PDA

View Full Version : Do soldiers have a 'right to life'?



BrilloPad
10th November 2012, 18:29
Court to consider whether soldiers have 'right to life' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9668783/Court-to-consider-whether-soldiers-have-right-to-life.html)

When my brother joined 1para I told him he was joining to die. Do we have to wrap our soldiers in cotton wool? Obviously its a huge tragedy when a soldier or anyone dies - but its a risky job.

stek
10th November 2012, 18:36
Court to consider whether soldiers have 'right to life' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9668783/Court-to-consider-whether-soldiers-have-right-to-life.html)

When my brother joined 1para I told him he was joining to die. Do we have to wrap our soldiers in cotton wool? Obviously its a huge tragedy when a soldier or anyone dies - but its a risky job.

It's what I say, just like when that ace job come up that matches your skill set perfectly, then it says Iraq or Afghanistan, u say no. Says yes and you might get killed. I can't see it - don't go!

Soldiers have guns, both sides, you might get killed, I wouldn't join now not for all the tea in China...

minestrone
10th November 2012, 18:54
I'm sorry some of the people lose limbs and cannot wipe their arse for the rest of their life but don't ever tell me these people are somehow heroes as is presented these days.

EternalOptimist
10th November 2012, 19:23
every tragedy is a casualty , obv
but the risks are actually quite low

1 a week or thereabouts. more squaddies die of ingrowing toenails or liver damage



:rolleyes:

VectraMan
10th November 2012, 21:18
Surely war by definition is outside the law, otherwise we'd be prosecuting soldiers for murder. If you sign up, then you've accepted that you might have to kill people if ordered to do so, and that other people might (quite reasonably) try to kill you.

SupremeSpod
10th November 2012, 21:19
Surely war by definition is outside the law, otherwise we'd be prosecuting soldiers for murder. If you sign up, then you've accepted that you might have to kill people if ordered to do so, and that other people might (quite reasonably) try to kill you.

War is fought within the rules of the "Law".

Jus ad bellum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

EternalOptimist
10th November 2012, 21:27
Surely war by definition is outside the law, otherwise we'd be prosecuting soldiers for murder. If you sign up, then you've accepted that you might have to kill people if ordered to do so, and that other people might (quite reasonably) try to kill you.

Theres loads of people out there who want to kill you vectraman.


dont you realise that ?


and you havn't even signed up



:rolleyes:

Zippy
10th November 2012, 21:47
We all have the same right to life and we all take some risks going about our lives.

mudskipper
10th November 2012, 21:50
I think, when you join the forces, accepting that your life may be at risk is part of the deal.

But you're still entitled to expect that every safety precaution will be taken - so if shortage of proper equipment, or crap decision making, or lack of care contribute to that death, IMO your family should be entitled to some redress.

Moscow Mule
10th November 2012, 22:19
I'm sorry some of the people lose limbs and cannot wipe their arse for the rest of their life but don't ever tell me these people are somehow heroes as is presented these days.

Who is a hero then?

Cliphead
10th November 2012, 22:20
I think, when you join the forces, accepting that your life may be at risk is part of the deal.

But you're still entitled to expect that every safety precaution will be taken - so if shortage of proper equipment, or crap decision making, or lack of care contribute to that death, IMO your family should be entitled to some redress.

+1

BrilloPad
10th November 2012, 23:05
We all have the same right to life and we all take some risks going about our lives.

I certainly take a risk if I argue with Mrs BP.

VectraMan
10th November 2012, 23:55
War is fought within the rules of the "Law".

Jus ad bellum

Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war)

Yes, but that's all a bit toothless in reality. One thing I noticed on that Wiki page was the 1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War" (http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D), of which Britain was of course a founding member, but I don't recall Winston Churchill and others being prosecuted for those war crimes.

VectraMan
11th November 2012, 00:01
Theres loads of people out there who want to kill you vectraman.


dont you realise that ?


and you havn't even signed up



:rolleyes:

There are? I haven't noticed any.

EternalOptimist
11th November 2012, 00:13
There are? I haven't noticed any.

and that is my point

MarillionFan
11th November 2012, 00:22
Personally, I believe if one is to put their life at risk for their country for a pittance salary & the possibility of death, then when they come out of the forces that if needed that they should be given priority in terms of housing & benefits over those workshy waste of spaces or immigrants that seem to form the head of the queue. In terms of the worth of someone in the forces then I suppose the market dictates. In the past those heading into the forces were considered lower academically or from a personality aspect those who were easily led & not that bright. They then got a great career (with a risk of getting shot).

JaybeeInCUK
11th November 2012, 12:55
I'm sorry some of the people lose limbs and cannot wipe their arse for the rest of their life but don't ever tell me these people are somehow heroes as is presented these days.

Indeed. It's a shame I was too busy at 11.11am this morning to make a "F**K the troops" post with such a cherished timestamp.

