[Closed] Conscientious objector on being jailed

Why do they join the army in the first place? Holiday? Outdoor adventures? Were they forced to join the army like conscripts? 🙄

Read the article.

time wasting layabouts more like - none of them would been thinking about the poor bunny rabbits, more they couldn;t be arsed to do some work especially that really large corp bloke. ****

yes but, what did he think he was going to do in the army? stroke kittens?

If you read the article you are commenting on they actually answer that 🙄

Sobering reading

I would admire them for having the courage of their convictions if they were conscripted, but we have a volunteer army.

As it is, they signed a contract in full knowledge of what they could be asked to do, took the money for long enough and bottled it when called on.

No respect for any of them.

[i]‘It’s not like you make a choice to be a conscientious objector,’ he said. ‘It’s something that develops over time and goes against the grain of your being.’[/i]

I'm pretty certain it is a choice.

time wasting layabouts more like - none of them would been thinking about the poor bunny rabbits, more they couldn;t be arsed to do some work especially that really large corp bloke. ****

From reading the article it appears that they refused to take part in actions that ran contrary to what they believed in.

I respect that, it's unfortunate that more people don't have the courage of their convictions.

If they are conscripts then yes I can understand their sentiments but in modern UK?

In the army you either kill or be killed. Simple.

You are not taught to argue with the command ... you just do your job. Kill! Kill! Kill! Destroy! Destroy! Destroy! Get your head chop off by the enemy if you pussy foot ...

The explanation is merely self justification ...

What did they think the army was for exactly?

the article is utter tosh, well the content certainly is. Everyone who signs up knows full well what they are doing. A large number of serving personnel come from deprived backgrounds where job prospects are poor at best, so see the services as a quick easy solution. They then bumble along as the grey man, doing as little work as possible until the unfortunate time whre they are actually required to use their "skills" they will find any excuse to get out of it.. You have a moral and contractual obligation to do your job to a required standard, those in the field doing otherwise put other peoples lives at risk. If you're going to be a slack bummed loser do it somewhere else where the risk can be mitigated.

edited for swearyness x 2

read it, i'd been brought up being told war is wrong, immoral etc, i guess some people aren't, and it takes actually being in one to realise that, so yes, top marks for sticking your neck out. a stw uturn.

Who knew how easy it was to out ranty idiots
Well done OP
Gets out list and starts adding names 🙄

i would like to see you say that to the SAS man - that would be a short conversation

Accusing them of being lazy, is a pretty backward thing to come out with. Most lads join the army with no real clue what it actually could entail, other than a vague glorified ideal sold to them by the recruiters. I should imagine that it takes a bloody brave person to be within an institution, stand up and state publicly that having seen what is going on that you don't believe it is right. Much easier to just go with the flow. Fair play to the lads.

And if they are just lazy, or scared stiff, then just let them slip away. What use would they be to their buddies out there anyway? Punishing them is pretty barbaric, IMHO.

Cannon fodder realizes what the job is, logistics and driver, or Fedex get shot at for a living ?

Everyone who signs [s]up knows full well what they are doing[/s]has seen a lot of rambo films

Junkyard - lazarus

Who knew how easy it was to out ranty idiots
Well done OP
Gets out list and starts adding names

i would like to see you say that to the SAS man - that would be a short conversation

You do have a low opinion of SAS men being trigger happy don't you?

Why? You figure the SAS men cannot see reason why other object to them not fighting?

I would like to speak to SAS men but the closest I have come to is my father.

Each bloke has the opportunity to sign off, or buy theselves out of their service. I've seen people purposly get into fights on R&R so they don't have to go back, but it has nothing to do with disagreeing with the conflict, it;s about lazyness and missing mummy. If you take the approach of letting every tom, dick, and tarquin off of their duties there would be absoute pandamonium. The forces rely on a strict discipline structure where you are invested in to doa job, renaging on that investment is not on.

The tiny number of German's that stood against Hitler are now regarded as heros. Most now accept that Iraq was invaded on false pretexts and many consider Blair a war criminal. I would shake Mr Clenton's hand and congratulate him. I don't wish to get within sight of Tony Blair. Unfortunately the wrong man did time.

