un-armed forces - what a numpty

matt581

Navy medics work very closely with royal marines in Afghanistan and will go out in the ground on patrols with them, this is something as a medic he would have been aware of before. As has been stated, if you joined the ARMED forces you are expected to, when required, bare arms. That is why no matter what trade, branch or specalisation you enter in to you are trained with weapons skills. Joining the any branch of the armed forces when we are involved in conflicts it is difficult to then turn round and say you have a moral abjection to it. I suspect there are other reasons he didn't want to go put pulled out the HRA card as a defence. When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

verylonglegs

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.

You seriously saying people still join the military without being aware the very basis is following orders and maybe..gasp...conflict! Woah. How thick are they. It's not difficult to grasp, if want to be a civvy take a job in civvy street. Maybe the uniform is just for decoration too.

Cleat Eastwood

matt581 wrote:

When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

But not the right to a conscience.

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs. Anything else is evidence of what is being displayed in these posts i.e a willingness to accept authority without question. Such are the consequences of regimented thinking.

Genuine peace is achieved, essentially, through individual inner transformation.

verylonglegs

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

matt581 wrote:

When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

But not the right to a conscience.

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs. Anything else is evidence of what is being displayed in these posts i.e a willingness to accept authority without question. Such are the consequences of regimented thinking.

Genuine peace is achieved, essentially, through individual inner transformation.

That's a fair point considering age, the forces often recruit young and I'm a very different person now in my mid-thirties to what I was at 18, morally and politically. I would maintain however that even at school age I recognised that a military career was a pretty shitty deal and based on out of date values. I still found it difficult to believe others couldn't comprehend that though, I just don't get the lack of thought process. I agree his 7 months in a cell is pointless, they should just P45 him and both parties go their seperate ways.

MattC59

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

matt581 wrote:

When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

But not the right to a conscience.

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs. Anything else is evidence of what is being displayed in these posts i.e a willingness to accept authority without question. Such are the consequences of regimented thinking.

Genuine peace is achieved, essentially, through individual inner transformation.

Not sure that I completely agree with you there Cleat. The individual has the right to express his/her moral beliefs, but not to assert them.
You are given the choice whether to accept authority without question or not, when you join the army. If you don't want to, don't join. SImple as that. You join on the understanding that you may be told to fight in conflicts which you don't agree with, you don't get to choose which conflict you want to fight in.

Your last comment is a bit deep for this time of night :shock:

Tom Butcher

7 months ! Apart from it being incredibly harsh if he really has had a crisis of conscience it's also a waste of all our money.

MattC59

Tom Butcher wrote:

7 months ! Apart from it being incredibly harsh if he really has had a crisis of conscience it's also a waste of all our money.

Perhaps they should have made him repay all of the costs which we have already invested in him then ?

Cleat Eastwood

MattC59 wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

matt581 wrote:

When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

But not the right to a conscience.

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs. Anything else is evidence of what is being displayed in these posts i.e a willingness to accept authority without question. Such are the consequences of regimented thinking.

Genuine peace is achieved, essentially, through individual inner transformation.

Not sure that I completely agree with you there Cleat. The individual has the right to express his/her moral beliefs, but not to assert them.
You are given the choice whether to accept authority without question or not, when you join the army. If you don't want to, don't join. SImple as that. You join on the understanding that you may be told to fight in conflicts which you don't agree with, you don't get to choose which conflict you want to fight in.

Your last comment is a bit deep for this time of night :shock:

I used assert in the sense that there may be an instance when a command is given that contradicts our deepest human instinct such as shooting a child. I'd like to think that even the most experienced soldier would have doubts and physically question or even refuse the order.

Yeah I agree, the last comment frazzled my head too. I'm off to the girls in lycra for some rest.

Anonymous

He just bricked it at the thought of being deployed on the ground with a patrol of Marines. having a consience is fine, but you do have to have a certain mindset when you join and live the life in the armed force's. He would have given up a certain amount of rights when he joined up and would be very aware of this, it is not a charm school.

BTW, the comment of being ordered to open fire on children is just trolling of the highest order, I salute you Cleat,

Keith1983

My sister has just gone over to Afghanistan with the RAF. She has had weapons training. She hasn't joined the RAF with the sole desire to kill people, but if the situation arises where it's them or her I hope she plants one right between their eyes! She doesn't want to go killing people but if the time comes then she is equipped and willing to do so, as anyone joining any of the armed forces should be.

