Labour Infighting Thread #423,555

[Sheepy]

Well when throwing stones make sure your house ain't made of glass first.

[johnofgwent]

I disagree with the three MPs being sacked of course.

Why ?

They are front bench MP's who refused to toe the party line. They were sacked from the front bench not the party.

It is established principle going back hundreds of years that a front bencher who cannot follow the orders of the leader where given resigns their post on the front bench in order to vote as they think best in line with the representation of the people act.

I made it clear elsewhere I mourned the passing of the (labour) MP in the constituency I last lived in who was a regular rebel on all sorts of grounds, but openly stated he had no aspiration of front bench positions and sought only to vote as he felt his constituents wanted him to according to his own research and conscience. I doubt corbyn would have allowed such a man to be a party candidate. I doubt starmer would either.

A front bencher who thinks they can disobey the whip and remain a front bencher is deluded

[DeppityDawg]

My final question is what do you think IS an appropriate way to hold soldiers to account and what standards would you like to be used. You are the veteran here and we are just opinionated bellends after all. 

Thats not really fair, Dynamics. There are always one or two bellends on forums, but you aren't one of them and I've never suggested you were

As to your question, I thought I was clear, but I'll reiterate. Using our labour friend SRB's thoughts...

No one wants members of the military dragged through the courts at the drop of a hat. But neither can it be right that illegal killings or other crimes committed in uniform be given a free rein. It is about where the balance should lie, and any presumption against prosecution is in my view unbalanced and risks letting rogue individuals get away with war crimes.

The first part is fair enough, but that isn't what has happened over many years - its how we define what is and isn't "illegal" in the context of conflict in the first place, something I've tried to illustrate for you. The reverse of this happened in this country which has resulted in cases being pursed because they were allowed to be viewed through a civilian lens instead of a military one

Military law does not absolve soldiers of their civilian duties to observe the law, and being subject to the law is everyone's duty. But in times of conflict there are extraordinary circumstances where someone's actions need to be seen in the context they take place. The example video shows what looks like an "atrocity" to the civilian eye. While mistakes were clearly made, in the middle of a savage fight military law recognises that he acted in accordance with the SOPs and procedures laid down in the field manual and with his training - if we then want to put everyone who ever made a mistake in exceptional circumstances on trial when they could be dead themselves in the next half hour, we'll find no one wants to step up to the plate when we need them to

The simple truth is that war is a crock of shit - we send 20 year old kids from council estates to the other side of the world to wash our dirty linen, and then when one of them f*cks up, we want to hold them to standards we won't apply to the people who sent them there in nthe first place. And that is the real problem

[Borg Refinery]

nowhere near the same resources have been put into pursing Paramilitaries who were effectively granted an amnesty in the interests of "peace"

The same things have been repeated over the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns

Ah, now I think I get it..

You think that as amnesties have been granted to the paramilitaries, they should also be granted to soldiers as that is only fair and a balanced form of justice..

I can understand that.

I get your point about trendy causes and factions pursuing soldiers who will be villified for simply following orders and (rumoured) 'extreme' peer pressure in places like NI.

I'm in no way disputing what you are saying about that, you are completely right.

My final question is what do you think IS an appropriate way to hold soldiers to account and what standards would you like to be used. You are the veteran here and we are just opinionated bellends after all. 

[DeppityDawg]

With respect, we're talking about improved military tribunals not any random person with an opinion. I think they (as you allude) should be filled with personnel who understand what it's like, not Rupert the upper crust guy who got several promotions at Sandhurst because he has webbed feet and a lisp, nor random lawyers, nor random juries.

Therefore I don't think the chelsea wine bar types really would or should get a look in.

What do you think of that idea?

Yes, I get that, and with equal respect, my point is about an Anti-faction within a mainstream UK political party that used to have a large share of the popular vote, now showing yet again its real agenda. Even under the Blair/Brown administrations, this punitive campaign against the Armed forces went on virtually unchecked, to the extent that Shiner and Co weren't finally brought to task until 2016

There are dozens of veterans of Northern Ireland, some in their late 70s, who have been hounded over various incidents, some for upwards of 15 years. Some in my Regiment (including myself) have been interviewed by HET over incidents going back more than 25 years, some of them multiple times. I've already made the point that the vast majority of murders (in the case of NI) are never going to be solved, and nowhere near the same resources have been put into pursing Paramilitaries who were effectively granted an amnesty in the interests of "peace"

The same things have been repeated over the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, because it became fashionable to support this kind of retro "justice" in liberal/left wing circles, because you could always get a) a lawyer to pursue it for you, b) the funding from the state, and finally c), because the kind of video/internet opinion piece I've posted for you which misrepresent what happens in places like Fallejah and Helmand were and still are all over the Liberal media - yet all this was under the watch of a Labour government.

