''The individual who goes absent without leave and so deliberately avoids his duties, is not only letting down his comrades-in-arms; his conduct exposes to replace him or her''. That is the important feature of this situation.
A soldier, who had refused to serve in Afghanistan, has lost his request against a nine-month jail verdict. Lance Corporal Joe Glenton's legal team said that he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder after an operation. It had been wrong to force an instant custodial verdict on him. Yesterday the Court of Appeal in London, ruled that his verdict was neither extreme nor incorrect in principle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/soldier-who-refused-to-serve-in-afghanistan-loses-appeal-1950681.html
My reaction:
I think it is ridiculous that the soldier immediately was forced with a custodial verdict. How can you claim someone for post traumatic stress disorder when you have not even searched it out? Is that argument a final decision by a doctor or just the Corporal? I understand that they need to handle strict in the army, because those people are responsible for the safety of people, and you should not do the job if you don’t want to. A better solution will be making the soldier an offer, so that he can be trained again.
“Nick seizes his moment in historic TV debate”
15 jaar geleden