If you're going to volunteer to commit state-sponsored Murder (which is precisly what any unjust war is) upon command then you're nothing but an assassin, and quite honestly, getting your legs blown off is good luck, compared to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi/Afghan civilians who didn't ask for squaddy-boy to turn up to their countries and kill them.

EternalOptimist
11th November 2012, 13:02
Indeed. It's a shame I was too busy at 11.11am this morning to make a "F**K the troops" post with such a cherished timestamp.

If you're going to volunteer to commit state-sponsored Murder (which is precisly what any unjust war is) upon command then you're nothing but an assassin, and quite honestly, getting your legs blown off is good luck, compared to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi/Afghan civilians who didn't ask for squaddy-boy to turn up to their countries and kill them.

interesting point. turd face.

Incognito
11th November 2012, 13:12
Indeed. It's a shame I was too busy at 11.11am this morning to make a "F**K the troops" post with such a cherished timestamp.

If you're going to volunteer to commit state-sponsored Murder (which is precisly what any unjust war is) upon command then you're nothing but an assassin, and quite honestly, getting your legs blown off is good luck, compared to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi/Afghan civilians who didn't ask for squaddy-boy to turn up to their countries and kill them.

Without wanting to feed the troll, but it's an old cliche that those lads have been laying their lives on the line for decades to uphold your basic rights. So someone like this odious turd can come onto an Internet forum and post his views and he isn't at risk of getting his head blown off like young Malala.

JaybeeInCUK
11th November 2012, 13:29
Without wanting to feed the troll, but it's an old cliche that those lads have been laying their lives on the line for decades to uphold your basic rights. So someone like this odious turd can come onto an Internet forum and post his views and he isn't at risk of getting his head blown off like young Malala.

"Cliche'" is an understatement, sunshine.

You're a bit thick, aren't you? Defend ME? You actually think anyone's going to dare air/sealift an invasion force at a nuclear power which is completely surrounded by water, and whose nearest neighbours are all economic partners?

The reason those guard dogs join the military is a basic lack of morality. The thought of legalised forcefulness turns them on, and they don't give a damn if anyone dies in the execution of that force. The volunteer soldier is the ugliest example of the human race, and when he dies, he leaves it cleaner.

mudskipper
11th November 2012, 14:00
"Cliche'" is an understatement, sunshine.

You're a bit thick, aren't you? Defend ME? You actually think anyone's going to dare air/sealift an invasion force at a nuclear power which is completely surrounded by water, and whose nearest neighbours are all economic partners?

The reason those guard dogs join the military is a basic lack of morality. The thought of legalised forcefulness turns them on, and they don't give a damn if anyone dies in the execution of that force. The volunteer soldier is the ugliest example of the human race, and when he dies, he leaves it cleaner.

In your humble opinion.

VectraMan
11th November 2012, 14:11
Without wanting to feed the troll, but it's an old cliche that those lads have been laying their lives on the line for decades to uphold your basic rights. So someone like this odious turd can come onto an Internet forum and post his views and he isn't at risk of getting his head blown off like young Malala.

Not wanting to feed the troll either, but that's cobblers and you know it. Was there a serious threat of the Taliban restricting our freedom to post on internet forums in Britain? Don't think so. OTOH our government can and do lock people up for internet posts, have been complicit in torture, and New Labour had a really good go at trying to pass legislation to enable detention without trial for 3 months, all in the name of keeping our freedoms.

JaybeeInCUK
11th November 2012, 18:25
In your humble opinion.

Oh I'm actually pretty relaxed in my general indifference to most things.

I'm just letting the hawks here know they have no monopoly on forcefulness. Being a Pacifist doesn't mean you have to be a doormat.

Moscow Mule
11th November 2012, 18:47
Oh I'm actually pretty relaxed in my general indifference to most things.

I'm just letting the hawks here know they have no monopoly on forcefulness. Being a Pacifist doesn't mean you have to be a doormat.

A militant pacifist. Lovely.

Halo Jones
12th November 2012, 07:33
I think, when you join the forces, accepting that your life may be at risk is part of the deal.

But you're still entitled to expect that every safety precaution will be taken - so if shortage of proper equipment, or crap decision making, or lack of care contribute to that death, IMO your family should be entitled to some redress.

+1

d000hg
12th November 2012, 08:28
Surely war by definition is outside the law, otherwise we'd be prosecuting soldiers for murder. If you sign up, then you've accepted that you might have to kill people if ordered to do so, and that other people might (quite reasonably) try to kill you.But we're not at war in places like Iraq or Afghanistan are we?

