# Bullying



## big bad john (26 Feb 2005)

From Surrey to Basra, abuse is a fact of British army life 

Officers who blame 'a few bad apples' ignore a culture of brutalisation 

Joanna Bourke
Saturday February 26, 2005
The Guardian 

Stanley Kubrick's film Full Metal Jacket must rank as one of the grimmest portrayals of the Vietnam war. A leading character, dubbed "Joker", is asked why he volunteered; he replies: "_ wanted to meet interesting, stimulating people from an ancient land ... and kill them." Confronted with the harrowing photographic evidence of abuse by British soldiers in Iraq, it is tempting to add the phrase "humiliate, sexually abuse, and torture" to this admission. We seem to have moved a long way from the promise of restoring democracy to the Iraqi people. 
Part of the war has been conducted at a court martial in the ancient German city of Osnabruck, where two soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers have been found guilty of abusing civilian prisoners. A third soldier had already pleaded guilty to assault, after he was photographed standing on an Iraqi prisoner. It is not only these men who stood trial, but the British army itself. And for many people around the world, the British people also bear some responsibility. 

Even before these convictions, the militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been linked to al-Qaida, claimed that suicide attacks were "in response to the harm inflicted by British occupation forces on our brothers in prison". Given our army's record of abuse and torture in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland (to name just a few), is it any wonder that many people might react cynically to claims that justice has been done? 

The evidence of abuse on British army premises in Iraq that was revealed during the trial indicates that something is seriously wrong with our armed forces. Rituals involving physical and psychological humiliation, as well as sexual abuse, are not confined to overseas operations, but are also present "at home". A survey carried out by the Ministry of Defence in 2002 found that more than 40% of British soldiers believed the army had a problem with bullying, sexual discrimination and harassment. 

 More recently, an official study claims that almost half the women serving in the RAF have been sexually harassed at some point in their career. And only yesterday, the Sun published photographs of members of the Queen's Guard apparently ritually humiliating a new recruit by tying him naked to a fence and pouring what appears to be manure over his head. 

In addition, the claims of ritual humiliation and sexual abuse at Deepcut training camp, in Surrey, are profoundly disturbing. A police report into the barracks contained more than 100 allegations of serious abuse. 

The fact that the army was aware of the repeated violent, predatory behaviour of men such as Lance Corporal Leslie Skinner (convicted in 2004 of a series of sexual attacks on young recruits) and Lance Corporal David Atkinson (who murdered Cambridge student Sally Geeson on New Year's Day), is another indictment of the institution. 

The army insists that these are aberrations - a few "bad apples". But it is plausible to assume that bullying and abuse are more widespread than senior officers wish to admit. Within the barracks, a culture of silence prevails. Leslie Skinner's victims, for instance, said nothing for years. The reason for their reticence was that Skinner was "rank" and in the army "you do what you are told". 

Unquestioning obedience is inculcated into every recruit. Basic training, from the donning of a uniform to being subjected to a relentless series of drills and chants, induces a lessening of self-awareness. Such a process of de-individuation can lead to the weakening of restraints against prohibited forms of behaviour. This is coupled with the fact that positive military values include aggression, dominance and overt displays of physical prowess. Sensitivity, understanding and compassion are routinely derided. 

The "macho" culture in training barracks is shared by female soldiers too, many of whom become obsessed with the need to trounce the boys. And despite their enthusiasm, "GI Janes" often become targets of abuse. 

During the Gulf war, much was made of the fact that two US servicewomen taken prisoner had been raped. What was less publicised was that 24 US servicewomen reported being raped or sexually assaulted by colleagues during the withdrawal of forces. Similarly, 29% of American women who served in Vietnam were victims of actual or attempted sexual assault. 

Clearly, ethical and moral codes change in the conditions of military life. These altered standards, together with isolation from family and civilian networks, favour brutalisation. 

So, too, does the general ambience of preparing for war. In the Falklands war of 1982, for instance, British soldiers on troop ships were shown violent pornographic films as a way of stimulating their aggression prior to battle. Young male recruits in particular were terrified of being derided as "queer" and "chicken". Those who refused to participate in "raggings" or group abuse were regarded as lacking loyalty. 

Ostracism was dreaded: it denied recruits what little comfort could be grasped in an often alienating environment. As one soldier put it, it was "dangerous enough just fighting the acknowledged enemy". In the front line, of course, both abuse and fear of reporting abuse increase exponentially. 

