The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Admin2

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,041
Reply with quote  #1 

The following debates are taken from other sections of this website as we feel that it will become a very important debate on the alleged findings by so-called professionals.

 

The families who have lost loved ones deserve more so please have your say!


__________________
FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #2 

Originally posted by csweeney:

 

I agree with you completely on this one Bilko.  At the end of the day you know that when you join the army death is a reality at some point down the line.  Soldiers are perfectly aware that when they do join they need to be prepared to serve their country in any way in which they are instructed.  Whether that be them having to kill someone or tragically they themselves are killed, and the latter is pretty high.  My sympathy goes out to all of the brave heroic soldiers who died in the iraqi war.  I for one was extremely angry about the actions of Blair during that ghastly period but like Bilko said your damned if you do and damned if you dont.  Blair took a risk in joining forces with one of the biggest countries in the world - who I must say we could need help from in the future. He took a risk and in my eyes it wasnt for personal gain.

_____________________________________

Believe in yourself and you will do no wrong.

 

Originally posted by Admin2:

 

Bilko your post was indeed very thought provoking and your view was very well explained.

 

However I am not affiliated with any political party nor is indeed this web site either and much like you its a neutrality of freedom of speech and expression for all of us

 

The situation in Iraq at present was created through lies (WMD) and some of the people in Scotland who have loved ones in the armed forces have a right to be heard as much as anyone else does.

 

There are a vast amount of people who would agree that the fundamentalists would have eventually toppled Saddam and held the WEST to ransom over the oil reserves.

 

However here in Scotland a vast majority do not want to be BRITISH they want to be SCOTTISH and equally in England they want to be English first and so on.

 

But to sent OUR lads over there on a FALSE claim knowing fine well that there will be a hefty loss of life may well be why some call it BLACK DEATH.

 

You only have to cast your mind back to the Falklands war...........and again it was all about the OIL that was rightfully Argentinian the same way Scotland has been used to extract the OIL for the benefit of the English first when it belonged to Scotland.

 

I am patriotic but not to mention the Highland clearances where the English used the same ethos as ETHNIC CLEANSING then centuries later raped our natural minerals and where did that end up? In the pockets of the CROWN!

 

Our boys over there in Iraq should be home and disagree with you on that one as BUSH could have done it alone but needed BLAIR as a SMOKESCREEN.

 

As for Steeleyma..............another great post and yes although this section is devoted to PEARSON PROFILE it does sit well as HE and many others are indeed DICTATORS and a DICTATOR is a very powerful thing they are ruthless and without any human remorse or respect for life and limb.

 

Thank you both for TWO very POWERFUL POSTS..................... shall we now invade the EXECUTIVE as there is more of a rational debate between the three of us on this FORUM without the smell of KEEK! 


 

 

 

 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #3 

Further to previous posts, here is another one from Bilko:

 

Thank you csweeney for your thoughts on this issue. You make a very valid point. When these young men put pen to paper and sign on the dotted line they know full well that being sent to war is a realistic outcome at some point in their service. Making these young men out to be ignorant of that fact does their intelligence a great disservice.

 

Coming from a family who have always had men serving in the armed forces and still do up till this day i feel qualified to give an opinion on the notion that the men in the armed forces were somehow unaware that war could be a possibility.

 

Whether the war was just or not should have no influence over a soldiers dedication to his or her duty. A soldiers job is to serve his country, protect his fellow men in combat and nothing else. His job is not to decide whether he feels the cause worthy enough of his participation his thoughts on following orders are not open to debate, his fellow soldiers lives depend on his ability to obey ALL orders.......bottom line he is there to either command his men or obey his orders..... totally and without question.

 

Admin2 Bilko is well aware of the highland clearances, he is also well aware of how many a lowlander cow-towed to his English masters and became in effect an annexe of the English Army. Look to how that great regiment The Black Watch became known as such, this Regiment was formed to enforce the English ban on the wearing of Tartan by the Scottish people, that regiment ALL Scots put their own to the sword in the enforcing of that ban.

 

Bilko has already stated he has NO political affiliations whatsoever BUT i see that as a good thing, i toe no party line and it allows me to veiw most things from every perspective or at least I try to.

 

The Falklands war in Bilko's humble opinion had nothing at all to do with oil, and all to do with Maggie Thatcher sending British troops half-way round the world on a jingoistic wave of ENGLISH patroitism and a flexing of muscle to prove to the world that her "This lady is not for turning" statement was no idle chat. Many fine British troops lost their lives for what amounted to nothing more than a craggy infertile rock and few thousand fecking sheep.

 

No marches through London in protest to that war that Bilko can recall..... No "Not in our name" placards in sight on that occasion......On the contrary the papers and televised media were full of British stiff upper lip Pomp and ceremony.......jingulistic clap-trap. What's the difference now?.... Why the big hoo-hah?

