RugbyRebels

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:One problem is that we ask our army to do so much of what wouldn't have been conventionally considered to be warfare - such as supporting law and order.

An American general coined the phrase 'The 4-Block Model', his theory being that an American soldier should be sufficiently well-trained so that in the space of a patrol along 4 city blocks he could transition from conventional warfighting, to peace-keeping, to counter-insurgency, to policing. I can remember speaking to a Norwegian officer in Sarajevo who felt quite sure that this was impossible. I suspect that the views of both officers had more than a grain of truth about them.

The British Infantryman tends to be recruited from the lowest academically competent strata of the recruit pool. Are we asking too much of him when we expect him to make split-second life-or-death decisions knowing that if he makes the wrong decision he will be hounded to his grave by lawyers?

I was once told that it is the politicians job to make sure we fight the right wars; and the generals job to make sure we fight the wars right. I am of the view that if the politicians get it wrong, no amount of work by the generals can make it right; and I wonder whether any of these waves of legal actions would be tolerated if the British public felt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been legitimate?

I think undoubtedly the tone would be different and the law firms might not want to take the PR hit.

The ideal is the 4-block model but the reality is that that must be nigh on impossible, and if not impossible so extraordinarily difficult as to be beyond the majority of people.

OptimisticJock wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:One problem is that we ask our army to do so much of what wouldn't have been conventionally considered to be warfare - such as supporting law and order.

An American general coined the phrase 'The 4-Block Model', his theory being that an American soldier should be sufficiently well-trained so that in the space of a patrol along 4 city blocks he could transition from conventional warfighting, to peace-keeping, to counter-insurgency, to policing. I can remember speaking to a Norwegian officer in Sarajevo who felt quite sure that this was impossible. I suspect that the views of both officers had more than a grain of truth about them.

The British Infantryman tends to be recruited from the lowest academically competent strata of the recruit pool. Are we asking too much of him when we expect him to make split-second life-or-death decisions knowing that if he makes the wrong decision he will be hounded to his grave by lawyers?

I was once told that it is the politicians job to make sure we fight the right wars; and the generals job to make sure we fight the wars right. I am of the view that if the politicians get it wrong, no amount of work by the generals can make it right; and I wonder whether any of these waves of legal actions would be tolerated if the British public felt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been legitimate?

Sandy has got in before me but someone with a formal education doesn't fair any better in a split second decision.

I'm not sure that's quite right. Sure ly it's a function of computing power training and instinct. So you want to hire people with the right instincts but even they will need training as to what they are supposed to do and those with the best abilities to analyse will have an advantage in coming to right conclusions. So no, book learning is no guarantee of correct decisions being taken but I don't think Serj is suggesting that it is. What I think must be right is that intelligence increases the ability to be trained, to remember training and to apply training rapidly

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
An American general coined the phrase 'The 4-Block Model', his theory being that an American soldier should be sufficiently well-trained so that in the space of a patrol along 4 city blocks he could transition from conventional warfighting, to peace-keeping, to counter-insurgency, to policing. I can remember speaking to a Norwegian officer in Sarajevo who felt quite sure that this was impossible. I suspect that the views of both officers had more than a grain of truth about them.

The British Infantryman tends to be recruited from the lowest academically competent strata of the recruit pool. Are we asking too much of him when we expect him to make split-second life-or-death decisions knowing that if he makes the wrong decision he will be hounded to his grave by lawyers?

I was once told that it is the politicians job to make sure we fight the right wars; and the generals job to make sure we fight the wars right. I am of the view that if the politicians get it wrong, no amount of work by the generals can make it right; and I wonder whether any of these waves of legal actions would be tolerated if the British public felt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been legitimate?

Sandy has got in before me but someone with a formal education doesn't fair any better in a split second decision.

I'm not sure that's quite right. Sure ly it's a function of computing power training and instinct. So you want to hire people with the right instincts but even they will need training as to what they are supposed to do and those with the best abilities to analyse will have an advantage in coming to right conclusions. So no, book learning is no guarantee of correct decisions being taken but I don't think Serj is suggesting that it is. What I think must be right is that intelligence increases the ability to be trained, to remember training and to apply training rapidly

I'm sure people with formal educations would dispute the fact including a lot of the stereotypical bumbling officers I've seen operate. Their university education counts for bugger all and having had one doesn't equate to intelligence. His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: Sandy has got in before me but someone with a formal education doesn't fair any better in a split second decision.

