Sailor jailed for refusing a training course

[Gerrard]

Probably European law now that forbids it. No longer have Crown immunity either, although not sure how long ago that changed. The only time you would pay money is if you leave before the retainment period for taking a commitment bonus. For techies it was reduced from 12 months notice to 6 in the last couple of years. Mind you, a lot of us will just end up serving our 9 years and leave as there's no longer a guarantee of being signed-on, and there's not a lot of space now to promote into. Of crouse, the MOD will be too short-sighted to see the problem this will cause 5+ years down the line (again)...

[Lucio]

I find it interesting that not one person who'se posted so far has actually supported the person imprisoned here, at least not to the extent that my friend has.

He thought it was absolutely disgusting that the medic was charged in the first place, arguing that we all have a right to hold whatever moral beliefs we want, regardless of the circumstances.

My arguement against was that the military is one of the few positions where you couldn't allow people that right, lawful orders are lawful orders and you just can't risk a solider deciding to have an attack of conscience just as an assault on a position starts, or mid fight.

[Gerrard]

I think we do support him to a point; it's just that the article makes out that he became opposed to it as soon as he was selected to go to Afghan. As I said, he could have objected beforehand, and probably would've been able to leave without any problem (depending on the term of service. I'm not familiar what it is like for a) the Navy; b) a medic, especially if trained by the Navy).

[Steve]

I find it interesting that not one person who'se posted so far has actually supported the person imprisoned here, at least not to the extent that my friend has.

Yeah I know, is everyone able to log in OK? Has something gone wrong with the Internet?

He thought it was absolutely disgusting that the medic was charged in the first place, arguing that we all have a right to hold whatever moral beliefs we want, regardless of the circumstances.

My arguement against was that the military is one of the few positions where you couldn't allow people that right, lawful orders are lawful orders and you just can't risk a solider deciding to have an attack of conscience just as an assault on a position starts, or mid fight.

I'm with you and most others on this. If he wanted solely to help humanity maybe he should have joined the Red Cross.

If I were to join the military I'd probably face a similar dilemma to him... which is why I'm not joining.

[peterb]

I find it interesting that not one person who'se posted so far has actually supported the person imprisoned here, at least not to the extent that my friend has.

He thought it was absolutely disgusting that the medic was charged in the first place, arguing that we all have a right to hold whatever moral beliefs we want, regardless of the circumstances.

My arguement against was that the military is one of the few positions where you couldn't allow people that right, lawful orders are lawful orders and you just can't risk a solider deciding to have an attack of conscience just as an assault on a position starts, or mid fight.

The UK armed forces are all volunteer - if he had a moral objection, he did not have to join. When he did join, he would have been told the circumstances under which he might have to bear arms, and he would have been specifically asked if he had any moral objection.

Furthermore, at some point in his career he would have served on one of Her Majesty's Warships, which could also be called into combat, or come under fire.

If he did develop a moral objection, he would have had an opportunity to express that before he was sent for training, or before it became clear he was to be deployed. There are procedures in place to do that. Disobeying a lawful order was not the way to do it. I suspect there was more in the background than a headline grabbing story in the Daily Mail suggested.

There is a slightly more objective account in The Daily Telegraph (which at least gets his Rate right as Leading Medical Assistant)

[Blitzen]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-months.html

I'm curently debating this with a friend, the two viewpoints are that it's wrong for the sailor to have been jailed for upholding his beliefs vs the need for soldiers to follow orders to stop people dying needlessly. Curious as to what Hexites think

The little scrote is paid to be a soldier, albeit on a ship.
If he has moral issues and just wants to pick up his pay, then he should go and work in a dress shop.

The forces, and i speak from experience, is NOT and will NEVER be a democracy. You follow orders, and if you do not agree with them, you bring it to a supoeriors attention after the event.
I hope he enjoys Colchester.

[Blitzen]

It would seem to be a direct conflict of the Hippocratic oath to participate in the act of firing a gun with the intention of taking a life, so I'm not sure why he would need to be trained in that purpose given he's a medic.

On the other hand, is it health and safety to at least learn about the things? given you may be required to do you job on someone who has one and potentially have to handle them (to at least remove them from said person) as part of your work.

He's just a scab-lifter so the Hippocratoc Oath has no bearing on this.

[Blitzen]

I think we do support him to a point; it's just that the article makes out that he became opposed to it as soon as he was selected to go to Afghan. As I said, he could have objected beforehand, and probably would've been able to leave without any problem (depending on the term of service. I'm not familiar what it is like for a) the Navy; b) a medic, especially if trained by the Navy).

My wife was a medic in the Navy, and i met her whilst I was on deployment on HMS Fearless (42 Commando), when the Gulf War kicked off.
She left in 1999 after 8 years service, and she had to give notice of 18 months. It can be shorter if your position has people waiting for the billet, but rarely is.
For the Navy, you sign up for 22 years, but can leave after 4 years if you apply for discharge.

To be fair, a naval medic is trained to put on a bandage and dish out Ibuprofen. Thats about it......anything else, then the person is sent to the doc for evaluation. (on deployments on ALL ships, there is always a fully qualified doctor on board, or in the floatilla if a small ship)

[Blitzen]

Only the people who are ready to die for there country should join the military, as no one knows when this war going to come !

Ready to die for my country???? Nope.......not a chance. I wouldn't even blow my nose to save the current government for example. And i certainly wouldn't have gone to the arab countries fighting to 'die for my country'. You made no sense with your comment.

Ready to die in return for a good living and good mates.......abso-bloody-lutely. ANYWHERE on the planet.

[Blitzen]

If you think as a Soldier then it makes lot of Sense !

British Armed Forces personnel haven't died for their country since the Second World War.
The have however died for 'other countries'. (forget the reasons or the 'we want Middle Eastern oil brigade' will start their bra burning).


The facts are very very basic.
You are armed with and sent to kill however you are ordered to WITHOUT QUESTION and receive pay for doing so!
If people cannopt grasp this then too bad..........but it's the only fact that counts.
If you an armed forces member has an issue with this, they nee to resign and join Friends of the Earth.
You have to get that straight before anything else.

[TeePee]

Remember, it's not about dying for your country, it's about making the other guy die for his.

[Galant]

If the sailor is genuine, then I feel for him that he has found himself in such a contradictory position. However, it might be wise for him to consider that he has been rather limited in his view point. The fact he seems to have failed to grasp is that whether or not he actually ever picked up a rifle himself, he is and has been part of a fighting force who primarily blows stuff up and kills people - or threatens to do so. Just by signing up he is participating in those actions. He might not pull the trigger, but he helps others stay healthy so that they may do so. As Saracen said, if it's humanitarian work he wanted, he should have aimed elsewhere. If he views really did changed, he should have applied to leave at the next available opportunity not try to sign on as a conscientious objector. Then, as regards the problem he said he was pondering - the reported immoral killing of civilians - he should have strengthened himself in the view that as a medic he would try only to save the lives of his patients, killing only morally and legally - and that should he be ordered to engage in illegal, immoral actions, he would refuse. Just because some parts of the military may engage in unjust actions does not mean all share that moral blame. If he truly felt that this was the case, and couldn't bear sharing in that, then he really only had one other option, and that would be to desert. Completely illegal, and no doubt he would have faced even stiffer charges, but, if that was his moral position, it was his only clear ground.

So, bit short sighted he was, I think. Rather sad. Moral and mental clarity are too often missing it seems.