British Justice?

[For Us All]

The worlds gone mad?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11306039/Soldier-investigated-for-touching-Taliban-suspect-on-nose-with-piece-of-paper.html

[Howjy04]

The worlds gone mad?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11306039/Soldier-investigated-for-touching-Taliban-suspect-on-nose-with-piece-of-paper.html

 

Those paper cuts can be lethal.

[Davebrad]

This human rights s..t is ok if both sides play by it, but if lives depend on getting information from a suspect then anything should be acceptable. Those who murdered Lee Rigby and the hostages in the middle east did,nt respect their space etc, we would,nt send child bombers to kill innocent people in a bus cue, shop, or hospital, instead of blowing on their neck, or wafting a piece of paper at them tell them if they don't tell what they know they will be smeared with pig fat- that will make them think twice, cause they won't get 20 virgins in mecca with pig fat on them. And as for giving compensation for ill treatment did all our dead and wounded get any off the taliband.

 

make no mistake this is war and anything goes as long as you win...

 

rant over, merry chrimbo to all and peaceful new year, oh and 3 points and clean sheet on boxing day...

[bookworm]

I hope we are a better society than to strip such people of ALL their human rights

 

WHy not line them up and invite people to torture them or find novel ways of killing them? I really believe that we are better than that

 

good thinking ja, death by 1000 cuts, do it the roman way, you know it makes sense,

[bookworm]

You can. Part 27 of the CPR off the top of my head. It used to be a small amount (£60 or thereabouts) plus an amount for disbursements, prior to 1st April 2013. It my have changed post 1st April 2013, I don't really deal with small cases like this, but I'm pretty sure you still get an amount for dibs at least.

 

i think that if you win your case you are awarded costs,aint much just a small ammount to cover transport, a meal and loss of earnings if you have time off work to attend court. I got £48.00 as witness for the defence, to cover travel costs from forsbrook to crewe plus the subsistance allowance, but the law changed last year i think,probably a small inflationary increase.

[For Us All]

Talk about having one hand tied behind your back,the former officer blamed lawyers for changes in rules through a series of legal actions and the Ministry of Defence has paid out £19.3 million in compensation to approximately 350 Iraqis for wrongful detention and mistreatment.

The Al-Sweady inquiry report into the aftermath of a firefight in Iraq in 2004 concluded that dangerous Iraqi insurgents had used “deliberate lies” to try to smear British troops, leading to claims that two British law firms,which received millions of pounds in legal aid,had “shamefully” tried to “impugn” the Army’s reputation.

I bet IS and the Taliban are laughing their ******** off.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

This human rights s..t is ok if both sides play by it, but if lives depend on getting information from a suspect then anything should be acceptable.

 

The key word there is suspect..are we really advocating that if an agency thinks someone knows something they can do anything they like to try and get information and if it's the wrong person or they know nothing than, oh well, they were trying to save lives? You'd be OK if some let's say Middle Easetrn organisatuion thought that your brother, sister, mate etc had vital info which could save lives and so could use any means they wish to try and get that info cos they perceive it will save lives? If it's good enough for us whty not for them?

 

Aren't we better than that?

[geosname]

 

Aren't we better than that?

 

I would like to think we are but its a difficult standard to live up to when your enemies dont have the same values

[Davebrad]

The key word there is suspect..are we really advocating that if an agency thinks someone knows something they can do anything they like to try and get information and if it's the wrong person or they know nothing than, oh well, they were trying to save lives? You'd be OK if some let's say Middle Easetrn organisatuion thought that your brother, sister, mate etc had vital info which could save lives and so could use any means they wish to try and get that info cos they perceive it will save lives? If it's good enough for us whty not for them?

 

Aren't we better than that?