Old Hack
12th November 2012, 08:29
It does make you think, that we've gone from being too harsh on soldiers, to being too kind. A lot of these soldiers only joined the army as it was pretty much their only real option in life, to get away, be trained, be housed, and be looked after. But the flipside is, that you get told to go to war, get told to do things that may end up killing you. I do get a bit pissed off when I hear soldiers complain about doing tours, for that's their job. One of my brothers did 3 tours to NI in the height of the troubles and came back from the third one a broken man, and is only really coming to terms with it 20 years later. Another brother resigned his commission on returning from the first gulf war, primarily from what they saw when the road to Basra was cleared.

No matter what you'll hear, most soldiers are a wee bit unstable if they've used their weapons in anger. The only ones who aren't, in my opinion, are the ones who've not seen action, for it does screw you up a little.

mudskipper
12th November 2012, 09:16
Man arrested for posting image of burning poppy on Twitter - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9671394/Man-arrested-for-posting-image-of-burning-poppy-on-Twitter.html)

FFS. Police need to learn to differentiate between obnoxious twat and criminal.

Incognito
12th November 2012, 11:21
Not wanting to feed the troll either, but that's cobblers and you know it. Was there a serious threat of the Taliban restricting our freedom to post on internet forums in Britain? Don't think so. OTOH our government can and do lock people up for internet posts, have been complicit in torture, and New Labour had a really good go at trying to pass legislation to enable detention without trial for 3 months, all in the name of keeping our freedoms.

You're using a single conflict to justify your argument. I'm talking about the last 100 years. Hundreds of thousands of young lads and lassies have laid their life down to ensure British values and freedoms are protected.

I come at this from two viewpoints. I have served my country and I am now in my last year of a law degree. I understand now the core concepts of the rule of law which has shaped this country and the reasons why I have served where I have.

I'm sure there's a multitude of posters on this forum who would disagree with one conflict or another, however that is something you should take up with your elected representative, not the guy in green sat in a sangar in the middle of some god forsaken barren country where it's boiling during the day and freezing during the night and he's not had a shower for 4 weeks, nor spoken to loved ones, nor been able to have a lie in, not able to log onto CUK and post tulipe because he wants to.

You're right that the lads don't join up with a sense of wanting to right the world, but their basic training covers morality of war as well of the laws of conflict just as much as it does cover section attacks and weapon handling.

I hope it never comes to the Uk being involve in an event where each and every one of you truly understand the sacrifice these guys and girls make.

cailin maith
12th November 2012, 11:28
Indeed. It's a shame I was too busy at 11.11am this morning to make a "F**K the troops" post with such a cherished timestamp.

If you're going to volunteer to commit state-sponsored Murder (which is precisly what any unjust war is) upon command then you're nothing but an assassin, and quite honestly, getting your legs blown off is good luck, compared to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi/Afghan civilians who didn't ask for squaddy-boy to turn up to their countries and kill them.

Every year, we are guaranteed to get one......

Yawn.

Incognito
12th November 2012, 11:36
Yes, but that's all a bit toothless in reality. One thing I noticed on that Wiki page was the 1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War" (http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D), of which Britain was of course a founding member, but I don't recall Winston Churchill and others being prosecuted for those war crimes.

The 1907 Hague Conventions (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907) were the last treaties to be ratified before WW2. The League of Nations declaration was never ratified. The 1907 conventions only restrict attacking undefended areas. Placing Anti Air defences in an area defined it as defended.

EternalOptimist
12th November 2012, 11:55
It does make you think, that we've gone from being too harsh on soldiers, to being too kind. A lot of these soldiers only joined the army as it was pretty much their only real option in life, to get away, be trained, be housed, and be looked after. But the flipside is, that you get told to go to war, get told to do things that may end up killing you. I do get a bit pissed off when I hear soldiers complain about doing tours, for that's their job. One of my brothers did 3 tours to NI in the height of the troubles and came back from the third one a broken man, and is only really coming to terms with it 20 years later. Another brother resigned his commission on returning from the first gulf war, primarily from what they saw when the road to Basra was cleared.

No matter what you'll hear, most soldiers are a wee bit unstable if they've used their weapons in anger. The only ones who aren't, in my opinion, are the ones who've not seen action, for it does screw you up a little.

soldiers moan about everything. Its part of the t&c'


it's part of the oath
'I promise to God and the Queen that I will blow to bits anything they tell me to, and I will whinge and moan about absolutely everything'

and the next time anyone calls me unstable I will come around and put their rhinocerous into my bank account.
:emb

Gibbon
12th November 2012, 11:56
"My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori."

Incognito
12th November 2012, 12:00
"My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori."

Death is never glorious.

SupremeSpod
12th November 2012, 12:06
Wot they & that Wilfred Owen chap said.

"Don't tell 'em your name, Pike!"?

SupremeSpod
12th November 2012, 12:29
Or

"They don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring". :eyes

RIP Clive!

VectraMan
12th November 2012, 13:10
You're using a single conflict to justify your argument. I'm talking about the last 100 years. Hundreds of thousands of young lads and lassies have laid their life down to ensure British values and freedoms are protected.

