digress). In all honesty I don't know how I'd react in those circumstances, and I suspect if Blackman went for the PTSD defence then he'd probably have gotten away with it. I agree with your points around body parts being waved about, but the same shit was pulled in NI by Corben's heroic comrades in PIRA and there was no chance of getting retribution for your mates. At least in AFG Blackman had ample opportunity to legitimately turn gobshites from Bradford into pink mist on a daily basis.
> Probably not worth continuing this discussion much further. No, I have no sympathy for Mr Taliban, (and TBH I hope he died painfully, aren't I a bad person?), but Blackman crossed a very distinct line. To me his actions don't seem to tally with your interpretation. Let's leave it that, and maybe we'll have a pint at some point in the future.
Ps no not reg.
59 indep cdo sqn re 1989-97
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Crap_Hat
Yes we had a beer and a chat at the Leeds Christmas drinks do about 10 years ago.
If you're near your old home Wakey on 6 Dec this year there's a drinks meet in Barnsley organised by some dude somewhere I read. Long overdue a catch up. Regards.
Post edited at 01:28
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
For the same reason the police are supposed to obey the law to bring law-breakers to justice.
> So can you explain why one side in a war should effectually be handicapped?
For the same reason the police are supposed to obey the law to bring law-breakers to justice.
1
In reply to off-duty:
Perhaps you know all the ins and outs of the case but it seemed to me that you are using that (reasonable sounding justification) for the charging/prosecution of someone over the placement of a sticker on a window. Does this qualify as violent protest in a more than 'just barely' technical sense?
> I take it you have read the caveat? ie "some responsibility" can be discharged by at least making some effort to run it peacefully.
> I'm surprised by the number of people who seem to think that organising violent protest should be an entirely risk free activity.
Perhaps you know all the ins and outs of the case but it seemed to me that you are using that (reasonable sounding justification) for the charging/prosecution of someone over the placement of a sticker on a window. Does this qualify as violent protest in a more than 'just barely' technical sense?
1
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
I did quote you. I copied and pasted the quote and used it exactly as you typed it. Here it is again just in case you forgot.
"I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void. It's armed warfare kill or be killed not a thought exercise in the ethics of fair play."
It's up there, Tuesday, 15:$4
The fact you entered something different later on doesn't mean I'm misquoting you when I repeated what you said.
Capiche?
Promise?
> These are your words not mine, if you going to quote me please use the last quote rather than this rather poor troll like misquote.
I did quote you. I copied and pasted the quote and used it exactly as you typed it. Here it is again just in case you forgot.
"I'm saying if a side decides the Geneva convention isn't worth respecting well then the Geneva convention is null and void. It's armed warfare kill or be killed not a thought exercise in the ethics of fair play."
It's up there, Tuesday, 15:$4
The fact you entered something different later on doesn't mean I'm misquoting you when I repeated what you said.
Capiche?
> This is my last post on this thread. Nothing more to add.
Promise?
Post edited at 09:01
1
1
In reply to John Andrew Simpson:
Bloody hell, that was a long time ago. Thanks for the offer, but have something on in the Lakes then. Have fun and have a couple for me.
Bloody hell, that was a long time ago. Thanks for the offer, but have something on in the Lakes then. Have fun and have a couple for me.
In reply to off-duty:
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, during the last march carried out by Police which I can remember, if there had been some people who had managed to infiltrate it and cause criminal damage before being rounded upon by whoever was around them, can I take it you'd be comfortable with the Police who arranged it facing/paying some kind of penalty for whatever happened?
> With my key point remaining - surely those organising protests should bear some responsibility for what occurs on them.
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, during the last march carried out by Police which I can remember, if there had been some people who had managed to infiltrate it and cause criminal damage before being rounded upon by whoever was around them, can I take it you'd be comfortable with the Police who arranged it facing/paying some kind of penalty for whatever happened?
Post edited at 18:38
In reply to Timmd:
If the organisers make some effort to regulate and run the event in a lawful and peaceful way then they have discharged any responsibility.
As I have said. Repeatedly.
> Taking this to it's logical conclusion, during the last march carried out by Police which I can remember, if there had been some people who had managed to infiltrate it and cause criminal damage before being rounded upon by whoever was around them, can I take it you'd be comfortable with the Police who arranged it facing/paying some kind of penalty for whatever happened?
If the organisers make some effort to regulate and run the event in a lawful and peaceful way then they have discharged any responsibility.
As I have said. Repeatedly.
In reply to Ridge:
If I'd been hit by a 30mm cannon shell and had a hole the size of a fist through my torso, I'd probably have been glad to have finished off quickly.
If I'd been hit by a 30mm cannon shell and had a hole the size of a fist through my torso, I'd probably have been glad to have finished off quickly.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...