 

we try to be and that now could be the problem, look at all the cleric's in this country who preach jihad but stay safe here from their enemies, that one with the hook 2 or 3 countries wanted him, we wanted rid but could.nt over 10yrs I think it took us. As for your middle east scenario they already do that, and its no use us observing all the rules if the other side don't. I,m old enough to remember the Vietnam war where a us commander had 2 prisoners up in a helicopter, he was trying to save a marine patrol but they would not answer him so he threatened to throw em out if they did not answer him, so he ended up putting one out, and the other soon told what he knew. Ok it was wrong from our point of view and he got repremand for it but he saved his men's lives, now if the situation was reversed what would the is/taliband or in the example above Vietcong have done? the security forces have got to be right all the time, the terrorists only once, why put our forces under this pressure to keep our own safe if it comes to it, save ours to hell with the rest...why should a soldier have to hold fire till he's fired upon...we ar,nt figting a "normal" war if they leave a bomb on a bus(as they did) they mean to kill and maim anyone that's there war.

[kevin_struggles]

The key word there is suspect..are we really advocating that if an agency thinks someone knows something they can do anything they like to try and get information and if it's the wrong person or they know nothing than, oh well, they were trying to save lives? You'd be OK if some let's say Middle Easetrn organisatuion thought that your brother, sister, mate etc had vital info which could save lives and so could use any means they wish to try and get that info cos they perceive it will save lives? If it's good enough for us whty not for them?

 

Aren't we better than that?

 

If my sister was part of the taliban or an IS sympathiser with connections in the organisation I would be happy for her to be tortured to get information that could assist our troops. The fact is my sister works in a superstore in Bristol and has never been involved in any shady organisations (unless you count the Duran Duran fan club) so is unlikely to be tortured because the chances of her knowing anything relevant are none. Which is where your point falls over big time.

 

We arent talking about torturing any tom **** or harry we are talking about torturing people who are part of the scumbag organisations and are keeping silent to protect them.

 

We should trust the security serviecs to decide which is which and identify people who are withholding onformation that may be aof use.

 

one UK service persons life is worth 10 million IS or Taliban sympathisers lives in my opinion.

 

Having said that you know my opinion, we shouldt even be out there fighting them. If you do gooders didnt insist on our troops fighting everyones battles for them there wouldnt be any tortures so its on your heads. If we send them into battle we have a resposibility to use every means at our disposal to keep them safe. Including torture.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I would like to think we are but its a difficult standard to live up to when your enemies dont have the same values

 

I agree and that's why in such circumstances it's even more important that we act according to our values and don't allow them to be changed byt those that do not share them thru violence etc

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If my sister was part of the taliban or an IS sympathiser with connections in the organisation I would be happy for her to be tortured to get information that could assist our troops.

 

Tjhe point surely is that she will be subject to such torture becasue she is suspected of being involved not becasue it's been proven that she is? Would you be happy for her to be tortured on the basis of being suspected of suh activities?

 

The fact is my sister works in a superstore in Bristol and has never been involved in any shady organisations (unless you count the Duran Duran fan club) so is unlikely to be tortured because the chances of her knowing anything relevant are none. Which is where your point falls over big time.

 

Not Tesco is it? They're a bit shady these daye :)

 

See above..and the principle does not change one bit

 

We arent talking about torturing any tom **** or harry we are talking about torturing people who are part of the scumbag organisations and are keeping silent to protect them.

 

No we are talking about torturing people suspected of beinfg part of the scumbag organisations and surely if it's Ok for us to do this then it's Ok for them to do the same?

 

We should trust the security serviecs to decide which is which and identify people who are withholding onformation that may be aof use.

 

So you do advocate the triture of suspects regardless of who they are.

 

one UK service persons life is worth 10 million IS or Taliban sympathisers lives in my opinion.

 

I agree but the person being tortured may not be a Taliban sympathisers..only suspected of being one. people will admit to all sorts of things when tortured..look at the Birmingham pub bombers...was that OK?

 

Having said that you know my opinion, we shouldt even be out there fighting them. If you do gooders didnt insist on our troops fighting everyones battles for them there wouldnt be any tortures so its on your heads. If we send them into battle we have a resposibility to use every means at our disposal to keep them safe. Including torture.

 

I'm no do gooder and I don't insist on our troops fighting evreyone's battles for them..I've never advocted that we should go into battle against ISIS

 

So the same applies to our enemies then..if it's Ok for us to do all that is necesasry then you must agree that it's Ok for them to do the same to their enemies? How can we condemn them for doing all that they deem necessary when it's Ok for us to do all that we deem necessary?