Junkyard - lazarus
Who knew how easy it was to out ranty idiots
Well done OP
Gets out list and starts adding names

i would like to see you say that to the SAS man - that would be a short conversation

Thanks! Thought it might be an interesting debate though. Too much knee jerking for that, once the room calms down we might have more luck.

chewkw - Member
"i would like to see you say that to the SAS man - that would be a short conversation"

You do have a low opinion of SAS men being trigger happy don't you?

Why? You figure the SAS men cannot see reason why other object to them not fighting?

I would like to speak to SAS men but the closest I have come to is my father.

Read the article FFS. The quote I posted at the top is from a former SAS soldier turned conscientious objector after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read the article, it gives me little cause to feel any sympathy for the first guy, he was a driver FFS. It is not like he would be tasked with a mission to destroy the local taliban; granted he will likely have seen things no one should but in the forces you are there for the people around you, very few buy into the queen and country BS and he chose to desert his fellow soldiers.

Having said that I'll probably read his book, I expect my view will be that army didn't look after him properly or that they should/could have identified him earlier on as someone mentally not suited for further military service.

The armed forces are very small and you no longer have to serve for life, once you relise it is not for you, you decide that you will not rengage but serve the rest of your time as professionally as possible and then move on. There are also [i]much[/i] easier ways to get out than by running away.

The ex-SAS trooper is a bit different I think, totally different role and experiences and it sounds like he spoke up for himself rather than doing a bunk and then blabbing to the press.

The forces rely on a strict discipline structure where you are invested in to doa job, renaging on that investment is not on.

It's not on to carry out actions you believe to be illegal and immoral either. And as we know 'I was only following orders' isn't an acceptable excuse.

Sui - Member
Each bloke has the opportunity to sign off, or buy theselves out of their service. I've seen people purposly get into fights on R&R so they don't have to go back, but it has nothing to do with disagreeing with the conflict, it;s about lazyness and missing mummy. If you take the approach of letting every tom, dick, and tarquin off of their duties there would be absoute pandamonium. The forces rely on a strict discipline structure where you are invested in to doa job, renaging on that investment is not on.

Brilliant. SAS bloke was 'lazy' and 'missed mummy' did he?

An often used phrase is "protect our interests", people would be foolish to believe that means trying to keep terrorism out of the country or spreading democracy and "good values" into others.

, it;s about lazyness and missing mummy.

An SAS man lazy? You sir are a bit of a dick.

Lifer - Member

Read the article FFS. The quote I posted at the top is from a former SAS soldier turned conscientious objector after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I read it. Yes, he has become conscientious objector but I disagree with him and his reasoning.

Things have changed somewhat since the defence review. If the chap wanted out, they'd have let him go pretty sharply. No 12 months notice is required any more. Seems like he wanted his cake and eat it; stay in and not go on ops. There are always people who try to wriggle out of trips/tours. Same people every time. Hereford have been doing some pretty heavy lifting in Iraq, and I can understand that some wont have been entirely happy with it.

if we going to do turn arounds, then SAS man as pointed out above will have seen a whole different side to a conflict than the loggies, there's onyl the sight of so many blown up families you can handle, and to be honest i'm surorised you don't get more of the medics doing it, but as it is you dont so HATS OF TO THEM.

wasnt talking about sas man was i - there are more than one person mentioned in the article - ooh i know the loggie. We're not debating singualr people here, were debating as a general CO's. He still had a chance to sign off - are you alos one of these people that think Mr SAS man can have a a few glocks, and 1000's of rounds hidden under is bed is because he forgot?

So it's not just lazy people missing mummy then?

not just lazy, that was a ranty outburst, however there are far too many that when asked to graft will do anything to get out of, except leave the relatively cushty life of the forces.

Next it'll be a someone in the Navy because they didn't like water 😉

nah they get too many nice trips to barbados

Sui - Member
not just lazy, that was a ranty outburst, however there are far too many that when asked to graft will do anything to get out of, except leave the relatively cushty life of the forces.

Sure, I don't doubt that.

I think he explains himself quite well:

He’d joined the army, he says, like many, to earn money, as ‘a way out of a boring lifestyle and menial labour’ and also to serve his country, ‘the idea of Britain as a force for good, liberty and democracy’.