And I suggest you and the war-loving section of the British populace are living in the past. We've had decades of peace with our neighbours, the cold war is long over, we have many powerful allies to draw on, most notably the US, and yet it often seems we act (and spend) as if we're going to have to defend from a surprise attack from Gerry, or the only thing that's stopping Russia from annihalating our cities is that we can do the same to theirs.

I wouldn't suggest our part in past events wasn't justified, certainly not the world wars, but maybe it's time we moved on. And when you can be arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy, the whole argument that any of it is to protect our freedoms looks rather ridiculous.

Gibbon
12th November 2012, 13:28
And I suggest you and the war-loving section of the British populace are living in the past. We've had decades of peace with our neighbours, the cold war is long over, we have many powerful allies to draw on, most notably the US, and yet it often seems we act (and spend) as if we're going to have to defend from a surprise attack from Gerry, or the only thing that's stopping Russia from annihalating our cities is that we can do the same to theirs.

I wouldn't suggest our part in past events wasn't justified, certainly not the world wars, but maybe it's time we moved on. And when you can be arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy, the whole argument that any of it is to protect our freedoms looks rather ridiculous.

'Si vis pacem, para bellum'

And hopefully you never then have to go to war. The future isn't certain, at the outbreak of WW1 we (GB) hadn't been at war with our neighbours for 99 years!

original PM
12th November 2012, 13:29
And I suggest you and the war-loving section of the British populace are living in the past. We've had decades of peace with our neighbours, the cold war is long over, we have many powerful allies to draw on, most notably the US, and yet it often seems we act (and spend) as if we're going to have to defend from a surprise attack from Gerry, or the only thing that's stopping Russia from annihalating our cities is that we can do the same to theirs.

I wouldn't suggest our part in past events wasn't justified, certainly not the world wars, but maybe it's time we moved on. And when you can be arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy, the whole argument that any of it is to protect our freedoms looks rather ridiculous.

A very good point - I think in general they forces are in place to protect our freedom and values.

However we also now have our own internal police who are stopping subversion from within our own borders - which is fine until they start eroding our freedom and values...

This reminds of another country -- oh yeah that was it Germany circa 1939...

EternalOptimist
12th November 2012, 13:44
And I suggest you and the war-loving section of the British populace are living in the past. We've had decades of peace with our neighbours, the cold war is long over, we have many powerful allies to draw on, most notably the US, and yet it often seems we act (and spend) as if we're going to have to defend from a surprise attack from Gerry, or the only thing that's stopping Russia from annihalating our cities is that we can do the same to theirs.

I wouldn't suggest our part in past events wasn't justified, certainly not the world wars, but maybe it's time we moved on. And when you can be arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy, the whole argument that any of it is to protect our freedoms looks rather ridiculous.

I hope you are right. who wouldn't ? but history is not on your side

the thought of my kids being conscripted fills me with terror. but if they want to volunteer, and choose that life, I would back them up 100%
and the idea that we are not going to need armed forces and the use of force in the future is just laughable. in my humble opinion

The Spartan
12th November 2012, 13:52
Burning poppies is a shameful act and shouldn't go unpunished, it's little things like these that lead to tension and eventually it will flair up in the form of violence if nothing is done about it.

d000hg
12th November 2012, 15:03
Being shameful and requiring punishment are not the same thing.

The Spartan
12th November 2012, 15:14
Ok so the person should be punished

d000hg
12th November 2012, 16:26
For being insensitive?

Depending where and how it was posted, a burning poppy could be construed as a valid anti-war protest.

sasguru
12th November 2012, 16:28
Ok so the person should be punished

Have you heard of rule of law? Is it against the law to burn poppies?

mudskipper
12th November 2012, 16:32
Have you heard of rule of law? Is it against the law to burn poppies?

He wasn't arrested for burning a poppy. He was arrested for posting a picture of a poppy being burnt. It is not clear whether he himself had taken the picture.

The Spartan
12th November 2012, 16:32
For being insensitive?

Depending where and how it was posted, a burning poppy could be construed as a valid anti-war protest.

The Poppy is a symbol of remembrance

mudskipper
12th November 2012, 16:33
He wasn't arrested for burning a poppy. He was arrested for posting a picture of a poppy being burnt. It is not clear whether he himself had taken the picture.

The Wail have now posted a picture of a burning poppy.

Arrest them!

'Free speech' row after man is ARRESTED for posting image of a burning Poppy on his Facebook page on Remembrance Sunday | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231660/Free-speech-row-man-ARRESTED-posting-image-burning-Poppy-Facebook-page-Remembrance-Sunday.html)

The Spartan
12th November 2012, 16:35
Have you heard of rule of law? Is it against the law to burn poppies?

Is it against the law to depict a certain prophet in a specific light? or burn religious books?

shaunbhoy
12th November 2012, 16:43
I think, when you join the forces, accepting that your life may be at risk is part of the deal.

