Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive


This is a text archive version of our main content. To view the full site with more information, features, formatting and images please click here.

>> Eastern Cyprus Forum Archive Index

View The Full Original Topic: Is this what its come too


>> Have YOUR say - Post A Reply To This Topic

Posted By: spurs





Posted By: geoffreys

  • spurs wrote:

I am afraid so, a result of allowing the judiciary independence, within the EU context.
Pity the UK Govt didn't just put him on a plane to Jordan, and sod the consequences.
Geoff

Posted By: bubblechris

Can't believe that the morons jailed this guy. He has witnesses that have styated he didn't know the gun was amongst his belongings that were packed up by his colleagues and sent back to the UK for him. I believe that bwhe it ws found it was still wrapped in a package and was unrapped by the authorities. Unbelievable that he wasn't given the benefit of doubt in these circumstances!

Posted By: ethel

Anybody seen the charge sheet for Sgt Nightingale, it also includes a grenade, frag rounds, armour piercing rounds, 7.62 rounds, 55.6 rounds and more and ANY ex serviceman will tell you that once you have made your declaration to an officer when exiting a range or coming back from theatre that you have no live rounds or empty cases or pyrotechnics in your possession and then they find some on you it is a courtmartial offence.Sgt Nightingale is a senior nco and should know better and as it stands if he was tried by a civilian court would have got 5 years so its not as clear cut as its made out to be.

Posted By: 2diffs

  • bubblechris wrote:
    Can't believe that the morons jailed this guy. He has witnesses that have styated he didn't know the gun was amongst his belongings that were packed up by his colleagues and sent back to the UK for him. I believe that bwhe it ws found it was still wrapped in a package and was unrapped by the authorities.
    Unbelievable that he wasn't given the benefit of doubt in these circumstances!

It is so unbelievable that our out of touch namby governments gave in to the gun lobby in order to eliminate the illegal use of hand guns. All it did was remove thousands of competent legal range users and collectors from the registers and did nothing to suppress the criminals who continue to use illegal handguns to the danger of the public and each other.
The UK government arms the SAS in particular with all sorts of firearms with which they are totally proficient, yet they provide similar weapons to the police who's proficiency has been shown to be sadly lacking in many recent incidents.

Posted By: DAC

  • ethel wrote:
    Anybody seen the charge sheet for Sgt Nightingale, it also includes a grenade, frag rounds, armour piercing rounds, 7.62 rounds, 55.6 rounds and more and ANY ex serviceman will tell you that once you have made your declaration to an officer when exiting a range or coming back from theatre that you have no live rounds or empty cases or pyrotechnics in your possession and then they find some on you it is a courtmartial offence.Sgt Nightingale is a senior nco and should know better and as it stands if he was tried by a civilian court would have got 5 years so its not as clear cut as its made out to be.

Must say that on this one I totally agree with you. Plus and as far as I am aware, Abu Qatada has never been charged with anything.

Posted By: spurs

  • ethel wrote:
    Anybody seen the charge sheet for Sgt Nightingale, it also includes a grenade, frag rounds, armour piercing rounds, 7.62 rounds, 55.6 rounds and more and ANY ex serviceman will tell you that once you have made your declaration to an officer when exiting a range or coming back from theatre that you have no live rounds or empty cases or pyrotechnics in your possession and then they find some on you it is a courtmartial offence.Sgt Nightingale is a senior nco and should know better and as it stands if he was tried by a civilian court would have got 5 years so its not as clear cut as its made out to be.
Do you have a link for what you say about the charge sheet!!!!!! if what you say is true then it throws a differant light on things.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

I'm willing to be corrected, as and when; however, a few minutes scanning the media comes up repeatedly with "Possession of a 9mm Glock and ammunition" :? I doubt the likes of Cameron, Patrick Mercer MP, Andy McNab and Chris Ryan would be rushing to the guy's defence if he'd been convicted of looking into opening his own arms bazaar. Like has been said - if you have a supporting link would be interested in reading it.