I'm not sure that's quite right. Sure ly it's a function of computing power training and instinct. So you want to hire people with the right instincts but even they will need training as to what they are supposed to do and those with the best abilities to analyse will have an advantage in coming to right conclusions. So no, book learning is no guarantee of correct decisions being taken but I don't think Serj is suggesting that it is. What I think must be right is that intelligence increases the ability to be trained, to remember training and to apply training rapidly

I'm sure people with formal educations would dispute the fact including a lot of the stereotypical bumbling officers I've seen operate. Their university education counts for bugger all and having had one doesn't equate to intelligence. His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:One problem is that we ask our army to do so much of what wouldn't have been conventionally considered to be warfare - such as supporting law and order.

An American general coined the phrase 'The 4-Block Model', his theory being that an American soldier should be sufficiently well-trained so that in the space of a patrol along 4 city blocks he could transition from conventional warfighting, to peace-keeping, to counter-insurgency, to policing. I can remember speaking to a Norwegian officer in Sarajevo who felt quite sure that this was impossible. I suspect that the views of both officers had more than a grain of truth about them.

The British Infantryman tends to be recruited from the lowest academically competent strata of the recruit pool. Are we asking too much of him when we expect him to make split-second life-or-death decisions knowing that if he makes the wrong decision he will be hounded to his grave by lawyers?

I was once told that it is the politicians job to make sure we fight the right wars; and the generals job to make sure we fight the wars right. I am of the view that if the politicians get it wrong, no amount of work by the generals can make it right; and I wonder whether any of these waves of legal actions would be tolerated if the British public felt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been legitimate?

I think undoubtedly the tone would be different and the law firms might not want to take the PR hit.

The ideal is the 4-block model but the reality is that that must be nigh on impossible, and if not impossible so extraordinarily difficult as to be beyond the majority of people.

Add in fatigue and stress and I agree completely.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
An American general coined the phrase 'The 4-Block Model', his theory being that an American soldier should be sufficiently well-trained so that in the space of a patrol along 4 city blocks he could transition from conventional warfighting, to peace-keeping, to counter-insurgency, to policing. I can remember speaking to a Norwegian officer in Sarajevo who felt quite sure that this was impossible. I suspect that the views of both officers had more than a grain of truth about them.

The British Infantryman tends to be recruited from the lowest academically competent strata of the recruit pool. Are we asking too much of him when we expect him to make split-second life-or-death decisions knowing that if he makes the wrong decision he will be hounded to his grave by lawyers?

I was once told that it is the politicians job to make sure we fight the right wars; and the generals job to make sure we fight the wars right. I am of the view that if the politicians get it wrong, no amount of work by the generals can make it right; and I wonder whether any of these waves of legal actions would be tolerated if the British public felt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been legitimate?

Sandy has got in before me but someone with a formal education doesn't fair any better in a split second decision.

I'm not sure that's quite right. Sure ly it's a function of computing power training and instinct. So you want to hire people with the right instincts but even they will need training as to what they are supposed to do and those with the best abilities to analyse will have an advantage in coming to right conclusions. So no, book learning is no guarantee of correct decisions being taken but I don't think Serj is suggesting that it is. What I think must be right is that intelligence increases the ability to be trained, to remember training and to apply training rapidly

Much military training is repetitive so its firmly ingrained. It does also take in the lowest common denominator. But to be fair, even the brightest find the learn by rote useful when hanging out near the end of a 6 month operational tour.

Ultimately, nothing prepare you for a shoot or no shoot decision. An intellectual may spend too long thinking the situation through and get shot themselves. If you put stupid and very bright people into an environment where they are almost excused regardless of the circumstances, then they will often perform in a way that draws criticism. The UK ROE are pretty straight forward and have been well tested; given some considerable restraint Ive witnessed, I think many soldiers do generally understand their legal authority to use force. There are of course idiots. That can be balanced out by the actions of the leaders around them, not always I admit, but often the older wiser head is sufficient.

The inly way to reduce the risk of poor decisions it training, followed by more training, regardless of intelligence.