But you're still entitled to expect that every safety precaution will be taken - so if shortage of proper equipment, or crap decision making, or lack of care contribute to that death, IMO your family should be entitled to some redress.

This pretty much covers my position on this.
Most people that join the Forces accept that it can be a risky business, and accordingly, do not expect any special treatment.
If they are asked to perform their duties with equipment that is entirely unsuitable then there needs to be representation made, but I don't believe it is the place of ambulance-chasing barstewards preying on the grief of distraught families to expedite such change.
When I served in the 70s and 80s we were still equipped with items that predated WWII. Some guys chose to purchase their own stuff. It was wrong, but fortunately for us it was never put to any sort of acid test.
In short, if you volunteer then you have to accept a certain amount of risk, but that does not excuse negligence on the part of those that are formulating policy, nor does it absolve them from the responsibility of adequately equipping the forces they so readily send to do their bidding.

d000hg
12th November 2012, 16:44
Is it against the law to depict a certain prophet in a specific light? or burn religious books?Well spotted. Some things are against the law, other things are not.

cailin maith
12th November 2012, 16:48
I think, when you join the forces, accepting that your life may be at risk is part of the deal.

But you're still entitled to expect that every safety precaution will be taken - so if shortage of proper equipment, or crap decision making, or lack of care contribute to that death, IMO your family should be entitled to some redress.

+1

Gibbon
12th November 2012, 16:49
The poppy burner should just be ignored, his purpose is to cause offence and thanks to the Tabloids has succeeded. The most offensive thing in my opinion is the way we are letting him and his ilk turn the poppy into a political symbol, by being overprotective of it we are giving them more ways to try and irritate us.

We should show more of the stiff upper lip to these contemptible cretins and keep the poppy out of the political arena.

d000hg
12th November 2012, 17:20
WGS. If someone was sending emails with this picture to individuals who had lost family members I'd say it then becomes worthy of police attention.

AtW
12th November 2012, 21:51
Soldiers trade their right to life in exchange for a lot of guns and right to kill.

HTH

Incognito
12th November 2012, 21:57
Have you heard of rule of law? Is it against the law to burn poppies?

No, but it's not the act of burning the poppy, it's the message it's conveyed.


1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
...
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.


The guy most probably hasn't helped himself by writing "How about that you squadey (sic) c**t"

What the law allows is any form of protest that isn't done with the intention of causing offence. I'm not religious, but I have no right to stand outside a mosque and burn the Koran. That's not protesting, that's trying to get a reaction. As was his actions in burning the poppy.

Cliphead
12th November 2012, 21:58
Soldiers trade their right to life in exchange for a lot of guns and right to kill.

HTH

If it wasn't for the participation of some members of my family in WWII you'd either never have been born or be speaking German.

Cretin.

AtW
12th November 2012, 22:00
If it wasn't for the participation of some members of my family in WWII you'd either never have been born or be speaking German.

I don't think you can find a family in Russia whose family members did not die in WW2. British contribution was not insignificant but it wasn't determining factor in that war. Google up German military losses on Ostfront.

As I said - soldiers are there to risk their life, if they were not supplied well or bad decisions were made that resulted in their death then people responsible should get court martial - like say those poor chaps in Iraq who got killed by mob and they did not have ammo FFS.

Incognito
12th November 2012, 22:03
I don't think you can find a family in Russia whose family members did not die in WW2.

As I said - soldiers are there to risk their life, if they were not supplied well or bad decisions were made that resulted in their death then people responsible should get court martial - like say those poor chaps in Iraq who got killed by mob and they did not have ammo FFS.

If you're going to troll know your subject. They had ammunition, they chose not to fire.

Cliphead
12th November 2012, 22:05
I don't think you can find a family in Russia whose family members did not die in WW2. British contribution was not insignificant but it wasn't determining factor in that war. Google up German military losses on Ostfront.

As I said - soldiers are there to risk their life, if they were not supplied well or bad decisions were made that resulted in their death then people responsible should get court martial - like say those poor chaps in Iraq who got killed by mob and they did not have ammo FFS.

Not arguing with the numbers or possible outcome. Just about every family in this country made some sacrifice regardless of the kit, decisions made or any possible agenda.

They were there when they were needed pure and simple.

Fck this you carry a gun so tough sht argument.

AtW
12th November 2012, 22:10
Not arguing with the numbers or possible outcome. Just about every family in this country made some sacrifice regardless of the kit, decisions made or any possible agenda.

Your example got absolutely nothing to do with this case, wtf you bring WW2?

UK army is volunteer, there must be some kind of insurance/payment in event of death or disability - probably too low that I would not argue about, but bringing lawyers concept of right to life to jobs where whole objective is to risk your life if it becomes necessary is crazy application of human right laws.

Once again - if soldiers were let down then appropriate people should pay the price based on court martial or criminal code.