The British army prides itself on its professionalism and its discipline. Its adherence to codes of honourable behaviour in battle is central to the way the British army markets itself, particularly in opposition to other fighting forces (such as the Germans during the two world wars, and the Americans in the current conflict). But this image may be exploded as a result of the war in Iraq. 

In all armies, the horror of battle can reduce inhibitions to atrocious behaviour. But this seems to be more likely on some battlefields than others. During the second world war, for example, British and American servicemen were significantly more likely to act in atrocious ways in the Pacific theatre of war compared with the European one. The guerrilla nature of warfare in the Pacific partly explained the greater willingness of soldiers to hit out blindly against enemy combatants and civilians alike. But racism also played a significant part. As drill instructors told recruits: "You're not going to Europe, you're going to the Pacific. Don't hesitate to fight the Japs dirty." Classifying the Japanese as inhuman meant they all became fair game. 

In Iraq, too, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that racial and religious differences are fuelling much of the abuse being carried out by the occupying forces. 

Refusing to participate in abuses, as well as reporting maltreatment, becomes extremely difficult in such contexts. Although servicemen and women are only required to obey lawful orders, immediate and total obedience is deeply ingrained. As one sergeant recalled after witnessing an atrocity in Vietnam: "There was no chance of ever having anything done, and I ... didn't want to get hassled or thrown into the brig ... I just tucked it away in some dead space ... and went on functioning." 

The ethos promoted by army life and that accepted within civilian societies will always differ. What we have been seeing in Iraq, however, is the complete divorce between the two. 

 · Joanna Bourke is professor of history at Birkbeck College, London, and the author of Fear: A Cultural History 

j.bourke@bbk.ac.uk 

(Edited to remove commercial info)_


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Feb 2005)

I think its a byproduct of the UK public [meaning private elite schools] school system. Bullying is a waste of energy and can cause a breakdown in good order and discipline. If it occurs it needs to be stopped.


----------



## Slim (26 Feb 2005)

A member of the A.Q. was STOOD ON!!!...Why, that's terrible! :

Remember while your weeping for the poor terrorists that they cut the heads off our soldiers and CIVVIES alike!

Sorry, no tears here.

Slim


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (26 Feb 2005)

I could honestly care less about the prisoners involved.  What I do care about is the breach of service discipline and resultant dishonour to the uniform.  If a man/woman is in arms against our or allied forces, then they can count themselves fortunate to be taken prisoner, rather than bagged and tagged.  Once surrendered, they will be treated according to military regulations regarding treatment of prisoners.  To allow abuses is to piss upon the honour of the service.  If I see disgraceful conduct permitted or encouraged by those wearing my own uniform, the dishonour affects me as well.  How can it not reduce the respect an occupying power needs to rebuild a nation?   We held ourselves to a strict code of conduct rebuilding Germany, allowing honourable Germans to participate in the reconstruction.  What we got was a strong and free ally, and asset.  The Russians allowed and encouraged brutality, and the segments of the population that would serve them were scum, and what they built bore that taint, and collapsed under it.  The American govt has never understood how allowing their "civilian contractors" (anybody remember Phoenix from Vietnam?), to operate alongside military personnel, and on prisoners under military care, can quickly degrade the discipline required by an occupying army.  This disease spreads quickly, and is more damaging to an army than enemy fire.  The British have a long history of imperialism, and have learned the lessons of it; abuses like this spawn decay in the army and resistance in the population.  This cannot be allowed.  The British are doing what they must, and the Americans would be wise to learn from it.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (26 Feb 2005)

I doubt a lance-corporal or private in a line infantry regiment is a product of the public school system.

Don't forget the context, they were looters who were stripping shops, food warehouses etc bare. if they had been caught by most islamic-based police forces, they'd have had their hands chopped off, not been 'stood on' *shock horror*

In my exerience bullying is not 'endemic' in the british army. never been bullied, nor bullied anyone myself. Never even seen it FFS. Trust the guardian to take the fluffy PC approach to the whole issue.


----------



## Slim (26 Feb 2005)

IT seems that the U.K. newsies have quite an agenda...almost more than our domestic variety. They never come right out and lie...But the truth gets stretched quite hard I bet...Not too difficult to slant a story by re-arranging some of the words.