 

It was deemed a heroic war to destroy the rag-tag Argentinean army (who can forget the images of all those argie conscripts surrendering) but when Blair does the same in Iraq it's an outrage? Double standards indeed. We cannot be selective in choosing when we back our troops, when our country is at war we should be backing them 100% , they are fighting on our behalf whether the reasons for the conflict are debatable or not.

 

Bilko will end this here, because as in most cases when politics or religion are brought up between friends debate can lead to something more heated and this is off topic in anycase, Bilko should never have introduced the topic period. My apologies to all on the board.

 

Bilko

 

Previously posted by Admin2:

 

Thank you Bilko and steeleyma for the debate on ALL the issues.

 

I have been informed by the moderator to clarify some issues that were raised in relation to the armed forces.

 

For the record I have no members actively serving in the armed forces and therefor Bilko you were right to raise this issue and you are more than qualified to give ANY OPINION you wanted.

 

I am informed that Paul's nephew has been in the armed forces since he was 18 years old and is currently serving with the RHF and has reached the rank of J/LCpl whilst with Falklands Platoon at ATR Bassingbourn from the 16th February- July 4th 2003.

 

Like many young men who signed up they were indeed unaware that WAR could be a possibility and wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

His name is Neil Ferris and has been posted to Basra and several other key HOT SPOT areas within Iraq and is currently now back at the army base in Cyprus.

 

He is due to be posted back to Edinburgh this month to continue with his army career as an infantry soldier on STANDBY for any further developments anywhere in the world that he will be required along with his regiment.

 

He is fighting for Queen and Country as is his fellow soldiers and this was something that Paul wanted to have posted on his site.

 

As for the rest of the debates we will always have a difference of oppinion and indeed theories regarding war for oil etc.

 

There is no need for Bilko to apologies in any way shape or form to the board it is I who offer my apology if I have caused any offence or deviation to the relevance of the current topic or indeed the main post header.

 

I also fully concur with you Bilko that when POLITICS or RELIGION are brought up between friends debates can and will lead to something more heated.

 

I think you are wrong Bilko with regards to never having introduced the topic period as you (and anyone else have a right on this forum to post whatever you want) it is then left for a rational debate.

 

I feel that I may have overstepped matters and have been asked to clarify my position in relation to my posts.

 

May I offer my apology once again if I have offended anyone or indeed any members of the armed forces including Mr Ferris's own family.

 

Originally posted by CSweeney:

 

Best wishes and repsect to Pauls nephew for fighting for his country.  Good Luck

 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #4 

Originally posted by Bilko:

 

Admin2 there is absolutely NO reason for your good self to be apologising. You in no way insulted anyone least of all the members of our armed forces. We all will have disagreement on the political reasons behind our troops being sent to invade Iraq, this is a good thing, if nothing else it shows us all to have opinions and the ability to voice them.

We are all agreed on the main issue though it seems, and that is that ALL of our troops abroad have our backing 110%. This is what counts. Paul's nephew along with his fellow troops are doing sterling work and i applaud them for their dedication to duty in what are very troubled times for all our armed forces abroad.

Again admin2 no need whatsoever for you to be apologising, you very diligently monitor the board and keep the board flowing. In order to do that it's obvious there must be guidelines of some sort in place.

If we were to post stuff willy-nilly that have only a very slim connection to the main issues here, then the board could soon deteriorate into a quagmire, a mish-mash of triviality and nonsense. Sometimes a post such as yours is needed to draw in the reigns as it were......keeping us all on the correct track...........One of exposing the Corrupt ones at every turn!

Bilko

 

Originally posted by Admin:Hi All... thanks for all your posts, and to Admin2 for the great post about Mr Ferris's nephew and his successful career.  Admin has the utmost respect for all men and women who fight for their country. 

 

Originally posted by Steeleyma:

 

Thank you bilko. admin2 ,admin and csweeney great views on the matter. csweeney you hit the nail...yes to be prepared...one of the main teachings for frontline battle is for the soldier to be prepared....They Weren't,half of them were only just passed out and sent to war,also my view  is when young men and woman join the forces 'death' is not inevitably what they think is down the line for them,although they know their main aim is to defend the country,they are actually in there for a life of great prospects,do you think when they visit the army careers office their told their in there to 'ultimately die' come on now!, but i do respect your other  views on it.

steeleyma 

 

Originally posted by Steeleyma:

Also admin2, i think you're right about concentrating on the Executive as it seems we may have a more knowledgeable debate in my opinion, 'frustrating to me' although i appreciate the forum is for debates also and i know about free speech n all that but it annoys me to read sometimes peoples views who really have no clue what their talking about,i mean the obvious ones,my apologies for going on about it and i don't mean to cause offence to anyone but there ye go!! Personally I read and learn and if i know nowt about a topic i don't add bull,it teaches me,again my apologies, , xxxsteeleyma

 

Originally posted by Admin:

No need to apologise Steeleyma... freedom of speech is what it's all about, so your views are as valued as anyone's else, and if you feel strongly enough about something, then why keep it to yourself?


