Mostly I mean being completely racist and getting away with it. I hate racism, and I double hate the fact that people find it acceptable!!
Anti-semitism was rife in Europe at the time - not just in Germany. There was plenty of anti-semitism in the UK, but no one would have taken it to the extremes the Nazis did. Quite a lot of people sympathised with Oswald Mosley, quite a lot of powerful people. But clearly once he was equated with Nazism, his goose was cooked.
If you're going to hate someone, hate someone because he's a c*** not because of his religion, race, colour, ethnicity, language, nationality, height, age, sexuality or anything else that you can stereotype. And even then you can't chuck him in a train and kill him.
You missed sex...plenty of countries seem to hate women, the way they treat them. Or is that faiths rather than countries?!
Mr Blackman's appeal is due to be heard by the Court Martial Appeal Court today. The Lord Chief Justice (John Thomas) is due to preside. The CMAC judgment may be given on the spot or may be reserved until a later day. The outcome is awaited with interest. My own guess is that the appeal will be dismissed on all counts.
There was a very good documentary last night on Sgt Blackman, i caught the last half, very good, makes you think. It is on Iplayer BBC iPlayer - Marine 'A': Criminal or Casualty of War? Well worth a watch
Apparently Mr Blackman's defence counsel, Anthony Berry QC, has advanced the argument, among others, that the UK military trial system contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights because of the possibility that the jury (board) might have reached a decision by an undisclosed simple majority. This is in comparison with the Crown Court, where conviction requires a minimum qualified majority of 10 to 2; in the Court Martial a simple majority is sufficient. In this case with a jury of 7 that means 4 to 3. The argument is that a Court Martial defendant is thereby placed at a disadvantage compared to a Crown Court defendant facing the same charge. The counter-argument is that Parliament has so legislated very clearly and recently (Armed Forces Act 2006), and it is not for judges to over-rule this statute. A similar argument has been referred to the CMAC previously, but was rejected conclusively (by a court with Brian Leveson presiding)*. As it happens the reference to the CMAC on this very point was drafted by none other than myself. Although I personally have much sympathy with that argument, I don't think it has a cat in hell's chance of succeeding in this court. Maybe they will try running it in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which would be interesting. *The case was R v Twaite [2010] EWCA Crim 2973
The funny part of the programme was that it did not seem to dawn on the bunch of swivel-eyed fascist loons campaigning for the death penalty, that if they had their way Mr Blackman would also be sentenced to death - an outcome which they seemed to oppose without noticing the self-contradiction, or the irony.
Apparently the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was allowed only to the extent of reducing the minimum period before parole can be considered from 10 years to 8 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27514493
This week attempts are apparently being made to revive the Blackman case. Frederick Forsyth is trying to get it raised politically in parliament. It is hard to tell whether he has any genuine points to make, because if he has they are obscured by his usual intemperate ravings.
Crux seems to be he thought the guy was dead when he shot him so must be manslaughter. Poses an interesting question. If you believe them dead when you shoot them, how can you have had intention to kill?
Arguments raised on behalf of Mr Blackman appear to include the following: 1. The Afghan was an enemy so it's a soldier's job to shoot enemies. 2. The Afghan was so badly wounded it was a justified act of mercy to put him out of his misery. 3. The Afghan was already dead so shooting his body could not be murder. 4. Blackman was suffering from PTSD so should not be held responsible for the crime. I doubt if it is possible to argue all these points simultaneously, since some of them seem to be mutually exclusive.
Here is a link to the RN/RM report on the implications of the incident: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461067/20150916_Op_Telemeter_Exec_Summary_Recommendations_for_release.pdf
Why would you want to shoot someone that you thought was already dead 1 more for luck was it :Bookworm: Or just incase he wasn't dead the first time :Wideyed:
The problem in most of the recent wars is that they have never really known who the enemy is. In the past, the enemy conveniently spoke German (or indeed Italian!) and you knew you were supposed to bump them off. They also had handy uniforms to identify them. But Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - is that bloke the one you are supposed to be helping or the one you are meant to be killing? That's been a bit of a headache.
Surely a generic phrase of approximation, and not one purely defined by the exact either side of when a heartbeat beats for the very last time/the second a brain is declared clinically dead. I.e works equally well as a statement when referring to someone 'recently' deceased.
