Maritime ex soldiers sentenced in india

How times have changed.
Governments gave their blessing to ex soldiers to man ships to protect their assets when it suited them in those early days of severe piracy in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf where crews were being slaughtered or held ransom, and the Governments from all nations couldn't do the work themselves with their own troops.
However, those very same Governments disown the guys when the preverbial hits the fan.
When it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong and this is a case in point:

India firearms charge ex-soldiers sent to jail - BBC News

Like I have said when the dust settles and you have a person in your corner you know they can be counted on sadly big and small firms abandon the collateral damage to their own fate as an accepted part of the business simple solution is to not man the ships and then see the companies paying hefty ransoms to get them back they are only profit driven and do not give a toss about the little guy. I was abandon to my own fate granted not as bad as these guys but every waking moment for the rest of my days I will have an aching reminder of a company that was figure driven and image, in the 14 months I was injured and unable to work they did not even come to see me even though they had to drive past my house to get to the yard. Yeah I know what its like some of the treatments I endured were worse that the injury sorry guys still pretty touchy about it even after 8 years..............I apologize

The sad reality of all of this is, that 30 years ago, you would have been linched if you had mentioned the word Mercenary. Sadly this is how Governments see these lads who had the blessings of those very same Governments to do their dirty work when it suited them.
The definition of a Mercenary is: A person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain".
Yes loosely described, the definition fits, but the lads employed in this SPECIFIC work are guardians of vessels at sea, with high risk loads on board, not engaged in ANY armed conflict. The owners care not for the Master or his crew, just the contents and the vessel itself. There are extremely tight laws covering the issue of weapons at sea and backed by all Governments otherwise this Maritime role would never have happened.

Bottom line governments believe only governments should have arms. Sad.

I wasn't previously aware of this story and the outcome is very unsettling, I expect this sort of thing to occur from "misunderstandings" in corrupt or otherwise unfriendly nations, but to see it happen to UK citizens in a former Commonwealth country while operating under what appears to be legitimate circumstances, is nearly unbelievable.

A few former comrades of mine have done private security in parts of Iraq and Africa, and I know one who is fighting with the Peshmerga on his own accord, I have always wondered what the chances are of finding yourself on the "wrong" side of the law under these employment conditions might be. To be honest in I had even briefly considered such opportunities upon finishing with the Army, for a variety of reasons, but aside from the personal danger, I assessed it was a very different thing to tour a foreign country with the might and right of the Coalition behind you, than to be part of a potentially unsanctioned "independent" paramilitary group. The private security guys had some very dodgy tales, stuff like being denied "safe harbor" by coalition forces after being torn up by local fighters, or running short on food, ammo, and fuel, and the company contact won't return your calls. Hostile places to be without support, not my idea of a good go.

During the height of the media coverage of piracy off of Africa, a few of us (soldiers) often did joke about starting own maritime protection company called Triplewater Black Canopy, and unabashed play on the legally questionable Blackwater and Triple Canopy groups, followed up with the Jeremy Clarkson "What could possibly go wrong?"

Hopefully for these guys involved in India, they are absolved in their appeals.

I read about this on another forum. From what I read there, the International court tossed out India's charges, India appealed and won, and now these blokes are in the nick. Personally, I think India is pushed the issue for a reason and that reason has absolutely nothing to do with violating (technically) India's firearms laws. It looks to me to be a case of diplomatic leverage and keeping an eye out for what transpires down the road.

Well, possession of certain auto loading rifles or shotguns, by Britons or myself, may have equivalent criminal punishment in many places like Long Island Sound in Connecticut too.