Equally, this debate about the use of force can go radically in the opposite direction. I recall from training a conversation with an officer cadet who was determined that he would never open fire on anyone, because he didn't fancy going to court. Thats a reassuring attitude to have when he could have been top cover for someone else.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:One problem is that we ask our army to do so much of what wouldn't have been conventionally considered to be warfare - such as supporting law and order.

An American general coined the phrase 'The 4-Block Model', his theory being that an American soldier should be sufficiently well-trained so that in the space of a patrol along 4 city blocks he could transition from conventional warfighting, to peace-keeping, to counter-insurgency, to policing. I can remember speaking to a Norwegian officer in Sarajevo who felt quite sure that this was impossible. I suspect that the views of both officers had more than a grain of truth about them.

The British Infantryman tends to be recruited from the lowest academically competent strata of the recruit pool. Are we asking too much of him when we expect him to make split-second life-or-death decisions knowing that if he makes the wrong decision he will be hounded to his grave by lawyers?

I was once told that it is the politicians job to make sure we fight the right wars; and the generals job to make sure we fight the wars right. I am of the view that if the politicians get it wrong, no amount of work by the generals can make it right; and I wonder whether any of these waves of legal actions would be tolerated if the British public felt that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been legitimate?

I think undoubtedly the tone would be different and the law firms might not want to take the PR hit.

The ideal is the 4-block model but the reality is that that must be nigh on impossible, and if not impossible so extraordinarily difficult as to be beyond the majority of people.

Eugene, the only thing in your post that I take issue with is bolded.
If you look at the history of Phil Shiner and his PIL organisation, it seems clear to me that PR was the last thing on his mind. The driving philosophy seems to have been to extract as much money as possible from the UK authorities to fund his witch hunt, and line his own pockets. Admittedly, the environment of public opinion enabled this to some extent, but he appeared completely unfazed by negative PR, right up to the point where his scam unravelled.

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I'm not sure that's quite right. Sure ly it's a function of computing power training and instinct. So you want to hire people with the right instincts but even they will need training as to what they are supposed to do and those with the best abilities to analyse will have an advantage in coming to right conclusions. So no, book learning is no guarantee of correct decisions being taken but I don't think Serj is suggesting that it is. What I think must be right is that intelligence increases the ability to be trained, to remember training and to apply training rapidly

I'm sure people with formal educations would dispute the fact including a lot of the stereotypical bumbling officers I've seen operate. Their university education counts for bugger all and having had one doesn't equate to intelligence. His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

No mocking from me, you are absolutely right in my opinion.

Looking at my commissioning scroll, I am reminded on many occasions that it is my duty to ensure the good order and discipline of those who are subordinate to me. It also mentioned clearly my responsibility to obey the rules of war.

As an officer, I was responsible for ensuring good discipline. So if I became ware of a serviceman abusing a prisoner then I was duty bound to deal with that. If I didn't, then I too could face prosecution. Even if I did deal with the issue immediately, I could probably expect a one way conversation from the CO on WTF was going on in not making the required standards clear to my personnel.

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I'm not sure that's quite right. Sure ly it's a function of computing power training and instinct. So you want to hire people with the right instincts but even they will need training as to what they are supposed to do and those with the best abilities to analyse will have an advantage in coming to right conclusions. So no, book learning is no guarantee of correct decisions being taken but I don't think Serj is suggesting that it is. What I think must be right is that intelligence increases the ability to be trained, to remember training and to apply training rapidly

I'm sure people with formal educations would dispute the fact including a lot of the stereotypical bumbling officers I've seen operate. Their university education counts for bugger all and having had one doesn't equate to intelligence. His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: I'm sure people with formal educations would dispute the fact including a lot of the stereotypical bumbling officers I've seen operate. Their university education counts for bugger all and having had one doesn't equate to intelligence. His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

Sure, in an operational sense the waters are always muddy, but the point I was trying to make was that in terms of legality and standards, surely a Commissioned Officer ultimately carries the responsibility.

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

Sure, in an operational sense the waters are always muddy, but the point I was trying to make was that in terms of legality and standards, surely a Commissioned Officer ultimately carries the responsibility.

Yeah I get where you're coming from and why but I'm not sure they should, at least not in every circumstance. Should Sgt Blackman's plt comd take responsibility for his actions?

