Having never had my mate killed next to me, had mortar bombs bashing around my head, or see bits of comrades splatterred all over the field, tough to say A uncouth, uneducated like moi may have said 'not shooting now are yer, fucker!' Then pumped him.
Good article in the Torygraph Death in Helmand: Is Alex Blackman murderer or merely mortal? - Telegraph 93% believe he should not have been found guilty of murder.
The article is sub-headed: "Until you know - as I do - what our soldiers had to endure in Afghanistan, you cannot judge them". Indeed, which is why the jury which actually judged Mr Blackman consisted of seven serving officers or WOs - unlike the newspaper readers of whom 93% apparently think they can judge, even though they lack knowledge of Afghan conditions and have not heard the evidence in the case. The paradox is quite striking.
It is just their non expert, non legal opinion Pete, it shows widespread sympathy for the guy, even if the facts of the case show him as guilty.
I recall making a point on this point previously, questioning whether members of this jury could potentially ( and even unconsciously) pre-judge the evidence, by virtue of their possibly similar experiences to that of the convicted. Perhaps total independence might be better, to judge the evidence on its merits, and not have a prior perspective by prior possible experience - otherwise we should have expert juries all round who've had experiences similar to all defendants?
It is a real issue in the Court Martial, and a bit of a dilemma. When the Court Administration Officer is specifying the board (Jury) members, what is he supposed to do: Seek out and use members who have experience related to the case? Or avoid using members who have such experience? There is no guidance in the statutes, nor is there any precedent law. And this is the one area in which the JAG cannot give guidance to the CAO. This problem arises most acutely in "professional competence" cases, such as those concerning piloting planes or navigating ships. Should the jury contain pilots/navigators, or avoid them? In the Crown Court the answer is well established - juries should have no prior knowledge or expertise in the matter at hand, and are to be selected at random.
This is a link to the Hansard record of the Commons debate held today in Westminster Hall about the Blackman case, at the instance of Richard Drax MP for South Dorset: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/1470/#c1470 It took about 90 minutes. Some of the speakers have made assertions which do not correspond to the facts; others make interesting points.
I think that soldier a who is an intelligent professional skilled soldier carried out an act that by it's very nature and the misjudgment and conflict of training shows some doubt re soldier A,mental state. No one in their right mind would coldly carry out this act and allow the evidence to survive. I would expect if a soldier in his right mind murdered someone he would not allow video footage to exist. Even a doubt of his sanity ie fatigue in battle means he needs medical help and not prison. If most of us had seen and experienced what this man had then we would be in severe diff's. PTSD , combat stress , burnt out, effects people in different ways.
I have just noticed a post I made three years ago, about the use of Prerogative powers. As it happens, this week's appeal hearing in the Supreme Court is about precisely this issue.
Sort of like when you want to negotiate the terms of, say, leaving the EU and you don't want your negotiating position advertised to the opposite side beforehand. I would say that Royal Prerogative would be handy in that situation. Yes. Indeed.
Yes, of course it would. Every government would find it handy to be able to exercise the Royal Prerogative in any and every situation; so much simpler than first having to justify your actions to Parliament. Especially for highly controversial matters, and especially when the government has a very small majority.
So, you'd say, it's OK for the purposes of going to war, or other military actions but controversial if applied to a peaceful process like, say, Brexit?
If a government took a decision to act on a pressingly urgent military emergency on a prerogative basis, then went to parliament to seek approval afterwards, such approval might well be forthcoming. But if a government publicly announced its intention to take action nine months in the future, then refused to seek parliamentary approval for it on the basis that prerogative powers made parliament superfluous, then that would be outrageous and constitutionally unacceptable. At least I am guessing that is roughly the conclusion the Supreme Court will reach. Try this: If David Cameron had purported to trigger Article 50 on 24th June using prerogative powers (as many of us thought he would), and Gina Miller's subsequent legal challenge was by way of judicial review, would his action be found to have been ultra vires? Presumably yes.
I'm sure you're right but surely that Gina Miller bint should be subject to an ultra slap for being uppity?
Why does the UK government want to hide their intentions and aspirations? It is not a negotiation about how many tanks or aircraft (not that the UK has any left) the UK are going to send into war against anyone, it is about how the UK is going to work after Brexit. The EU are not enemies, but people that the UK has traded with and made friends with, for many years. If the UK wants to treat them as enemies then just remember that the EU has over ten times the population of just the UK so who is going to need who for trading purposes?
