Five Royal Marines charged with murder.....

Five Royal Marines have been charged with murder, they will face these charges at a Court Martial. First of all you will say you fully support the investigation and charge of the five servicemen, especially as you believe that for the DSP to authorise a charge there must be reliable evidence, however you posted this on July the 6th 2012:


'The Service Justice System and the Criminal Justice System both operate in the United Kingdom. They are similar, but certainly not identical.

Where they are different, they are different in a way that could be frightening....

Odds: 10/2 - If you are a civilian being tried at crown court for murder, all you have to do is convince two out of twelve of your 'peers' that you are not guilty......

Odds: 4/3 - If you are a member of the Armed Forces being tried at a court martial for murder, all you have to do is convince four out of seven senior members of the Armed Forces that you are not guilty.....

A Court Martial can sentence a person convicted of a service offence to life imprisonment. The jury at the court martial is made up of three to seven serviceman consisting of officers and warrant officers.

A Crown Court can sentence a person convicted of an offence to life imprisonment. The jury at a crown court is made up of twelve men and women, 'peers' of the defendant. The definition of 'peers' is as follows:

'A person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.'

Imagine being a young enlisted serviceman, on trial for murder at a Court Martial, walking into the court room, finding out that you are going to be judged by not twelve, but seven, that they are not your peers, but are unlike you in most ways possible, and that it will not have to be a unanimous verdict, but a majority verdict, that could send you to prison for the rest of your life.......

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

'In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.'

Irrespective of whether or not they are guilty, that serviceman you mentioned above, will be each and every one of those five Royal Marines, and that frightens you, and angers you.

'Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.' 

Martin Luther King Jr. 

Peace in all time......

As you knelt down, your hands and uniform covered in blood, you looked at the man you were attempting to stop bleeding to death, he was surprisingly calm, but the crowd weren't, they were shouting at you, calling you a 'CUNT' and a 'BASTARD'. Your colleague was trying to hold them back, whilst calling for assistance on the radio, he turned around and you could see the look on his face. You've worked with this guy for many years, and you know that 'look', it meant people were coming as fast as they could, but that it would feel like a life time until they arrived.

You are a normal young man, mile mannered, polite and respectful, with a beautiful, thoughtful girlfriend, a dog, a hamster, a nice little house with a beautiful back garden. You enjoy listening to classical music, gardening and playing Monopoly at Christmas. How could anyone be calling you a 'BASTARD' and a 'CUNT'?

'It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed.'

Senator Robert Kennedy.

The answer is simple, when a person puts on a uniform, be they a serviceman, a police officer, a traffic warden, a service policeman, a PCSO, a paramedic or a fire fighter, they become THAT uniform. 

'She had an infectious personality and sense of humour and was a very caring and loving girl. When she left the house she was 

going to the job she loved.'

What makes you angry, is that someone can be so EVIL as to pull a trigger without a thought for the fact they are not just attacking a uniform, but a PERSON wearing that uniform.

'A calm, gentle woman, planning her wedding. She had a great sense of humour and always put people at ease.'

They are attacking a person with HOPES and DREAMS, plans for the FUTURE. They are attacking someone's wife, daughter, son, father, brother, sister, not just a UNIFORM. 

PC Nicola Hughes, just 23 years old, PC Fiona Bone, soon to marry her partner, woke up on the 17th of September 2012, and to put it bluntly and tragically, ended up being killed in a cul-de-sac on an estate in Manchester, not because of who they WERE but because of what they were WEARING. 

What that individual did, when they pulled the trigger, was EVIL, pure EVIL.

'I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children. Not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.....Our problems are man-made. Therefore, they can be solved by man.'

President JF Kennedy.

The military question...

'I would hope they'd want us all to know why, sir.' 

There are two separate service offences under the Armed Forces Act 2006 which cover disobedience to lawful commands, they are as follows: 

Section 2(3) - Misconduct on Operations: A person to whom this subsection applies commits an offence if he fails to use his utmost exertions to carry out the lawful commands of his superior officers. 