His tour lasted seven months. His experiences changed how he saw Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan.

‘We knew civilians were being bombed and how the war was being conducted,’ he said. ‘It was conducted in a climate of racism and indifference to the Afghan people, completely at odds with how it’s sold at home. I came back and because of those things, I thought, “No, this isn’t right”.’

"We’re told we’re going there to help young girls get an education or to build infrastructure or really hackneyed stuff like security there equals security here.

‘Let’s look at probability. Does the US, with Britain in tow, go to Afghanistan to help women go to school or is it because there is, for example, 90 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian?

‘Is it human rights or is it because Afghanistan is in a strategic location with borders with China, ****stan and Iran? Are we spreading democracy or is this power politics? It’s a new veneer on a very old practice.’

So maybe if the reality of the situation were more widely known, perhaps less people would sign up. Our media aren['t tellng us the whole story, that's for sure, so there' a lot of ignorance and misinformation about what's really going on there. Seems like this guy had a road to Damascus conversion, and didn't want to be a part of it any more. What was happening wasn't what he'd signed up for, or been told. So he was in effect lied to, mislead, decived. I doubt so many would be willing to sign up if they knew the truth about what is really happening there.

Interesting article linked:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/israel-jail-conscientious-objector-natan-blanc

Israel wouldn't have an army if there wasn't enforced conscription. Israel wouldn't exist if it didn't have an army. But what about an individual's right to refuse to take up arms against another?

Who says that this chaps "reality" is the real reality?
What he saw wasn't much. He's a driver, his interaction with the locals would have been minimal and he wouldn't have been kicking doors in or patrolling. He'd have been sat in his cab preying he didnt get hit by a IED and that the ECMs and iCOM was working that day. I don't blame him for not fancying it, it's bloody scary. I certainly wouldn't take his work as gospel.

I've no reason to doubt him. How do you know what he saw?

EDIT - I think a big clue to his reasoning is:

It was conducted in a climate of racism and indifference to the Afghan people

I don't know what he saw but I know what his job entails, and I've no reason to believe him. No more than the other X-thousand squaddies who have been out there.

Who says that this chaps "reality" is the real reality

Fair enough wrecker.

With the publicity that his story is getting, and the obvious bad reaction from some, if there is anything dodgy about his story I don't think it will take long to come out.

I don't know what he saw but I know what his job entails, and I've no reason to believe him. No more than the other X-thousand squaddies who have been out there.

Question for those who are or who have been. Do or did you care very much about the whys and wherefores? I'm wondering if most service personnel have the same questions these blokes have had and come to different conclusions.

In the army you either kill or be killed. Simple.

You are not taught to argue with the command ... you just do your job. Kill! Kill! Kill! Destroy! Destroy! Destroy! Get your head chop off by the enemy if you pussy foot ...

Is it always as simple as that?

The My Lai Massacre was the Vietnam War mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, by United States Army soldiers of "Charlie" Company of 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the Americal Division. Victims included women, men, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies were later found to be mutilated and many women were allegedly raped prior to the killings.

Would a CO have been wrong to refuse to take part, if ordered to participate the My Lai massacre?

Is it always as simple as that?

It is in chewkw's maggot infested world of not reading the OP but instead quoting from his favourite book: The Great Big Book of Ranty Bollocks.

Smudger666 - Member

As it is, they signed a contract in full knowledge of what they could be asked to do

Did they? Someone signing up now ought to know that. Someone signing up pre afghanistan/gulf 2, not so much. Doesn't seem unreasonable that people lose faith in the institution and in the chain of command as usage changes.

kcr - Member
Is it always as simple as that?

Yes. If they are enemy [b]combatants[/b] who insist on fighting to the death.

kcr - Member

Would a CO have been wrong to refuse to take part, if ordered to participate the My Lai massacre?

The question you need to ask yourself is whether the British army would give such an order?

deadlydarcy - Member

Is it always as simple as that?

It is in chewkw's maggot infested world of not reading the OP but instead quoting from his favourite book: The Great Big Book of Ranty Bollocks.

I see someone has objected to my views ... 😆

The question is why do you have to be so complicated? 🙄

It's like everyone wants to be Dear Leader and nobody wants to be a maggot. How can that be? If everyone becomes Dear Leader then there will be no maggots to step on. It's like working in a company full of managers but no employees ... 😆

Tedious.

