Group of soldiers 'mutinied over hungover bosses', court martial hears

time lord

In today's paper.
Group of soldiers 'mutinied over hungover bosses', court martial hears - Telegraph
The group of 16 soldiers who felt they were being "led by muppets" staged a mutiny by sitting down on parade and refusing to get up, a court martial hears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10505987/Group-of-soldiers-mutinied-over-hungover-bosses-court-martial-hears.html?fb

marketty

time lord wrote: »

felt they were being "led by muppets"

Said every soldier ever.
Not a good move by these lads anyway.

Burnt

Sentencing reported here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25313387


1 Corp, 3 L/Corp 12Ptes on trial

Sentence Summary:
Corp, 2 L/Corp 12 Ptes: 60 days detention
Corp, 3 L/Corp: stripped of rank
Corp, 1 L/Corp: dismissed from army

time lord

The ringleaders always get hammered it seems. What constitutes a mutiny, is it 5 or more disobeying etc?

Mycroft H

Yea was listening to the BBC on the way home, wasn't in one bit surprised with the verdict. Apparently the Sergeant and Captian were passed out at the finishing line of a 60k march that the lads had done. The weren't impressed.

Busted Flat.

time lord wrote: »

In today's paper.
Group of soldiers 'mutinied over hungover bosses', court martial hears - Telegraph
The group of 16 soldiers who felt they were being "led by muppets" staged a mutiny by sitting down on parade and refusing to get up, a court martial hears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10505987/Group-of-soldiers-mutinied-over-hungover-bosses-court-martial-hears.html?fb

Officers drunk on duty, I don't believe it. Shocking.

Manach

Given the reprecusions of this on the future career of the officers, it would seem likely their tenure as HM officers would be dead-ended in future. I take it the the British don't have an equivalent to PDFORRA to highlight such issues in the ranks.

ajmull

Manach wrote: »

take it the the British don't have an equivalent to PDFORRA to highlight such issues in the ranks.

Disciplinary matters are no business of PDFORRA

coolhandluke

ajmull wrote: »

Disciplinary matters are no business of PDFORRA

One would hope that somebody would be there to represent soldiers who put their jobs on the line to highlight gross incompetence by senior officers.

mikeym

coolhandluke wrote: »

One would hope that somebody would be there to represent soldiers who put their jobs on the line to highlight gross incompetence by senior officers.

They picked the wrong way to do that.

If your given a lawful order you do it.

Morpheus

Hypothetical....

"I am giving you a direct order to shoot that woman and her child"

Do you do it?

You should know the answer to this one....

Mycroft H

Morpheus wrote: »

Hypothetical....

"I am giving you a direct order to shoot that woman and her child"

Do you do it?

You should know the answer to this one....

That would be an unlawful order. I cannot comply.

John_D80

Morpheus wrote: »

Hypothetical....

"I am giving you a direct order to shoot that woman and her child"

Do you do it?

You should know the answer to this one....

Ah the old mother and baby decoy eh?

Is the woman and/or the baby armed and acting in a threatening manner or posing a direct threat to mine or my comrades lives?

Manach

Having only browsed the military section in a law library - on the mother and child question, my guess is that it falls under whatever rules of engagement that have been approved by the authorities who in turn base that on the various conventions and whether the person giving the order had (again speculating) an subjective belief that this was correctly applying such rules.

tac foley

John_D80 wrote: »

Ah the old mother and baby decoy eh?

Is the woman and/or the baby armed and acting in a threatening manner or posing a direct threat to mine or my comrades lives?

That's one miserable-looking child right there. He's going to be a whole barrel of laffs when HE grows up, for sure.

tac

Busted Flat.

Manach wrote: »

Having only browsed the military section in a law library - on the mother and child question, my guess is that it falls under whatever rules of engagement that have been approved by the authorities who in turn base that on the various conventions and whether the person giving the order had (again speculating) an subjective belief that this was correctly applying such rules.

Take into question the amount of kids killed in NI by rubber bullet's, it would give you an idea how sober the officers were when they covered up such actions. Drink is great sustenance when you are in uniform and do what ever you like. Then go home and look at your own kids, that is where the horror and recriminations start.

aindriu80

sitting down in front of all those soldiers is a bit much.

Manach

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Take into question the amount of kids killed in NI by rubber bullet's.

This is OT - but From what I understand, about half those that died from such were children. There the use was determined to be legal, as a lawful means to uphold order in Northern Ireland at that time in the context of alternative of live rounds, by the European Court - Stewart v Ireland. However just now looking at a book by Bruce Diskson on the aspects of this, I'd say was not a correct judgement. As that given the at times random nature of their use against non-threatening civilians.

cruasder777

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Take into question the amount of kids killed in NI by rubber bullet's, it would give you an idea how sober the officers were when they covered up such actions. Drink is great sustenance when you are in uniform and do what ever you like. Then go home and look at your own kids, that is where the horror and recriminations start.

What kind of parent lets their kids out in a riot ?

Beano

cruasder777 wrote: »

What kind of parent lets their kids out in a riot ?

The kind looking to exploit them for political purposes?