The maximum sentence if found guilty of this offence, is life imprisonment. 

'In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself.' 

Section 12(1) - Disobedience to lawful commands: 

(1)A person subject to service law commits an offence if— (a)he disobeys a lawful command; and (b)he intends to disobey, or is reckless as to whether he disobeys, the command. 

The maximum sentence if found guilty of this offence, is two years imprisonment. 

'Captain Ramsey, under operating procedures governing the release of nuclear weapons we cannot launch our missiles unless both you, and I agree.' 

One of the differences between the military and the civilian world is that a service person could lose their liberty for failing to follow a lawful command. Every service person knows and is taught that you disobey an 'order' at your own peril, it has even been said to you that you should obey the order and then 'redress' it afterwards if you feel you have been 'wronged'. 

'Now this is not a formality, sir. This is expressly why your command must be repeated. It requires my assent, I do not give it and furthermore, if you continue upon this course, and insist upon this launch without confirming this message first, I will be forced, backed by the rules of precedents, authority and command, regulation 08150H6 of the Navy regulations, to relieve you of command, Captain.'

You agree with those who say that the nature of the Armed Forces, the fact that those in service operate in war zones, means they need different rules to the rest of those in society. However, Section 2(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 covers this, to the letter, the reason for this is clear and this you accept. 

'Captain, I relieve you of your command of this ship. COB, escort the Captain off the bridge, I'm assuming command. CHIEF OF THE BOAT, Captain Ramsey is under arrest — lock him in his stateroom!' 

In most occupations the term 'lawful order' doesn't exist, the term 'reasonable order' however, does. So when you look at the act, you can't help thinking, what is the reason for having the term 'lawful' in section 12(1), when the term 'reasonable' would seem to be far more appropriate? 

'If I'm wrong, then we're at war. God help us all.' 

Crimson Tide is one of your favourite films, it is hard hitting, relevant and shows moral courage should be applauded. You also think it should be compulsory viewing for those undertaking military basic training.........

'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.'

Nuremberg Principle Four.

The kangaroo court?

The Service Justice System and the Criminal Justice System both operate in the United Kingdom. They are similar, but certainly not identical.

Where they are different, they are different in a way that could be frightening....

Odds: 10/2 - If you are a civilian being tried at crown court for murder, all you have to do is convince two out of twelve of your 'peers' that you are not guilty......

Odds: 4/3 - If you are a member of the Armed Forces being tried at a court martial for murder, all you have to do is convince four out of seven senior members of the Armed Forces that you are not guilty.....

A Court Martial can sentence a person convicted of a service offence to life imprisonment. The jury at the court martial is made up of three to seven serviceman consisting of officers and warrant officers.

A Crown Court can sentence a person convicted of an offence to life imprisonment. The jury at a crown court is made up of twelve men and women, 'peers' of the defendant. The definition of 'peers' is as follows:

'A person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.'

Imagine being a young enlisted serviceman, on trial for murder at a Court Martial, walking into the court room, finding out that you are going to be judged by not twelve, but seven, that they are not your peers, but are unlike you in most ways possible, and that it will not have to be a unanimous verdict, but a majority verdict, that could send you to prison for the rest of your life.......

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

'In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.' 

Has somebody missed something of grave consequence here?

'I want you to help me create a new atmosphere in our country, an atmosphere in which we back, revere and support our military.'


David Cameron, The Prime Minister.

Independent and impartial.....

In recent years, there have been many incidents where police forces both civilian and especially the military police have been criticised for what appears to be a lack of independence from those who they are investigating.

