Terse Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 CLICK A Royal Navy medic refused to undergo rifle training on "moral and ethical grounds" ahead of deployment to Afghanistan, a court martial has heard. Leading Medical Assistant Michael Lyons, 24, of Plymouth, Devon, is accused of wilful disobedience over the incident in Portsmouth last year. He believed the Afghan war was unlawful and asked to be "re-roled on non-combative duties", the court heard. The medic had been sent for a pre-deployment course on how to use the SA80 service rifle at HMS Excellent in Portsmouth on 20 September 2010. He was ordered to commence the course by Warrant Officer Robert Bainbridge but refused, the court heard. As a medic, he objected to being trained to use a weapon and was against the war itself, the hearing was told. So [expecting contributions from usual suspects], should he be allowed to refuse such training and/or deployment, or should he be punished for his refusal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 He should be court-martialled and jailed. Unless he was press-ganged into joining the Navy, one can only assume he joined the ARMED Forces voluntarily. The clue is in the name - you're joining the military and the ability to handle a personal weapon (probably for self-defence) and take legitimate orders is of paramount importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So [expecting contributions from usual suspects], should he be allowed to refuse such training and/or deployment, or should he be punished for his refusal? In front of the entire ship's company he should be tied to the mainmast and flogged with a cat-o'-nine-tails. Then the blood should be washed off with seawater and salt rubbed into the wounds. I'm puzzled here. Everyone has to go through basic training. During that time you do weapons training. If you couldn't reach a certain range score you were either back-squadded or discharged because a plank who can't shoot straight has no place in the army. Presumably he's therefore already had some weapons training so it looks like a dodge to avoid getting in the shit to me... ETA : Guilty. As a submariner I bet he never expected to be on the wrong end of an AK47. Fail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't know whether you bothered to read the whole article but, would the part I missed out have made any difference? He had already lodged an appeal to be discharged as a conscientious objector. Mr Lyons's appeal was still to be heard by the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (ACCO), the court martial at Portsmouth Naval Base was told. Or are you so devoted to the notion of men with guns defending our glorious nation that you think the government has the right to do whatever they want with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Or are you so devoted to the notion of men with guns defending our glorious nation that you think the government has the right to do whatever they want with them. If I'm paying for planks to be shot at then I want value for money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Before you deploy you have to tick off the boxes to cover off the theatre specific training you need or have been given. This means going through skill at arms training so that when you deploy, you know that person is capable of doing what he is asked to do. Its also something that you have to do 6 monthly (fitness) and yearly (Skill at arms) to make sure you can still perform basic soldiering duties. If someone is not happy about a moral aspect of soldiering then this is usually dealt with at regiment level and the person given non combat duties until their contract expires (a years notice). We had a stable full of people who didnt want to deploy to different places, instead they groomed horses and stuff until their re-settlment training started and they left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 If someone is not happy about a moral aspect of soldiering then this is usually dealt with at regiment level and the person given non combat duties until their contract expires (a years notice). We had a stable full of people who didnt want to deploy to different places, instead they groomed horses and stuff until their re-settlment training started and they left. Jeeeeze! I find this very hard to believe. Sure times change but even so. I mean "someone is not happy about a moral aspect of soldiering" - then why the hell did they sign up??? Sounds like a failing in command to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Not really, we were RA and operationally we didnt really see the front line aspect but when called up to go into an infantry role, some didnt want to as they didnt think they could cope with front line action. When they signed up they were ready to go but after x amount of years being a shiney ass they didnt want to put themselves in harms way and chose to go non cambat and get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 He should be court-martialled and jailed. Unless he was press-ganged into joining the Navy, one can only assume he joined the ARMED Forces voluntarily. The clue is in the name - you're joining the military and the ability to handle a personal weapon (probably for self-defence) and take legitimate orders is of paramount importance. Agree completely. Shouldn't have signed up if he didn't want to go to war, could've got a job at Noble's instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 He should be court-martialled and jailed. Unless he was press-ganged into joining the Navy, one can only assume he joined the ARMED Forces voluntarily. The clue is in the name - you're joining the military and the ability to handle a personal weapon (probably for self-defence) and take legitimate orders is of paramount importance. Jailed? Why not just shoot him and really teach other would-be mutineers if this sort of thing happens again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Not really, we were RA and operationally we didnt really see the front line aspect but when called up to go into an infantry role, some didnt want to as they didnt think they could cope with front line action. When they signed up they were ready to go but after x amount of years being a shiney ass they didnt want to put themselves in harms way and chose to go non cambat and get out. Strange. The only RA I can think of with stables is on the right of the line. In fact every line. Jailed? Why not just shoot him and really teach other would-be mutineers if this sort of thing happens again. Well, that's the way the Taliban enforce discipline... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It wasnt the taliban who employed him, and being in the taliban is not a career choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Strange. The only RA I can think of with stables is on the right of the line. In fact every line. Most camps we were in had stables, Lark hill, kirton Lindsey , Woolwich. Mostly nothing to do with the regiment but a good place to send slackers or people that had signed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 CLICK A Royal Navy medic refused to undergo rifle training on "moral and ethical grounds" ahead of deployment to Afghanistan, a court martial has heard. Leading Medical Assistant Michael Lyons, 24, of Plymouth, Devon, is accused of wilful disobedience over the incident in Portsmouth last year. He believed the Afghan war was unlawful and asked to be "re-roled on non-combative duties", the court heard. The medic had been sent for a pre-deployment course on how to use the SA80 service rifle at HMS Excellent in Portsmouth on 20 September 2010. He was ordered to commence the course by Warrant Officer Robert Bainbridge but refused, the court heard. As a medic, he objected to being trained to use a weapon and was against the war itself, the hearing was told. So [expecting contributions from usual suspects], should he be allowed to refuse such training and/or deployment, or should he be punished for his refusal? Good shots submariners! One of 'em manged to hit two officers on board a Sub a few weeks back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Most camps we were in had stables, Lark hill, kirton Lindsey , Woolwich. Mostly nothing to do with the regiment but a good place to send slackers or people that had signed off. I remember Larkhill. We did our Arty training there. I even initiated a stonk from the Danger Close bunker. It was heartening to hear from the instructor (IG?) that when it opened all the brass filed in to watch the first rounds come in. And the very first round landed right on top of the bunker. The brass had to be helped out. If true (and I hope it is) the guy who fired it (Number One or something?) probably had free drinks for months. Thinking back it was the only place iirc that when we dug in all the soil had to be collected and driven away. When we left it was driven back and used to fill in the holes. Military Madness at it's very best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.