Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Can someone bring me up to speed on the OOB? Am I right in assuming it’s to protect British forces from any sort of legal trouble for horrific things they’ve done on duty?
Appalling post. What are you suggesting?
I would suggest it’s to protect them from spurious claims against them.
British forces are subject to both international and British law, and if they break those rules and laws they are subject to the normal process.
The military go through extensive training on the rules of engagement, and the British rules of engagement are far more restrictive than other countries, the US for example.
It also prevents spurious, and quite frankly ambulance chasing lawyers from pursuing cases against service personnel.
If you're going to torture, maim or murder try and keep quiet about it for 5 years and you'll be grand.
Keir really is a disgusting spineless little rodent. Looks more and more like a Tory plant by the day.
Genuine question, would you rather Corbyn who was unelectable or Starmer who appeals to the centre ground and could at least run a credible campaign?
The best thing about anyone defending the OO bill e.g @ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg is that it's always "British troops are completely scrupulous with incredibly high standards, better than any other forces in the word, and subject to the normal due legal process… … … and that's why we need to change that legal process, so that they are no longer subject to it"
I know it's pointless with it comes to reactionaries like yourself but for anyone else who might be interested here's a few examples.
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/22/ireland-hooded-men-torture/
David Davis doing his usual stopped-clock thing as soon as it comes to civil/individual/human rights:
I'm mainly posting this just to point out that there are right-wing voices opposed to this as well.
I'm mainly posting this just to point out that there are right-wing voices opposed to this as well.
Neither. I'm realistic, I loved Corbyn and what he stood for but I know that given the media hatchet job and the wreckers within Labour, that is no longer an option. If Keir is successful we won't see a left wing government in the UK in my life time and I'm not happy with that.
That’s not what I’ve said, and as far as I can see not what the bill states.
At no point have I said British troops are better than anyone else, but we do have more stringent rules of engagement than many other countries. Fact.
Some Soldiers break the law, and when they are brought to justice. This bill is there to prevent the horrendous process many soldiers have been subject to from unscrupulous lawyers chasing a payday.
Read this.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....iner-disqualified-for-professional-misconduct
How many are gone now? 1, 4, & 5 definitely. I think 3 & 6 arguably have too.
Perhaps when he said they were Pledges he meant they wipe off easily:
Yeah I know about Shiner. You don't deal with misconduct by a single lawyer by giving legal immunity to the crime. That's like finding out someone was wrongly accused of murder and caused them undue stress and then making murder legal so it cannot happen again.
What do you mean reactionary?
Do you know anyone who has actually served in the military?
Soldiers can still be prosecuted if outside the 5 year window, but it cannot be done as a matter of course.
I’m not saying it’s perfect by the way, but do you want innocent soldiers to be pursued for decades by lawyers out to make a fast buck? Do you think that’s the right approach?
It’s not though it is. That’s one high profile example.its like determining any law set on a single precedent is irrelevant until it happens multiple times.
2 and 6 went on the same night, whilst he was on his victory parade after ensuring only the vast majority of migrants' National Insurance contributions had no value in regards to accessing the NHS.How many are gone now? 1, 4, & 5 definitely. I think 3 & 6 arguably have too.
Perhaps when he said they were Pledges he meant they wipe off easily:
Ridiculous stance by Starmer.
Why can't he stand for something. Absolutely spineless.
Why can't he stand for something. Absolutely spineless.
the old we won't break the law so we don't need the law argument.
You are assuming it only applies to troops on the ground. It actually means we could have issues much higher in the command chain, wait 5 years and then no consequences.
If you have a genuine question, at least try to phrase it in a genuine way. There are so many incorrect assumptions in your terribly leading question it was barely worth asking.
How is it not a genuine question?
Would you prefer a far more left leaning Labour Party that is never getting into power, and just functions as an opposition. Or would you rather a party that has a genuine chance of winning an election, but moving to the centre ground?
Genuine question, do you support torture, or do you think that Labour was wrong to abstain on the bill yesterday?
What’s the point in abstaining? Do they agree with the bill or not?
You do realise that if a lawyer is pursuing something or someone for decades, that has nothing to do with making a fast buck. I can't believe what I just read.
It’s everything to do with a fast buck. I didn’t work it correctly - I didn’t mean they were pursued for decades, but can be pursued for decades afterwards.
There are far too many ambulance chasing solicitors trying to make spurious cases against soldiers. Whether this is the right bill to solve it, I don’t know. I’ve not looked at it in intricate detail.
Or indeed some of the high profile cases of 'ambulance chasing'/credible accusations of war crimes which the bill is reaction to.
Do you mean like the war criminals who were stationed Northern Ireland who should absolutely be prosecuted?
I think this is most peoples understanding of what the OOB is about.
The problem is that when you arm some one and tell them that when they put on that uniform they are charged with defending their country and its loved ones, that they face having to kill or be killed and then put them in harms way, you cannot be surprised if in confrontational and in many cases chaotic situations, that rule books get torn up....who is it then who should be on trial?
Have you ever served in the military?
When soldiers breach the law or rules of engagement, they are punished. They are highly trained to deal with these situations and have a chain of command who are very robust in insuring soldiers carry out their duties as expected.
Of course, training cannot replicate real life, and we do not know how someone will react under extreme circumstances. However, the rule book doesn’t get ripped up, and things are not covered up when they do go wrong.
My understanding is that there are provisions in place where if there are genuine cases then the 5 year rule does not apply.
An what exactly defines "genuine cases"? I wouldn't trust something like this to the Tories, I'm surprised you would. Or is this simply because Sir Keith has decided not to oppose it?
Sir Keith? He’s the most credible leader Labour have had in a decade.
If the UK troop(s) are the victim(s) not the perpetrator(s).
Either address my point or jog on.
Spot on. Would like to see him admit it though.
Christ I'm on the same side as @Sweet Square again. We need a conversation about taxation or free market capitalism quickly to put that right.
I have found myself (in my younger days) in one or two situations of mass panic and confusion where authority/leadership of any description had broken down and/or was completely absent. In such situations and for short periods of time complete chaos reigned and I, and I assume those around me, none of whom were known to me, realized we were in danger and we fought each other to get out. Some injuries were sustained, thankfully none serious. However I know in those moments of confusion I had hurt people around me in my desperation to save myself and for years afterwards suffered from nightmares (for up to twenty years).
I had received some training, which for the situation I was in turned out to be totally inept except ironically for some first aid training which I was, after the incidents, and calm had been restored, able to use to help others.
I have thought many times since what would have happened if weapons had been available to me (or anyone else) would I have used them to save myself, I do not know, but I worry that I just might have done? Hence I would find it very difficult to judge anyone else.