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (26 Feb 2005)

"The fact that the army was aware of the repeated violent, predatory behaviour of men such as Lance Corporal Leslie Skinner (convicted in 2004 of a series of sexual attacks on young recruits) and Lance Corporal David Atkinson (who murdered Cambridge student Sally Geeson on New Year's Day), is another indictment of the institution."

Ummmm...Does anyone else find that a bit odd...what the hell is a convicted murderer still doing in the army...if they have nutjobs like that serving over there then I am glad I didn't cross the pond to join up...who's running the show over there for god sakes...how could they even let people like that stay in...

Scary...


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Feb 2005)

I guess my comment was initiated by a thread on arrse about officer bullying.
In the case of enlisted men bullying it is something that shouldnt be allowed to go on.


----------



## Pieman (26 Feb 2005)

> Ummmm...Does anyone else find that a bit odd...what the hell is a convicted murderer still doing in the army...if they have nutjobs like that serving over there then I am glad I didn't cross the pond to join up...who's running the show over there for god sakes...how could they even let people like that stay in...


Careful..the article simply mentions these two people, and does not qualify the situation. The BA is known for letting people with a criminal record in to start over again, we don't know the details of these two guys. Were they even involved in cases of bullying? Or are thier names being used simply because they were criminals in the past?

I wonder if bullying is a by-product of the training environment? I read an article by the BA (If I can locate it I will post a link) That mentioned they were re-organizing the fundamentals of their training system. Taking it from a old school, harsh discipline, 'run the men through the grinder' to one that looks at the soldier as a athlete that improves himself through team work etc.

If I am not mistaken, the CF went through a similar transition back in the 70's, where the CF was 'old school' and bullying was a problem. After those changes, many of those problems disappeared. Am I correct about this?


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (26 Feb 2005)

The point I'm trying to make...and maybe I didn't make it all that well is this:

A country's military, whether it be Canada's, the UK's or wherever, represents that country overseas and at home, in the case of Canada for example, we as a country expect our troops to be professional and to act with integrity and with honour.  We trust them to do this and to represent us well.  So IMHO if we're recruting someone who may very well one day have to act on behalf of our country, we hope the recuriters will select the right people based on their history and skills and personality and ethics and whatever.  Why then, would a recruiter enlist someone who has a questionable background like that...it just confuses me thats all...I'm all for giving criminals a second chance...but that has to be qualified as well...its one thing if you stole a car stereo when you were 15 yrs old and stupid...its another thing to have a consistent history of sexual harrassmant...or to be a murderer...believe it or not, there are people who are habitual criminals...and putting them into the military, where they are dealing with serious situations, with weapons, with a completely different type of social and psychological system....well thats just dangerous...if the British Army knew about these guys and their past as the paper said...then shame on them for keeping these guys in the system and in puting them in positions of responsibility...as far as I'm concerned, and this all depends on whether the BA knew about these guys and their histories...then if the BA knew...well shame on them and they are just as much to blame for letting these guys stay in the army and represent their country...

I know that if I found out that the Canadian Army had a convict with a nasty history like that serving the country...I'd be pretty concerned...


----------



## Morgs (26 Feb 2005)

Pieman said:
			
		

> Careful..the article simply mentions these two people, and does not qualify the situation.



Quite true Pieman... "Lance Corporal David Atkinson (who murdered Cambridge student Sally Geeson on New Year's Day)..."

"Atkinson was discovered outside a hotel in Glasgow about 12 hours after Miss Geeson's body was found."

BBC NEWS 	
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005, 17:56 GMT
Soldier killed Sally, tests show
David Atkinson
David Atkinson, who is now known to have murdered Sally Geeson
Forensic tests have confirmed that a soldier who committed suicide in Glasgow murdered the Cambridge student, Sally Geeson.

Lance Corporal David Atkinson, from East Kilbride, was Cambridgeshire Police's prime suspect.

The student's naked body was found on Friday, almost a week after she disappeared in Cambridge.

David Atkinson killed himself on Saturday when he jumped from the top floor of a hotel in Glasgow.

The police officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Supterintendent Gary Swain, said he believed that the 22-year-old was sexually assaulted before her death.

Confession letter

CCTV evidence confirmed that Atkinson was cruising in his Land Rover in the centre of Cambridge at the time Sally left a pub there after bringing in the New Year.

Cambridge detectives said on Tuesday that the soldier left a letter in his hotel room confessing to the murder.

