LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

briantrumpet

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Really glad the hostile-to-non-whites-government is now passing laws that allow govt to turn a blind eye to war crimes committed by its forces.

Go and have a look at the countless bullshit cases brought against troops in Afganistan. You would not be happy if someone was able to bring charges against you multiple times in some times decades after the crime with pretty low bar of evidence. By all means maybe this is an argument for jot launching foreign invasions but at least have the decency to protect armed forces in a proportionate manner. This legislation is proportionate in my view.

Meh. If they didn’t do anything wrong court will find so.

I get the argument to stop spurious cases coming to court but this legislation goes a lot further than that and leaves *a lot* of room for letting troops get away with war crimes - which, for the record did also happen with alarming frequency in the most recent wars.

Soldiers who commit war crimes do not do their nation or their fellow soldiers any favours and deserve to be punished.

This bbc article kind of blows your argument out the water that their is a high level of war crimes being carried out by UK soldiers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52885615

Just wondering if you got to the end of that...

"But the director of the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA) said just one remaining case was being examined. Andrew Cayley said the "low level" of offending and lack of credible evidence had led most cases to be dismissed. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Law in Action programme, Mr Cayley said most of those cases were sifted out at a very early stage because of the lack of credible evidence or because the offending was "at such a very low level".

More than 1,000 cases were made by former lawyer Phil Shiner and his firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL). In 2017 he was struck off as a solicitor after a tribunal found him guilty of misconduct and dishonesty, including false accounts about the actions of UK soldiers.

"David Greene, vice-president of the Law Society, said a balance must be struck to ensure charges are only brought when warranted.

But he added: "The argument behind time limits for British service personnel deployed overseas is that there has been a rise in historic prosecutions. Based on Andrew Cayley's comments the evidence for such an assertion is lacking.""

That reads to me that processes are working as intended, even when a rogue litigant made vexatious claims.

rjsterry

Was going to say that most of the claims relating to Iraq were brought by a single

john80 said:

It is not stress free or cost free to defend yourself against claims no matter how spurious in either a criminal or civil trial. If you are not going to protect troops through this process then dont send them into combat. This new legislation tips the balance back to reasonable from the previous position of plain dumb.

It's not about protecting troops. That's just the PR. It moves a number of decisions to direct ministerial control with no oversight or possibility of review of those decisions. It's about protecting the government. In any case, what specifically about the existing legislation is 'plain dumb'?

john80

briantrumpet said:

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Really glad the hostile-to-non-whites-government is now passing laws that allow govt to turn a blind eye to war crimes committed by its forces.

Go and have a look at the countless bullshit cases brought against troops in Afganistan. You would not be happy if someone was able to bring charges against you multiple times in some times decades after the crime with pretty low bar of evidence. By all means maybe this is an argument for jot launching foreign invasions but at least have the decency to protect armed forces in a proportionate manner. This legislation is proportionate in my view.

Meh. If they didn’t do anything wrong court will find so.

I get the argument to stop spurious cases coming to court but this legislation goes a lot further than that and leaves *a lot* of room for letting troops get away with war crimes - which, for the record did also happen with alarming frequency in the most recent wars.

Soldiers who commit war crimes do not do their nation or their fellow soldiers any favours and deserve to be punished.

This bbc article kind of blows your argument out the water that their is a high level of war crimes being carried out by UK soldiers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52885615

Just wondering if you got to the end of that...

"But the director of the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA) said just one remaining case was being examined. Andrew Cayley said the "low level" of offending and lack of credible evidence had led most cases to be dismissed. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Law in Action programme, Mr Cayley said most of those cases were sifted out at a very early stage because of the lack of credible evidence or because the offending was "at such a very low level".

More than 1,000 cases were made by former lawyer Phil Shiner and his firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL). In 2017 he was struck off as a solicitor after a tribunal found him guilty of misconduct and dishonesty, including false accounts about the actions of UK soldiers.

"David Greene, vice-president of the Law Society, said a balance must be struck to ensure charges are only brought when warranted.

But he added: "The argument behind time limits for British service personnel deployed overseas is that there has been a rise in historic prosecutions. Based on Andrew Cayley's comments the evidence for such an assertion is lacking.""

That reads to me that processes are working as intended, even when a rogue litigant made vexatious claims.