OptimisticJock wrote:His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

That's not what I intended to say, Baz, and if I gave the impression that the flood of inquiries is down to thick Infanteers, I apologise to all of the thick Infanteers on here (That's you and me, though you were a medic so that effectively rules you out of the club - ye poof!)

What I am saying is that HM Government launched several thousand young men, many of whom are borderline illiterate, into a highly complex and violent scenario in which split-second decisions must be made. My view is that there is a military system of checks and balances in place to ensure that these young men are adequately trained, directed and supervised - and that if all that fails, that there is a workable system that allows those failures to be investigated and appropriate action taken. I don't believe we need, nor do I believe that it is fair for the same young man to be hounded through a further legal process, simply because there is a chance that the MoD may cough up some cash.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

Sure, in an operational sense the waters are always muddy, but the point I was trying to make was that in terms of legality and standards, surely a Commissioned Officer ultimately carries the responsibility.

Yeah I get where you're coming from and why but I'm not sure they should, at least not in every circumstance. Should Sgt Blackman's plt comd take responsibility for his actions?

No. There is no doubt that Blackman knew that what he was doing was wrong. He had been trained properly and there is no suggestion that he thought he was acting in accordance with orders. As a SNCO he was in a position of authority in a contact situation, so I welcome anyone's advice as to how hi platoon commander could have supervised him more closely. When the images on the helmet cameras were made known to the chain of command they took the appropriate action to investigate and bring charges. Blackman's case is not one of a failure of command responsibility, but rather one of a failure of the individual's moral compass.

This is not the same as the killing of Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, where the 2 soldiers who forced him into the canal were not trained sufficiently to know that their actions were wrong, were given illegal direction as to the way to deal with looters, were not adequately supervised and, when their actions became known, were not dealt with properly by the chain of command.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: I'm sure people with formal educations would dispute the fact including a lot of the stereotypical bumbling officers I've seen operate. Their university education counts for bugger all and having had one doesn't equate to intelligence. His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

If you ever get close enough to read a commissioning parchment, you will see that the commissioned officer - regardless of capbadge - is entrusted with responsibility over the soldiers under their command. Does this mean that the nearest QARANC captain should be giving orders to charge the guns? Of course not. But if that QARANC officer is responsible for training a soldier to give battlefield first aid to lightly wounded friendly forces while allowing more critically wounded enemy combatants to perish untreated, then they have failed in their command responsibility; similarly if they witness a similar situation and do nothing to correct the soldiers giving aid, then they have failed. Had it been a QARANC officer who had first seen the helmet footage from Blackman's patrol, then their responsibility to take appropriate action would have been no less that that of the Bootie platoon commander.

And don't take any heed of s-d. The fecking Monkeys make us Infantrymen look like masterminds!

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

That's not what I intended to say, Baz, and if I gave the impression that the flood of inquiries is down to thick Infanteers, I apologise to all of the thick Infanteers on here (That's you and me, though you were a medic so that effectively rules you out of the club - ye poof!)

What I am saying is that HM Government launched several thousand young men, many of whom are borderline illiterate, into a highly complex and violent scenario in which split-second decisions must be made. My view is that there is a military system of checks and balances in place to ensure that these young men are adequately trained, directed and supervised - and that if all that fails, that there is a workable system that allows those failures to be investigated and appropriate action taken. I don't believe we need, nor do I believe that it is fair for the same young man to be hounded through a further legal process, simply because there is a chance that the MoD may cough up some cash.

HANG ON A FUCKING MINUTE. Regimental Combat Medical Technician thank you very much, straight back to to the Recce, none of that HQ shite for me!!!

We are reading off the same script then. You made my points far more eloquently*, and long windedly, than me.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: If you ever get close enough to read a commissioning parchment

You suggesting I'm no good enough for a LE?!!

*I got a bond to help with the spelling of this word.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:His 2nd paragraph reads to me he is suggesting exactly that.

That's not what I intended to say, Baz, and if I gave the impression that the flood of inquiries is down to thick Infanteers, I apologise to all of the thick Infanteers on here (That's you and me, though you were a medic so that effectively rules you out of the club - ye poof!)