Corus hotel in Glasgow
The Corus Hotel, where Atkinson killed himself
L/Cpl Atkinson was based at the Royal Engineers' Waterbeach barracks.

On Monday, the Army revealed he had been sent to a military jail after holding an 18-year-old Polish student captive in Germany in 1998.

He was cleared of kidnap and assault but served eight months in military prison after falsely imprisoning the woman. He was also fined  £1,000

Atkinson was discovered outside a hotel in Glasgow about 12 hours after Miss Geeson's body was found.

He had set himself on fire before jumping from the window of the room on the sixth floor.

Family grieves

Miss Geeson's mother and sisters have visited the woodland at Madingley, Cambridgeshire, where her body was found.

Sue Geeson, 46, left a card and a single red rose at the scene. Sally's twin Julie, 22, and younger sister Nicola, 19, left bouquets also signed by their brother, John, 15.

Geeson family at Madingley
Sally Geeson's mother and sisters visit the scene
Miss Geeson's mother and her sisters travelled from their home in Southend, Essex, on Tuesday morning to visit the spot near Cambridge.

Educational consultant Mrs Geeson's card read: "To my darling Sally. I will cherish every moment we spent together. My love always. Mum xx."

Julie's message read: "Always have and always will be in my heart and right by my side forever Sally. Love Jusie Wusie xx."

Nicola and John's card read: "My Sally. You will always be in my heart and never far from my side. I love you forever. Our big sister, All our love Nic (Gonzo) and John."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4166211.stm


----------



## Pieman (26 Feb 2005)

> I'm all for giving criminals a second chance...but that has to be qualified as well...its one thing if you stole a car stereo when you were 15 yrs old and stupid...its another thing to have a consistent history of sexual harrassmant...or to be a murderer...believe it or not, there are people who are habitual criminals...and putting them into the military, where they are dealing with serious situations, with weapons, with a completely different type of social and psychological system....well thats just dangerous...



I certainly see your point ReadyAyeReady. The BA would look at anyone with a criminal backround on a case by case basis, so one could only assume, or hope, they have a good way of telling who is still criminally inclined and who isn't. But it sure would be a black eye for them if an soldier with a dark background like that got into trouble. I wonder how they come to the decision in those situations.

I guess it brings up the question, if you let someone in the Army after committing crime 'A', at what point do you consider crime 'B' to be too severe or risky to let someone in?

EDIT: Morgs, where are you!? All I see is green ;D


----------



## enfield (27 Feb 2005)

That article is full of BS. The author obviously has a big axe to grind, and is looking for ways to discredit the British military by using selective facts and biased and misleading interpretation.

She opens with a discussion of a movie, a fictional movie, made by a civilian with a clear anti-millitary objective, and uses this to set the mood for the reader. The reader is left to infer that the British Army is exactly as brutal as the movie showed the USMC, and Vietnam is exactly the same as Iraq. Personally, I disagree. 

She even says "We seem to have moved a long way from the promise of restoring democracy to the Iraqi people. " - Well, again, I'd disagree - the election appear to have ben successful, and while its just a first step, the soldiers involved in the abuse have been charged, tried, and found guilty - sounds like a triumph of democratic rule of law to me.

Next she goes on to "The army's record of abuse and torture in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland". Ok, fine, abuse occurred. No mention of the army's record of victory, discipline, humanitarian work, lives saved, etc. Apparently the British Army shows up in places, beats civilians, and goes home.  

She then mentions a bunch of opiniions and facts. Ok, yes, abuse and sexual harassment etc, takes place. How many tens of thousands of people are in the British military? Are the abuse rates any higher than in normal populations?

Ok, I'm not sure the point of pouring manure over a recruits head, but...well, so what? Theres a context for such things, and I'd hold that some degree of hazing and initiation is appropriate. I've seen Frats and football teams do worse - where's her great morale outrage at the state of rugby teams??

"The fact that the army was aware of the repeated violent, predatory behaviour of men such as Lance Corporal Leslie Skinner (convicted in 2004 of a series of sexual attacks on young recruits) and Lance Corporal David Atkinson (who murdered Cambridge student Sally Geeson on New Year's Day), is another indictment of the institution." --- certainly a pair of bad apples, and if they were allowed to continue such behaviour, known to their officers, it is certainly something to be looked into. But, she hasn't made her point - she's come up with 5 names so far, as well as broad generalized statistics - Read on:

"But it is plausible to assume that bullying and abuse are more widespread than senior officers wish to admit."  --- "plausible" to "assume"?? I hope she doesn't make stretches like that in her academic work. She just tarnished the service of hundreds of thousands of people over many decades, based on a few proven cases. 