If the process is to leave soldiers facing uncertainty for years on end then hats off to you. I wonder how many cakestoppers would be happy to act on behalf of the UK then be open to criminal or civil procedings for years on end. The argument that if you have done no wrong then dont worry completely ignores the reality these soldiers are facing. You have alleged victims with a clear motivation to make vlaims with impunity. Perjury is a serious business that they have no exposure to and therefore a significant deterent to false claims just is not there.

rick_chasey

Seems odd to me. Example above illustrates it’s working fine - spurious claims got quashed and the lawyer was struck off.

It’s important troops are held to account for actions. If they aspire to be some of the best, and I think we can agree they should, they ought to be liable for any crime they commit. We can only establish that fairly in a trial.

There is a bigger issue the govt is avoiding and that is around proper compensation (pay & other support) for veterans who struggle during and post service.

But that would make waging wars too expensive and heaven forbid that be the case.

I would rather they support them than make it easier to commit war crimes.

It’s not either or, here.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Seems odd to me. Example above illustrates it’s working fine - spurious claims got quashed and the lawyer was struck off.

It’s important troops are held to account for actions. If they aspire to be some of the best, and I think we can agree they should, they ought to be liable for any crime they commit. We can only establish that fairly in a trial.

There is a bigger issue the govt is avoiding and that is around proper compensation (pay & other support) for veterans who struggle during and post service.

But that would make waging wars too expensive and heaven forbid that be the case.

I would rather they support them than make it easier to commit war crimes.

It’s not either or, here.

Would you put a time limit on it or do you think it fair to have the threat of prosecution hanging over them for decades?

rick_chasey

Sure it’s fair.

If I break the law etc.

Some jobs put you in instances where your actions are much more serious than others.

I think it’s really important UK troops lead by example on how to behave. Not least as the U.K. likes to play world police.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Sure it’s fair.

If I break the law etc.

Some jobs put you in instances where your actions are much more serious than others.

I think it’s really important UK troops lead by example on how to behave. Not least as the U.K. likes to play world police.

I am a real fence sitter on this, there are the obvious moral arguments but on the other hand you have a group that has been brutalised, dehumanised and placed under the greatest of pressure. Or put another way war is a dirty business and if you train people to operate in those circumstances you have to accept that bad things will happen

Dorset_Boy

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

pangolin

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

Dorset_Boy

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

briantrumpet

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

That's the case with any accusations, whether it's against teachers, soldiers, police, etc. Unfortunately we also know that teachers, soldiers, police and others do commit offences, so they all need to be investigated and either dismissed (as was the case with this rogue lawyer), or followed up, if deemed credible. In all these instances, obviously it's very much preferable that the process to proceed or to dismiss is speedy (especially if someone has been wrongly accused), but investigations and the law aren't always as speedy as might be wished, given the need for sound decisions. Any change in the law won't alter this situation.

pangolin

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

So do we have any actual examples or are we arguing the toss over hypothetical scenarios in our heads?

Dorset_Boy

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

So do we have any actual examples or are we arguing the toss over hypothetical scenarios in our heads?

Earlier in the thread it is stated the corrupt lawyer brought over 1,000 cases.

I have also been told there are also quite a large number of ex-servicemen who are extremely unhappy about the situation I believe, (I don't have first hand knowledge though) but I do know their protests and rallys were ignored completely by the likes of the BBC.

Pross

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

So do we have any actual examples or are we arguing the toss over hypothetical scenarios in our heads?

Well the Bloody Sunday inquiry has dragged on a bit.

As Brian says it happens in other places too though. I'm aware of a case of a death in care where the staff on duty at the time, a manager and the business owner have been investigated for negligence and suspended from work for nearly 3 years. One of the staff was suicidal. Most of the authorities seem to accept it has taken too long, even the coroner has lost their patience with it but the police and CPS keep dragging it out due to 'new evidence' which seems to all be coming from an ex staff member who was sacked a few months before the incident that everyone seems to know is lies (documents have been provided showing he's lied) but they have to be investigated. It is putting a strain on the staff in question, the company that are having to pay people who aren't allowed to work and those who are having to plug the gap.

Assuming allegations of war crimes go through such a robust approach it must be a nightmare and very time consuming as the alleged crimes are happening in a chaotic environment and tracking down evidence and witnesses must be very difficult.

briantrumpet

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

So do we have any actual examples or are we arguing the toss over hypothetical scenarios in our heads?

Earlier in the thread it is stated the corrupt lawyer brought over 1,000 cases.

I have also been told there are also quite a large number of ex-servicemen who are extremely unhappy about the situation I believe, (I don't have first hand knowledge though) but I do know their protests and rallys were ignored completely by the likes of the BBC.