Posted By: journeyman

Ethel have you proof he made a declaration, as far as I can tell he left the items in Iraq and others forwarded them on, to me the fact remains that if the Judge did say that he would go to jail for at least 5 years if he pleaded not guilty is totally out of order. I escorted a NCO on a court Marshall once and this same argument caused all manner of legal argument in the Court.

Posted By: scrappy

FYI...... http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/nightingale-proceedings-0607112012.pdf

Posted By: Kwacka

Proceedings of a Court Martial held at Military Court Centre Bulford
on the 6th and 7th days of November 2012
in the case of 24951951 Sergeant Danny Harold NIGHTINGALE
The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment (King’s, Lancashire and Border)

    Quote:
  • the first charge is:
    COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 42 OF THE ARMED FORCES ACT 2006 NAMELY POSSESSION OF A PROHIBITED FIREARM CONTRARY TO SECTION 5(1)(aba) OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1968 In that you on or about the 16th day of September 2011, had in your possession at your Substitute Single Service Accommodation address 1 x Glock 9mm Pistol serial number FZF745.
    JUDGE ADVOCATE: Now do you plead guilty or not guilty to that charge?
    DEFENDANT: Guilty your honour.
    JUDGE ADVOCATE: The second charge is:
    COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 42 OF THE ARMED FORCES ACT 2006 NAMELY POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION CONTRARY TO SECTION 1(1)(b) OF THE FIREAMS ACT 1968
    In that you on or about the 16th day of September 2011, had in your possession at your Substitute Single Service Accommodation address items listed in the Schedule below:
    SCHEDULE
    122 x 9mm live rounds of ammunition
    40 x 7.62mm live rounds of ammunition
    50 x 9mm frangible rounds of ammunition
    50 x 338 armour piercing live rounds of ammunition
    2 x .308 live rounds of ammunition
    74 x 5.56mm live rounds of ammunition

I understand that he was sharing a house, rented by the MOD with another soldier, who was convicted of an offence regarding a live hand-grenade, for which he received a sentence of 2 years military detention.

Posted By: scrappy

That link's so 'yesterday' :D

Posted By: Kwacka

  • scrappy wrote:
    That link's so 'yesterday' :D

Yup, beat to the button - but you wouldn't have if I'd attended a secretarial college. :(

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Despite the inventory the entire summation of the proceedings relate to the possession of the pistol and ammo. It's almost like the initial charges evaporated. Makes hard readin' :( I'll go for being done for the Glock and ammo I think.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

OOps :oops:



Posted By: sandyoap

he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place, full stop. and why the hell would anyone put an illegal 300 rounds of ammunition under their bed? got what he deserved.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • sandyoap wrote:
    he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place, full stop. and why the hell would anyone put an illegal 300 rounds of ammunition under their bed? got what he deserved.

Really?
SAS man with service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Impeccable military record. No previous criminal activities. Documented medical problems relating to brain injury.
"Got what he deserved" I'm sure if you did a bit of research you would find some out n out murdering b******s who didn't get a lot more.
Kinda harsh - don't you think - just - you know - perhaps?

Posted By: ethel

I saw the charge sheet on Sunday in company of other serving soldiers and to a man they all said oh dear he is in the brown stuff best he does his time in Colly because he will get more from the civvies, its a shame its wrecked his career tho

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:

    "Got what he deserved" Kinda harsh. Don't you think that perhaps there might be an alternative point of view?

He didn't get what he deserved? :shock:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:

      "Got what he deserved" Kinda harsh. Don't you think that perhaps there might be an alternative point of view?

    He didn't get what he deserved? :shock:

You believe he did then?

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      • Mr Tibbs wrote:

        "Got what he deserved" Kinda harsh. Don't you think that perhaps there might be an alternative point of view?

      He didn't get what he deserved? :shock:

    You believe he did then?

I don't recall saying that.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      • Kwacka wrote:
        • Mr Tibbs wrote:

          "Got what he deserved" Kinda harsh. Don't you think that perhaps there might be an alternative point of view?

        He didn't get what he deserved? :shock:

      You believe he did then?