It was documented in the Stockwell Report that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and it's investigators were deliberately excluded from the start of the investigation into the fatal shooting of John Charles De Menezes in July 2005, which to some would be even more of a brazen act by the Metropolitan Police Service as the IPCC was established through the Police Reform Act 2002.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (it's members being Canadian Forces Military Policemen and women) were openly criticised in 2010 for not being fully and effectively independent from the military chain of command when it was reported that they were somewhat reluctant to investigate that the policies of the Canadian Armed Forces were allegedly leading to the torture of prisoner's at the hands of Afghan Forces.

The Royal Military Police have recently also come under heavy criticism in two cases, after an investigation conducted by Greater Manchester Police led to a report that their investigation into torture allegations following the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004 was inadequate. It was documented that the Service Chain of Command would not release servicemen for interview and that the Special Investigation Branch (RMP) had allegedly failed to collect evidence due to disagreements with the chain of command. This led to a very senior Service Policeman being described as a 'very unsatisfactory witness' as it was suspected he may have asked or possibly ordered other service policeman to lie on oath.

It appears that modern policing is coming closer and closer to complete independence in the investigative process. To mention the Service Police of the British Armed Services specifically, the introduction of the Armed Forces Act 2011 means that they will now be inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to establish whether or not the investigations undertaken are independent from the Service Chain of Command. Also Service Policemen of Provost Marshal rank will now report directly to the Defence Council, showing greater independence from the chain of command.

However having said that, it would appear that there still appears to be one aspect that remains unchanged, and remains fundamentally different from other policing environments. To hold a Service person in custody, for the purposes of carrying out an expeditious investigation, a Service Policeman still has to report and seek authorisation from that service person's Commanding Officer (who can order the arrested person to be released from custody under Section 98 of the AFA 2006), therefore, it would be appear, preventing the investigative process from being fully independent.

One of the most important principles of policing is that the investigations undertaken have to be independent and impartial. Robert Peel's fifth principle of Policing is:

'Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.'

You can't argue with that, because in your personal opinion impartiality is one of the most important aspects of an effective investigation.

'The military should hold itself to the highest standards at all times. If you are in these countries trying to take the high moral ground, then you have to uphold your ethics, particularly if you want to change the way other people live.'

Mark Cann, British Forces Foundation.

Sodom and Gomorrah........

'The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.' Genesis 19 V 12/13

You have come to notice that, in every environment you have ever worked, the organisation itself only continues to function because those employed within it who will go above and beyond what is required are just slightly larger in number than those who go to work and perform below the standard required. What also falls under this same umbrella is that those who are in charge of the organisation rely heavily on those people who belong to the former of the two groups.

Take the British Armed Services for example, is is widely known that there are servicemen and women who have failed to meet the standard of fitness required of them. There have been cases in the services where servicemen and women have tried to avoid service by some rather dubious means in a bid to avoid going on deployment, and whilst there are some servicemen and women that are caught and prosecuted there are, you are almost certain, some that go undetected.

What you have also come to believe is that societies all over the world also relies heavily on those who work hard, to offset those who are lazy and those who malinger. The Police have recently taken a huge hit on both their pay and their pensions, as have the Armed Services. What a lovely coincidence it is that these two organisations are prevented from withdrawing their services under law.

What the cynic inside of you believes and is disconcerted by, is that one day this whole 'arrangement' based on the 'good will' of those willing to go above and beyond is going to come crashing down when people realise that they can walk away with the same amount of money and respect if they just went to work and performed just below the standard required.

But what scares the hell out of you, is that one day the hard working, morally efficient driven people of this society will realise that they would be better off, at least in the short term, if they didn't go to work at all. Whilst you do not believe the Bible is the truth, you still can see that if that day comes, and those people get an attack of selfishness, no one will be able to save society from what is coming, because Sodom and Gamorrah will happen again, and you fear that no one will be able to stop it......

Merry Christmas Children.....

'Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.' Genesis 19 V 27/28.

Ivor......

What you have found, during your career in policing is that decisions that are made 'on the ground' in seconds, in difficult, stressful, fast moving and unforgiving situations, are decisions that are judged, with hindsight, be they by senior officers, junior officers or for that matter, any one, you have found that decisions are scrutinised, pulled apart, alternatives offered from pages of procedure and legeslitive articles.