 

 

 



__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #5 

Originally posted by hammer6:

 

The only APOLOGY that the Moderator can note of is the absence of one from STRATHCLYDE POLICE in relation to the WRONGFUL CONVICTION of TC Campbell & Joe Steele.

 

Incidentaly where was PEARSON based at the time of the DOYLE inquiry?

 

Campbell and Steele claim they were jailed after Strathclyde police officers lied in court and yesterday they repeated their allegations of corruption.

Campbell said: "I know what should happen to the police officers who did it but it won't happen.

"It should be dealt with properly in a court of law. A whole number of police officers perjured themselves in a conspiracy - that was admitted today.

"But my experience has been, when there's a wrong done on the part of the police, the police move to investigate themselves and that's usually a circle that goes nowhere.

"I don't expect an objective and impartial investigation by police but we think there should be one."

 

Originally posted by Bilko:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steeleyma

Thank you bilko. admin2 ,admin and csweeney great views on the matter. csweeney you hit the nail...yes to be prepared...one of the main teachings for frontline battle is for the soldier to be prepared....They Weren't,half of them were only just passed out and sent to war,also my view  is when young men and woman join the forces 'death' is not inevitably what they think is down the line for them,although they know their main aim is to defend the country,they are actually in there for a life of great prospects,do you think when they visit the army careers office their told their in there to 'ultimately die' come on now!, but i do respect your other  views on it.

steeleyma 

Not to flog an already dead horse steeleyma but i have to say i find it very hard to believe that any 16-17 year old in this day and age doesn't see being sent to a war zone somewhere around the world as being a very real consequence of signing up. Bearing in mind the vast amount of newsreel footage on television of wars going on around the world, not to mention coverage from our own troubles in Northern Ireland from the late 60's onward, they have been brought up knowing a soldiers life is a dangerous one. 

 

Youngsters are not that naive, of course the recruitment staff do not highlight the fact that 'death' could be a very serious option, they would hardly need to, but don't tell me that friends, brothers, sisters, parents havent already tried to dissuade these recruits from signing on long before they ever reach the recruitment office using that very same point.

 

It's all about freedom of choice steeleyma, if these kids were conscripted into the services and sent to war against their will, then i could agree with your view, but they aren't. They are very brave young men and women who see the Armed forces as a valid career choice, and although not seeking to go to war, they do not shirk their duty if the call comes, and Bilko for one is glad and very proud that these young people show that backbone and fortitude at such an early stage in their lives.

 

Bilko

 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #6 

Originally posted by Steeleyma:

 

Bilko,of course i did not state the anyone who signs up is naive to the fact that they could be sent to a warzone but i do think it obvious in their thinking they wouldn't be sent to one untrained for it.

 

I agree that many parents and families would try to dissuade them from joining up in more recent years, purely due to the fact of how bomb happy Mr Blair is,as there wasn't such a substantial decline in recruitment due to NI troubles or the Falklands war, in fact the numbers of recruits until recent years were more than suffice,nowadays they practically have to send a reccy to every fete,festival,fayre ect to try and get them in practically off the streets,soldiers are now given a payment for every new recruit they entice.

 

 As for freedom of choice,yes that is theirs until the day they sign and on the contrary i'm positive that some do go against their will but that's orders,they're in there to take orders and they do a great and very brave job carrying them out.This doesn't change the fact that apart from the last war being illegal,these men and women from stores to cookhouse to frontline,should not have been sent if they were not fully trained and prepared.

 

I too was one of the families sat at home waiting,hoping and through the odd phonecall or letter, hearing all the stories of soldiers complaining and not having a clue and just having to do their best with what they had which wasn't a lot.They were understocked on rations,clothes,footwear, toiletries ect so much so that their families had to send over packages monthly, it was disgraceful.

 

All down to the fact that Blair sent those soldiers over,Too many, Too quick and Too damned unprepared!

Steeleyma xx

 

Originally posted by Hammer6:

 

The moderator has concluded that the vast majority of Bilko's post was from a professional point of view and csweeney was also correct from a public perspective point of view.

 

I thought that in light of this neck to neck debate I would contribute a view that I personally feel (not to suggest for a second I am correct) I have sought council with Paul who informed me of his account in realtion to his nephew who is at present serving in the armed forces overseas.

 

The conclusion I have came to is that some young men were sent into a war zone far too quickly and ill equipped.

 

The war itself was inevitable as Saddam was a loose cannon and after 911 if he had the capabilities of armed fundamentalists with weaponry such as a 'DIRTY BOMB' the consequences would have been immense.

 

That is not to say in anyway that Saddam possessed such technical proficiency although at some stage he would have and Israel would have been first on the hit list then America and so on.

 

The natural resources of the country was OIL and OIL did play a role in making sure they never made the same mistake during the first Gulf War Although their remit was to LIBERATE QUATE it was not to invade Baghdad and that is where I feel the focus of attention should be on.

 

If the COALITION removed Saddam from power then our fellow countrymen and women would not be there in the first place.

 

As for soldiering they must always obey a command from their officers as discipline could and has saved many a life.