What do I think? Generally, I wouldn't think The Sun is well read in Chelsea wine bars or Hampstead Heath, but the Guardian and the Huff Puff probably are. Its not hard to figure out

[Borg Refinery]

My point being that decisions can be prejudiced in favour of people who commit atrocities too, as we saw over there, just as you point out it can be unfairly prejudiced against soldiers who coped the best they could in the worst situations, and who should be indemnified.

But there has to be line in the sand drawn between what's ok and what isn't, otherwise anything is permissible..  and if we abide by that then others will go even further .....

Its a very noble thought. But as I've tried to intimate to you, what is an "atrocity" and what isn't? Things that have happened on battlefields since the dawn of time - now in a modern world where anyone in a Chelsea wine bar can take a take a short, isolated video and instantly judge what goes on in conflict by civilian conventions. Public opinion and trial by media which then influences more "woke" politicians to support or oppose things that in reality they don't really know jack shit about

Is there a "shrug" emoticon? This video didn't circulate widely in the media at the time, but it was regurgitated all over the internet later with predictable "outrage" as the Iraq war turned to recrimination. Here is the originators own version of what happened. So you tell me? Was an atrocity, a "war crime", committed? Its easy to find the act but just in case, the specific incident is at about 20 seconds in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4j50ghDeKA

I couldn't say as I'm not an expert in military law, which is highly specific. I don't know the pretext to the video - were they shot at before the video? Etc?

With respect, we're talking about improved military tribunals not any random person with an opinion. I think they (as you allude) should be filled with personnel who understand what it's like, not Rupert the upper crust guy who got several promotions at Sandhurst because he has webbed feet and a lisp, nor random lawyers, nor random juries.

Therefore I don't think the chelsea wine bar types really would or should get a look in.

What do you think of that idea?

[Borg Refinery]

Well its a funny old world ain't it, you invade other countries on behalf of a foreign power, destroy their government and create a failed state

The legislation we are talking about isn't about the Governments who make those policy decisions. Its about the way the law is then retrospectively applied to those who have to carry them out

If there were also effective retrospective legislation about those kind of policies, eg, holding governments to account, then in the case of Iraq several senior UK politicians would long since have had to face the music in court too

Exactly Dawg, exactly.

Can't argue against you two on those points. 👍 I think politicians and top brass should indeed be more culpable tha n soldiers who were simply following orders.

You're both right - I did passingly mention that but perhaps didn't place enough emphasis on the point. Especially good post a bit higher up btw sheepy.

[Sheepy]

Well its a funny old world ain't it, you invade other countries on behalf of a foreign power, destroy their government and create a failed state

The legislation we are talking about isn't about the Governments who make those policy decisions. Its about the way the law is then retrospectively applied to those who have to carry them out

If there were also effective retrospective legislation about those kind of policies, eg, holding governments to account, then in the case of Iraq several senior UK politicians would long since have had to face the music in court too

Exactly Dawg, exactly.

[DeppityDawg]

Well its a funny old world ain't it, you invade other countries on behalf of a foreign power, destroy their government and create a failed state

The legislation we are talking about isn't about the Governments who make those policy decisions. Its about the way the law is then retrospectively applied to those who have to carry them out

If there were also effective retrospective legislation about those kind of policies, eg, holding governments to account, then in the case of Iraq several senior UK politicians would long since have had to face the music in court too

[Sheepy]

Well its a funny old world ain't it, you invade other countries on behalf of a foreign power, destroy their government and create a failed state leave millions homeless and without leadership, create a backlash of all backlashes show off your weapons of mass destruction, while a few soldiers were out of control and went on a murder spree which wasn't seen as winning hearts and minds and in future this must be stopped, I guess when the first bomb dropped those hearts and minds were long lost, by those who voted for it. I guess it is not easy deciding the good from the bad then.

[DeppityDawg]

My point being that decisions can be prejudiced in favour of people who commit atrocities too, as we saw over there, just as you point out it can be unfairly prejudiced against soldiers who coped the best they could in the worst situations, and who should be indemnified.

But there has to be line in the sand drawn between what's ok and what isn't, otherwise anything is permissible..  and if we abide by that then others will go even further .....

Its a very noble thought. But as I've tried to intimate to you, what is an "atrocity" and what isn't? Things that have happened on battlefields since the dawn of time - now in a modern world where anyone in a Chelsea wine bar can take a take a short, isolated video and instantly judge what goes on in conflict by civilian conventions. Public opinion and trial by media which then influences more "woke" politicians to support or oppose things that in reality they don't really know jack shit about

Is there a "shrug" emoticon? This video didn't circulate widely in the media at the time, but it was regurgitated all over the internet later with predictable "outrage" as the Iraq war turned to recrimination. Here is the originators own version of what happened. So you tell me? Was an atrocity, a "war crime", committed? Its easy to find the act but just in case, the specific incident is at about 20 seconds in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4j50ghDeKA

[srb7677]

Oh dear Thomas. I think you've upset leftylib. He's going to hit you with his handbag   

Thats if he can get his lard arse up out of the chair after a few seven skinners.

