Inquiry: UK soldiers who fought in Iraq may face prosecution

[Celer et Audax]

Celer et Audax, on 07 Feb 2016 - 14:43, said:

SgtRock, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:32, said:

evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:
evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:evadgib, on 08 Jan 2016 - 16:28, said:


If ever there was a wrong thread I think you just found it:


Mike Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember him very well from the Falklands in 82.

He wore a green beret in those days.

I doubt it very much that you remembered him from the Falklands in 1982 as the 2 battalions that were there were 2 and 3 para and Mike Jackson was 1 para
Second point no para would wear a green beret!!
you can see from the picture that even as chief of the general staff he still wears his maroon para beret of his parent regiment!!

Mike Jackson was seconded to the MOD as a Staff Officer from 82 - 84. I can confirm that during this time he wore a green Beret.

Ok fair comment but unusual that an officer on a staff posting didn't retain the beret from his parent regiment
What colour green was it?
Light green= I Corp
Mid green = Royal Marines
Dark green = RGJ

Oh I also forgot the AGC who also wore a green beret but I'm afraid a don't recall which "shade" of green
But I doubt it was the AGC Beret anyway as they weren't formed until the early 90's
And also out of interest what cap badge was he wearing with this green beret?

[lostboy]

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

[NeverSure]

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

Your mistake is placing blame for the war on the soldiers who were sent their by their governments while being lied to about the purpose.

You take an 18 year old boy off the farm and send him to boot camp. You tell him he's to be a killer and you train him to be a killer. You teach him that to survive he must kill first. You succeed in making a killer. That's necessary for countries to do to prepare for a possible defense of their homeland or even that of an ally.

Being in a war produces emotional trauma. People see things that no one should ever see. They do things that no one should ever have to do. They do it to survive.

After a while the traumatized human psyche gets pissed at everything that appears in front of him. Whether he's in an A10 or on the ground he's either being shot at or afraid of being shot at and his warped surroundings get to him. He lashes out.

Then the armchair quarterbacks arrive ten or twenty years later and of course they are perfect as they sit in their ivory towers.

Screw them.

Cheers.

[SgtRock]

Today's lesson in retarded claims brought by, you guessed it. PIL.

IHAT / 123

Quote

In May 2003 an Iraqi boy was killed by unexploded ordnance when it detonated as he was playing outside. The origin and the type of ordnance are unknown. It has been decided that in light of the circumstances of the incident, there are no further lines of enquiry for the IHAT to pursue in regards to identifying whether a crime has been committed by a British service person in this case.

£ 56 Million and counting.

I hope that PIL enjoy paying back their share of £ 31 Million.

[JDGRUEN]

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

I think you have lost the perspective ... The Iraqis that chose to fight could indeed do so ... Nothing I said justified any soldier being above the law. Firefights are not refereed events, fighting your way out of an ambush is not done by Hoyle's book of card rules... you fight to survive and indiscriminate gun fire often occurs and kills innocents ... it cannot classified be as wanton recklessness as some anti-war people who want to hang soldiers after the fact. The perspective I spoke of intentionally did not talk of what political leaders did to start wars... but when politicians start wars they have to also bear the burden of who gets killed. But I do not see these punishment groups going after any politicians -- only the soldier. When politicians get hung up with political correctness and force ridiculous rules of engagement on the battlefield it only creates opportunities for tragedy. WWII fought against a beyond awful regime would have never been won with the political interference applied in nearly every modern war starting with the Vietnam war. These breaches of international law are being decided by anti-war zealots....

[SgtRock]

Quote

it cannot classified be as wanton recklessness as some anti-war people who want to hang soldiers after the fact.

Certain posters are not anti-war. They are staunchly anti-British Military, as evidenced by their lack of words of wisdom on the following threads.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892912-top-un-human-rights-official-begins-talks-in-sri-lanka/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892812-former-soldiers-clash-with-protesters-in-haiti;-1-dead/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/891013-car-un-official-emotional-as-new-child-sex-abuse-allegations-revealed/

[lostboy]

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

Your mistake is placing blame for the war on the soldiers who were sent their by their governments while being lied to about the purpose.

You take an 18 year old boy off the farm and send him to boot camp. You tell him he's to be a killer and you train him to be a killer. You teach him that to survive he must kill first. You succeed in making a killer. That's necessary for countries to do to prepare for a possible defense of their homeland or even that of an ally.

