desertbred 5,490 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 War is war . The Geneva convention governs military actions in the field he was a non com/officer serving in uniform he was convicted of murder. The Geneva convention which the British Government were signatories to and also a draughtsman of the original convention stipulates treatment of prisoners of war should comply with the convention so he should do his time.If preferential treatment is asked for tear up the convention.fo the taliban run by this convention then aswell I dought it should be no rules when your fighting a bunch of cowardly wankers Your Goverment are the ones that wanted rules in war so dont cry when they fall foul of them like a big girl. Think you'll find its your Government too. The will think they are, I obey the laws of the land It doesnt make the Government mine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 War is war . The Geneva convention governs military actions in the field he was a non com/officer serving in uniform he was convicted of murder. The Geneva convention which the British Government were signatories to and also a draughtsman of the original convention stipulates treatment of prisoners of war should comply with the convention so he should do his time.If preferential treatment is asked for tear up the convention.fo the taliban run by this convention then aswell I dought it should be no rules when your fighting a bunch of cowardly wankers Your Goverment are the ones that wanted rules in war so dont cry when they fall foul of them like a big girl.Think you'll find its your Government too. The will think they are, I obey the laws of the land It doesnt make the Government mine. Common law db? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desertbred 5,490 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 War is war . The Geneva convention governs military actions in the field he was a non com/officer serving in uniform he was convicted of murder. The Geneva convention which the British Government were signatories to and also a draughtsman of the original convention stipulates treatment of prisoners of war should comply with the convention so he should do his time.If preferential treatment is asked for tear up the convention.fo the taliban run by this convention then aswell I dought it should be no rules when your fighting a bunch of cowardly wankers Your Goverment are the ones that wanted rules in war so dont cry when they fall foul of them like a big girl.Think you'll find its your Government too. The will think they are, I obey the laws of the land It doesnt make the Government mine. Common law db? You could say that. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,843 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 Goes to show-if your up to no good(at home or away)-dont be so f***ing brain dead as to film it or take a pic...simple really.3 months in the glasshouse would have done-3 yrs is steep imo.being the age he is only got himself to blame-if it was one of the twenty something fools book generation I'd say best you does it lol.atb dc He hasn't got three years, he's done three years, of an eight year sentence which was originally ten years but reduced on appeal. The man has been shit on. And just to put a few more things straight, Sgt blackman didn't film it, another marine had a helmet cam from which the footage was found on a laptop sometime later and handed to police. Not smart but it wasn't him that was responsible for filming it. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desertbred 5,490 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) The Geneva convention WAS NOT broken because the taliban are not signatories. It wasn't even brought up in his trial to my knowledge. I'm pretty sure he was prosecuted for acting outside of our f***ing ridiculous rules of engagement and therefore illegally. The Geneva convention does not differentiate between treatment of signatories or none signatories, the difference is combatants and none combatants and terrorists are not classed as combatants unless a Government refers to the conflict as a war. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention Britain is bound by it and as the breach was filmed and produced as evidence it was not possible to refute the charge, Edited October 29, 2016 by desertbred Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ginger beard 4,653 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 shuffle off this mortal coil.bang Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Silversnake 1,099 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 Sounds like it was a mercy killing to me and he was putting a mutt out of its misery. 8 years for an act of kindness! I hope his fellow soldiers learn to just let them bleed out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,843 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 The Geneva convention WAS NOT broken because the taliban are not signatories. It wasn't even brought up in his trial to my knowledge. I'm pretty sure he was prosecuted for acting outside of our f***ing ridiculous rules of engagement and therefore illegally. The Geneva convention does not differentiate between treatment of signatories or none signatories, the difference is combatants and none combatants and terrorists are not classed as combatants unless a Government refers to the conflict as a war. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention Britain is bound by it and as the breach was filmed and produced as evidence it was not possible to refute the charge, Really? Article 2... "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions." 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j j m 6,600 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 why film it Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lid 194 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 Why was he convicted in a British court for an alleged offence in a battlefield on foreign soil? On the other hand at least he wasn't sent back to Afghanistan for trial there. A pardon is required asap imo. The police simply should have ignored the video when they got hold of it - the police used to at one with our armed forces. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BGD 6,437 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 If you can't do the time don't do the crime. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rabid 1,936 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 I don't think it should be a crime to put a bullet in the head of a terrorist, f***ing scum deserve it. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dark-destroyer-85 636 Posted October 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 If you can't do the time don't do the crime.You don't honestly agree with him being jailed surely ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marshman 7,758 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 End of the day lads as much as we dislike it dems the rules... It's what separates us from the shite ! When you make rules you stick by whoever much you don't like them ! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Onlyworkmatters 1,584 Posted October 29, 2016 Report Share Posted October 29, 2016 End of the day lads as much as we dislike it dems the rules... When you make rules you stick by whoever much you don't like them ! Does the same apply to hunting with dogs Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.