Pseudonym

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs.

perhaps he could have 'asserted his moral beliefs' by not joining the armed services in the first place...

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I used assert in the sense that there may be an instance when a command is given that contradicts our deepest human instinct such as shooting a child. I'd like to think that even the most experienced soldier would have doubts and physically question or even refuse the order.

that's a complete non-argument. The Geneva Convention addressed that 147 years ago...

Nigel.Mccarthy

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

matt581 wrote:

When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

But not the right to a conscience.

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs. Anything else is evidence of what is being displayed in these posts i.e a willingness to accept authority without question. Such are the consequences of regimented thinking.

Genuine peace is achieved, essentially, through individual inner transformation.

Not sure that I completely agree with you there Cleat. The individual has the right to express his/her moral beliefs, but not to assert them.
You are given the choice whether to accept authority without question or not, when you join the army. If you don't want to, don't join. SImple as that. You join on the understanding that you may be told to fight in conflicts which you don't agree with, you don't get to choose which conflict you want to fight in.

Your last comment is a bit deep for this time of night :shock:

I used assert in the sense that there may be an instance when a command is given that contradicts our deepest human instinct such as shooting a child. I'd like to think that even the most experienced soldier would have doubts and physically question or even refuse the order.

Yeah I agree, the last comment frazzled my head too. I'm off to the girls in lycra for some rest.

If the child was armed & shooting at me or my mates, I would have no problem unleashing a few rounds into them.
If however the child was unarmed then any order to open fire would constitute an unlawful order & a war crime.

Conscience should not come into play on the battlefield an awareness of the rules of engagement & the legality of any given order is paramount.

Don't want to have to potentially shoot people then, join the international red cross or the UN instead of a sovereign nations armed forces.

In some peoples eyes the above will make me a bad man oh well such is life

dodgerdog

Cleat,

You need to undertand the Interntional precepts of the Law of Armed Conflist which underpins the legality of Orders. This is why the defence offered by the Camp guards at the likes of Aushwitz (sp) that they were only following orders did not hold up.

On the proffered defence here as to his conscience - he did not exert his beliefs as a conscinetious objector but was charged with failure to follow a lawful order contrary to Section 12 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 or Failure to attend or perfrom a duty (ie attending weapons training) contrary to Section 15 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Nigel.Mccarthy

Dodgerdog wrote:

Cleat,

You need to undertand the Interntional precepts of the Law of Armed Conflist which underpins the legality of Orders. This is why the defence offered by the Camp guards at the likes of Aushwitz (sp) that they were only following orders did not hold up.

On the proffered defence here as to his conscience - he did not exert his beliefs as a conscinetious objector but was charged with failure to follow a lawful order contrary to Section 12 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 or Failure to attend or perfrom a duty (ie attending weapons training) contrary to Section 15 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

& in a nutshell here we have it!

He failed to carry out a lawful order.

Goodbye now @ least my tax is no longer contributing to your,( 7 years in the navy & only now having to bear arms ) lifestyle.

shouldbeinbed

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

matt581 wrote:

When joining the forces you do have give up some rights that civilians can enjoy.

But not the right to a conscience.

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs. Anything else is evidence of what is being displayed in these posts i.e a willingness to accept authority without question. Such are the consequences of regimented thinking.

Genuine peace is achieved, essentially, through individual inner transformation.

stopped reading replies here to answer this so apols to all if already done to death.

why would you voluntarily join up in the first place to an organisation with a very strong and very clear militry purpose if you were morally opposed to the thought of millitary action in its most brutal sense?

It is not the same as a conscientious objector being conscripted into the armed forces without choice and then standing up for their morals.

He subjugated his moral considerations of his own free will.
There are any number of medical vocations that he could have entered without ever having to go near a gun but he chose one that (lets guess) offered him a salary and a 'free' university edication in a long and expensive discipline ending in a qualification that will be very useful and potentially lucrative after his millitary service is over.
But he's belatedly realised that there is a pay off to this massive pecuniary advantage he is getting over students who have chosen to put their moral (courage?) viewpoint first in their edcational and career choice.

Fair enough let him leave, presented with a bill for all of his Naval education and living costs to be paid in full before he does so.

