Sven, I don't think that has been suggested at all. What has been said here - and I agree - is that a Coroner should have all the evidence and pertinent information placed before him. It is entirely wrong that MoD should withhold any information at all - wrong but not surprising.

This is about potential embarrassment to HMG - and MoD in particular. Well there are things which are much more important than that...

It's my view that if MoD persists the relatives of the deceased would be in a position to take legal steps to ensure that evidence is surrendered. It is also within the power of the Coroner to instruct MoD to deliver up the tapes.

BP what has Kuwait got to do with the invasion of Iraq? Oh and Hitler was planning to invade England. Next question?

Last edited by nigegilb on Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Gentlemen

I do not want to detract from the main topic here but would you please stop referring to Matty Hull as a LCpl. He was not. He was a Household Cavalry, Blue & Royal and a Lance Corporal of Horse (LCoH), a rank of which he like all HCav soldiers are proud of. I know that the media got it wrong but we do not need to make the same mistake.

No, he wasn't. That's why he offered us peace terms in 1940.

And the whole Iraq thing today stems from the whole Iraq thing in 90/91.

Naive no, but totally inexperienced with regard to the military and its operations.

And if the Lloyd case has anything to go by, ignorant of international law

Please accept our apologies, and sorry for your loss. You can be justly proud of these lads.

1 it wont be a "video" it will be the gun camera recording which is digital and not on a video.

2. It will only be the gun cam and unless sync with the aircraft voice transmissions will only show direct LoS engagement.

3. MoD cannot release any classified information without reference to the classifying authority, cornoner, high court of lord chief justice does not have the power to compel disclosure in such matters. If that authority is the US DoD then it falls outside of UK jusidiction and is a diplomatic matter.

4. To even qualify as "evidence" the tape would need a full evidentiary chain with witness statements and supporting evidence.

Sadly this story is just silly show boating and belittles the attempts of people who want to have fratricide minimised turning it into a bit of a sideshow.

The data will not show anything more than is currently known, and unless a cockpit comms recording shows the pilot knowingly engageing friendly units then this will remain a tragic accident in time of conflict.

Unless of course anyone is suggesting that US pilots engage UK forces knowingly and in which case I would be very interested in possible motive.

As has been said on this forum before, we (the Uk Mil) are better off with US CAS than without, that does not lessen the the sadness and loss, but it is a brutal reality of conflict.

I also appologize.

I am not sure why Sven seems to be unable to understand the fundamental purpose of an inquest.

Establishing how a person met their death is not limited to determining the medical cause of death and may also examine the circumstances in which the death occurred. If another person or persons are found to have contributed to the death, then the Coroner will pass the appropriate verdict and it is then for the police and other authorities to take the necessary action.

Sven, you're a tw@t. I know I'm not the first one to point this out, but I feel it needed to be said.

The coroner's inquest is to determine what exactly happened and how. It is not a political device. Yes, blue on blues occur, and will continue to do so, but with this inquest there is a chance to re-examine that went on and perhaps learn some lessons. The coroner may have a complete ignorance of ops but its more than likely he has reached his station in life by possessing at least a modicum of common sense and it is not inconceivable that he can pick up on something that everyone else in uniform has missed.

Your first point is silly.

Operation Sealion is well documented and evidenced. Yes Hitler offered peace in 1940 but because he couldn't believe that we would carry the war against them - he thought that we had a lot in common with them.

I was asked in 2004
Have you seen the vid of the A10 taking out the H Cav?
No
It's on my lap top remind me sometime and I'll get it for you
So to the best of my knowledge it's out there and has been for a while
I heard that when the attack went in there was flags and smoke to identify they were Britsh and yet the planes ran back in for a second go
LCoH Hull died in this attack shouldn't his family know the truth?
Just a pity it's not getting the air time that Terry Lloyd (ITN) got
Sven if it was a member of your family would you not want the truth?
Or would you just say it happens and walk away
I know what I'd want
If a coroner is appointed it's up to him to make a desicion and he should have everything available to him regardless who it pisse$ off

I'll go one better than that.

If it happened to ME then I wouldn't want my family to have known every gory detail. Do You think that the DLI soldiers that died in the last war would want their families to have the regret that they were killed by their own battalions mortars (my reference a 5Live interview with the Sgt Major of the Support company or whatever they called themselves then). Or the families ofany other victims of the hundreds of Blue on Blue that happened before the Iraq War and AFG

If the boot was on the other foot, i.e. UK FGA and an American AFV, do you think they would bother asking the MOD for permission?

I have worked out what Kuwait has got to do with this inquest. The first GW highlighted the need for IFF in British Army vehicles to avoid blue on blue incidents. This recommendation has been ignored. Now we have an inquest concerned with a similar blue on blue incident in a war that took place 12 years later. I would hate to jump to conclusions but guess what? IFF would probably have prevented this incident as well. So why was it not fitted? Err, money? Anyone arguing against the need for these inquests has their head firmly buried in the sand. And as for the MoD failing to disclose evidence, it is of no great surprise. This is not the place for people to comment on the validity of such evidence, no matter how well informed.

Now there we agree.

Sven, you have no evidence to support this wild assertion. It should be withdrawn. Do you, for example, know for sure that the Coroner has no personal military experience, or that he has not had a multiplicity of dealings with the military?

Or maybe you know better? If so perhaps you shoud publish your evidence.

Secondly, this Coroner is not required by any form of law to have such experience. Perhaps you are suggesting that all those involved in this judicial process should have had some military experience?

Finally, there are others - lawyers etc who may be present to represent the family. You'd prefer them and the family to have military experience in order to 'understand' and make judgements? Surely that is not so!

No, he expected us and the French to welch on the treaty with Poland. Getting waaaayyy off topic, if you want to fight it out start another thread or PM me.

Blimey, agree with all of that, too.

1. It is in the nature of ANY inquest that sad/distressing details will be heard.

2. In this case, LCoH Matthew Hull's family already know that he died as a result of a blue-on-blue error. You are not saving them from that pain by withholding evidence.

3. As far as I am aware, the family have made it crystal clear that they (a) wish the inquest to be held and (b) expect material evidence to be heard.