Being in a war produces emotional trauma. People see things that no one should ever see. They do things that no one should ever have to do. They do it to survive.

After a while the traumatized human psyche gets pissed at everything that appears in front of him. Whether he's in an A10 or on the ground he's either being shot at or afraid of being shot at and his warped surroundings get to him. He lashes out.

Then the armchair quarterbacks arrive ten or twenty years later and of course they are perfect as they sit in their ivory towers.

Screw them.

Cheers.

I do not disagree with much of what you wrote, which is a way of saying that I agree with you. Keeping the discussion at the operational level, I still believe that an individual's actions is guided by both ethics and law. There is international law that covers armed conflict. Actions that breach such law should be prosecuted if found valid. The capacity of an individual soldier to resolve ethical dilemmas in war is constrained by a number of factors that you and others have identified, including battlefield conditions, military hierarchy and culture and the need for self preservation. However, a soldier remains ethically responsible. The exigencies of war have often been used to mask unethical and illegal conduct, either individually or by the body corporate.

I do not believe this is a case of ex-post armchair quarterbacking. It is the application of established law and the moral and ethical code that Western democracies claim as an outcome of their society's progress.

[lostboy]

Battlefield conditions were frequently situations where the enemy Iraqi irregulars places women and children as shields, send women and children as suicide bombers, forced women, children and old people to remain in buildings that were being bombed, placed offensive weapons near and even inside hospitals... All this was done deliberately to gain favorable media coverage as the near sighted media could not / would not discern the real story and significance of the battle or skirmish... These dastardly deliberate actions to put innocent non combatants into harms way is more often the war crime than the action of the Coalition Soldiers who fired on these emplacements. This does not account for all that might be accused - but it accounts for many...

Also far too often the crippling ROE "Rules of Engagement' that was placed upon Coalition soldiers put all concerned in jeopardy ... practically causing Coalition soldiers to forewarn the enemy of patrols setting Coalition soldiers up for ambush and resultant indiscriminate hell fire being used to escape with their lives and these incidents at times resulted in killing of innocents. Prime example - the shooting of enemy scouts who were following Coalition troop movements and were reporting it to the enemy waiting up the road. - resulted in at least one soldier being prosecuted.

Politicians - should stay out of combat ... their indecision and sometimes idiotic interference has caused both Coalition soldiers and civilians to be killed.

Your lexicon is that of the antagonist, the invader, the oppressor. It is littered with technical jargon that avoids the reality of killing. You use phrases that avoid any personalisation of the act of killing. Did these Iraqi people have no business in defending their homeland from invaders? Was not the capability of the uniformed forces so weak that soldiers surrendered to television news crews in the First Gulf War. Were not the Iraqi people defending their homeland with the weapons and tactics available to them? Clearly your sympathies do not lie with the Iraqi defenders. That is apparent by the words you use. Irrespective of this, the topic and issue is about the demand to investigate allegations of breaches of international law by participants in this armed conflict. Soldiers are not above the law. Any allegation of abuse should be investigated and if proven, the guilty person punished. This principle must apply whether you agree with the cause of the conflict or not.

I think you have lost the perspective ... The Iraqis that chose to fight could indeed do so ... Nothing I said justified any soldier being above the law. Firefights are not refereed events, fighting your way out of an ambush is not done by Hoyle's book of card rules... you fight to survive and indiscriminate gun fire often occurs and kills innocents ... it cannot classified be as wanton recklessness as some anti-war people who want to hang soldiers after the fact. The perspective I spoke of intentionally did not talk of what political leaders did to start wars... but when politicians start wars they have to also bear the burden of who gets killed. But I do not see these punishment groups going after any politicians -- only the soldier. When politicians get hung up with political correctness and force ridiculous rules of engagement on the battlefield it only creates opportunities for tragedy. WWII fought against a beyond awful regime would have never been won with the political interference applied in nearly every modern war starting with the Vietnam war. These breaches of international law are being decided by anti-war zealots....

I agree that I have lost your perspective. I will start by happily agreeing with your comment about being anti-war, although the zealot thing is a bit rich coming from such a pro 2A guy. I also do not argue about actions of combatants in battlefield operations or complying with legally authorised laws and instructions. And I also agree with statements about all persons including decision makers being held accountable.

