Tanker drivers dispute

[Lounge Lizard]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

and armed forces DO NOT have any choice in the matter, if they are told to do it they MUST unless its breaking the law, Armed forces personnel are not allowed to be involved in politics, so they do as ordered, if they break refuse to support strikers that is a political message and thus against the law, them breaking the strike is not a political message by the soldiers themselves before anyone says it is, its also why serving officers in the TA are not allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do

Thats quite political

the acts might be political but its the polititians who decide to make them happen, joe bloggs soldier is no allowed to make a decision about it either way and must do what the politicians decide, the army/air force dont just rock up and say "hey david see this fuel strike/fire strike well if you like we can sort that for you" they are told to do it

Armed forces not having any choice in the matter is a defence found to be invalid at numerous war crime trials.
Some may accept a life of maybe not having any choice in the matter, not joining a Trades Union and not being able to strike but I would never consider accepting such a job.
As for the TA are allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do, they like everyone else can opt out of the Political Levy.
BELIAL's continued interest in accelerants should be of concern to those living near him.
As for the government or soldiers maintaining normal life, try telling that to former mining communities.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Thanks point is made. But cheers for clarifying your position. On a slightly more philosophical tack ,it does raise an interesting question - at what point does the interests of the "state" and their use of state security forces directly contradict the interests of the population of that state ? Timely no? Worth considering given the current ebb and flow worldwide

I personally think that the use of the Armed Forces in Political matters is wrong and that there should some mechanism in place that allows the Armed Forces to refuse to act even when ordered to do so by the Government. There are certain cases where the "Army" can be used in a Political Dispute such as safety of the public at large, but I don't think 4,000 tanker drivers, who supply 8,000 stations out of 32,000 going out on strike would count.

This is a politically engineered crisis of that I have no doubt. :dcfo :ncfo :vcfo and their cronies are stirring the pot for their own benefit.

[Lounge Lizard]

Thanks point is made. But cheers for clarifying your position. On a slightly more philosophical tack ,it does raise an interesting question - at what point does the interests of the "state" and their use of state security forces directly contradict the interests of the population of that state ? Timely no? Worth considering given the current ebb and flow worldwide

I personally think that the use of the Armed Forces in Political matters is wrong and that there should some mechanism in place that allows the Armed Forces to refuse to act even when ordered to do so by the Government. There are certain cases where the "Army" can be used in a Political Dispute such as safety of the public at large, but I don't think 4,000 tanker drivers, who supply 8,000 stations out of 32,000 going out on strike would count.

This is a politically engineered crisis of that I have no doubt. :dcfo :ncfo :vcfo and their cronies are stirring the pot for their own benefit.

And it could be argued that with their activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya our Armed Forces have done their share in ensuring cheap(er) fuel here, without them going 'the final mile' and delivering to the petrol stations too.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Thanks point is made. But cheers for clarifying your position. On a slightly more philosophical tack ,it does raise an interesting question - at what point does the interests of the "state" and their use of state security forces directly contradict the interests of the population of that state ? Timely no? Worth considering given the current ebb and flow worldwide

I personally think that the use of the Armed Forces in Political matters is wrong and that there should some mechanism in place that allows the Armed Forces to refuse to act even when ordered to do so by the Government. There are certain cases where the "Army" can be used in a Political Dispute such as safety of the public at large, but I don't think 4,000 tanker drivers, who supply 8,000 stations out of 32,000 going out on strike would count.

This is a politically engineered crisis of that I have no doubt. :dcfo :ncfo :vcfo and their cronies are stirring the pot for their own benefit.

And it could be argued that with their activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya our Armed Forces have done their share in ensuring cheap(er) fuel here, without them going 'the final mile' and delivering to the petrol stations too.

Oh preaching to the converted here, I am thankful I am not in now, I would have had serious issues over being deployed to any of those "situations".

[happyhippo]

Thanks point is made. But cheers for clarifying your position. On a slightly more philosophical tack ,it does raise an interesting question - at what point does the interests of the "state" and their use of state security forces directly contradict the interests of the population of that state ? Timely no? Worth considering given the current ebb and flow worldwide

I personally think that the use of the Armed Forces in Political matters is wrong and that there should some mechanism in place that allows the Armed Forces to refuse to act even when ordered to do so by the Government. There are certain cases where the "Army" can be used in a Political Dispute such as safety of the public at large, but I don't think 4,000 tanker drivers, who supply 8,000 stations out of 32,000 going out on strike would count.

This is a politically engineered crisis of that I have no doubt. :dcfo :ncfo :vcfo and their cronies are stirring the pot for their own benefit.

And it could be argued that with their activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya our Armed Forces have done their share in ensuring cheap(er) fuel here, without them going 'the final mile' and delivering to the petrol stations too.

We were told by Gordon and Blair that the wars were never about oil, it was weapons of mass destruction they wanted. I really really believed that

[Caniel]

So if they do strike and the soldiers start driving the tankers - does that become scab petrol/diesel/unleaded and would anyone be within their rights to refuse to fill their van up?