 

However when the army had these young soldiers real weapons with the power of life and death to kill the enemy they then return home and most find it hard to get into CIVVY street as they are only home for a few days or weeks at most then they have to remember to be a killer again and leave the young mind they have back at home.

 

What help is there for families who's sons or daughters have been killed for their country? or even the mental scarring of seeing so many dead bodies that we ourselves only see a glimpse of on TV?

 

The final conclusion I draw upon is that I hope it has not all been for nothing except dirty politics! 


 

 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #7 

Originally posted by CSweeney:

 

I think we can all safely agree that if a person decides to follow a career path then that is their choice, when you make a decision in life you consider all aspects and consequences of that particular role you will have to fill, anyone who is starting a new profession has to have an interest in what they are going to do, be aware of the possibilities and situations a certain post might attain. 

 

 When it comes to the role of a soldier none of these scenarios change, except the bigger risk factor and the not knowing factor.  And i must say your putting your life and all your moral decisions into another persons hand.

 

 I do agree that some of these men were sent out not physically trained fully for the sector they were going into, not mentally prepared for the reasons they had to go there.  To enter into army you need to be mentally prepared in your head that you will most probably die in your career, it could be in your first war or it could be in your last.

 

  The families of these soldiers are quite right to speak out about these deaths because they are outraged at the circumstances and how these men were treated and are of their own rightful opinion on the legality's of this war.

 

Lastly no one can ever know when war is going to happen that is the black horrible part of it.  But if this is the case then untrained, newer soldiers should not be sent out and for me thats where I would be unhappy - if one of my family died for something they shouldnt have been doing then I would be devastated.

 

Army officials should be assessing this on a greater scale and not send out people willy nilly at their own disposal.

 

Originally posted by Hammer6:

 

Hi csweeney, Great points raised there and it is obvious this is passionate issue for you and as a parent myself if any of  my children wanted to join the army I would have a mixture of dread and happiness.

 

Dread that one day they may never come home but happy knowing at least they have chosen a professional career that would install all the discipline that comes with it.

 

However DEEPCUT throws up too many irregularities and the families have a right to know the truth but doubt that it ever will unless the TOP BRASS fully understands how any young soldiers can shoot themselves 5 TIMES and its not a MURDER!

 

There is more to come from this debate and indeed many more satisfactory answers from the M.O.D. and the POLICE.

 

Originally posted by CSweeney:

 

Definately Hammer6,

 

There are too many unexplained things going on there, I just hope that all the families do get their answers that they are so rightfully due.

 

Will be good to see more info on it.


 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #8 

Originally posted by hammer6:

 

Hi csweeney, I have found an interesting article that may be of some use to you and others as the families have set up their own website and here is what I found:

 

October 19, 2005

Military Secrets

Writing about web page http://freespace.virgin.net/lynn.farr/Deepcut%20&%20Beyond.htm" href="http://freespace.virgin.net/lynn.farr/Deepcut%20&%20Beyond.htm" target=_blank>http://freespace.virgin.net/lynn.farr/Deepcut%20&%20Beyond.htm

In a narrow vote of 46 to 42, the Students Union General Meeting recommended that the policy banning the military from Students’ Union buildings be lapsed, thus allowing the military to enter the Union on exactly the same basis as any other organisation. As the turn-out failed to reach the required quorum of 200, the vote is indicative rather than binding.

The military clubs of the University, that is the Army’s Officer Training Corp and the RAF’s Air Training Corps, turned out in significant numbers and it was undoubtedly their votes, rather than their speeches, that swung the vote in favour of lifting the ban. One can’t really argue with this in itself, since members of the military who are also members of the Union are fully entitled to their views and they can hardly be blamed for the otherwise appallingly low turn out at the General Meeting.

Debate focused on gay, lesbian and bisexual rights in the military and whether the presence of the military in Students Union buildings would be sufficiently intimidating to some members of the Union to warrant a continued ban.

Until five years ago, there was an outright ban on openly gay people from serving in the military. A few years earlier there were active witch hunts by the military police, sniffing out, exposing and destroying people whose sexual practices did not conform to the Army’s idea of ‘normal’ (I am specifically referring to the 1978 case of Sgt. Caroline Meagher, dramatised in the 1998 docudrama ‘The Investigator’). The Army kept files on the homosexual activities of its members until relatively recently, something it long denied but recently admitted.

Since the 2000 u-turn, lifting the ban on gays in the military, one might say that the military has now seen the error of its ways and, if you look at the words printed in their revised rules and regulations, you could be forgiven for believing them.

However, if you look at the facts of the case you will find that the only reason that the military, a bastion of the anachronistic British State, changed its mind on gay rights is because the European Court of Human Rights ordered them to. In other words, they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, which must have been quite traumatic as a goodly number of them had missed out on the intervening 20th century! There is nothing to suggest that the military or the Army at least, has changed its stripes.