You cannot count on two hands the amount of times you have heard the following empty words from seniour police officers:

'What ever you choose to do, on the ground, we will support you.'

What you dislike about these words is that you disagree with them, because they are said with the knowledge that it really doesn't matter to anyone whether or not a Police Officer, Service Policeman or PCSO for that matter is supported by their Chain of Command, because really, what it actually comes down to is whether or not that Police Officer, Service Policeman, or PCSO can justify their actions in a court of law.

One thing that you have never had to do, and what you hope you never have to do, is confront an armed and determined suspect, who is ready to kill, both others and yourself. It is most likely the most stressful, unforgiving situation that a policeman can be involved in, and the thought of it makes you wince.

On the 22 July 2005 a SO12 Armed Surveilance Officer, code named Ivor, was deployed onto the streets of London as part of a team tasked to follow a suspect in the failed bombings on the 21 July 2005. The person that was believed, incorrectly to be the suspect, code named Nettle Tip, transited through London, by foot, on a bus and then made his way to Stockwell Tube Station. During this time, as CO19 Specialist Firearms Officers were struggling to make ground, Ivor volunteered on numerous ocasions to make the stop himself, as he had recieved information that led him to suspect that the suspect may be carrying an explosive device, and was ready to kill innocent members of the public.

On entering a tube carriage at Stockwell, Ivor sat behind the suspect, and waited for firearms officers, on seeing them, knowing that he was both dressed in smimilar clothes to the suspect and resembled him in appearence, he bravely took action.

Sir Micheal Wright: He wasn't wearing any inappropriate or unusual clothing, was he?

Ivor: He was dressed virtually identical to myself, yes, sir.

He moved to the door of the carriage, making a split second decision:

Ivor: However, when I saw the CO19 officers on the platform, I had to make an assessment within seconds as to why they were there.

He kept it open with his foot and gave a target indication, at this point the suspect got out of his seat and moved towards the officers.

Ivor: In my statement I said he advanced towards us.

Knowing full well that the suspect could have been carrying an exlosive device, Ivor then took hold of the suspect, wrapping his arms around his waist and pinned him back into his seat, both to prevent him from detonating a device and to assist in his arrest, the person believed to be Nettle Tip was actually an innocent man called Jean Charles DeMenezes, he was shot, at point blank range by two CO19 Specialist Firearms Officers, Charlie 2 and Charlie 12.

Ivor was then dragged out of the carriage and held at gunpoint by a CO19 officer and was understandably treated with grave suspicion until he identified himself as a Policeman.

The Honourable Mr Justice Henriques: We heard, commissioner, of some magnificent police work by several officers. The work of the officer codenamed ‘Ivor’ in grasping a suspected suicide bomber by both arms, pinning them to his side, was magnificent, and if had been dealing with a suicide bomber, he may well have saved many lives. As it was, he risked his own life, not only by way of proximity, but because he was dressed similar to Mr de Menezes, he was of similar complexion, and was indeed apparently for a short time understandably treated by the firearms team as an associate of the man they believed to be the bomber. It should be remembered also that he volunteered himself to make the stop before Mr de Menezes entered the tube station. May I, Commissioner, ask that he received the appropriate and well earned commendation?

This man, a constable, the lowest rank in the Police, put himself at risk, and bravely took action to prevent what he honestly believed may be a suicide bomber, hell bent on killing innocent people. Even though the man turned out to be innocent, Ivor still acted bravely and without consideration for his own safety, society needs policemen and women, like Ivor, who act without the direct support of their Chain of Command and are brave and rightious enough to make the decision 'on the ground' and then justify it in a court of law.

'Decisons made in real time are never perfect and it is easy to judge those decisions afterwards, from an arm chair.'

Ezra Kramer, The Bourne Ultimatum.