It makes the soldiers strike breakers, but with dressing up in police uniforms for Thatcher during the miners strike, it wouldn't be the first time their solidarity with the working (wo)man was somewhat lacking.

They may be sympathetic to the tanker drivers cause, they may even support it. However, if they refuse to drive the tankers when given a lawful order then they face much harsher penalties than any of us do.

They will charged under the appropriate act (Army Act, Navy Discipline Act or Air Force Act) and can face up to 2 years imprisonment, dismissal, and reduction in rank (will affect pension entitlements). (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ounds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a similar case - refusing on moral grounds)

Now even if I think a dispute is worth me losing wages over, even an extended open ended strike, would I expect someone who has no direct understanding of the strike, or stake in it, to suffer just to show solidarity - No - the level of sacrifice for a cause has to be commensurate with the gains expected, I don't think in this case it would be.

Would I try to convince them to make the sacrifice - yes of course I would, but to convince someone to take an action you have to understand what the cost would be to them.

They could of course say no and force a coup d'état which if successful would mean they they haven't done anything wrong because the people in power after are unlikely to punish the military for their support . Just think, Cameron and his cronies tossed behind bars

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

and armed forces DO NOT have any choice in the matter, if they are told to do it they MUST unless its breaking the law, Armed forces personnel are not allowed to be involved in politics, so they do as ordered, if they break refuse to support strikers that is a political message and thus against the law, them breaking the strike is not a political message by the soldiers themselves before anyone says it is, its also why serving officers in the TA are not allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do

Thats quite political

the acts might be political but its the polititians who decide to make them happen, joe bloggs soldier is no allowed to make a decision about it either way and must do what the politicians decide, the army/air force dont just rock up and say "hey david see this fuel strike/fire strike well if you like we can sort that for you" they are told to do it

Armed forces not having any choice in the matter is a defence found to be invalid at numerous war crime trials.
Some may accept a life of maybe not having any choice in the matter, not joining a Trades Union and not being able to strike but I would never consider accepting such a job.
As for the TA are allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do, they like everyone else can opt out of the Political Levy.
BELIAL's continued interest in accelerants should be of concern to those living near him.
As for the government or soldiers maintaining normal life, try telling that to former mining communities.

If you read my post you would have seen the bit i said about they can refuse an order if its illeagal

As for the TA, its the joining of a group which has political affiliations its not the actual giving money part thats the problem

And im not defending the government in using them quite the opposite in fact, just dont think there should be critism of jonny soldier doing what he's told and legally obliged to do, its the people telling him to do it that deserve the grief

[cliffeyhez]

Bring on the coup. :dcfo :ncfo :vcfo

[dvbuk55]

I was a soldier, I would have obeyed any order given in any situation regardless............had I any doubts, which I did on occasion, I still obeyed as per the oath of allegiance I took in 1963.

[jessicarabbit]

Whoaaaaaa scary! Does that mean we can excuse the SS soldiers in Nazi Germany they were only following orders after all?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Whoaaaaaa scary! Does that mean we can excuse the SS soldiers in Nazi Germany they were only following orders after all?

No because dvbuk missed out one important word - Lawful.

You can refuse an order that is unlawful.

[jessicarabbit]

Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:


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

During the Nuremberg trials, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl and other defendants unsuccessfully used the defense.

(Before the trials, there was little consensus amongst the Allies as to what was to be done with the Nazi war prisoners. Winston Churchill was inclined to have the leaders 'executed as outlaws'.[14] The Soviets desired trials, but wished there to be a presumption of guilt, as opposed to the procedural presumption of innocence that accompanies most western criminal trials

[fishtank]

I think if you start comparing war crimes to driving a fuel truck you have lost the argument as well as any sense of proportion.

[dvbuk55]

Whoaaaaaa scary! Does that mean we can excuse the SS soldiers in Nazi Germany they were only following orders after all?

No because dvbuk missed out one important word - Lawful.

You can refuse an order that is unlawful.

What would you consider unlawful? I, nor any of my comrades, questioned the legality, merely obeyed.

As for the reference to the SS in Germany, I think that's a little over reaction. When in a war, or even a smaller conflict s**t happens and those who have never served do not understand the necessity to obey without question. An order is given and the planning and operation is carried out, some things may be discussed in terms of timing or equipment but the order would never be questioned or debated as to it's legality. Some actions and decisions may be questionable without a doubt but history decides that.

[jessicarabbit]

I concur that s**t happens whether history decides what was OK and what was slightly dodgy I'm not overly happy accepting. You are right that I cannot know what it is like to serve and nor will I as I will never give up my right to free will and to decide for myself what is right or wrong.

As for the army driving tankers I'm really OK with that too. If our right to withdraw our labour is still enshrined in law then the govt of the day will reserve their right to keep the food coming to the shops and the emergency services with enough fuel to get to me if I have a heart attack....and I'm OK with that.