"Unquestioning obedience is inculcated into every recruit." - I'm not aware that it is. I'm only familiar wth the Canadian Army, but I assume that Britain has similar lectures and expectations about ignoring illegal orders, maintaining the rules and regulations, and following the laws of land conflict. I've never sen evidence British soldiers were brainwashed automatons. Anyways, she then goes through the usual liberal, left-wing critique of military training....

" Basic training, from the donning of a uniform to being subjected to a relentless series of drills and chants, induces a lessening of self-awareness. Such a process of de-individuation can lead to the weakening of restraints against prohibited forms of behaviour. This is coupled with the fact that positive military values include aggression, dominance and overt displays of physical prowess. Sensitivity, understanding and compassion are routinely derided."...blah..blah...blah.... All true, to a degree, but with a negative slant that does not put it all in context.

Ok, now some more stats - 24 US servicewomen were sexually assaulted in the Gulf War. The US had what, 500,000 personnel deployed at the time? I'm not convinced that this is an unusually high sexual assault rate for that size a population of such age groups. Certainly, each case was a crime, but I don't see how it proves that military forces are such horrible social institutions. 

"In the Falklands war of 1982, for instance, British soldiers on troop ships were shown violent pornographic films as a way of stimulating their aggression prior to battle." Or, like any group of young men they watched porn because it was full of naked women and there were very few females around those troop ships... hardly a case of official Army policy using sex and brutality to brainwash soldiers into killing machines. Besides, given the amount of time between viewing such material on the ships, and actual combat (with how much marching in between?) its effect would have been minimal.

"Ostracism was dreaded" Of course it freaking is! No team, you get killed. Everyone has to work together, nature of the business. 

And then, final line, that in my mind destroys the validity of the article altogether and clearly shows her political agenda: She comapres German forces in WW2 to Americans in Iraq. How you make that stretch in comparing political motivation, body count, brutality, and methods, is beyond me. 

Ok, sorry, I had to dissect that piece.


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

Good rant


----------



## enfield (27 Feb 2005)

yes, yes it was, wasn't it?  ;D

A few stats I Googled up to back my arguments up. It appears to me the military isn't evil - universities are. Looking at these stats, me thinks the military should be congratulated for the behaviour of its members, not condemned.

- One in six female college students reported having been a victim of rape or attempted rape during the preceeding year (http://www.psu.edu/ouic/orientation100/T10/sexassult.html)

- One in four college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape (same as above)

- In a Canadian study, 25% of all female post-secondary students in 1993 had been physically and/or sexually assaulted by a male date or boyfriend. (http://www.metrac.org/new/stat_sex.htm)

I shall remove the soap box, and go back to what I should be doing...


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

Iraq abuse Courts-Martial - latest information (Updated 2225 25 February 2005)

The verdicts in the courts-martial of three members of the 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (1RRF) were announced on 23 February 2005. Corporal Daniel Kenyon was found Guilty of three charges. Lance-Corporal Mark Paul Cooley was found Guilty of two charges. Lance-Corporal Darren Paul Larkin pleaded Guilty to one charge.

Sentences were handed down on Friday 25 February 2005. Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, made the following statement on behalf of the Army and the Ministry of Defence:

"Today's sentencing in the trial of the three soldiers and the lifting of reporting restrictions on an earlier Courts-Martial about the same incident now enables me to say more. I have to bear in mind, however, that both cases are still subject to the statutory process of Review and potential appeal.

"I can now place on record how appalled and disappointed I was when I first saw those photographs at the outset of the trial. The incidents depicted are in direct contradiction to the core values and standards of the British Army, nor do they represent the vast majority of its soldiers who, as I speak, are continuing to do a most difficult job in Iraq. Nevertheless, in light of the evidence from this trial I do apologise on behalf of the Army to those Iraqis who were abused and the people of Iraq as a whole.

"I want to put this case in context, both in terms of the operational challenge faced by the Army, and of other abuse allegations. I also want to say something about what I am doing to ensure that we learn the lesson.