Take a ****ing night off chewkw and stop spouting oblique unrelated ranty bollocks on what could be an interesting thread.

yossarian - Member

From reading the article it appears that they refused to take part in actions that ran contrary to what they believed in.

I respect that, it's unfortunate that more people don't have the courage of their convictions.

Man staying true to his forum name persona

The question you need to ask yourself is whether the British army would give such an order?

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the northern Indian city of Amritsar on 13 April 1919. The shooting that took place was ordered by Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer...On hearing that a meeting of 15,000 to 20,000 people including women, children and the elderly had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh, Dyer went with fifty Gurkha riflemen to a raised bank and ordered them to shoot at the crowd. Dyer continued the firing for about ten minutes, until the ammunition supply was almost exhausted; Dyer stated that 1,650 rounds had been fired, a number which seems to have been derived by counting empty cartridge cases picked up by the troops.Official British Indian sources gave a figure of 379 identified dead, with approximately 1,100 wounded. The casualty number estimated by the Indian National Congress was more than 1,500, with approximately 1,000 dead.

Or more recently,

Bloody Sunday —sometimes called the Bogside Massacre[3]— was an incident on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, in which 26 unarmed civil-rights protesters and bystanders were shot by soldiers of the British Army.

Northwind - Member
Smudger666 - Member
As it is, they signed a contract in full knowledge of what they could be asked to do

Did they? Someone signing up now ought to know that. Someone signing up pre afghanistan/gulf 2, not so much. Doesn't seem unreasonable that people lose faith in the institution and in the chain of command as usage changes.

yes they did - there has never been a clause in the signup forms that said 'tick here if you want to join up, but in the event we go to war, you want to opt out.'

they got a big poiinty thing that goes bangf - what did they think it was for?

Imagine a world as black and white as that. Terrifying.

deadlydarcy - Member

Take a **** night off chewkw and stop spouting oblique unrelated ranty bollocks on what could be an interesting thread.

😆 No, really. It's like the tail wagging the dog in the OP's article. The army personnel telling the entire country (military) what's right and wrong ... (I used this phrase (tail wagging the dog) today in a bureaucratic environment and I got starts for it).

kcr - Member

... took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the northern Indian city of Amritsar on 13 April 1919.

Ya, I bet those were some of the same COs in 1914-1918 that ordered the men to walk slowly towards the German machine gun position in WWI? See the connection? You have maggots in charge hence you get that. Walking towards the machine guns ... bloody hell you walk first!

... was an incident on 30 January 1972 ...

Okay, this is still rather fresh in mind for many so you can argue in many ways: Choose whichever version you like.

1. Shoot everything that moves because they (army) panic.
2. Shoot everything that moves because they (army) were attacked by mobs.
3. Shoot everything that moves because the army can ...
4. Shoot everything that moves because they were given the order.

Therefore, if history taught us well that when as army you shoot when you are given the order etc, then what is the reason(s) to encourage a person to sign up to join the army nowadays I do not know. The risk is there ... for taking orders (good and bad) to shoot and they know it.

🙄

Smudger666 - Member

yes they did - there has never been a clause in the signup forms that said 'tick here if you want to join up, but in the event we go to war, you want to opt out.'

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I suspect so but... The point isn't "we might go to war", it's the kind of war and the justification for the war. Oil, lies, dodgy dossiers and imaginary terrorists.

Northwind - Member

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I suspect so but... The point isn't "we might go to war", it's the kind of war and the justification for the war. Oil, lies, dodgy dossiers and imaginary terrorists.

You see you think too much. The debate/discussion is for the politicians to pass their time and not for those on the ground shooting ... they get the job done and are not there to argue. The argument/discussion comes prior to signing to shoot ...

Sorry Northwind, no tone of voice on t'internet.....

I was trying to point out that they joined up without a get out clause - there isn't one. When they decided to bunk off, they were jailed. They knew in advance what the consequences would be.

I wouldn't call them heroes for breaking a contract.