What was unfortunately lost in last nights debate was the wider issue of bullying in the Army. While much was made of the alleged 2002 incident where it is alleged that a member of the armed forces verbally abused a sabbatical officer when she asked him to leave the building, relatively little was said about the Deepcut murders, where four young soldiers died violently and their deaths covered up by the Army and the government. The Army insisted that all the deaths were suicide but it is hard to understand how five gunshot wounds to the chest can be self inflicted, or how the body can then drag itself across the base.

The family of the Deepcut victims have set-up a website, ‘Deepcut and Beyond’, to campaign against the regime of implicitly tolerated bullying and, in case certain cases murder, in the Army.

The government and the courts have, belatedly, responded to a public campaign for the Deepcut cover-up to be properly investigated, but in the same breath the government has secured an exemption for the Army from its proposed ‘Corporate Manslaughter’ bill, meaning that whereas private companies and the Civil Service will be institutionally liable for deaths that they cause, the Army will be effectively above the law – business as usual.

The case was made at the General Meeting that other organisations might not be compatible with some Union member’s sense of right and wrong but this shouldn’t act as a restriction on freedom of speech as, otherwise, the Union would end-up banning everything. KPGM held a recruitment event in the Cooler on Tuesday, a company that is part of an industry that has been accused of being a threat to democracy as it makes a lucrative business out of helping the rich to avoid paying tax, sometimes to the point of breaking the law, such as when KPGM was ordered to pay a half billion dollar fine for running abusive tax shelters for the US elite. However, what makes KPMG et al different from the military is that they do not possess a formal exemption from the rule of law. If a cleaner was found brutally slain in KPMG’s head office, it wouldn’t take a public inquiry to call it homicide and launch a proper investigation.

Members of the OTC and the ATC may all be decent chaps, and as a former member of the OTC I can attest to this being the case, but that doesn’t mean that the military as an institution is the sort of thing we want recruiting or flying its flag in the Students Union. Until the military, and the Army in particular, comes clean about not only its track record of homophobia but also its ongoing record of tolerating bullying, then it should not be allowed into the Union.

Despite the unwarranted apology from Union President Kat Stark to the military for the debate having been rude to the military, which must mean that challenging homophobia and bullying in the army is somehow rude and unacceptable – rather like in authoritarian regimes where it is an offence to ‘insult the honour of the army’, the Union Council should retain the ban pending the introduction of an amended policy making more explicit reference to bullying and the military’s unwarranted proposed exemption from liability in the Corporate Manslaughter Draft Bill.


 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #9 

Originally posted by Bilko:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steeleyma
Bilko,of course i did not state the anyone who signs up is naive to the fact that they could be sent to a warzone but i do think it obvious in their thinking they wouldn't be sent to one untrained for it.
 
I agree that many parents and families would try to dissuade them from joining up in more recent years, purely due to the fact of how bomb happy Mr Blair is,as there wasn't such a substantial decline in recruitment due to NI troubles or the Falklands war, in fact the numbers of recruits until recent years were more than suffice,nowadays they practically have to send a reccy to every fete,festival,fayre ect to try and get them in practically off the streets,soldiers are now given a payment for every new recruit they entice.
 
 As for freedom of choice,yes that is theirs until the day they sign and on the contrary I'm positive that some do go against their will but that's orders,they're in there to take orders and they do a great and very brave job carrying them out.This doesn't change the fact that apart from the last war being illegal,these men and women from stores to cookhouse to frontline,should not have been sent if they were not fully trained and prepared.
 
I too was one of the families sat at home waiting,hoping and through the odd phonecall or letter, hearing all the stories of soldiers complaining and not having a clue and just having to do their best with what they had which wasn't a lot.They were understocked on rations,clothes,footwear, toiletries ect so much so that their families had to send over packages monthly, it was disgraceful.
 
All down to the fact that Blair sent those soldiers over,Too many, Too quick and Too damned unprepared!
Steeleyma xx



Steeleyma it would be a far better and safer world if we disbanded all armies everywhere, destroyed every gun, every weapon of war and settled our world disputes with a winner take all best of three game of dominoes. Until this utopia comes to pass we are stuck with what we have.

A world where every international dispute ends with young people dying in war. There are no politically correct wars in Bilko's opinion all wars are ugly and destroy everyone either physically or mentally the prepared, unprepared.... too young, volunteer or conscript death plays no favourites.

As for the validity of the war and whether or not we should have been involved in the first place we will just have to agree to disagree i think. I respect your opinion and the opinions of everyone else who posted concerning this volatile issue, thanks for the debate...I enjoyed it steeleyna.. Bilko


 

Originally posted by Hammer6:

Hi Bilko, I am pleased you enjoyed the debate and unfortunately we should have had a separate post on this issue as it has contributed to the Pearson Profile when we should have made it something like 'DEEP CUT'.

 

Now the debate is over any further information on DEEP CUT will be moved to allow the reader the condensed version and some may even think that PEARSON was in the ARMY when he was too busy trying to persuade Parliamentary bodies to arm his band of MERRY MEN.