"As I said in my previous statement, this is one of a very small number of cases dealing with allegations of deliberate abuse against Iraqi citizens. Some commentators have reported that there have been 164 Service Police investigations into incidents involving Iraqi citizens. But I must stress that this figures includes routine investigations, 100 of which arise from our strict policy of examining the circumstances of our returning fire in the course of a fire fight. The Police have concluded that very few of these allegations have any foundation. Where there is evidence it is being pursued. There are in fact, four other known cases involving allegations of deliberate abuse have been or may be referred to the prosecuting authorities. You will understand that, for legal reasons I am unable to comment further on these cases. But this number of alleged incidents must be seen in the context that they implicate only a tiny minority of now well-over 65,000 servicemen and women who have served, or are serving, in Iraq, and whose work is committed to rebuilding that country on behalf of the Iraqi people. 

"I want to be clear that the British Army is not complacent about this. Following all operational commitments, we undertake a process of continuous and determined professional review. Now that this courts-martial is completed and in view of the nature of this particular incident, I will be appointing a senior experienced officer to assess what lessons we may need to learn. He will also track any subsequent prosecutions and will report to me with recommendations for action. We will publish our findings when we are no longer constrained by the legal process. 

"Let me finish. The Army sets high standards and demands that they are met. Those who fail to meet these standards are and will be called to account. I believe that this Courts-Martial illustrates plainly our approach of transparency and accountability: it was held in open court, in the full glare of public scrutiny, and to the same standards of justice and independence that are present in the civilian judicial system. I hope what I have said today reinforces our commitment to openness and our desire to maintain the highest standards of conduct in the Army."

Shortly afterwards the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, issued the following statement:

"The conclusion of the recent Courts-Martial in Osnabruck, and the lifting of reporting restrictions on an earlier Courts-Martial about the same incident enables me to say more about the outcome of both trials, although I must take into account that both cases are still subject to the statutory process of Review and potential appeal.

"I was profoundly disturbed when I first saw the photographs. I do, however, share the Chief of the General Staff's view that the incidents depicted do not reflect typical behaviour and standards of the British Army. We also agree that it is right to apologise on behalf of the Army to the victims and the people of Iraq.

"The Chief of the General Staff has now issued a statement on this and future cases. He explained that this was the first in a possible five cases which might come to court where the allegation against members of the British Army is that they committed acts of deliberate abuse against Iraqis. These cases involve up to 22 soldiers. 

"The Chief of the General Staff announced on behalf of the British Army that he has asked a senior officer to assess what lessons we need to learn in light of this and the other cases that might come to court, and to make recommendations for action. We will publish the findings from this work when the Army is no longer constrained by the legal processes. I fully support this statement.

"The Army sets high standards and demands that they are met. The recent Courts-Martial have demonstrated that those who fail to meet those standards are called to account. The vast majority of Servicemen and women do, however, perform to the very highest standards. Their service in Iraq has been outstanding and we are right to be proud of this."


----------



## big bad john (28 Feb 2005)

SAS chiefs defend soldier against Iraq murder claim
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor, and Daniel McGrory



A MEMBER of the SAS is being investigated for the alleged murder of an Iraqi civilian as the Army begins its inquiry into allegations of abuse by British troops. 
The shooting of a tribesman after a funeral could bring the first charge of murder against a member of the SAS. 



Army prosecutors are examining evidence against 48 British servicemen involved in shootings and other incidents in which Iraqis were killed or seriously injured. No further trials will take place before the general election expected in May, which will be a relief for Tony Blair, who does not want Iraq to dominate the headlines during the campaign. 

The Ministry of Defence said that there had been no government pressure over the timing of any trials. The next court martial, involving seven members of The Parachute Regiment accused of beating to death an 18-year-old at a checkpoint in May 2003, is likely to be held in Kuwait for security reasons because a number of Iraqi civilians will appear as witnesses. This is likely to begin much later in the year. 

The SAS man being investigated for murder has not been named, but details of the shooting in Basra on New Year's Day last year is contained in an MoD document leaked at the weekend. The Royal Military Police report describes how the Iraqi, named as Ghanim Gatteh al-Roomi, was killed in a gunfight with British troops. 

The SAS commanding officer and the Director of Special Forces are reported to have argued that the soldier should not be prosecuted because they believe that no crime was committed. 

A defence source said last night: â Å“Special forces soldiers are not above the law and they have to be investigated like any other soldier in the British Army if there is a shooting involving a civilian, but insurgents are often civilians and this case is not being flagged up like the ones where there are allegations of abuse.â ? 