EternalOptimist
12th November 2012, 22:31
Damn these 1st world problems

AtW
12th November 2012, 22:38
When I served in the 70s and 80s we were still equipped with items that predated WWII.

If it makes you feel any better they are still using knifes to peel potatoes apparently ...

JaybeeInCUK
12th November 2012, 22:53
No, but it's not the act of burning the poppy, it's the message it's conveyed.



The guy most probably hasn't helped himself by writing "How about that you squadey (sic) c**t"

What the law allows is any form of protest that isn't done with the intention of causing offence. I'm not religious, but I have no right to stand outside a mosque and burn the Koran. That's not protesting, that's trying to get a reaction. As was his actions in burning the poppy.

Try proving 'intent'. :)

EternalOptimist
12th November 2012, 22:57
Try proving 'intent'. :)

easy.
I spent 6 years intent. it was bloody freezing.
turd-face

Incognito
12th November 2012, 23:16
Try proving 'intent'. :)

Intent is very easy to prove in a situation like that.

Intent - his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should ... cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

What other intent could you have in burning a poppy whilst communicating the fact to a member of the armed forces?

GreenLabel
13th November 2012, 03:25
Every year, we are guaranteed to get one......

Yawn.

Yep. Last year it was Russel (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/72445-here-comes-forced-2-mins-silence-bs.html). The year before kandr (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/61073-two-minutes-silence.html). 2009 it was Diestl (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/48694-2-minutes-silence-2.html#post998002).

:rolleyes:

JaybeeInCUK
13th November 2012, 07:40
Intent is very easy to prove in a situation like that.

Intent - his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should ... cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

What other intent could you have in burning a poppy whilst communicating the fact to a member of the armed forces?

Are you that thick? It's a form of protest. The fact that a bunch of grunts are sitting around crying about it is a happy side-effect.

The Spartan
13th November 2012, 08:02
Like that Pastor in New York who was going to burn the Koran? After all it's just a book there's nothing special about it

Old Hack
13th November 2012, 09:29
I wonder what would happen to you if you burnt a copy of the bible. Or the Vedas. Maybe see what happens if you burnt the Dhammas?

Madness. Whatever happens in this world, you should have a right to protest, even if it goes against everything I believe in, you should have the right to voice an opinion, no matter how much it offends.

The Spartan
13th November 2012, 09:34
The problem is Muslims get up in arms about everything, examples being the recent YT video and the New York pastor who wanted to burn a copy of the Koran in protest at a mosque being built near ground zero in NY

Incognito
13th November 2012, 10:00
Are you that thick? It's a form of protest. The fact that a bunch of grunts are sitting around crying about it is a happy side-effect.

No I'm not that thick, I am coming at it with a far superior understanding of the law than you do. Of course you can rebut this presumption and demonstrate your experience in the last four years in studying, analysing and then applying the law, however I'm pretty confident you're a tw@t.

HTH BIDI.

Incognito
13th November 2012, 10:05
Madness. Whatever happens in this world, you should have a right to protest, even if it goes against everything I believe in, you should have the right to voice an opinion, no matter how much it offends.

Absolute bollocks, you should have a right to protest by all means, but how is burning a Koran a form of protest? It is deliberately trying to offend people by intentionally doing an act that you know is designed to inflame them. Standing outside a mosque saying there is no god and / or advocating gay marriage etc is a different scenario, that is free speech.

Everyone has the right to protest, no-one has the right to offend.

Old Hack
13th November 2012, 10:12
Absolute bollocks, you should have a right to protest by all means, but how is burning a Koran a form of protest? It is deliberately trying to offend people by intentionally doing an act that you know is designed to inflame them. Standing outside a mosque saying there is no god and / or advocating gay marriage etc is a different scenario, that is free speech.

Everyone has the right to protest, no-one has the right to offend.

well, I disagree with you using the term bollocks on what is clearly subjective. But I digress.

It's a fundamental part of our rights to protest. Shocking people, by offending them is a legitimate right. The quran is nothing to me, it means nothing, so why should I not be able to burn a book, to show it has no meaning to me? I abhor racism, but I don't think we should throw racists in jail, it's how they feel.

As for standing outside a mosque saying there is no god, or promoting gay marriage, how is this not intended to offend, if you are deliberately standing outside a place of worship, or a religion that forbades it? It's clearly intended to insult, provoke. I don't have any issues with it, but it is clearly done to poke a muslim.

Freedom of speechm, is freedom of speach to me, and if that offends, then fook it. Jesus, if the ruling on what was acceptable was down to people being offended, then we'd not have the right to say anything other then vanilla. My outlaws wince when anyone on TV discusses homosexuality, and it clearly offends them, so should people be barred from homosexuality on the grounds it offends?

Incognito
13th November 2012, 10:25
well, I disagree with you using the term bollocks on what is clearly subjective. But I digress.