 

You only need to look at the NEW POST on TC to distrust the entire SYSTEM even if we do not believe a single word that LOVE has to say there are however other independent material from the main site that STANDS UNCHALLENGED.

 

I SMELL SOMETHING IN THE AIR AND ITS NOT COPPER CRACK JACK!


 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #10 

Now we have got a separate DEEP CUT topic, as we feel it is relevant in light of today's announcement on the investigation that was carried out into the alleged suicides at Deep Cut Barracks.

 

We would appreciate any views on the related topic header 'DEEP CUT' that is of relevance to the current debate a ferrisconspiracy.com VIEW will follow, in relation to the recent findings.

 

We wholeheartedly support the families in their search for the TRUTH.

 

Jim McGovern MP for Dundee West

Parliamentary Motions supported

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEEPCUT & BEYOND CAMPAIGN

19.07.2005

 

That this House applauds the courage and determination of bereaved families who have come together to establish the Deepcut and Beyond: Armed Forces Families' Justice Campaign, to seek truth for families of those whose deaths at Deepcut, Catterick and other barracks at home and overseas have not been investigated effectively, to seek justice in holding to account and prosecuting those responsible, and to seek change to protect other families and prevent future deaths; regrets that more than 2,000 members of Her Majesty's armed forces have lost their lives through non-natural causes since 1990; notes that more than 200 deaths have been caused by discharge of firearms and that more than 200 are described as self-inflicted; further notes the Independent Review of the Deepcut deaths being undertaken by Nicholas Blake QC; further notes the Defence Select Committee recommendation for establishment of a mechanism for independent oversight of the armed services; believes the Army has a duty of care and protection towards all personnel, particularly young soldiers and that the culture of secrecy surrounding the varied causes of these deaths must give way to greater transparency; further believes that the environment in which these deaths continue to occur and the absence of a system for prompt, effective and independent investigation has led to a breakdown in public confidence that can only be restored through a full and independent public inquiry; and urges the Government to establish such an inquiry without delay.


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
Bilko

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,480
Reply with quote  #11 
Army four 'not bullied to death'

At least three of four recruits who died at Deepcut army barracks probably killed themselves although none was "bullied to death", a report has said.

But Nicholas Blake QC's review found "clear evidence of foul abuse" and a failure to identify potential risks.

The report rejected calls for a public inquiry but recommended an independent Armed Forces ombudsman be appointed to deal with complaints from soldiers.

Relatives of those who died said their fight for a public inquiry would go on.

"Our children signed to serve the country. It's time the country served them," they said in a joint statement.

Recruits Sean Benton, 20, of Hastings, East Sussex; James Collinson, 17, of Perth; Geoff Gray, 17, of Seaham, Co Durham, and Cheryl James, 18, Llangollen, Denbighshire, died of bullet wounds at the Surrey training base in separate incidents between 1995 and 2002.

Mr Blake told a news conference the Army would be doing "real damage to itself" if it did not accept the recommendation to create an ombudsman.

He said a refusal could open up the possibility of the need for a public inquiry.

The review concluded that "on the balance of probabilities" the deaths of Ptes Benton, James and Gray were self-inflicted.

In the case of Pte Collinson, whose inquest was taking place during the review, he offered no conclusion, but said there was no evidence of foul play in that death either.

The inquest jury returned an open verdict on his death earlier this month.

'Foul abuse'

The review found some recruits at the Surrey barracks had suffered "harassment, discrimination and oppressive behaviour".

Mr Blake said those who had complained appeared to have had "little confidence that the system could or would address their grievances".

"There was a reluctance by trainees to complain against NCOs; those who did complain about a senior NCO were vulnerable to reprisals and received an ineffective response by their immediate superiors," said the report.

Mr Blake said he had decided to recommend the creation of an ombudsman to oversee complaints because there was "clear evidence of foul abuse of trainees".

"Slaps and punches; throwing a cup towards a terrified trainee; riding a bicycle over trainees considered overweight," he told a news conference.

"Although the criminal law in both the military and civilian life understandably requires high standards of proof, I am concerned that appropriate measures to test this evidence and to set acceptable standards of conduct by instructors were not taken at the time," he said.

Mr Blake also found a policy of frequently assigning unsupervised trainees to guard duty at Deepcut, afforded the "opportunity for self-infliction".

In a Commons statement Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram told MPs the review had found a number of factors that may have contributed to the soldiers' unhappiness and may have made them more susceptible to self-harm.

"The review considers that although the Army did not cause any of the deaths, there were institutional failures to identify potential sources of risk and to subsequently address them."

Mr Ingram said the Army would now examine the report's findings to see if any action should be taken for "professional misconduct or negligence".

Any evidence suggesting a disciplinary offence would be referred to the Royal Military Police, he said.

Diane Gray, whose son Geoff died at Deepcut in 2001, said she was "devastated" a public inquiry had not been recommended.

"Nicholas Blake didn't have the authority to subpoena people to come forward. We need a public inquiry where people are...forced to answer the questions," she said.