    I don't recall saying that.

No - of course not. However, " He didn't get what he deserved - question mark - shocked smiley - would seem to imply that perhaps you just might be of that persuasion.
Sandy's vitriolic - he got what he deserved - just seems a little harsh to me. I think whatever the circumstances a person of his standing might perhaps just deserve a little less abrasive an opinion. Maybe I'm just an ole softy though.



Posted By: Kwacka

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:

    No - of course not. However, " He didn't get what he deserved - question mark - shocked smiley - would seem to imply that perhaps you just might be of that persuasion.
    Sandy's vitriolic - he got what he deserved - just seems a little harsh to me. I think whatever the circumstances a person of his standing might perhaps just deserve a little less abrasive an opinion. Perhaps I'm just an ole softy though.

I didn't quote Sandy.
My comment was in response to your question "Don't you think that perhaps there might be an alternative point of view?".
Clearly there IS an alternative view, & the shock emoticon was to express shock at THAT view.

Posted By: scrappy

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • sandyoap wrote:
      he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place, full stop. and why the hell would anyone put an illegal 300 rounds of ammunition under their bed? got what he deserved.

    Really?
    SAS man with service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Impeccable military record. No previous criminal activities. Documented medical problems relating to brain injury.
    "Got what he deserved" I'm sure if you did a bit of research you would find some out n out murdering b******s who didn't get a lot more.
    Kinda harsh - don't you think - just - you know - perhaps?

Surely you can't condone that a person with a brain disorder is being detained for 'forgetting' that he had a small illegally held armoury in the house? Assuming it is all genuinely innocent and 'our hero' is a forgetful sort, why did he assemble the arsenal in the first place? What if it fell into the wrong hands? Surely you'd agree that he needs an 'at her majesty's pleasure stretch' with some therapy to jog his memory at the very least?

Posted By: ethel

I personally dont think he got what he deserved as that is very harsh but this is a senior nco and forget about him being SAS that is irrelevant but the very first time you handle weapons and live or blank ammunition you are told that after this FIRST declaration it sticks with you until your last day in the Services and there is no excuse as there are amnesty boxes posted on ALL camps for anybody that does find ammo in their kit and yes i have found ammo in my kit once and dumped it in the amnesty box and no one saw me do it which is what its for

Posted By: journeyman

    Quote:
  • We have not dismissed you or reduced you in rank as on the information before us we consider that you may still, with your specialist experience, be of use to the army in the future. We would invite those who will have to consider your future in the army in due course to bear these sentencing remarks in mind.

They taking the P-ss or what.
What I Alsoi find strange is the dates of the Court Marshall 6 & 7th Nov 2012 with the Document signed off on the 14th Nov 2012, going by previous Court Marshall,s I was involved with it took weeks before all the paper work was collated and distributed, yet on this forum certain members are saying they were openly reading it last week. Having said that I've been out 20 years now do times may have changed with technology advances.

Posted By: Byker

Two sides to this...On one is an SAS sniper, highly qualified to have guns around him, serving his country, prepared to make the supreme sacrifice, for him the whole thing should have been swept under the carpet... On the other hand we have an expert marksman and survival specialist with a brain injury, who could in the near or far future crawl under his bed, have a flashback, flip, and make Hungerford look like a quiet day in the park. Not an easy call but a message must be sent to any other soldier thinking of bringing home a trophy.

Posted By: spurs

  • Byker wrote:
    Two sides to this...On one is an SAS sniper, highly qualified to have guns around him, serving his country, prepared to make the supreme sacrifice, for him the whole thing should have been swept under the carpet...
    On the other hand we have an expert marksman and survival specialist with a brain injury, who could in the near or far future crawl under his bed, have a flashback, flip, and make Hungerford look like a quiet day in the park.
    Not an easy call but a message must be sent to any other soldier thinking of bringing home a trophy.
I think you've summed it up perfectly

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Whatever the perceived rights or wrongs of this case I suspect this guy has ultimately fallen foul of a draconian law brought in to deal with the growing tendency - and very large number nowadays - of young men wandering around the streets of the UK bearing sidearms. It seems almost a weekly occurrence to read stories of gang-related gun crime, armed muggings, etc, including people being shot to death for the most trivial reasons: murdered for a mobile phone or some petty trinket. Told to put a cigarette out in a night club ."He dist me! So I wasted him (shot in the head)," Wrong gang member on "our patch". A recent "revelation" - that a young man isn't treated as being worthy if he hasn't actually killed somebody. Nightingale seems to me to have fallen into the category but surely deserved a little more consideration with regard to his character and previous history. Like I said - it all seems kinda harsh.