It's a fundamental part of our rights to protest. Shocking people, by offending them is a legitimate right. The quran is nothing to me, it means nothing, so why should I not be able to burn a book, to show it has no meaning to me? I abhor racism, but I don't think we should throw racists in jail, it's how they feel.

As for standing outside a mosque saying there is no god, or promoting gay marriage, how is this not intended to offend, if you are deliberately standing outside a place of worship, or a religion that forbades it? It's clearly intended to insult, provoke. I don't have any issues with it, but it is clearly done to poke a muslim.

Freedom of speechm, is freedom of speach to me, and if that offends, then fook it. Jesus, if the ruling on what was acceptable was down to people being offended, then we'd not have the right to say anything other then vanilla. My outlaws wince when anyone on TV discusses homosexuality, and it clearly offends them, so should people be barred from homosexuality on the grounds it offends?

My opinion that your opinion was bollocks was only subjective so don't worry, I still respect your opinion. :happy

Burning a book you know to be sensitive to them is offensive. If you want to burn it by all means go home and burn it in front of your friends or even burn it in a church, you won't get arrested for that. However taking recordings / images and distributing them with the knowledge that it is going to cause offence takes you back into the realm of committing a criminal offence.

Using the example of the gay marriage / no god analogy, you are expressing your opinion in a manner that is not intended to cause offence. The chances are in reality you'd be moved along to prevent causing a breach of the peace. People would see this as a restriction on their right to protest, however it isn't. It is attempting to prevent an escalation and even though it may be your right to protest, it would be easier for the police to move you to a different location to continue your protest.

Pondlife
13th November 2012, 10:30
Yep. Last year it was Russel (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/72445-here-comes-forced-2-mins-silence-bs.html). The year before kandr (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/61073-two-minutes-silence.html). 2009 it was Diestl (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/48694-2-minutes-silence-2.html#post998002).

:rolleyes:

They are all the same person.

I'd probably add this muppet to the list as well.

Old Hack
13th November 2012, 10:32
My opinion that your opinion was bollocks was only subjective so don't worry, I still respect your opinion. :happy

Burning a book you know to be sensitive to them is offensive. If you want to burn it by all means go home and burn it in front of your friends or even burn it in a church, you won't get arrested for that. However taking recordings / images and distributing them with the knowledge that it is going to cause offence takes you back into the realm of committing a criminal offence.

Using the example of the gay marriage / no god analogy, you are expressing your opinion in a manner that is not intended to cause offence. The chances are in reality you'd be moved along to prevent causing a breach of the peace. People would see this as a restriction on their right to protest, however it isn't. It is attempting to prevent an escalation and even though it may be your right to protest, it would be easier for the police to move you to a different location to continue your protest.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree; I see no differences with protesting, outside a mosque, values which are anti islamic, than burning a book to state you do not believe its contents. I feel if you were to burn a bible in public, not too many people would be rankled by it.

Genuinely, if you have a right to protest, you have a right to protest, even if that offends. The examples we are using are extreme ends of it, but the premise is the same. If we were told we would be unable to protest against <insert anything> as it offended someone, we'd be, ultimately, unable to protest against anything.

Anti gay? That would offend. Pro gay? That would offend. Anti-migrant? That offends. Pro Migrant? That offends. I personally am against Abortion, not for any religious rights, or anything. However, pro abortionists display shocking images designed solely to offend, to shock. Would I ever refuse them the right to do this? Never, for I believe it is a fundamental right of a human being to be able to demonstrate, to protest. The difference is, the subjest is further from the current front line, and people don't get their knickers in a twist about it.

You should always have a right to protest, regardless who gets their nose bent out of shape.

GreenLabel
13th November 2012, 10:48
They are all the same retard.

FTFY

Incognito
13th November 2012, 11:00
... I believe it is a fundamental right of a human being to be able to demonstrate, to protest. The difference is, the subjest is further from the current front line, and people don't get their knickers in a twist about it.

You should always have a right to protest, regardless who gets their nose bent out of shape.

I'll use as an example the Orange Order marches in Northern Ireland. They argue that they've marched the same streets for a century and should be allowed to keep tramping them. However the areas they now march through is Catholic and rightly so the Order is restricted on what they can play and how many people can go down that area as the Catholic community finds it offensive.

I agree with you it is a fundamental right that you are allowed to protest, however that does not mean that it is open house on what, how and where you protest. You must still respect the law of the land, the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

shaunbhoy
13th November 2012, 11:14
the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

I'm with you Incog. Ban the DOBs from marching altogether, in NI OR in the West of Scotland!! Set of inflammatory bassas!!

:tongue

Incognito
13th November 2012, 11:19
I'm with you Incog. Ban the DOBs from marching altogether, in NI OR in the West of Scotland!! Set of inflammatory bassas!!

:tongue

Is that you Minestrone?