Des James, the father of recruit Cheryl, said he was dismayed at Mr Blake's findings as "up to the last minute [we felt] that he would have been calling for a public inquiry."

"It turned out that in the end he offered the MoD an exit route


by the introduction of an independent ombudsman.

"He made it very clear that if that didn't happen, the alternative was a public inquiry, so I guess we have to wait and see," Mr James said.

Barrister John Cooper, representing the families of two of the dead soldiers, said he would not accept defeat on calls for a public inquiry.

"There has been no forensic examination of these papers: the lawyers have not been allowed to check or to challenge.

"One is afraid to even speculate what would have been brought out if Mr Blake had been allowed to test the evidence," he said.

__________________
Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it. :D
Bilko

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,480
Reply with quote  #12 

The families said the regime at Deepcut 'absolutely failed'

The families of the four soldiers who died at Deepcut barracks released a statement about the findings of Nicholas Blake's review.

Firstly, we're very grateful to Nicholas Blake for the work he has done and we have every respect for the manner in which he has conducted this review.

However, Mr Blake's task would have been made easier had his powers not been limited.

Mr Blake could not compel witnesses to give evidence, nor could he give the names of those witnesses who refused to give evidence to him.

Mr Blake's review has further highlighted the horrendous bullying and intimidation that was going on at Deepcut.

It is obvious that the regime there absolutely failed.

       
Our children signed to serve the country. It's time the country served them
Deepcut families

We have now had investigations by Surrey Police, Devon and Cornwall Police, the Adult Learning Inspectorate, Defence Select Committee and Nicholas Blake.

In short, we seem to have spent an awful amount of time, effort and money holding back the families' calls for a public inquiry.

We have been told that Deepcut, together with the ongoing war in Iraq, is having a considerable effect on recruitment in the British Army.

The MoD must take responsibility for this.

It is a consequence of a four-year stand-off we've had with them in our fight to get to the truth of what happened to our children.

It is important that people realise that we started off with the Army assuming that all four deaths were suicide. The coroner's court has rejected this three times.

If we are to believe that this is over, that the situation is under control, we need to explain the substantial number of unexplained deaths that continued to happen since James Collinson's death in 2002.

We still believe a public inquiry would serve the interests of the families, of the public and of the army itself.

In light of this we are continuing our fight for a public inquiry.

Our children signed to serve the country. It's time the country served them.

__________________
Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it. :D
Admin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #13 

Hi Bilko.... thanks for an excellent post regarding 'Deepcut'.  And so the mystery continues...  even although the coroner's court has rejected the suicide verdict not once, not twice, but three times.  It is appalling that after all this time has passed, the families of these poor children are STILL having to fight to uncover the TRUTH.

 

Originally posted by Bilko:

We still believe a public inquiry would serve the interests of the families, of the public and of the army itself.

In light of this we are continuing our fight for a public inquiry.

Our children signed to serve the country. It's time the country served them.

 

 

 


__________________
I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".
________________________________
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #14 

Originally posted by Magpie for the attention of Bilko :

 

 

Hi Bilko. RE: Public Inquiry.

 

The Inquiries Act 2005 repealed The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.  The Inquiries Act 2005 made major changes to the system of public inquiries in the UK.

Inquiries Act 2005
2005 Chapter 12 - continued

Constitution of inquiry
1     Power to establish inquiry
 
      (1) A Minister may cause an inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to a case where it appears to him that-
 
 
    (a) particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or
 
    (b) there is public concern that particular events may have occurred.

The following is an extract from this link; http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02599.pdf

 

The call for an ‘independent public inquiry’ of some form into a particular controversial

event or series of events or complex public policy issue is a regular occurrence, whether

in the form of a demand in Parliament or the media. The term 'public inquiry', used in

this sense, has a very broad meaning, and the history of British government shows that

there have in fact been a number of forms of 'inquiry' available, designed, in principle, to

fulfil specific functions. Sometimes the wish may be simply to establish the relevant

facts, leaving their interpretation, the allocation of 'blame' and recommendations for the

future to other agencies such as Ministers, Parliament or the courts. In other

circumstances it may be thought desirable that the 'inquiry' itself undertake these broader,

perhaps more delicate tasks. A prime purpose of some inquiries may also be to allay

public (and Parliamentary) disquiet about some public issue or a 'scandal'. The Hutton

Inquiry, which reported on 28 January 2004, and the Butler Inquiry, which reported on 14

July 2004, both highlighted the role of inquiries in investigating issues of major public

interest.

The Inquiries Act 2005 made major changes to inquiries legislation in the UK. The Act

was passed on 7 April 2005 and came into force on 7 June 2005 and brings inquiries

legislation up-to-date by consolidating previous inquiries legislation. Some criticism of

the Act has been expressed which has concentrated on the perceived strengthening of

minister’s powers over parliament. This is mainly because the main legislation available

to set up inquiries prior to the 2005 Act, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921,

which gave Parliament a role in establishing inquiries, was repealed by the 2005 Act.