And those 1000 cases were tossed out and the lawyer disbarred. You can't stop vexatious or malicious accusations - all you can do is to have robust procedures for dealing with such things, and as mentioned earlier, that seems to have happened in this case. It's not an argument for changing the law.

pangolin

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

I'm not sure Rick is showing any understanding of what it must be like to be in a combat zone where your life is literally at stake, and the pressures that promotes.

It certainly has been way too easy to bring spurious claims as the dodge lawyer proved, and how long did it take to decide those were spurious claims, and the consequential damage caused to the lives of those soldiers wrongly accused?

Is that rhetorical? How long did it take, and what damage was caused?

I don't know how look it took to expose the corrupt lawyer.
As for damage, if those spurious cases were hanging over soldiers for more than a few months, it will have caused damage to them, that has to be pretty obvious, surely.

So do we have any actual examples or are we arguing the toss over hypothetical scenarios in our heads?

Earlier in the thread it is stated the corrupt lawyer brought over 1,000 cases.

I have also been told there are also quite a large number of ex-servicemen who are extremely unhappy about the situation I believe, (I don't have first hand knowledge though) but I do know their protests and rallys were ignored completely by the likes of the BBC.

Does being unhappy about the situation count as damage to their lives?

Think I'm pretty on the fence about this too really. Very hard problem to solve without someone feeling hard done by.

rjsterry

Yes, fighting a civil claim, let alone being part of a criminal investigation is hard on those accused. But I don't see any way that can be avoided without compromising the rights of those genuinely bringing cases. There are good reasons why the Limitations Act does not generally apply to criminal cases.

briantrumpet

As an example of the difficult balance, when 50% of accusations against teachers were thought to be malicious, a change in the law to give teachers anonymity until charged was reported as endangering children and neutering the press:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/teachers-most-vulnerable-to-false-accusations-according-to-new-research

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/anonymity-law-teachers-come-force-8189582.html

rick_chasey

Lads there’s a reason they’re called “war crimes” and not normal crimes. That takes the war circumstances into account. It’s quite a high bar.

I’ve always worked with colleagues / bosses who are vets (albeit officers) and on the rare occasion this stuff came up, say in the news, their take was always “the guys who do this [insert crime] make the job harder” and they made sense to me.

Can’t remember any of them being worried about lawsuits - one is a mate - and he’s never me fijne it.

briantrumpet

Nick Timothy in The Telegraph working hard to pin blame for all failures on 'the state'. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/11/repeat-failures-state-locking/

"As Boris Johnson prepares to announce further lockdown measures, he faces censure from Right and Left. On the Right, for jeopardising our prosperity and disrespecting our freedom. On the Left, for failing to protect us from the virus and offering too little compensation for those stuck at home, unable to work.

Yet it stretches credulity to imagine Britain would have coped very differently had another group of ministers sat around the Cabinet table, or another party been in power. Perhaps our first lockdown might have started earlier, or a little later. Perhaps the furlough scheme might have been more or less generous.

These are details. The truth is, Britain would be in a similar predicament to the one in which it finds itself today, for the single reason that we have a highly ineffective, deeply complacent and arrogant state. The harshness of the protective measures deemed necessary by Boris Johnson and his ministers is a direct consequence of the total failure of the machinery of government."

rjsterry

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

Turkeys that voted for Christmas.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

Turkeys that voted for Christmas.

Roughly 60/40 support for Brexit, so far from unanimous. It will affect us all, though.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

Turkeys that voted for Christmas.

Roughly 60/40 support for Brexit, so far from unanimous. It will affect us all, though.

Try telling that to the "winners".

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

So much for this.



So that's UK farming given notice.

The whole thing is a mess. How can foie gras be illegal to make in the UK, but perfectly ok to import? I'm not sure I see chlorinated chickens as much different.

There's an obvious difference.

Which is?

On is exclusively about the conditions in which the animals are reared for food, the other also has an impact on the quality and likelihood of food poisoning (which is my own preoccupation).

They are both about the conditions animals are reared for food - that's why the chickens are chlorinated. If chlorinated chicken is also more likely to cause food poisoning then fair enough.

Yeah that's the whole point about the chlorinated chickens. It's not about the chlorine - it's the fact they are bred in such bad conditions they have to be chlorinated to be edible. US has materially higher chicken food poisoning rates, for example.

Salad leaves in those bags are often chlorinated - that's not the issue. It's why the chickens have to do that. The rules in Europe mean the chlorination is unnecessary.