What I am saying is that HM Government launched several thousand young men, many of whom are borderline illiterate, into a highly complex and violent scenario in which split-second decisions must be made. My view is that there is a military system of checks and balances in place to ensure that these young men are adequately trained, directed and supervised - and that if all that fails, that there is a workable system that allows those failures to be investigated and appropriate action taken. I don't believe we need, nor do I believe that it is fair for the same young man to be hounded through a further legal process, simply because there is a chance that the MoD may cough up some cash.

Amen to that.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

If you ever get close enough to read a commissioning parchment, you will see that the commissioned officer - regardless of capbadge - is entrusted with responsibility over the soldiers under their command. Does this mean that the nearest QARANC captain should be giving orders to charge the guns? Of course not. But if that QARANC officer is responsible for training a soldier to give battlefield first aid to lightly wounded friendly forces while allowing more critically wounded enemy combatants to perish untreated, then they have failed in their command responsibility; similarly if they witness a similar situation and do nothing to correct the soldiers giving aid, then they have failed. Had it been a QARANC officer who had first seen the helmet footage from Blackman's patrol, then their responsibility to take appropriate action would have been no less that that of the Bootie platoon commander.

And don't take any heed of s-d. The fecking Monkeys make us Infantrymen look like masterminds!

And feck you too.

I actually agree with this. Whilst a nursing officer shouldn't be giving operational orders, they do hold a queens commission and are also trained to understand the legal implications of warfare. They should, if they witness incorrect behavior, attempt to correct it there and then, or at the least take it up with the chain of command thereafter.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

Sure, in an operational sense the waters are always muddy, but the point I was trying to make was that in terms of legality and standards, surely a Commissioned Officer ultimately carries the responsibility.

Yeah I get where you're coming from and why but I'm not sure they should, at least not in every circumstance. Should Sgt Blackman's plt comd take responsibility for his actions?

As pointed out, they investigated and took appropriate action so they have fulfilled their obligations. So, legally at least, there wouldn't be any further action.

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
I wouldn't quarrel with your experience Baz, but the whole thing has always seemed strange to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what exactly is the meaning of a Queens Commission? In my (perhaps simplistic) view of things, the receipt of a Commission involves taking on responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Army discipline should take care of the actions of other ranks, while Officers should be responsible for the actions of their men.

*stands by for mocking*

Aye and no I suppose. There's certainly arguments to be made for and against taking personal responsibility and for having responsibility for that individual soldier. I suppose you could muddy the waters further by talking about different trades. A captain on the QARANC is "just" a charge nurse, I wouldn't expect them to give orders to an infantry platoon, other than of a medical nature, so should they be held accountable in certain circumstances if they're the senior rank present?

Sure, in an operational sense the waters are always muddy, but the point I was trying to make was that in terms of legality and standards, surely a Commissioned Officer ultimately carries the responsibility.

I think what we are all dancing around here is the concept of personal responsibility. Everyone is briefed on the legality of warfare and thus its a personal responsibility to comply. Its also a personal responsibility to report abuse, even if it happens further up the command chain. That dovetails into the concept of the commander taking responsibility for the actions of this troops. Ensuring they are appropriately trained, equipped and briefed with complaints followed up on would be the stuff the commissioned (and NCO) cadres should be dealing with.

I probably didn't make that clear enough for the infantry.

Meanwhile, if being chased by a dodgy lawyer looking make a quick buck isn't enough reward for doing your job, veterans can also put up with prejudice and ignorance when they leave the forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... tary-vete/

On a personal level, I encountered none of this when I was applying for civilian jobs, but I have come across the 'you're ex military so you want us to all obey your orders' scenario. Some people are just thin skinned, or bone idle and don't like the truth.

Gents, thanks for this frank discussion although if you could use a LlTTLE les jargon (WTF is a QARANC when they're at home?) that would be grand.

What i would add is that everyone needs to be subject to the law. The old day's of Crown immunity is pretty much gone. So I see no problem with conventional actions against armed forces - by which I mean non-ECHR actions. Yes tht does mean putting up with some fishing expeditions by some dodgy law firms but it does serve to ensure that training is comprehensive and the rule of law is obeyed. There are obviously issues of jurisdiction and law but I'd expect the courts to make sensible decisions on that and we might need some tweaking of forum non conveniens (see I can do jargon too ye feckers) to deal with it.