Posted By: ethel

I agree it is harsh but if it was civvies dealing with that amount of ammo he would have got 5 years he also had the Glock since 2007 and he was arrested in 2011 so four years to forget is not an excuse but still think he was harshly treated as his career is almost certainly over and it will stop him getting security work too a sad case i am afraid

Posted By: journeyman

Ethel, there are thousands of weapons within the UK that people have forgotten about, every time the Police have an amnesty hundreds get handed in so I guess to forget is not a crime, I have seen a lot worse than this in my 22 years service and people get just a severe repremand and reduced to the ranks, but 18 months is a bit questionable in my opinion. About not getting security work, well I'm not so sure, I'm positive if he really wanted to move into security he could, thing is he now as no Loyality to his previous employer the Goverement.

Posted By: DAC

Anyone with any military experience will know that when “Sh-t happens” the severity of punishment often boils down to being stupid enough to be caught out in the first place and more importantly, whom it is who catches you out.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ethel wrote:
    and forget about him being SAS that is irrelevant

Have to disagree with that particular point of view, Difficult to imagine, unless you actually know, what they have to go through to be accepted and what they are asked to do subsequently. It changes you. I think we should appreciate that sort of commitment.
Some on here will spit at the idea; however, I have a lot of respect for SF.
We should all be ashamed of ourselves at what the the "justice" system did to him I think: he deserved better.

Posted By: scrappy

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    Whatever the perceived rights or wrongs of this case I suspect this guy has ultimately fallen foul of a draconian law brought in to deal with the growing tendency - and very large number nowadays - of young men wandering around the streets of the UK bearing sidearms.
    It seems almost a weekly occurrence to read stories of gang-related gun crime, armed muggings, etc, including people being shot to death for the most trivial reasons: murdered for a mobile phone or some petty trinket. Told to put a cigarette out in a night club ."He dist me! So I wasted him (shot in the head)," Wrong gang member on "our patch". A recent "revelation" - that a young man isn't treated as being worthy if he hasn't actually killed somebody.
    Nightingale seems to me to have fallen into the category but surely deserved a little more consideration with regard to his character and previous history. Like I said - it all seems kinda harsh.

Surely it's his character that earned him the reduced sentence? An SAS trained killer with a known 'brain disorder', who was storing an illegal mini-arsenal, would have fallen into a far more dangerous category left to me...Accident waiting to happen on face value. Think he got off lightly TBH. I would have gone down for longer in similar circumstances.

Posted By: journeyman

Not sure I agree totally Scrappy, I mean if the brain disorder as you state was as bad as its suggested they would have removed the man from any obvious military weapons and as far as I can gather this was not the case, my understanding is he was still an active SF man.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

I find the frequently espoused term "trained killer" in here quite offensive to be honest. Apparently the kid who was knifed to death in Napa recently deserved it because he was a "trained killer". I suppose that anybody who serves their country in the armed forces - or ever has - deserves their fate because they are/were a "trained killer". You couldn't really make this stuff up. :roll:





Posted By: scrappy

I like to think that when I employ a soldier and pay for his training, he gets trained to do what I need him to do. Does that sound reasonable enough? Now this may seem like a wild stab in the dark, but in a theater of war, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a soldier to kill my enemies, as well as defend my family, Queen and country. If he isn't a trained killer, not sure what he's doing in the job and what I'm paying him for to be honest?