However, the 1921 Act was not widely used to establish inquiries – only 24 were

established under the Act – and the 2005 Act ensures that Ministers inform Parliament

about the establishment and development of inquiries.

 

I would say the call for a Public Inquiry into the DEEPCUT case meets Section 1 a) and b)  of the act.

 

 

 

Hi All here is some older material on DEEP CUT and although it is nearly 3 YEARS OLD I am sure the same very words could be used in PRESENT tense and will continue to update relevant information for you.

 

ferrisconspiracy : ARCHIVE UPDATE

 

 

 

Parents' anger at Deepcut inquiry
Clockwise, from top left: Sean Benton, James Collinson, Geoff Gray and Cheryl James
Relatives of the dead recruits refuse to believe it was suicide
Parents of soldiers who died at Deepcut army barracks are considering going to the Police Complaints Authority over the handing of the inquiry by Surrey police force.

The families say they have been appalled to find that Military of Defence police are involved in what they were assured would be an independent investigation.

Private James Collinson, 17, from Perth, died of a gunshot wound at the barracks and parents Jim and Yvonne insist it was not a suicide, as army investigations found.

James' death is part of an inquiry into the barracks currently being carried out by Surrey Police.

Mrs Collinson said she was furious to learn that army officials had been helping police with their inquiry.

"It has not been independent at all. The whole reason that there is a reinvestigation is because the army made such a shambles of the real investigation," she said.

"It effect, it has become the army investigating the army for Surrey Police."

This flies in the face of a assurances given to the families that this would be exclusively a police enquiry
Annabelle Ewing

Annabelle Ewing, MP for the Collinson's home city of Perth, said she intended to contact Surrey Police over the matter.

"I am disturbed to learn that MoD personnel have been involved in the Surrey Police investigation into soldiers deaths at Deepcut, even to the extent of taking witness statements."

She added: "This flies in the face of a assurances given to the families that this would be exclusively a police enquiry and, these actions clearly compromises the integrity and independence of the Surrey Police Investigation.

"This underlines the need for a full independent public inquiry into these tragic and unexplained deaths at Deepcut barracks.

"That is the only way that the truth can finally be uncovered."

A spokesman for Surrey Police said: "It is essential that the investigation has the benefit of expert advice on the working practices of the army.

"Surrey Police are completely satisfied that they have acted in a professional manner."

 

 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
hammer6

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #15 

Here is what we now know in PRESENT TENSE of the enqiry and ALL the TEAM here @ferrisconspiracy.com are supporting the families concerned.

 

ferrisconspiracy : UPDATE

 

30 March 2006
INDEPENDENT REPORT: DEEPCUT
'Deaths were self-inflicted' bullying was not to blame' Recruits' families vow to battle on for public inquiry
By Gavin Cordon

YOUNG Army recruits who died at Deepcut barracks were not bullied to death, an investigation ruled yesterday.

But the independent review found "clear evidence of foul abuse of trainees" at Deepcut and a "disturbing catalogue of allegations of misconduct".

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Blake, who carried out the review into the deaths of four trainees, concluded that three of them had taken their own lives.

He did not express a view on the cause of death of the fourth soldier - James Collinson, of Perth - as his inquest was taking place while Blake was conducting the investigation.

The families of the dead soldiers were bitterly disappointed with the review.

And they vowed to keep fighting for a public inquiry into the deaths.

Advertisement
Click Here

In a statement, the families said: "Mr Blake's review has further highlighted the horrendous bullying and intimidation that went on at Deepcut. It is obvious that the regime there absolutely failed."

Privates Collinson, 17, Sean Benton, 20, Geoff Gray, 17, and Cheryl James, 18, all died of bullet wounds in separate incidents at the Surrey barracks between 1995 and 2002.

Their families have never accepted that they took their own lives.

Blake criticised "institutional failures" within the Army for the not identifying the risks to young soldiers.

The review found some recruits had suffered "harassment, discrimination and oppressive behaviour".

Blake said examples were "slaps and punches, throwing a cup towards a terrified trainee, riding a bicycle over trainees considered overweight".

Blake recommended that an independent Armed Forces ombudsman should be appointed to deal with complaints from soldiers.

He said a public inquiry would not be necessary if the Ministry of Defence accepted his recommendations.

Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram said the review had identified factors that may have contributed to the soldiers' unhappiness.

He told MPs: "The review considers that although the Army did not cause any of the deaths, there were institutional failures to identify potential sources of risk."

An inquest recorded a verdict of suicide on Private Benton, of Hastings, Sussex.

Open verdicts were recorded on Private Collinson, Private Gray, of Seaham, County Durham and Private James, of Llangollen, Denbighshire.

Private Collinson's mum Yvonne welcomed Blake's call for trainees under 18 not to be given unsupervised access to weapons.

She said changes had been made at Deepcut.

Yvonne added: "When we went to Deepcut during the inquest, there were no longer young soldiers guarding the officers' mess. That is definitely a good thing."

 


__________________
The TRUTH is out there...........
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.