Sandydragon wrote:Meanwhile, if being chased by a dodgy lawyer looking make a quick buck isn't enough reward for doing your job, veterans can also put up with prejudice and ignorance when they leave the forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... tary-vete/

On a personal level, I encountered none of this when I was applying for civilian jobs, but I have come across the 'you're ex military so you want us to all obey your orders' scenario. Some people are just thin skinned, or bone idle and don't like the truth.

I've never had any issues either other than as you state the frankness you tend to give out. Ironically being a CMT was of no interest to the ambulance service.

QARANC - Queen Alexandria Royal Army Nursing Corps.

I don't think anyone here, although I do see some on pussbook military and hangers-on alike, that think we should be exempt from court actions. I don't think anyone here would want any special dispensations to that of civis. What is objected to are people being cleared of convictions to be retried on false allegations and of course false allegations themselves and guys being hounded in their homes by lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Gents, thanks for this frank discussion although if you could use a LlTTLE les jargon (WTF is a QARANC when they're at home?) that would be grand.

What i would add is that everyone needs to be subject to the law. The old day's of Crown immunity is pretty much gone. So I see no problem with conventional actions against armed forces - by which I mean non-ECHR actions. Yes tht does mean putting up with some fishing expeditions by some dodgy law firms but it does serve to ensure that training is comprehensive and the rule of law is obeyed. There are obviously issues of jurisdiction and law but I'd expect the courts to make sensible decisions on that and we might need some tweaking of forum non conveniens (see I can do jargon too ye feckers) to deal with it.

I thought we did pretty well at avoiding TLA, thats Three Letter Abbreviations. We probably could have had an entire conversation with minimal use of actual words.

Crown immunity is long gone and I think from the words expressed that ECHR wouldn't apply on operations, so stuff like Deepcut would still be covered, alongside other controls like OFSTED and ALI inspections. With regards to jurisdiction, I think there is some work to be done, but equally there are already methods in place for which court handles which type of offense. For example, in the UK, any sudden death must be investigated by a civilian police force and, if necessary, placed before a civilian court. It is different overseas, but with some tweaks, there is no reason why a judge advocate can't perform the full range of functions (the major tweeking IMO for the most serious cases would be the use of a full jury).

october 8 2016, 12:01am, the times
The human rights court needs its wings clipped

marina wheeler

Protecting our armed forces is the right thing to do

The government’s proposal to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in future armed conflicts has been criticised by The Times. Indeed, it and others have suggested that derogation would “erode international norms”. They’re wrong.

Until recently, the convention did not apply outside the territory of its member states. So when Nato bombed Belgrade in 1999, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg dismissed claims against it because “the convention was not designed for application throughout the world, even in respect of the conduct of contracting states”.

However, in cases arising out of the Iraq conflict, the court changed its mind and said the convention was intended to have that effect after all.

Since ruling in 2011 that the convention applies to military operations overseas, the court has had to modify its position to resolve the legal and practical anomalies it created. Should all the provisions of the convention apply, unmodified, in a country that never signed up to it? Article 5 makes lawful detention contingent on an accused (for example, a Taliban fighter caught in battle) being brought before a court within a short period of time. But what if there are no courts in, say, rural Helmand, or too many insurgents and not enough judges? What if one aim of the military mission is to support an elected government to build these institutions? As an English court has put it, how can a state that has signed up to the convention be judged by those rules in a country over which it has neither sovereignty nor effective control? Is the law really working when it becomes lawful to kill, but not to detain?

Since the court’s ruling, many respected — and liberal — English judges have identified Article 15 derogation as a legitimate response to this controversial extension of the convention’s reach. Why? Because the convention was never intended to regulate armed conflict and is ill-suited for the task.


More recent decisions from Strasbourg acknowledge that an arrest in peacetime differs from the capture of a combatant in war. However, it’s not reasonable for us to wait decades until the court comes up with a coherent corpus of law. Neither is it viable to send troops into combat while it’s unclear what is lawful and what is not.

Derogation would not create a legal vacuum, as its critics claim. We would simply revert to international norms: the law of armed conflict made up of the Geneva Conventions which is also, tellingly, known as international humanitarian law.

