General threatens mutiny

We'll be checking SNOPES in a month or two!

But even if he was a bona fide general he'd hardly give his name to the press, would he?

I really think it is probably not a serving general but part of a political group attempting to undermine Corbynites hence the anonymity.

And the fact that it's so ridiculous completely defeats the object, if indeed he is a 'Tory grandee' trying to put another spanner in Corbynmania's works...

Probably it would be by Court Martial (as long as they don't all mutiny and there is no-one left!)

In fact, if this is true, the General may have been rooted out and heading for court martial (if he conspired with someone else)

The sentence handed down at court martial for conspiracy to mutiny is life imprisonment.

This is so ridiculous that it cannot be true.

I expect General Bufton-Tufton or whatever his real name may be is a Tory grandee, they often are. I expect it is his way of contributing to the anti-Corbyn propaganda machine. He is free to say his piece and I am sure the armed forces are understandably wary of further reductions in resources in addition to the ones recently announced but a bit of a coward for a soldier not to put his name to it.

soon, do you really believe members of H M armed forces would bring about a mutiny because of decisions made by H M government ?

And you think not only they would but H M police force and H M courts of justice would not arrest, prosecute and sentence ?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, soon. Are you suggesting that if soldiers don't like their orders they should mutiny, and if enough of them do it they will be let off?

If there was mass mutiny, I highly doubt that serious numbers of the military would spend long times in jail.

Luckygirl 22.33pm 1st paragraph. Of course not. Cant be bothered to say any more.

Mutiny in the armed forces is a serious offence and a life sentence can be the result, we don't shoot them now.

My understanding is that the Sunday Times spoke to the general. Surely they would have verified his authenticity? Most journalists will not divulge their anonymous sources, because if they did they would never get any "under the radar" information. I think I'm right that there was a court case some years ago in which a reporter was ordered to divulge the source of his information but I can't remember the outcome.

Indeed. Any of us could write to the papers with a similar claim, signing it suitably. My question could go to the newspaper - why did they choose this moment to publish that particular anonymous threat? Do I scent a coup of a mode more political/media than military?

It's probably just someone making mischief, not 'A General' at all.

A fake General, like a fake sheik!

Countries where the army has risen up and staged a coup invariably end up as military dictatorships - there is no other route forward once the military arm has declared itself to be the maker of policies and laws instead of the defender of that country against those who would invade it and impose policies and laws onto it.

What motive has this "senior serving officer" for making such a challenging statement at this particular time? It has a very fishy smell to me.

Frankly, I don't want the army to rise up against anybody - that is not their job.

stopwar.org.uk/news/if-uk-army-rises-up-against-anyone-it-won-t-be-jeremy-corbyn-says-ex-soldier

In peacetime many young men and women join the Forces and expect to get a very good training; going off to war is a possibility that is at the back of their mind but, unless or until it happens they may train for it but it is not a constant at the forefront of their minds until politicians decide otherwise.

They will not mutiny or take over in a coup in this country however much they may dislike the government that is in power.

I think all of us would kill someone if the conditions made it necessary; to protect our DC and DGC for exaample, if you were attacked directly by someone and your life was at risk, if we had principles we were prepared to die for.

We have had 7 decades free from direct war in western Europe I think we have perhaps forgotten what it is like to be in real fear for our lives as individuals or a nation. We look back at the last war from the knowledge that we won, but I have recently read a couple of books, one written by Vera Brittain, Shirley Williams mother, that were written in 1940 when the outcome of the war was very uncertain and a lot was known of how the Germans behaved in occupied countries. Vere Britain was a pacifist but she saw and understood the real fear people felt and their willingness to do anything to protect themselves.

I come from a military family, members of it died in WW1 and served in WW2, none of them were personally inclined to violence or jingoistic or of an 'up and at' em mentality. They joined the army to protect their country when it was under threat and continued to do so for decades afterwards. Military recruiters will reject anyone who wants to join up who shows any sign of blood lust.

Fighting and killing is an action of last resort when all else has failed and like it or not there will be times when all the peace efforts and negotiations fail. For them to work you need reasonable people on both sides.

Whose for rational and peaceable negotiations with ISIL?

I really don't think you can compare the motivation or behaviour of the IRA to that of the Nazis.

The Nazis had a notion that they could create a "pure" Aryan race by wiping out what they felt were defective strains of human beings which included Jews, ethnic Poles, Russians, etc., - together with gypsies, the physically and mentally disabled/chronically ill and people they called "degenerates", which included homosexuals.

The IRA's aim was to expel the British from Northern Ireland because they believed Ireland should be one united independent nation, not part of the United Kingdom, rather than two separate countries with separate governments.

Whilst the IRA undoubtedly committed many atrocities in the course of its fight for a united Ireland (as did the UDA also), it could not be said that its aim was to "cleanse" the country of "sub-humans". I would imagine most people would find it more acceptable to negotiate with, and try to form working relationships with, people whose aim is self-rule rather than with people whose aim is annihilation of millions of people.

"Peace is sometimes achieved by killing the opposition." Heavens above soon - do you reject all attempts at finding peaceful solutions? Is this from the OT maybe?

Negotiation has to be the only reasonable way forward in all conflicts - physical violence must be the last resort.

If any young person tells me they are going to join the armed forces, my first question is "Are you prepared to kill people?" That's what military forces are for in the long run. They are not simply for providing free training, "adventure" or even disaster help. They are also not democracies and never can be. They act (or should do) according to the will of Parliament. That doesn't make them mindless automatons, but it does mean they cannot pick and choose which orders to obey.

They joined the army just to get free training as electricians, engineers etc? Surely it would have been part of the signing-up procedure to point out that if it was called for they'd have to engage in combat?

The military do sign up for combat. This may be true in theory and is how many civilians view the miliotary. The first Gulf War was not that long ago and there was a great deal of outrage and wringing of hands at that time because young men who had joined the army, basically to train as electricians, engineers, mechanics, cooks, etc., were sent into combat. Neither they nor their families had anticipated that. Of course, it may be different now since Tony Blair involved British troops in five - or was it six - wars.

I think it probably does, soontobe. What would be the point of recruiting an army if they're not going to obey rules/commands?

It is a democracy - if the government in power wants to fight or not fight in any arena, the army has to do its bidding. They may not like it - but that is irrelevant and there could be many soldiers who are not keen on the political background to what they are being asked to do right now, but that is just tough. It is their job. Armies have always fought according to the wishes of their political masters, and their personal views are never taken into account

That is certainly not true in a lot of countries. It doesnt mean it is going to stay that way in this country.