Just sums up this fookin country up.

I'm absolutely speechless.

I totally agree. There is a worrying trend in this country at the moment that if you are in a position of responsibility and do something wrong, but not seariously wrong, you will lose your job regardless when retraining would be more appropriate. In this case a loss of privilages would have been more suitable and sensible.

We're at war and he's a bomber. Should have put a bullet through his fookin head. He was probably responsible for killing British soldiers.

I think this is the exception to the rule.
Usually you hear of lazy thieving workshy feckers suing employers for expecting them to work for their wages.
I have absolutely no comprehension of the military lifestyle & rules so cant make an informed comment,but I do agree this seems way over the top.

We, the Tax Payer, pay Mad Mullah more than our Frontline Soldiers

Here is an evidence-based chart; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wanted to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett. He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching. How can he be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations.
In contrast, a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan , takes home £17,004 for risking his life.
If that private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets.
Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers? Is Choudary really actively seeking work?

The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits-NOW

This takes my blood pressure through the roof.

I didnt realise that soliders only got £17k a year thats shocking

Terrible treatment for one of our heroes..................nay despicable treatment.
What I would like to know is why he was shopped by his own.
I always had the impression that they looked after each other, like the police do when somebody " falls" and hurts himself.
Maybe Mr I can throw some light on that.

Apparently there was a young RMP (Military Police) woman present. A Second Lieutenant by the name of Ellen Chun. She reported it and the powers that be followed it through. Legally speaking he should have been charged but to be booted out after 18 years service is unfathomable. The punishment does not fit the crime in any way. FFS, 3 Para executed their prisoners in the Falklands and the main culprit was not disciplined in any way. This Royal chucks a welly and is SNLR'd.

Incidentally, the Army/Marines/Navy and the various branches of Military Police are more distant cousins rather than brothers in arms.

this also goes to show why a woman should not have been there
They are worrets and natural snitches
There are times to cover things up and generally speaking, a splitarse won't do that

She should be kicked in the c-unt for opening her fat mouth

Is there no right of appeal. Seems a bit heavy handed all this. Parmo is right. This female also implicated a fellow officer, that Captain.
Maybe he had upset her make up box and she was getting her own back.

Naw, shes a tuppence licker.

Yes the appeals process is ongoing.

In that case a petition needs to be organised with thousands of signatures. Sort it Mr I and let us know where we sign.

The 'lady' herself.


http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=509337599


As for a petition, the No 10 option is closed due to the election. The Daily Mail are on the case and I've just had a chat with Tom Newton Dunn of the Sun, they're going to start something too. The 'Once a Marine, always a Marine' site is positively bouncing about this and something wil be put together at that end too..

Ps read the last paragraph and tell me where the evidence is.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8608204.stm

Mr I,whats the general opinion in the military circles of the guys chances of getting re-instated on appeal ?
I would say that now the story is out any re-instatements will be seen as 'the boys just looking after each other'

Whats wrong with the boys looking after each other? thats the general idea in the forces. The fact is that beating a prisoner is illegal so yes, he deserved a punishment but this guy was caught laying an IED. 45 Commando has days before lost three blokes to an IED in the same area. The only thing I can't fugure out is how he managed to get to the stage that he was in custody without recieving some swift and permenant justice.

Reinstatement. He has a chance as the punishment does not fit the crime. Especially if theres a decent amount of public pressure.

The strange part of this for me is that nobody seems to be bothered that the other Afghan involved was shot dead, but the authorities are making a big song and dance about a cut lip!

This country is feckin shiite.

HTH

exactly. If I or my mates did something wrong or illegal but nothing serious resulted - we would cover for each other

That goes x 100 in the Armed Forces

Let's be honest, what's the first thing most organisations do (eg police) in such circumstances?

In this case, an absolute bitch has shopped a bloke 1000 times the person she will ever be

The bomber should have been kicked to death slowly, had it filmed and uploaded to youtube for us all to see, the men involved should then be given medals.

The woman that reported it should be reminded they are in a war zone not a fucking nursery school.

I heard on the radio this morning that some other bint is in line for a £100k pay-off because she was disciplined for taking a day off without authorisation to look after her child and objected to being told that the army was a fighting machine and not a creche, or something similar.

Yes, another good reason that women shouldn't be in the army and another good reason why the legal system in this country needs a complete overhaul to rid it of the lunatic legislation implemented in the last dozen or so years by the likes of Harriet Harman.

It's a disgrace. What it says is that it's OK for troops to be killed by terrorists but you can't give a terrorist a slap.

The conclusion is, what's the fookin' point?? They've been made powerless.

When I was in the RAF, admittedly 30 plus years ago, pregnancy meant an automatic discharge. When did that change?

Thought pregnancy was always caused by an automatic discharge.

That must be a big "plus"- I heard that when you were in the RAF there only aerial transport was hot air balloons.

Dont get me wrong,I do agree that the troops should have stuck together & that this should never have gone as far as it has & its wrong that someone has had his whole life ripped out from under him.
However,now that this is public knowledge if he is re-instated (& I am with the rest of you,I hope he does get his life back) will the forces be accused of condoning vigilante justice ?
We all know there is a difference between what is actually right & wrong & what has to be seen to be right & wrong

As Ive already said I have no idea about or experience of military protocol so am purely asking as an onlooker

I'll have you know 'their' aircraft were biplanes.

Oh bugger, the "there/their" error in my haste to point out your age!

I have duly chastised myself however the original comment stands!