For argument's sake, I draw a distinction between conflict arising from the defence of one's homeland in the face of an invading force and conflicts entered into because of geopolitical adventurism. It is ironic that the Iraq war was a case of the latter and the Iraqi combatants were acting in defence of their homeland.

You reference WWII. That is long past. There are now international bodies that administer international law. That law was breached by the invasion of Iraq. At an operational level, instances of abuse occurred and were exposed as in the case of Abu Ghraib. There are allegations of further breaches of law at the operational level. These must be investigated. It is the duty of each government to do so under their commitments to international law. If found to be baseless, then no charges are applied. If found to be valid, then prosecutions must occur. Attempts by individuals to interfere with this process including the demonisation of accusers and their representatives is abhorrent and the act of a bully. Such people should be silenced by law.

Please count me as anti-war. Who on earth would claim otherwise, except the most sociopathic, unethical and inhuman kind of person.

Edited February 8, 2016 by lostboy

[SgtRock]

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

[Dumbastheycome]

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

Why the accusations of contempt? Ploitical decisions to activate national armed forces may indeed be in folly.

But modern military personell enlist in the armed forces by choice and presumably actually do so comprehending the realities of what they are opting to commit to.

Blatting on about " nobody understands what we had to face/do in action" is a denial of taking the option of enlisting !

A Military "career" is not about rank attainment , it is about the very real probability of military involvement . No excuses or justification of illegal acts or placing blame on political figures can be placed on others for such!

Police and emergency service employees see as much if not more graphic horror as most military despite being at slightly less personal danger. But they did not enlist in a military occupation !

The basis of the inquiries is about gross abuses. Quoting opportunistic claims which may indeed be a waste of time and funding cannot legitimise sweeping genuine abuses under some arrogant carpet of military superiorism ! Military forces are funded by the taxpayer and as such are civil servants accountable to laws national and international.

[lostboy]

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

There is no depth to which you will not descend to push your grubby agenda. It brings shame to those who really served.

[SgtRock]

lostboy, on 10 Feb 2016 - 00:07, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Feb 2016 - 13:40, said:

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Quote

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

There is no depth to which you will not descend to push your grubby agenda. It brings shame to those who really served.

How bizarre that you appear to think that I have an agenda and feel that it is acceptable to attack the poster and not the content of the post.

The only people bringing shame to those who served are the chief ambulance chasing lawyer by the name of Phil Shiner and his Company PIL. You can also add the CURRENT Shadow Defence Minister who took donations from Leigh Day.

It is also strange that you appear to support these ambulance chasers and a bent Politician. Each to their own.

I also find it strange that as a self appointed Aussie that this is of any interest to you. After all the following were not deemed worthy of your pearls of wisdom.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892912-top-un-human-rights-official-begins-talks-in-sri-lanka/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892812-former-soldiers-clash-with-protesters-in-haiti;-1-dead/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/891013-car-un-official-emotional-as-new-child-sex-abuse-allegations-revealed/

I would certainly have thought that number 1 and 3 would have had you bashing your keyboard like a man possessed. Let me guess. No Brits involved.

[Scott]

It is not permissible to make remarks about other posters. Stay on topic, please.

[lostboy]

lostboy, on 10 Feb 2016 - 00:07, said:

SgtRock, on 09 Feb 2016 - 13:40, said:

An example of the contempt that some of the UK Politicians have for the troops that THEY send into battle.

Quote

Will my Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it's more than a matter of regret that the new shadow secretary of state for defence has seen fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance chasing lawyers Leigh Day, who together with public interest lawyers specialise in hounding our brave service personal in Iraq on spurious claims

Conservative MP Stewart Jackson

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html

The Labour Shadow Defence Minister. Beyond belief.

On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up.

There is no depth to which you will not descend to push your grubby agenda. It brings shame to those who really served.

How bizarre that you appear to think that I have an agenda and feel that it is acceptable to attack the poster and not the content of the post.

The only people bringing shame to those who served are the chief ambulance chasing lawyer by the name of Phil Shiner and his Company PIL. You can also add the CURRENT Shadow Defence Minister who took donations from Leigh Day.

It is also strange that you appear to support these ambulance chasers and a bent Politician. Each to their own.

I also find it strange that as a self appointed Aussie that this is of any interest to you. After all the following were not deemed worthy of your pearls of wisdom.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892912-top-un-human-rights-official-begins-talks-in-sri-lanka/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892812-former-soldiers-clash-with-protesters-in-haiti;-1-dead/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/891013-car-un-official-emotional-as-new-child-sex-abuse-allegations-revealed/

I would certainly have thought that number 1 and 3 would have had you bashing your keyboard like a man possessed. Let me guess. No Brits involved.

There is a long, ignoble tradition of people in closed, repressive organisational cultures of using bullying, intimidation and criminal libel to cover up misdeeds or prevent investigation and examination of their culture. Jack Nicholson expressed that culture impressively in one of his movies. The military, unions, even gentlemen's associations/clubs - they are all involved in this. So lets just examine the depths of depravity to which subscribers to this kind of anti-social culture descend.

Who is Phil Shiner? He is a senior lawyer at Public Interest Lawyers. He is a Professor of Law. He is a visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. He has other achievements. http://pil.uk.net/?service=prof-phil-shiner What is the connection between Phil Shiner and Bradford City Council. Well it seems there was a child abuse scandal there. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11535556.Team_investigating_historic_child_sex_abuse_in_Bradford_may_approach_Government_for_extra_funding/?ref=mr So what then is the intention to link a high achieving professional who has worked in the public interest for much of his life with the Bradford City Council. The inference is clear. It need not be stated. Here is the bully tactic. Here is the innuendo. Here is the despicable and cowardly act of character assassination.

Why? Well it is very clear. The culture of impunity that has reigned for generations allowing misdeeds and crimes to go unpunished is being forced open. How? Not, as alleged by the cowards and bullies by individuals like Phil Shiner but by government commitments to international law. The same international law that governs armed conflict and requires signatories to take actions to investigate and punish war crimes.

Is Phil Shiner a kiddy-fiddler? Well some of the cream of UK society who have washed up on our exotic shores have no problem in making an inference, of course they are too gutless to make an actual accusation.

The same with Leigh Day & Co. You can read their statement in relation to Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/January-2016/Statement-in-relation-to-referral-to-Solicitors-Di

The same with UK Shadow Defence Minister Emily Thornberry. Look up here indiscretions. You won't find anything outside the right wing, rabble rousing, disgusting tabloid press. Believe this trash if you want but weigh up the preponderance of information. On one side you have a bellicose mob with pitchforks and on the other side you have people with real achievements who are being tarnished because they dare to call for transparency and investigation into alleged wrong doings.

The Guardian wrote about the Shiner situation in March last year.

In sending a dossier to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority the government is not only trespassing on an important separation of powers. It is risking the same over-identification between lawyer and client that led to the Finucane murder and the eventual Cameron apology http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/guardian-view-assault-on-human-rights-law

This is a very thought provoking article. Should the Establishment be allowed such impunity? Should these mates be protected by other mates and organisational culture and tradition? Should people who call for accountability and transparency be subject to such disgraceful conduct by cowards and bullies; from slurs to actual physical attacks and murder?

I am not surprised at all that such posters are 'surprised', 'confounded', 'confused' by calls for such basic human rights. Since the powers that be frown on directed posts, I have kept this post in the realm of the general, but I will state specifically that Australians are not self appointed, whatever silly slur was meant by that reference. Most of us descended from people who arrived in boats. We are learning to live together respectively with indigenous Australians and new Australians, some of whom also arrive by boats and believe in different religions.

[SgtRock]

lostboy, on 10 Feb 2016 - 21:30, said:

SgtRock, on 10 Feb 2016 - 09:36, said:

How bizarre that you appear to think that I have an agenda and feel that it is acceptable to attack the poster and not the content of the post.

The only people bringing shame to those who served are the chief ambulance chasing lawyer by the name of Phil Shiner and his Company PIL. You can also add the CURRENT Shadow Defence Minister who took donations from Leigh Day.

It is also strange that you appear to support these ambulance chasers and a bent Politician. Each to their own.

I also find it strange that as a self appointed Aussie that this is of any interest to you. After all the following were not deemed worthy of your pearls of wisdom.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892912-top-un-human-rights-official-begins-talks-in-sri-lanka/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/892812-former-soldiers-clash-with-protesters-in-haiti;-1-dead/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/891013-car-un-official-emotional-as-new-child-sex-abuse-allegations-revealed/

I would certainly have thought that number 1 and 3 would have had you bashing your keyboard like a man possessed. Let me guess. No Brits involved.

There is a long, ignoble tradition of people in closed, repressive organisational cultures of using bullying, intimidation and criminal libel to cover up misdeeds or prevent investigation and examination of their culture. Jack Nicholson expressed that culture impressively in one of his movies. The military, unions, even gentlemen's associations/clubs - they are all involved in this. So lets just examine the depths of depravity to which subscribers to this kind of anti-social culture descend.

Who is Phil Shiner? He is a senior lawyer at Public Interest Lawyers. He is a Professor of Law. He is a visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. He has other achievements. http://pil.uk.net/?service=prof-phil-shiner What is the connection between Phil Shiner and Bradford City Council. Well it seems there was a child abuse scandal there. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11535556.Team_investigating_historic_child_sex_abuse_in_Bradford_may_approach_Government_for_extra_funding/?ref=mr So what then is the intention to link a high achieving professional who has worked in the public interest for much of his life with the Bradford City Council. The inference is clear. It need not be stated. Here is the bully tactic. Here is the innuendo. Here is the despicable and cowardly act of character assassination.

Why? Well it is very clear. The culture of impunity that has reigned for generations allowing misdeeds and crimes to go unpunished is being forced open. How? Not, as alleged by the cowards and bullies by individuals like Phil Shiner but by government commitments to international law. The same international law that governs armed conflict and requires signatories to take actions to investigate and punish war crimes.

Is Phil Shiner a kiddy-fiddler? Well some of the cream of UK society who have washed up on our exotic shores have no problem in making an inference, of course they are too gutless to make an actual accusation.

The same with Leigh Day & Co. You can read their statement in relation to Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/January-2016/Statement-in-relation-to-referral-to-Solicitors-Di

The same with UK Shadow Defence Minister Emily Thornberry. Look up here indiscretions. You won't find anything outside the right wing, rabble rousing, disgusting tabloid press. Believe this trash if you want but weigh up the preponderance of information. On one side you have a bellicose mob with pitchforks and on the other side you have people with real achievements who are being tarnished because they dare to call for transparency and investigation into alleged wrong doings.

The Guardian wrote about the Shiner situation in March last year.

In sending a dossier to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority the government is not only trespassing on an important separation of powers. It is risking the same over-identification between lawyer and client that led to the Finucane murder and the eventual Cameron apology http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/guardian-view-assault-on-human-rights-law

This is a very thought provoking article. Should the Establishment be allowed such impunity? Should these mates be protected by other mates and organisational culture and tradition? Should people who call for accountability and transparency be subject to such disgraceful conduct by cowards and bullies; from slurs to actual physical attacks and murder?

I am not surprised at all that such posters are 'surprised', 'confounded', 'confused' by calls for such basic human rights. Since the powers that be frown on directed posts, I have kept this post in the realm of the general, but I will state specifically that Australians are not self appointed, whatever silly slur was meant by that reference. Most of us descended from people who arrived in boats. We are learning to live together respectively with indigenous Australians and new Australians, some of whom also arrive by boats and believe in different religions.

Your lack of knowledge is highly evident by the manner that you unwittingly interlink your first 2 paragraphs. It would perhaps be best to do a little more research before commenting. It is striding off topic. If you really want to understand the culture of cover - ups, bullying, prevention of investigation and examination of culture. I strongly suggest that you start with Professor Jay's report, you can find it online, then go through the varies linked articles, that should give you about 6 months reading and then, you might just be in a position to comment with a degree of validity.

Phil Shiner, a man you went to great lengths to highlight his qualities. Epic fail. As evidenced by the spurious accusations above, as a senior lawyer, he is not very good at his job. That is why legal proceedings are now being brought against his firm PIL and Leigh and Day, for the recover of £31 million.

You are very good at banging the drum for human rights. Sadly this does not extend to the innocent British Soldiers that are being hounded. Not forgetting that everyone in the UK is innocent until proven guilty. How many convictions ?

Still you ignore the serious abuses that are alleged to have taken place in the links I provided above.

There is no need to explain yourself why. The answer is obvious. You posted it here.

Quote

Why do you need to try and trivialise them with puerile, childish insults? Clearly you will never walk a mile in their shoes. Enjoy your white privilege. While it lasts.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/887702-calls-for-boycott-of-oscars-grow-over-diversity-of-nominees/page-6

In the highly unlikely event that anyone is convicted due to this witch - hunt. I will be quite happy to discuss the matter further.

[lostboy]

lostboy, on 10 Feb 2016 - 21:30, said:

There is a long, ignoble tradition of people in closed, repressive organisational cultures of using bullying, intimidation and criminal libel to cover up misdeeds or prevent investigation and examination of their culture. Jack Nicholson expressed that culture impressively in one of his movies. The military, unions, even gentlemen's associations/clubs - they are all involved in this. So lets just examine the depths of depravity to which subscribers to this kind of anti-social culture descend.

Who is Phil Shiner? He is a senior lawyer at Public Interest Lawyers. He is a Professor of Law. He is a visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. He has other achievements. http://pil.uk.net/?service=prof-phil-shiner What is the connection between Phil Shiner and Bradford City Council. Well it seems there was a child abuse scandal there. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11535556.Team_investigating_historic_child_sex_abuse_in_Bradford_may_approach_Government_for_extra_funding/?ref=mr So what then is the intention to link a high achieving professional who has worked in the public interest for much of his life with the Bradford City Council. The inference is clear. It need not be stated. Here is the bully tactic. Here is the innuendo. Here is the despicable and cowardly act of character assassination.

Why? Well it is very clear. The culture of impunity that has reigned for generations allowing misdeeds and crimes to go unpunished is being forced open. How? Not, as alleged by the cowards and bullies by individuals like Phil Shiner but by government commitments to international law. The same international law that governs armed conflict and requires signatories to take actions to investigate and punish war crimes.

Is Phil Shiner a kiddy-fiddler? Well some of the cream of UK society who have washed up on our exotic shores have no problem in making an inference, of course they are too gutless to make an actual accusation.

The same with Leigh Day & Co. You can read their statement in relation to Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/January-2016/Statement-in-relation-to-referral-to-Solicitors-Di

The same with UK Shadow Defence Minister Emily Thornberry. Look up here indiscretions. You won't find anything outside the right wing, rabble rousing, disgusting tabloid press. Believe this trash if you want but weigh up the preponderance of information. On one side you have a bellicose mob with pitchforks and on the other side you have people with real achievements who are being tarnished because they dare to call for transparency and investigation into alleged wrong doings.

The Guardian wrote about the Shiner situation in March last year.

In sending a dossier to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority the government is not only trespassing on an important separation of powers. It is risking the same over-identification between lawyer and client that led to the Finucane murder and the eventual Cameron apology http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/guardian-view-assault-on-human-rights-law

This is a very thought provoking article. Should the Establishment be allowed such impunity? Should these mates be protected by other mates and organisational culture and tradition? Should people who call for accountability and transparency be subject to such disgraceful conduct by cowards and bullies; from slurs to actual physical attacks and murder?

I am not surprised at all that such posters are 'surprised', 'confounded', 'confused' by calls for such basic human rights. Since the powers that be frown on directed posts, I have kept this post in the realm of the general, but I will state specifically that Australians are not self appointed, whatever silly slur was meant by that reference. Most of us descended from people who arrived in boats. We are learning to live together respectively with indigenous Australians and new Australians, some of whom also arrive by boats and believe in different religions.

Your lack of knowledge is highly evident by the manner that you unwittingly interlink your first 2 paragraphs. It would perhaps be best to do a little more research before commenting. It is striding off topic. If you really want to understand the culture of cover - ups, bullying, prevention of investigation and examination of culture. I strongly suggest that you start with Professor Jay's report, you can find it online, then go through the varies linked articles, that should give you about 6 months reading and then, you might just be in a position to comment with a degree of validity.

Phil Shiner, a man you went to great lengths to highlight his qualities. Epic fail. As evidenced by the spurious accusations above, as a senior lawyer, he is not very good at his job. That is why legal proceedings are now being brought against his firm PIL and Leigh and Day, for the recover of £31 million.

You are very good at banging the drum for human rights. Sadly this does not extend to the innocent British Soldiers that are being hounded. Not forgetting that everyone in the UK is innocent until proven guilty. How many convictions ?

Still you ignore the serious abuses that are alleged to have taken place in the links I provided above.

There is no need to explain yourself why. The answer is obvious. You posted it here.

Quote

Why do you need to try and trivialise them with puerile, childish insults? Clearly you will never walk a mile in their shoes. Enjoy your white privilege. While it lasts.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/887702-calls-for-boycott-of-oscars-grow-over-diversity-of-nominees/page-6

In the highly unlikely event that anyone is convicted due to this witch - hunt. I will be quite happy to discuss the matter further.

Your words in Post #189:

"On a separate note. It has been brought to my attention that Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL, who are about to be dragged into court by the MOD to recover costs over the Al-Sweady farce, previously worked for Bradford City Council, in conjuction with Bernardo's as a community development worker.

Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods, and why it was covered up."

You associate Professor Shiner with Bradford City Council. You insinuate that the child sexual abuse in that location has some relationship to Professor Shiner. You suggest Professor Shiner be investigated. For what? Child sexual abuse?

What evidence do you have that Professor Shiner is a pedophile?

I post links to Professor Shiner's academic and career achievements. No defence needed. No defence offered. Merely sharing links to publicly available information. Your response? Silence on this matter. You threw out the connections for people to make the inference. Why? What relationship is there between an unsupported allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile and his role in defending human rights by representing accusers of misconduct in legal proceedings? Does Professor Shiner's sexual predilections have bearing on this? If not why make the allegation?

We all know why. And when you are fronted on this disgusting tactic, there is silence.

You then direct me to consult Professor Alexis Jay's Report on Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Why?

The issues that I have been arguing on this thread is the commitment of the UK government under international law to investigation allegations of misconduct by UK combatants in the Iraq War. How is this related to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013? Why is it necessary to spend 6 months reading this report and its associated links?

Some coherent, relevant link between investigating alleged war crimes, the sexual predilection of one lawyer representing accusers of perpetrators of alleged war crimes, and the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham is needed for anything that you say to be taken seriously.

What are you doing? Everyone can see. It is so transparent and ham fisted to be a joke. But it is not funny. The bullying. The slurs. The disgusting inferences of child sexual abuse allegedly committed by people against whom you have an ideological difference. There can be only one conclusion and it is not flattering.

Please continue to trawl through my previous posts if you have nothing better to do. As usual, you misunderstand the situation. You have no say in what I write or when I write it. You may comment or not as you wish. You have no authority to demand I answer or not answer, justify or not justify. You may not make any demand that I comment or not comment on any topic or any issue. In effect you are entirely powerless to direct anyone to do anything. You live and die by your words on this forum. Your slow death on this issue is pitiful to watch.

I await your response on the issue of child sexual abuse and your allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile with entirely no interest at all. I know you cannot justify or defend your words. You are shooting blanks. In more areas than one. Please keep bumping this thread.

[SgtRock]

I await your response on the issue of child sexual abuse and your allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile with entirely no interest at all. I know you cannot justify or defend your words. You are shooting blanks. In more areas than one. Please keep bumping this thread.

I never made any allegation or inference that Phil Shiner was involved in child sexual abuse or of being a paedophile. That is a figment of your imagination.

I have shot many things, including blanks, it is called dry training.

You then direct me to consult Professor Alexis Jay's Report on Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 http://www.rotherham...se_in_rotherham

Why?

Quite simply because it highlights the utter failings by the Police, Local Councils, Child Protection Services along with others. It also highlights quite clearly the reasons for those failings. Those failings and reasons might be specific to Rotherham, but they are equally applicable to every Town and City that has been through the same experience. My specific inference was that Phil Shiner, who worked for Bradford City Council, may well have been a part of these failings. A reasonable assumption. Just like I would like to see others investigated and jailed as part of this endemic cover up.

Just to keep it on topic.

IHAT / 134

This case concerned the alleged unlawful killing of Mr Lafteh Ahmed Awdeh in September 2003. IHAT investigators have examined the claim that Mr Awdeh was killed in a road traffic collision involving a British Army truck but can find no evidence, such as records of British troops being in or near the area at the time, to support the allegation. Requests to PIL to supply further information have not been answered and so with no reasonable or proportionate lines of enquiry identified, it has been decided to discontinue the investigation.

Another fantastic piece of fantasy by the great legal eagle that is Phil Shiner.

[lostboy]

I await your response on the issue of child sexual abuse and your allegation that Professor Shiner is a pedophile with entirely no interest at all. I know you cannot justify or defend your words. You are shooting blanks. In more areas than one. Please keep bumping this thread.

I never made any allegation or inference that Phil Shiner was involved in child sexual abuse or of being a paedophile. That is a figment of your imagination.

I have shot many things, including blanks, it is called dry training.

You then direct me to consult Professor Alexis Jay's Report on Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 http://www.rotherham...se_in_rotherham

Why?

Quite simply because it highlights the utter failings by the Police, Local Councils, Child Protection Services along with others. It also highlights quite clearly the reasons for those failings. Those failings and reasons might be specific to Rotherham, but they are equally applicable to every Town and City that has been through the same experience. My specific inference was that Phil Shiner, who worked for Bradford City Council, may well have been a part of these failings. A reasonable assumption. Just like I would like to see others investigated and jailed as part of this endemic cover up.

Just to keep it on topic.

IHAT / 134

This case concerned the alleged unlawful killing of Mr Lafteh Ahmed Awdeh in September 2003. IHAT investigators have examined the claim that Mr Awdeh was killed in a road traffic collision involving a British Army truck but can find no evidence, such as records of British troops being in or near the area at the time, to support the allegation. Requests to PIL to supply further information have not been answered and so with no reasonable or proportionate lines of enquiry identified, it has been decided to discontinue the investigation.

Another fantastic piece of fantasy by the great legal eagle that is Phil Shiner.

What imaginary figment? Your words again - " Phil Shiner, the big boss at PIL ... previously worked for Bradford City Council ... Perhaps he should be getting investigated. We all know what went on that neck of the woods..."

What inference then are we meant to make of your statement? Of what do you believe Professor Shiner should be investigated? Littering? Jay Walking? Driving cattle through the streets of Bradford between the hours of 10am and 5pm in breach of the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867? In what criminal activity do you think Professor Shiner was involved? And if it has nothing to do with Child Sexual Abuse, then why make the connection with Bradford City Council?

If I have drawn incorrect conclusions, then why not clarify exactly what you are alleging? It would also be useful to understand how such alleged criminal activity bears on Professor Shiners work at Public Interest Lawyers or his many other roles including Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics.

Again, I await with abject un-anticipation at the next non-answer response that will not doubt include further status reports of the work of IHAT in clearing cases as evidence of unfair attacks on the poor innocents who went to Iraq to kill Iraqi people..

[SgtRock]

Claims by more than 600 Iraqi civilians alleging that they were unlawfully detained and physically mistreated by British soldiers have been dismissed by the supreme court in London.

Apparently the ambulance chasing lawyers did not understand UK law.

It revolved around rival interpretations of the 1984 Foreign Limitations Periods Act, which provides that where a claim is brought in England which is governed by a foreign law, English courts are to apply the foreign law of limitation.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/12/court-rejects-600-iraqis-claims-of-mistreatment-by-uk-soldiers

££ Millions of taxpayers money down the drain.

[Dumbastheycome]

Witch hunting may uncover a witch ! ( As in an investigation might reach a loooooong way).

[stevenl]

Witch hunting may uncover a witch ! ( As in an investigation might reach a loooooong way).

Or it may conclude there is no witch. But for some reason SgtRock also does not want that.

He has now resorted to implicating people involved in this of child abuse, simply out of a lack of arguments. Very poor behaviour.

[SgtRock]

One for all the Ex - Forces Forum members

 

Quote

Law firm at centre of Al-Sweady inquiry to close down, say reports

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/15/public-interest-lawyers-iraq-war-al-sweady-theresa-may-uk-troops

 

Enjoy your upcoming trial Shiner.

 

I hope they make you pay back every penny of the £31 Million of taxpayers money.

[ilostmypassword]

On 1/3/2016 at 11:29 AM, jesimps said:

Hard to believe someone holds such an opinion. Obviously never served your country in the armed forces, let alone been on active service. If you had you'd know that civilian law can't be applied to an active duty situation. Combat doesn't encourage rational decisions.

What about military law?