It’s certainly the case that these rules, intended to govern traditional inter-state warfare, must adapt to the new era of internal conflict in which a state, perhaps backed by a UN force, takes on armed groups within its own borders.

But there remains much to be said for supporting common international norms — it cannot be right for troops in a multinational force to be subject to different rules of engagement. Canada, like Britain, was a member of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and also faced legal challenges to its detention policy. But in contrast to the human rights court in Strasbourg, its courts chose not to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outside its borders.

Until recently, Theresa May advocated withdrawal from the convention. Wisely, she has renounced that position — notwithstanding other vexations such as the court’s controversial rulings on prisoners’ voting rights. Her proposal to derogate in future armed conflicts is proportionate and leaves intact what the convention was designed to do: regulate the domestic exercise of state power.

The convention was never intended to confer or secure universal rights. In the international arena, only international rules should apply. Far from undermining the convention, the proposed derogation will help to restore respect and preserve its authority.

Marina Wheeler, QC, is a human rights barrister at One Crown Office Row chambers

Mellsblue wrote:october 8 2016, 12:01am, the times
The human rights court needs its wings clipped

marina wheeler

Protecting our armed forces is the right thing to do

The government’s proposal to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in future armed conflicts has been criticised by The Times. Indeed, it and others have suggested that derogation would “erode international norms”. They’re wrong.

Until recently, the convention did not apply outside the territory of its member states. So when Nato bombed Belgrade in 1999, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg dismissed claims against it because “the convention was not designed for application throughout the world, even in respect of the conduct of contracting states”.

However, in cases arising out of the Iraq conflict, the court changed its mind and said the convention was intended to have that effect after all.

Since ruling in 2011 that the convention applies to military operations overseas, the court has had to modify its position to resolve the legal and practical anomalies it created. Should all the provisions of the convention apply, unmodified, in a country that never signed up to it? Article 5 makes lawful detention contingent on an accused (for example, a Taliban fighter caught in battle) being brought before a court within a short period of time. But what if there are no courts in, say, rural Helmand, or too many insurgents and not enough judges? What if one aim of the military mission is to support an elected government to build these institutions? As an English court has put it, how can a state that has signed up to the convention be judged by those rules in a country over which it has neither sovereignty nor effective control? Is the law really working when it becomes lawful to kill, but not to detain?

Since the court’s ruling, many respected — and liberal — English judges have identified Article 15 derogation as a legitimate response to this controversial extension of the convention’s reach. Why? Because the convention was never intended to regulate armed conflict and is ill-suited for the task.


More recent decisions from Strasbourg acknowledge that an arrest in peacetime differs from the capture of a combatant in war. However, it’s not reasonable for us to wait decades until the court comes up with a coherent corpus of law. Neither is it viable to send troops into combat while it’s unclear what is lawful and what is not.

Derogation would not create a legal vacuum, as its critics claim. We would simply revert to international norms: the law of armed conflict made up of the Geneva Conventions which is also, tellingly, known as international humanitarian law.

It’s certainly the case that these rules, intended to govern traditional inter-state warfare, must adapt to the new era of internal conflict in which a state, perhaps backed by a UN force, takes on armed groups within its own borders.

But there remains much to be said for supporting common international norms — it cannot be right for troops in a multinational force to be subject to different rules of engagement. Canada, like Britain, was a member of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and also faced legal challenges to its detention policy. But in contrast to the human rights court in Strasbourg, its courts chose not to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outside its borders.

Until recently, Theresa May advocated withdrawal from the convention. Wisely, she has renounced that position — notwithstanding other vexations such as the court’s controversial rulings on prisoners’ voting rights. Her proposal to derogate in future armed conflicts is proportionate and leaves intact what the convention was designed to do: regulate the domestic exercise of state power.

The convention was never intended to confer or secure universal rights. In the international arena, only international rules should apply. Far from undermining the convention, the proposed derogation will help to restore respect and preserve its authority.

Marina Wheeler, QC, is a human rights barrister at One Crown Office Row chambers

Precisely the point I made below regarding the expectations of the ECHR and the reality of holding POWs for a prolonged period. On the one hand an arrested criminal must be handed over to civilian authorities ASAP, but equally ECHR prevents U.K. Forces from handing prisoners over to authorities which may not respect human rights. It's unrealistic.