Posted By: DAC

  • scrappy wrote:
    I like to think that when I employ a soldier and pay for his training, he gets trained to do what I need him to do. Does that sound reasonable enough?
    Now this may seem like a wild stab in the dark, but in a theater of war, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a soldier to kill my enemies, as well as defend my family, Queen and country. If he isn't a trained killer, not sure what he's doing in the job and what I'm paying him for to be honest?

Pretty much highlights just how out-of-touch you are with modern warfare. Today's battlefield and military operations are largely based upon an “Effects Based Operations“ concept. This largely means that “Death on a mass scale" is usually the very last option. This concept is used extensively as it causes the least amount of death, carnage and destruction of utilities and means that after combat operations have concluded that the battlefield in less of a mess and that things can get back to some sort of normality as soon as is possible. Basically, what it means is that if you can “persuade” your enemy to give up, flee or surrender by means other than just killing them, then it’s better all round for all.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • scrappy wrote:
    I like to think that when I employ a soldier and pay for his training, he gets trained to do what I need him to do. Does that sound reasonable enough?
    Now this may seem like a wild stab in the dark, but in a theater of war, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a soldier to kill my enemies, as well as defend my family, Queen and country. If he isn't a trained killer, not sure what he's doing in the job and what I'm paying him for to be honest?

But the essential meaning and tone employed when you use the expression has nothing to do with the factual situation. You use "trained killers" in an obviously derogatory sense, employed in order (perhaps even subconsciously) to weigh opinion against the individual concerned.
Looking at the big picture - ie, who's reported to have done what to who (sometimes with a complex record of such criminal behaviour) and the attached conviction, tends to suggest to me that jailing Nightingale is anomalous and on a natural justice level somewhat unfair. Clearly I am not alone in feeling that, he seems to have a lot of quite weighty people and opinion in his corner.
Which doesn't of course help him out in his cell tonight. Spilt milk.

Posted By: Tangutica

The brain damage might have contributed towards his 'forgetfulness' - however I'd be more worried about someone who was 'brain damaged' owning deadly weapons and ammo than someone who wasn't! It does sound to me that they know what the score is and if they take chances they should take the consequences.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Tangutica wrote:
    The brain damage might have contributed towards his 'forgetfulness' - however I'd be more worried about someone who was 'brain damaged' owning deadly weapons and ammo than someone who wasn't! It does sound to me that they know what the score is and if they take chances they should take the consequences.

But Tang - he deserved to be banged up because he mighta? He doesn't seem like a Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton type to me lurve ...............and they jailed him for what he did - not for what he could have done :D

Posted By: bubblechris

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c05376/2d5cd684/5ef8e33d/467fe0d6/2219661871/VEsA/ Right a wrong, sign the attached petition...................

Posted By: Steve - SJD

After an appeal the sentence against Danny Nightingale has been suspended. Cheers Steve

Posted By: ethel

Great news

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ethel wrote:
    Great news

Indeed but perhaps just another example of the disconnect and lack of continuity in the brains of today's politicians.
Were all those MPs, including the PM and Defence Secretary, who queued up to express their indignation at Danny Nightingale's sentence, the same people who went through the lobbies to enact the 2003 Criminal Justice bill (reluctantly, in the case of the Tories, because of its perceived lenience on sentencing) with a 5 year mandatory minimum for such crimes?
You might think that - logically - having voted in such a blanket policy they'd be apoplectic at his only getting 18 months. :?

Posted By: fettler

That is the sort of logic which expresses amazement at the fact that the tide is going out when, only a short while ago, it was coming in. Unfortunately. Alex


[ ADVERTS: UK Stores Delivering To Cyprus | Find eBay Misspellings - Grab A Bargain! ]



Viewing Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive - Lo-Fi Version | Visit Cyprus Eastern Forum - Full Version | Questions?

TOP TIP: BUYING PROPERTY IN CYPRUS? PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE FIRST.
Cyprus forum covering Kapparis, Protaras, Pernera, Agia Napa, Agia Thekla, Paralimni, Larnaca, Oroklini, Pervolia & surrounding areas
Please note that the views expressed on this forum are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the management.