Busted Flat.

cruasder777 wrote: »

What kind of parent lets their kids out in a riot ?

Majella O'Hare was 12 years old. It was a bright summer's day in 1976 and the schoolgirl had just walked past an army checkpoint on the way to church. Moments later, she lay dying on a country road in County Armagh, shot in the back by a paratrooper.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk%2F2011%2Fmar%2F28%2Fministry-defence-apology-majella-ohare&ei=ClKwUoP5C-Ww7QaUrIDYDw&usg=AFQjCNHIlzJTDrw53CQg4GLT7ib7duKe3w&bvm=bv.57967247,d.ZGU

Beano

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Majella O'Hare was 12 years old. It was a bright summer's day in 1976 and the schoolgirl had just walked past an army checkpoint on the way to church. Moments later, she lay dying on a country road in County Armagh, shot in the back by a paratrooper.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk%2F2011%2Fmar%2F28%2Fministry-defence-apology-majella-ohare&ei=ClKwUoP5C-Ww7QaUrIDYDw&usg=AFQjCNHIlzJTDrw53CQg4GLT7ib7duKe3w&bvm=bv.57967247,d.ZGU

What does that have to do with children at a riot?

Bogger77

Beano wrote: »

What does that have to do with children at a riot?

not all people/children shot by "plastic/rubber" bullets were rioting.

Some of the kids, were shot by a rubber bullet modified by soldiers to contain a AA battery. I know of one kid, 11/12 years old, killed in 1972 by one such bullet, at the door of his house.

cruasder777

Beano wrote: »

What does that have to do with children at a riot?

Accidental discharge, tragic accident. Let the poor girl rest in peace without trying to use her for propaganda purposes.

Busted Flat.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Accidental discharge, tragic accident. Let the poor girl rest in peace without trying to use her for propaganda purposes.

The HET do not agree with your assessment.

Beano

Bogger77 wrote: »

not all people/children shot by "plastic/rubber" bullets were rioting.

Some of the kids, were shot by a rubber bullet modified by soldiers to contain a AA battery. I know of one kid, 11/12 years old, killed in 1972 by one such bullet, at the door of his house.

and you have ignored the question. well done.

Beano

cruasder777 wrote: »

Accidental discharge, tragic accident. Let the poor girl rest in peace without trying to use her for propaganda purposes.

i didnt bring her up. Why did you quote my post?

Lemming

Only on an Irish forum, can one find a topic go (and by go I mean stray wildly off topic) from any other subject to abstract whataboutery involving the "Troubles" with depressing predictability.

Busted Flat.

Lemming wrote: »

Only on an Irish forum, can one find a topic go (and by go I mean stray wildly off topic) from any other subject to abstract whataboutery involving the "Troubles" with depressing predictability.

A question must be asked about the officers capability to give orders, when giving the cover up and lies that were given over the Majella murder. Did drink come into the decision, like these protesting soldiers have had the guts to stand up to their drunken officers.

Lemming

Busted Flat. wrote: »

A question must be asked about the officers capability to give orders, when giving the cover up and lies that were given over the Majella murder. Did drink come into the decision, like these protesting soldiers have had the guts to stand up to their drunken officers.

That's quite the leap you've made there.

Busted Flat.

Lemming wrote: »

That's quite the leap you've made there.

I don't think so, the officers that tried to cover up the murder of Majela, who faced no prosecution, were they in their right minds when they made their decision to cover it up. Or drunk. Either way your answer will prove the lads who rebelled were correct in their decision.

Not to make light of a tragic incident, but

Would you like some salt for that chip on your shoulder?

Enough BS about the trubbles, back
To the Q at hand.

We're the soldiers right or wrong to sit down? Consensus-wrong

Busted Flat.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to make light of a tragic incident, but

Would you like some salt for that chip on your shoulder?

Enough BS about the trubbles, back
To the Q at hand.

We're the soldiers right or wrong to sit down? Consensus-no.

No need for salt, the hypocrisy about winning "Heart's and Minds" with drunken officers in charge, is at the heart of the matter. (no pun intended)

source

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not to make light of a tragic incident, but

Would you like some salt for that chip on your shoulder?

Enough BS about the trubbles, back
To the Q at hand.

We're the soldiers right or wrong to sit down? Consensus-wrong

They were right for protesting, and wrong for how they carried out that protest.

Manic Moran

Mycroft H wrote: »

That would be an unlawful order. I cannot comply.

Not all militaries follow that concept.

One of the Scandanavian militaries, I believe the Swedes, have a concept of a "Command order", which absolves the subordinate of responsibility, even in the case of an apparently unlawful order.

For example, private on sentry duty in the Middle-East sees woman and child approaching, no apparent threat. An officer 'over there' however sees something the private doesn't, but, for whatever reason, can't do anything about it. He orders the private to engage.

The private is now faced with a superior officer ordering him to engage apparently unarmed civilians.

By saying "Command order, engage", however, the trooper no longer needs to engage in the moral what-iffing before taking actions which may save his own life.

NTM

Manic Moran

[Mod]Enough about O'Hare. Unless there's something I'm missing, there was no question of command relationships brought up. It is off-topic.[/mod]