:laugh

Old Hack
13th November 2012, 11:31
I'll use as an example the Orange Order marches in Northern Ireland. They argue that they've marched the same streets for a century and should be allowed to keep tramping them. However the areas they now march through is Catholic and rightly so the Order is restricted on what they can play and how many people can go down that area as the Catholic community finds it offensive.

I agree with you it is a fundamental right that you are allowed to protest, however that does not mean that it is open house on what, how and where you protest. You must still respect the law of the land, the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

I have always found it difficult to get my head around the fact that people are stopped from doing something in case other get mardy and kick off. It's quite strange, no, to stop what is notionally a peaceful event (not in your case), in case it offends people so much, it causes them to start committing crimes.

Moving away from religion. Looking at my scenario, do you think it ok for either side of the abortion debate to show offensive images?

Anyway, it's cool to disagree.

d000hg
13th November 2012, 11:45
If it wasn't for the participation of some members of my family in WWII you'd either never have been born or be speaking German.

Cretin.You're claiming your family won the war? Are you a descendant of Churchill? Or Turing perhaps?

Incognito
13th November 2012, 11:48
I have always found it difficult to get my head around the fact that people are stopped from doing something in case other get mardy and kick off. It's quite strange, no, to stop what is notionally a peaceful event (not in your case), in case it offends people so much, it causes them to start committing crimes.


The police will always take the easiest option to defuse a situation before it escalates.



Moving away from religion. Looking at my scenario, do you think it ok for either side of the abortion debate to show offensive images?

Anyway, it's cool to disagree.

Hmm tough one. I take it you're on about images of aborted fetuses. Are they intended to offend though or to shock. Intention is quite important here.

Might be easier to talk about vivisection, you'll have organisations on the high street displaying pictures of animal testing, it's not intended to offend. It's a shock factor. However if those same groups then take camp outside of a scientist's house and scream, shout and holler at all hours then this clearly isn't a form of protest, it's a form of harassment.

shaunbhoy
13th November 2012, 11:49
You're claiming your family won the war?

[Monty Python Mode]

My family won the war too............and so did my wife's!!

[/Monty Python Mode]

GreenLabel
13th November 2012, 11:55
You're claiming your family won the war? Are you a descendant of Churchill? Or Turing perhaps?

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. :facepalm:

d000hg
13th November 2012, 11:59
Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. :facepalm:He implied if his family members hadn't fought, we'd have lost.

GreenLabel
13th November 2012, 12:01
He implied if his family members hadn't fought, we'd have lost.

Well, that must be it then.

Old Hack
13th November 2012, 12:47
The police will always take the easiest option to defuse a situation before it escalates.



Hmm tough one. I take it you're on about images of aborted fetuses. Are they intended to offend though or to shock. Intention is quite important here.

Might be easier to talk about vivisection, you'll have organisations on the high street displaying pictures of animal testing, it's not intended to offend. It's a shock factor. However if those same groups then take camp outside of a scientist's house and scream, shout and holler at all hours then this clearly isn't a form of protest, it's a form of harassment.

Some images used are clearly intended to shock, and offend, in my opinion. Showing an animal being effectively savaged by dogs is intended to offend, for it's the nature of offense, that gets people outraged, and leads to support, or the other.

Anyway, as I said, good to debate these things, but I feel slowly, since Labour got in, our rights are ironically being eroded. The people walking around burning poppies, demeaing our troops have a right to do it, as much as we have a right to depict Mohammed as a homosexual sheep botherer. It's all, effectively words, thats all, not sticks and stones. I don't understand the constant offended state all people in this country are.

But, we don't have this ability anymore.

JaybeeInCUK
13th November 2012, 23:03
No I'm not that thick, I am coming at it with a far superior understanding of the law than you do. Of course you can rebut this presumption and demonstrate your experience in the last four years in studying, analysing and then applying the law, however I'm pretty confident you're a tw@t.

HTH BIDI.

Your confidence is as sorely unfounded as your alleged knowledge of the law. If you think intent is proven as lightly as you claim, I can very confidently state that your 4 years of studies were in vain, and you are in for a world of painful, ungainful unemployment.

That said, it was a good idea in theory to go into law, I know some of them make in a day what we make in a week. Beg your pardon, sunshine, but you're not going to cut it.

Don't worry though, I'm sure a server cabinet somewhere is in need of dusting.

Incognito
13th November 2012, 23:31
Your confidence is as sorely unfounded as your alleged knowledge of the law. If you think intent is proven as lightly as you claim, I can very confidently state that your 4 years of studies were in vain, and you are in for a world of painful, ungainful unemployment.

That said, it was a good idea in theory to go into law, I know some of them make in a day what we make in a week. Beg your pardon, sunshine, but you're not going to cut it.

Don't worry though, I'm sure a server cabinet somewhere is in need of dusting.

Great comeback, certainly amongst those all time favourites such as "your mum".

:rolleyes: