un-armed forces - what a numpty

Mad Roadie

re:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-15295407
who are these people who sign up to the Armed Forces, are prepared to be paid to train, have a nice pension (deservedly so) but claim " "moral objection" to bearing arms.!

rick_chasey

Oh dear.

Cleat Eastwood

good on him.

what people should be objecting to is the worrying

'Lyons was sentenced in July to seven months' detention at a military correction facility'

Does having a code of morality really need 'correcting'

Gazzaputt

Idiot what did he think joining the navy would entail? Everyone goes through basic arms training.

Don't like the war don't join up.

7 months wasn't to correct his 'morality' he disobeyed an order.

Mad Roadie

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Does having a code of morality really need 'correcting'

perhaps it took that long for him to grasp the purpose of the forces that he had joined of his own free will?

dodgerdog

Thank god for sense from the Appeal Court!

The MCTC has two wings, one focussed upon correction and training - ie returnees to the services and one as punishment and rehabilitation ahead of release in to civilian society.

Of those the military wishes to retain a considerable number go on to have very successful careers based upon the ethos and trainng they recieve in MCTC, the others well who knows. They were deemed unsuitable for the Forces so how they fair in a routine job is open to debate.

As others have said the offence he committed was failure to comply with a legal order ie attend a professional training/development course. In most organisations this would be a dsciplinary offence, this numpty just failed to remember that there is a piece of primary legislation called the Armed Forces Act 2006 which defines a number of ciminal offences that apply solely to individuals deemed for one reason or another to be subject to Service Discipline.

He won't be forgetting that again will he!

Anonymous

OOhh, Sailor !

What a tool.

EKIMIKE

Good. His defence, not exactly sure of its details but the article says broadly that it centred on the European Convention on Human Rights (not sure if they're getting confused with Human Rights Act 1998, English Law), has nothing to do with morality.

Thank goodness the CA have prevented yet another bastardisation of the HRA/ECHR (i know they're very different, legally speaking). It's becoming an unsightly monster and this would have just added to it.

SLX01

Its nice to see people can be so judgemental based on a few lines in a newspaper.

ooermissus

He had done 7 years in the navy but was a medic and didn't want to bear weapons.

cornerblock

A medic eh? Probably couldn't stand the sight of blood either!

RoadyForever

ooermissus wrote:

He had done 7 years in the navy but was a medic and didn't want to bear weapons.

Yeah and I thought medics (those wearing the red cross) aren't allowed to bear arms otherwise that would make them a soldier. I actually see his point (yes if he felt so strongly he may haven been better working elsewhere), but that sentence was harsh.

Had he been in the infantry, then he would be taking the piss. Or in the Para's saying he has a fear or heights or marines complaining about working conditions..

Tri-ing

He may have been in the Navy for 7 years, but he may well have spent 5-6 of those at Medical School. Many Armed Forces Medics sign up during their University time, or maybe even before. If he's doing his basic arms training, it sounds like he's only just truly joined? Unlikely to be doing basic arms training as someone in their 7th year of Navy....

rhext

He's a medic.

I don't see any inconsistency at all with choosing to join the armed forces to heal people while at the same time not wanting to shoot others......

dodgy

"Michael Lyons, 25, from Plymouth, was detained after being found guilty at a court martial of disobeying a legal order by refusing to attend training."

It's courts martial, I seem to remember :?

ooermissus

Tri-ing wrote:

He may have been in the Navy for 7 years, but he may well have spent 5-6 of those at Medical School. Many Armed Forces Medics sign up during their University time, or maybe even before. If he's doing his basic arms training, it sounds like he's only just truly joined? Unlikely to be doing basic arms training as someone in their 7th year of Navy....

I think he'd spent on his career on a submarine - but was then going to be deployed to Afghanistan, thus the weapons training.

bicyclepirate

Court martial is singular
Courts martial is plural

Pedantry done for the day...

verylonglegs

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

plowmar

He's a medic.

even medics have to defend themselves and perhaps wounded colleagues he is looking after.

it doesn't mean that on completion that he will be 'shipped' off to fight on the front line.

he will still be a medic.

SLX01

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

SLX01

plowmar wrote:

He's a medic.

even medics have to defend themselves and perhaps wounded colleagues he is looking after.

it doesn't mean that on completion that he will be 'shipped' off to fight on the front line.

he will still be a medic.

One of his other complaints was that he was told he is not permitted to assist civilians in the war and could only treat troops, this was one of his objections to being sent to Afghanistan. He actually objected to going there before he refused to go to learn to shoot it was the war he was objecting to not firing a gun.

DesB3rd

"deployed to Afghanistan, thus the weapons training."

Quite. Medics not engaging or bearing arms is an anachronism from when the enemy at least had a theoretical intention to adhere by a known set of conventions i.e. when war was expected to be between nation states at political odds but without "god & the devil" ideological differences.

However one needs some pretty robust moral objections to decide that being the star of the next "death to America" snuff movie trumps picking up a weapon & hoping your fire buys enough time for support to arrive.

MattC59

SLX01 wrote:

plowmar wrote:

He's a medic.

even medics have to defend themselves and perhaps wounded colleagues he is looking after.

it doesn't mean that on completion that he will be 'shipped' off to fight on the front line.

he will still be a medic.

One of his other complaints was that he was told he is not permitted to assist civilians in the war and could only treat troops, this was one of his objections to being sent to Afghanistan. He actually objected to going there before he refused to go to learn to shoot it was the war he was objecting to not firing a gun.

The problem with that is, when you join the army, you dont' get to choose which wars you fight in, and if you do, you've got to be pretty f*cking stupid !!

SLX01

MattC59 wrote:

The problem with that is, when you join the army, you dont' get to choose which wars you fight in, and if you do, you've got to be pretty f*cking stupid !!

He didn't he joined the Navy

cornerblock

SLX01 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Working on a ship? It's the Navy not a Caribbean cruise, he must have known that one day there might be a possibility that an enemy may want to sink his ship. I have never had any desire to shoot people or be shot at, and I realised quite early on that a good way to ensure this happened was by not joining the Army, Navy or Air Force.

SLX01

Cornerblock wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Working on a ship? It's the Navy not a Caribbean cruise, he must have known that one day there might be a possibility that an enemy may want to sink his ship.

Whats that got to do with it unless you expect he is going to swim several miles ashore with a rifle and start shooting people

MattC59

SLX01 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

The problem with that is, when you join the army, you dont' get to choose which wars you fight in, and if you do, you've got to be pretty f*cking stupid !!

He didn't he joined the Navy

my mistake, I knew that. I meant to say armed forces. Either way, the point stands.

cornerblock

SLX01 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Working on a ship? It's the Navy not a Caribbean cruise, he must have known that one day there might be a possibility that an enemy may want to sink his ship.

Whats that got to do with it unless you expect he is going to swim several miles ashore with a rifle and start shooting people

It means if you do not like violent conflict maybe the armed forces are not the best place to be. Not that difficult to understand really.

MattC59

SLX01 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Working on a ship? It's the Navy not a Caribbean cruise, he must have known that one day there might be a possibility that an enemy may want to sink his ship.

Whats that got to do with it unless you expect he is going to swim several miles ashore with a rifle and start shooting people

I think you're clutching at straws with your argument here SLX01. The clue is in the title, the armed forces. If you join up, you can be called on to fight. Whether that's with a rifle or firing missiles from a f*cking great battle ship. You're still part of a fighting machine.

SLX01

MattC59 wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Working on a ship? It's the Navy not a Caribbean cruise, he must have known that one day there might be a possibility that an enemy may want to sink his ship.

Whats that got to do with it unless you expect he is going to swim several miles ashore with a rifle and start shooting people

I think you're clutching at straws with your argument here SLX01. The clue is in the title, the armed forces. If you join up, you can be called on to fight. Whether that's with a rifle or firing missiles from a f*cking great battle ship. You're still part of a fighting machine.

I fail to see how someone that joins up as a submariner be should expected to think that because they are in the armed forces that means shooting people? There is a big difference between being on a ship thats firing a missile to pulling the trigger on a gun. Where do you draw the line should everyone that works for the MOD be expected to shoot people?

MattC59

SLX01 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

SLX01 wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Isn't the key phrase 'the armed forces'? If you just want to heal people why not work in an A&E?

Maybe when he joined the NAVY 7 years ago at the age of 18 he wasn't aware he would be on land shooting people. If you joined the RAF as an Air traffic controller would you really expect to be trained how to slash someones throat with a knife? I'm sure most people that join the Navy think that they will be working on a ship not shooting at people in a village in the middle of Afghanistan.

Oh come on. Working on a ship? It's the Navy not a Caribbean cruise, he must have known that one day there might be a possibility that an enemy may want to sink his ship.

Whats that got to do with it unless you expect he is going to swim several miles ashore with a rifle and start shooting people

I think you're clutching at straws with your argument here SLX01. The clue is in the title, the armed forces. If you join up, you can be called on to fight. Whether that's with a rifle or firing missiles from a f*cking great battle ship. You're still part of a fighting machine.

I fail to see how someone that joins up as a submariner be should expected to think that because they are in the armed forces that means shooting people? There is a big difference between being on a ship thats firing a missile to pulling the trigger on a gun. Where do you draw the line should everyone that works for the MOD be expected to shoot people?

If you work for the MOD, you don't necessarily work for the armed forces, it's a civilian organisation. But yes, if you are a member of the armed forces you can be called on to fight, and if that means shooting someone then so be it.

Plus, when you join the Navy, you don't necessarily know that you're going to be a submariner. You join up and undergo training, which includes firearms. They don't train you in firearms just for fun. They train you because you may be called on to use them at some point.

You are correct in your point about there being a big difference between being on a ship that's firing a missile to pulling the trigger on a gun.......... On a ship, you can be thousands of miles away from the tens / hundreds of people which your missile will kill.