The article is clearly written by some commiehippyveggiebeatnick, getting off from Listening to rock and roll music and bad-mouthing your country, I'll bet! 😉

The debate/discussion is for the politicians to pass their time and not for those on the ground shooting ... they get the job done and are not there to argue. The argument/discussion comes prior to signing to shoot ..

TBH you are clearly quite bright but really WhyTF you do this Maggot stuff is a mystery to me, i can see why you could not do it in public

Junkyard - lazarus

NUremberg

There are many evil political masters so you decide.

TBH you are clearly [b]quite bright [/b]but really[b] WhyTF you do this Maggot stuff is a mystery to me[/b], i can see why you could not do it in public

You get a star for using positive terms there.

As for the maggot stuff ... that's based on observation of daily life. They all over and especially in a bureaucratic environment.

Yawn

chewkw, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability

In principle I have zero time for conscientious objectors, bunch of whiny cowards who should be shot at dawn.

However, with regard to our US led actions in the Middle East, I applaud the conscientious objectors, and only wish more service personnel would have the moral fortitude and courage to do the right thing.

Do or did you care very much about the whys and wherefores?

yossarian - Member

chewkw, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability

Well played sir, well played.

Northwind - Member

yossarian - Member

chewkw, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability

Well played sir, well played.

[b]You bowwww ...![/b] [img] https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbuIqOsynQsJEDzS3le3jJ6bhVCC-e_5U0C-PStwb3UB1sbUiu [/img]

How is it supposed to work then? The government decides to go to war and the forces have a vote on it?

Not aimed at any particular poster on this thread as such, but conscientious objection is always gonna be a hard concept for the knuckle draggers to get their heads around..

Does the US, with Britain in tow, go to Afghanistan to help women go to school or is it because there is, for example, 90 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian?

You join , you do as you are told. You don't like that idea you don't join.
They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

How is it supposed to work then? The government decides to go to war and the forces have a vote on it?

There might be something in that.

scotroutes - Member

The government decides to go to war and the forces have a vote on it?

How about we vote for a government, and they should act in an honest and honourable manner on our behalf? 😉

You join , you do as you are told. You don't like that idea you don't join.
They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

Um..... as above - where does Nuremberg fit into your black and white view?

So the guy who went to jail was in the SS?

Nothing to add to the above, except that I get a boost to my 'bleeding heart lefty' points by a dear old work buddy being Joe Glenton's other half. 8)

She (and she is waaaay better at leftism than me!) works on/in TFL, and was most impressed to see commuters frowning over her man the Metro yesterday. 😆

Um..... as above - where does Nuremberg fit into your black and white view?

+1

So if you're ordered to round up a load of Jewish women and children and shoot them all are you a disgrace for refusing or a hero for following orders?

mattsccm - Member
You join , you do as you are told. You don't like that idea you don't join.
They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

Nothing is beyond criticsm. Personally I find the increasing hawkishness of the UK unpalatable. Don't watch tv much, spent a weekend round my folks and was actually shocked by the number and frequency of recruitment adverts. Always loads of army programs on iPlayer as well, normalising (illegal) war for another generation.

mattsccm - Member

They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

What, politicians? Agreed.

footflaps - Member

Um..... as above - where does Nuremberg fit into your black and white view?

+1

So if you're ordered to round up a load of Jewish women and children and shoot them all are you a disgrace for refusing or a hero for following orders?

[b]You are Not making sense.[/b]

You are comparing the British forces to Nuremberg? I mean British forces going mad looney crazy mass murdering?

When in the recent history did that happened where the British forces deliberately go out to exterminate a race? Yes, perhaps to a group of people perceived to be "sympathetic" to their enemy but an entire race?

C'mom ... even fat boy and little man did not do that ...

Ya, right ... 🙄

The ability/requirement to follow orders without question is the military's greatest source of strength AND weakness.

I should imagine that it takes a bloody brave person to be within an institution, stand up and state publicly

As is often the case with a lot of guys, I went AWOL.’

Glenton spent two years on the run before handing himself in. He was sentenced to nine months in prison (mainly on charges related to going AWOL and talking to the media),

Running away THEN claiming conscientious objection probably doesn't

When in the recent history did that happened where the British force deliberately go out to exterminate a race?

Unless you're really thick - you know full well that's a total straw man. 🙄