The 48 soldiers facing possible prosecution include the 18 highlighted in The Times last week who make up four cases likely to lead to courts martial where Iraqi civilians died after allegedly being abused while in British military detention. 

British lawyers are ready to bring more cases of alleged of abuse to British courts and are stepping up their calls for a public inquiry into the servicemen's behaviour. 

General Sir Mike Jackson, Chief of the General Staff, said last week that a senior officer would lead an inquiry into abuse allegations. 

The announcement came after three soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were jailed for abuse and dismissed from the Army. General Jackson also apologised to the Iraqi people for the abuse of civilians at a British base and said: â Å“The Army sets high standards. Those who fail to meet those standards are and will be called to accountâ ?. 

The Royal Military Police have investigated 164 incidents in Iraq, 100 involving British personnel being fired on. Others involved traffic accidents or illegally discharging weapons, but most were allegations of abuse, assault and murder. 

The MoD said yesterday that in 116 cases it was ruled that no further action should be taken and 31 cases are still being investigated. Nine cases are being examined by the military's prosecutors and the Crown Prosecution Service. 

A further three cases are being considered by commanders of the regiments involved who will decide whether they should be passed to the prosecuting authorities.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Mar 2005)

referring to the original article, I fail to see why ANYONE with a reasonable mind, ANYWHERE in the world, would believe ANYTHING the Guardian writes. I'd tend to believe the Enquirer, or Weekly World News first.

"Sasquatch Tortures Iraqi Rebel. Canadian Government Disbands Elite Bigfoot Unit!"  :


----------



## Big Foot (8 Mar 2005)

Dammit, they've disbanded the elit bigfoot unit? Where will I go now?


----------



## paracowboy (8 Mar 2005)

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Coffee everywhere!


----------



## Malcolm (17 Mar 2005)

I have found a good website that help me, They are nothing to do with the MOD totally independent hay chaps now we can make sure nothing gets back to the MOD. They have even help abroad so guys contact them and see what they can do


www.forces-helpline.com


----------



## TCBF (21 Mar 2005)

"Dammit, they've disbanded the elit bigfoot unit? Where will I go now?"

Think YOU'RE inconvenienced? , we had to cancel our TD swan to go and teach an Observer/Controller Course there.

Tom


----------



## Centurian1985 (5 Apr 2006)

People tend to forget that while there are some actual incidents of bullying and assault (no society can totally escape violence), a lot of the inflammatory issues are being pushed by people with their own axe to grind.  

What people need to ask when they see these articles is "who's footing the bill"?  A lot of these inflamed issues can be traced ethnic adn special interest groups exagerrating issues just t push their own agendas.

On the flip side, bullying, harassment and abuse of authority occurs in all walks of life and in all trades of the military.  Most people just dont recognize it when they see it or label it as 'thats normal for our guys', when what they see as normal is in fact not normal, they've only gotten acclimated to it. What a lot of people dont realize is that when people act out or speak in a way that belittles, insults, degrades or harasses a fellow soldier, they are actually psychologically expressing their true opinions.  Saying 'I was only kidding' is a form of denial of responsibility for the beliefs they just finished expressing.


----------



## Cliff (5 Apr 2006)

Pieman said:
			
		

> If I am not mistaken, the CF went through a similar transition back in the 70's, where the CF was 'old school' and bullying was a problem. After those changes, many of those problems disappeared. Am I correct about this?



I'd be inclined to say that the CF wasn't politically correct,  but the bullying part may be a stretch ;D  I can't speak for every branch of service = but more than a few hardened kids from broken homes made it through the Infantry ranks. It was probably the best thing for them.


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Apr 2006)

I agree its not like it used to be, but since 1990 Ive had to talk to a few people Ive worked with when they crossed the line from a few fun gags to a level of harassment that was damaging to unit integrity (when people turn their back and walk away from the guy cracking the jokes beacuse they dont want to be involved in whats going on but at the same time dont say anything because they're afraid of being ostracised themselves, you know youve got a problem!).   In one case less than five years ago I had to give some straight talk to an MWO who thought he was the life of the party (which he was), but he was crossing the line with some of his references to female soldiers (specifically about one of the female officers), who heard the remarks, was offended, and could have had the man prosecuted, but allowed me to deal with it.  I find most problems nowadays are from guys who just arent thinking when they're having a few laughs.


----------