I don't know the contracts or oaths of allegiance for naval service but I would be astonished if there wasn't something he has legally bound himself to that requires him to bear arms or follow any reasonable order (and for the milltary I really cannot think here's a gun get used to it, is an unreasonable order or evidence of regimented, sheep like acceptance of authority).


To the ATC comment about not bearing arms, Air traffic controllers and the like aren't deployed to the front line to do ther job, medics are, they have to be ready to protect themself and their injured charge in that situation from people that reallywill not give a toss if they have a red cross armband on their enemy uniform.

inkyfingers

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.

Sorry, but your talking rubbish. Almost all recruits to the armed services (possibly excluding chaplains I believe) undergo basic military training which includes weapons training. He joined the Navy 7 years ago yet we have been fighting in Afghanistan for ten years so why enlist if he was morally against that particular war?

Just because he joined the navy doesn't mean that he's going to spend his whole career on a ship, for example Royal Navy helicopters have been used extensively in Afghanistan and other similar conflicts. Even non front line servicemen can find themselves very close to the action, especially in a conflict like Afghanistan where there is no fixed front line. The RAF will have air traffic controllers and many other people in other non combat roles working out there, yes it's unlikely that they will have to use a weapon in anger, but it's a possibility that they need to be prepared for.

SLX01

Its amazing that so many people have so many opinions and haven't even bothered to read the story!

He wasn't refusing to bear arms and had been serving in the Navy and had untaken all the required training for 7 years.

He had decided after 7 years serving his Country as a submariner (which is more than some of the people posting here would ever do) that his conscience would not allow him to fight in Afghanistan for various reasons. If anyone else was in a job they decided they could no longer do they could just quit they wouldn't get sent to jail. I cannot see any justification in forcing a person to take up a gun and go into a war zone against their will. He wasn't asking to get the money and a cushy job whilst his friends served in the war zone he was asking to be discharged on compasionate grounds as an objector, which is a legal right in the UK armed forces. The refusal to carry out weapons training only came about because he was refused permission to leave because as an Atheist he didn't have any religious grounds to object. The argument he should have thought about it before training or taking the publics money is stupid. He got paid for the work he did over 6 years he wasn't on holiday for 6 years he was working as a medic using the training he had been given away from home on a submarine.

inkyfingers

There's a reason why it's more difficult to walk out of the armed forces than it is a cushy job on civvy street, otherwise people could simply get up and walk away during an operation, which in turn would put other peoples lives at risk. Servicemen expect a certain amount from their commanders, in turn they have to loyally carry out their orders, that's how it works. he knew that when he signed up so can't see the excuse. All members of our armed forces are volunteers, the idea of "conscientous objection" comes from the days of conscription and national service and frankly is no longer relevant.

Cleat Eastwood

oh dear, this is exactly the type of regimented thinking I was talking about.

I'll put it in simple language for you "you don't have to do what somebody tells you to do, even if you have signed a contract of employment or are working under an unwritten social convention. You are free to refuse"

Not trolling - An innocent palestinian child was shot in the chest in Israel.

Now i understand that 2 different discussions are occurring, one about the lad being a numpty and the other about morality and violence so my comments are based on contributing to the latter.

I don't believe posters on here would be able to pull the trigger on anyone let alone a child, it's brutish internet machismo at its worst. Man is simply not a killing machine.

There was a documentary about the psychology of the military on recently and a serving officer said that psychologically taking a life has profound consequences post-military as taking a life is 'not natural', leading to breakdowns, family violence and severe alcohol and drug abuse.

The effects were such that a new code of practice was introduced whereby soldiers are now told they are acting in defence of certain values, rather than defeating an enemies value system as our, that is our basic human concept of the value of life, can cope with defending rather than destroying.

Now if that concept of killing not being natural has entered into the modus operandi of military training it strikes me boasts about killing those attacking family/ friends should taken with a mahooosive pinch of salt.

It's simply Orwellian mind games as death is death no matter how it arrives; a truth that has been shouted from the rooftops by survivors of the great wars - war benefits the few and belittles the humanity of the many, any resistance to violence and training for violence is to be encouraged IMO.

I appreciate there are people on here who are or have been serving members of the armed forces and as limiting as it seems I think only they have a right to talk about the dual concepts of military expectation+personal morality as it is they who have seen their pre-conceptions about a regimented life tested in a way that mortals of civvy street will never experience. That is all.

inkyfingers

I'd also like to add that as a submariner he would have likely been serving aboard either a submarine carrying nuclear weapons or a an attack submarine carrying cruise missiles (which the RN has used in the Afghanistan conflict), how does that square with his moral objections?

Pross

Pseudonym wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

No matter what social contract an individual agrees, to written or otherwise, it it is the individuals right to assert their moral beliefs.

perhaps he could have 'asserted his moral beliefs' by not joining the armed services in the first place...

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I used assert in the sense that there may be an instance when a command is given that contradicts our deepest human instinct such as shooting a child. I'd like to think that even the most experienced soldier would have doubts and physically question or even refuse the order.

that's a complete non-argument. The Geneva Convention addressed that 147 years ago...

+1, it's not like the brave people who were conscientious objectors during times of conscription. He chose to serve and is now back tracking on that committment.

DrKJM

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 know nothing of the case but looking at that hat he's not a medic - in the sense that he has completed medical training and is a qualified doctor now serving in the navy. If that were the case, he would be in officer's uniform.

DrKJM

Ignore me. Thought I'd got to the bottom of the thread and then realised the world had moved on a long way. Happens to me a lot.

Richard_D

Reading through the reports he is not a Doctor more of a paramedic but I am sure some of the paramaedics could pull me up on that. He is down as a Leading Medical assistant. This is a ratings grade not an officer grade. A doctor would be officer grade, based on personal knowledge, a family member with medical qualifications considered the RN as a career.
Based on the limited reports on line it strikes me he was naive at the start and then wanted his 15 minutes of fame when he wanted out. Whether he was right or wrong about objecting to Afganistan is a different story. I am sure there would have been ways for him to leave without all this fuss.
Any body who joins any of the forces and here I include the police as well as the armed ones will have to do things they would not want to do as an individual so if you do not think about it before joining you are naive at best, stupid at worst.

Nigel.Mccarthy

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

oh dear, this is exactly the type of regimented thinking I was talking about.

I'll put it in simple language for you "you don't have to do what somebody tells you to do, even if you have signed a contract of employment or are working under an unwritten social convention. You are free to refuse"

Not trolling - An innocent palestinian child was shot in the chest in Israel.

Now i understand that 2 different discussions are occurring, one about the lad being a numpty and the other about morality and violence so my comments are based on contributing to the latter.

I don't believe posters on here would be able to pull the trigger on anyone let alone a child, it's brutish internet machismo at its worst. Man is simply not a killing machine.

There was a documentary about the psychology of the military on recently and a serving officer said that psychologically taking a life has profound consequences post-military as taking a life is 'not natural', leading to breakdowns, family violence and severe alcohol and drug abuse.

The effects were such that a new code of practice was introduced whereby soldiers are now told they are acting in defence of certain values, rather than defeating an enemies value system as our, that is our basic human concept of the value of life, can cope with defending rather than destroying.

Now if that concept of killing not being natural has entered into the modus operandi of military training it strikes me boasts about killing those attacking family/ friends should taken with a mahooosive pinch of salt.

It's simply Orwellian mind games as death is death no matter how it arrives; a truth that has been shouted from the rooftops by survivors of the great wars - war benefits the few and belittles the humanity of the many, any resistance to violence and training for violence is to be encouraged IMO.

I appreciate there are people on here who are or have been serving members of the armed forces and as limiting as it seems I think only they have a right to talk about the dual concepts of military expectation+personal morality as it is they who have seen their pre-conceptions about a regimented life tested in a way that mortals of civvy street will never experience. That is all.

" Not trolling - An innocent palestinian child was shot in the chest in Israel. "

I wonder how many kids were killed in Dresden, Stalingrad & the London Blitz.
^welcome to war.

" I don't believe posters on here would be able to pull the trigger on anyone let alone a child, it's brutish internet machismo at its worst. Man is simply not a killing machine "

Been on a night out with 2 para have we?

Internet machismo I think it is not!

Orwellian mind games now then the mind starts to boggle @ this fruit of information!
In a wonderful world ( Alice in wonderland perhaps ) no bad people would exist.
Can you imagine how happy people would be.
Sadly life is not really like this despite your best wishes.
You must be really trolling to come up with this sh1t . I'll put it in simple language for you "you don't have to do what somebody tells you to do, even if you have signed a contract of employment or are working under an unwritten social convention. You are free to refuse"

Does it really apply in real life to the military then?

Fair does they can't force you to fight ( you would probably be a liability under those circumstances ) but, they can do you for failure to carry out a lawful order.

Welcome to Colchester Military corrective Training Centre.

He signed on the dotted line, underwent basic training, could have got out at anytime but chose to continue.

Hmmm why is my bullshit radar going off on one?

Ps if the military are so keen to not kill people then, why teach recruits how to kill?

I agree hearts & minds are instilled into every recruit but, your internet ramblings signify that you do not really have a scooby doo about what you are going on about or you are a troll of the first order

Ben6899

Dodgerdog wrote:

Cleat,

You need to undertand the Interntional precepts of the Law of Armed Conflist which underpins the legality of Orders. This is why the defence offered by the Camp guards at the likes of Aushwitz (sp) that they were only following orders did not hold up.

On the proffered defence here as to his conscience - he did not exert his beliefs as a conscinetious objector but was charged with failure to follow a lawful order contrary to Section 12 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 or Failure to attend or perfrom a duty (ie attending weapons training) contrary to Section 15 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

And I believe that is what's known as...

[/thread]

Anonymous

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

oh dear, this is exactly the type of regimented thinking I was talking about.

I'll put it in simple language for you "you don't have to do what somebody tells you to do, even if you have signed a contract of employment or are working under an unwritten social convention. You are free to refuse"

Not trolling - An innocent palestinian child was shot in the chest in Israel.
Now i understand that 2 different discussions are occurring, one about the lad being a numpty and the other about morality and violence so my comments are based on contributing to the latter.

I don't believe posters on here would be able to pull the trigger on anyone let alone a child, it's brutish internet machismo at its worst. Man is simply not a killing machine.

There was a documentary about the psychology of the military on recently and a serving officer said that psychologically taking a life has profound consequences post-military as taking a life is 'not natural', leading to breakdowns, family violence and severe alcohol and drug abuse.

The effects were such that a new code of practice was introduced whereby soldiers are now told they are acting in defence of certain values, rather than defeating an enemies value system as our, that is our basic human concept of the value of life, can cope with defending rather than destroying.

Now if that concept of killing not being natural has entered into the modus operandi of military training it strikes me boasts about killing those attacking family/ friends should taken with a mahooosive pinch of salt.

It's simply Orwellian mind games as death is death no matter how it arrives; a truth that has been shouted from the rooftops by survivors of the great wars - war benefits the few and belittles the humanity of the many, any resistance to violence and training for violence is to be encouraged IMO.

I appreciate there are people on here who are or have been serving members of the armed forces and as limiting as it seems I think only they have a right to talk about the dual concepts of military expectation+personal morality as it is they who have seen their pre-conceptions about a regimented life tested in a way that mortals of civvy street will never experience. That is all.

Referring to the bold highlight, I remeber that on the news and was horrified by it, firstly that a child had been killed and secondly, why was a child on the street, during a violent protest and allowed in harms way ? At least the grown men around him should have told the poor little sod to get off home, as he may have got caught up in it by chance.

Speaking as an ex-para myself, no bloke I ever knew or know would intentionally kill any unarmed civilian, adult or child.

Back to the OP, the sailor was either very naive or very stupid to join up in the first instance. Chance's are the flight crews that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had very little or no small arms training, so no chance of slotting anyone up close or in a firefight, just pressing buttons and pulling levers killed thousands, which is a little like him being part of a nuclear sub crew, all in the one crew for a collective purpose at the end of the day.

Mad Roadie

Hmmm - I thought there might be some strong opinions on this when I started the thread.... seems to typify a generation in the UK where all is a happy world until they get to the dirty end of the stick - then they want out.!

after all why work for it, when you can just riot and steel it? oops, thats another thread topic

Anonymous

Mad Roadie wrote:

Hmmm - I thought there might be some strong opinions on this when I started the thread.... seems to typify a generation in the UK where all is a happy world until they get to the dirty end of the stick - then they want out.!

after all why work for it, when you can just riot and steel it? oops, thats another thread topic

Steady on matey, you can't do a tangent on this 'til its done

dodgerdog

dmclite wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

steel it? oops, thats another thread topic

Steady on matey, you can't do a tangent on this 'til its done

Not the Carbon vs Steel vs Bamboo vs Ti debate again or were you troling for the grammar police?