The sight of you coming over the horizon, kilt flapping and bagpipes playing, bare arse on display, shouting "och aye the noo", will make me think I must have smoked something.

[srb7677]

You admitted many a time to me previously because of fptp , while you were an out and out labour party supporter , you voted tactically to keep the tories out of your constituency.

You are blatantly lying here, or relying on a shit memory way too much. I have never always been an out and out Labour supporter at all times. My vote for the Lib Dems in 2005 and 2010 was not tactical, since the Lib Dems were in third f**king place well behind Labour. It was a consciously anti New Labour as well as anti-Tory vote and there was in fact nothing tactical about it. And in European elections where there is in any case no need for tactical voting I tended to vote green. So what you imagine me admitting to you many a time never actually happened. So either your memory is hopelessly muddled and you have far too much confidence in it, or you are just a liar.

I only became a party member in 2015. In 2005 and 2010 I voted against New Labour, and also did so locally several times. This was never tactical to keep the Tory out. Labour had the best chance of beating them but I could not and would not vote for Labour at that time.

If your memory was not as crap as it apparently is, you might remember that this was a major bone of contention with uber-Blairite Goodfellow, who despised me for voting against his beloved heroes.

Labour drifted away from me in the New Labour years and I voted against it in protest in consequence. This was not to avoid Blairite criticism. I don't give a shit about Blairite criticism.

[Borg Refinery]

Again you make fair points, so we should use improved military tribunals instead - to make sure justice is served? I could agree with that.

We live in a connected age where information is instant and "news" is 24hrs. That doesn't mean that all information is good information, particularly when 30 second or so videos are taken out of context or as "proof" positive of events before a court has even sat, never mind reached a verdict. There are plenty of examples of that currently in the US with videos of Police actions, and plenty of examples of it in a military setting - Fallujeh Mosque, "Collateral murder" and Alexander Blackman etc etc

Putting aside the political posturing of the Labour Party and the Stop the War Coalition mentality, the real problem is that modern society can't really deal with the truth. Its easier to accept the notion that a few "evil" people do dreadful things, than accept the notion that the darker side of human nature resides somewhere in us all

Ok, but you do presumably accept that military tribunals do, and should hold soldiers to account?

For example, that Eddie Gallagher guy was going to get put in the US equivalent of a glasshouse for his crimes until idiot Trump stepped in. He got the head of the Navy fired (what would the navy head know, having been a real marine who never had deferments and who fought..unlike Trump and Esper the defence sec who had him fired).

My point being that decisions can be prejudiced in favour of people who commit atrocities too, as we saw over there, just as you point out it can be unfairly prejudiced against soldiers who coped the best they could in the worst situations, and who should be indemnified.

But there has to be line in the sand drawn between what's ok and what isn't, otherwise anything is permissible..  and if we abide by that then others will go even further .....

..
And then you get scenes such as we saw in 'massacres' in India where pregnant women had their wombs cut open, or dead kids are chopped into pieces and piled up on wheelbarrows as in Rwanda because the know-it-all yanks (under Clinton the 'liberal') decided that that was permissible, because enforcing foreign or domestic policy objectives by way of getting troops (whether their own, or foreign troops whether manipulated into it or asked to by their govt) commit crimes that in all likelihood will stain their conscience for the rest of their lives, and which they otherwise would NEVER have committed. This is surely a horrific way for humans to carry on.

I don't think our world can carry on like that, we will end up completely and utterly destroying ourselves.

Just to reiterate; I'm not trying to say that you've suggested anything like that and if I'm sounding like Inspettore Javert then let me know.

[DeppityDawg]

Again you make fair points, so we should use improved military tribunals instead - to make sure justice is served? I could agree with that.

We live in a connected age where information is instant and "news" is 24hrs. That doesn't mean that all information is good information, particularly when 30 second or so videos are taken out of context or as "proof" positive of events before a court has even sat, never mind reached a verdict. There are plenty of examples of that currently in the US with videos of Police actions, and plenty of examples of it in a military setting - Fallujeh Mosque, "Collateral murder" and Alexander Blackman etc etc

Putting aside the political posturing of the Labour Party and the Stop the War Coalition mentality, the real problem is that modern society can't really deal with the truth. Its easier to accept the notion that a few "evil" people do dreadful things, than accept the notion that the darker side of human nature resides somewhere in us all