[For Us All]

we try to be and that now could be the problem, look at all the cleric's in this country who preach jihad but stay safe here from their enemies, that one with the hook 2 or 3 countries wanted him, we wanted rid but could.nt over 10yrs I think it took us. As for your middle east scenario they already do that, and its no use us observing all the rules if the other side don't. I,m old enough to remember the Vietnam war where a us commander had 2 prisoners up in a helicopter, he was trying to save a marine patrol but they would not answer him so he threatened to throw em out if they did not answer him, so he ended up putting one out, and the other soon told what he knew. Ok it was wrong from our point of view and he got repremand for it but he saved his men's lives, now if the situation was reversed what would the is/taliband or in the example above Vietcong have done? the security forces have got to be right all the time, the terrorists only once, why put our forces under this pressure to keep our own safe if it comes to it, save ours to hell with the rest...why should a soldier have to hold fire till he's fired upon...we ar,nt figting a "normal" war if they leave a bomb on a bus(as they did) they mean to kill and maim anyone that's there war.

 

What's the saying - "All's fair in love and war".

[kevin_struggles]

Tjhe point surely is that she will be subject to such torture becasue she is suspected of being involved not becasue it's been proven that she is? Would you be happy for her to be tortured on the basis of being suspected of suh activities?

 

 

 

Not Tesco is it? They're a bit shady these daye :)

 

See above..and the principle does not change one bit

 

 

 

No we are talking about torturing people suspected of beinfg part of the scumbag organisations and surely if it's Ok for us to do this then it's Ok for them to do the same?

 

 

 

So you do advocate the triture of suspects regardless of who they are.

 

 

 

I agree but the person being tortured may not be a Taliban sympathisers..only suspected of being one. people will admit to all sorts of things when tortured..look at the Birmingham pub bombers...was that OK?

 

 

 

I'm no do gooder and I don't insist on our troops fighting evreyone's battles for them..I've never advocted that we should go into battle against ISIS

 

So the same applies to our enemies then..if it's Ok for us to do all that is necesasry then you must agree that it's Ok for them to do the same to their enemies? How can we condemn them for doing all that they deem necessary when it's Ok for us to do all that we deem necessary?

 

 

 

No its a swarovski crystal concession inside a superstore, she has russian connections

 

I think it is perfectly OK for anyone engaged in a war to use every means at their disposal to beat their enemy and protect their soldiers. If they arent doing so their soldiers should be asking why not.

 

I understand what you are trying to say about suspected as opposed to proven but where we differ is that I trust our security forces to only do so if they have good reason to believe that they have relevant information and are refusing to supply that information when questioned. If it later transpires that the person was innocent and didnt have any knowledge then it is regretable but theres no such thing as a clean war. In war innocent people will get hurt its just a fact. I dont like it which is why I think any form of armed conflict should always be the last resort and we should stay out of wars that dont directly involve us because that isnt a last resort. If we can choose to not fight we shouldnt fight. Fighting is for defense in a situation where there is no other choice.

 

However once we engage in war it should be all out until the enemy are gone and in no fit state to rise again.

 

You cant support sending soldiers into the war zone and then claim that you dont support them fighting against IS. If you send troops in they will be enagaged and have to fight.

 

are you claiming that you dont advocate doing good?

 

I dont advocate doing good if it means risking the lives of our troops but only because I dont think soldiers are suitable for humanitarian missions, I think we should send the Pope and all the other priests for that. A big plane load of cassock wearing liars...sorry! I mean holy men

[For Us All]

We seem to be run by a bunch of PC fanatics and ambulance chasing lawyers and if this continues nobody will be prepared to join the armed forces.

The legal industry,together with the system of legal aid,needs to be thoroughly investigated! It provides lawyers with an inflation proof income, which they are exploiting,not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but here at home too.People are making millions out of us by milking the system.Legal Aid needs to be re-defined and should certainly be restricted to British citizens.

Welcome to the UK 2015,a clone of the USA compensation driven culture.