Kerching££££££££££££££

Have just read the BBC report, but I am still confused about this. Does this mean that we cant fight if there is no assurance we wont get injure/killed. If so it makes it all a bit pointless. Any lawyers out there to clear this up?

Not a lawyer, but I thought it meant that you'd still fight, but would have to have proper kit, radios that worked in hot countries, fire suppressants in your Nimrods, enough body armour to go round, enough and adequate night vision goggles and that it would stop Government cost-cutting costing lives unnecessarily.

Some bloke on R4 this morning tried to make out the commanders wouldn't be able to ask men to do dangerous things. Personally I think they'll still do that, but it it were my lad I'd like to think he was doing dangerous stuff with enough of the best protection possible.

I think it means that any soldier going out on patrol gets a lawyer to accompany him and protect him from harm. Sounds a good idea to me and finds something useful for lawyers to do.

My understanding is it,s about Transparancy( including inquests) and Duty of Care that MOD has to it,s soldiers and the protection of them, in conflict Area,s and training.

Originally Posted by Markintime

I think it means that any soldier going out on patrol gets a lawyer to accompany him and protect him from harm. Sounds a good idea to me and finds something useful for lawyers to do.

Organic sandbag!

I have to say that the kneejerk reaction I had was that this is unenforceable on the battlefield.

The Best equipped army in the world can't guarantee it supply train (US in Iraq), so what makes it possible because a bureaucrat says it is?

Battle Prep, absolutely all the kit should be there, but once in battle - impossible to say what will be and wont be needed, and impossible to say that you will be able to get it to the people fighting the battle.

Edited for Mong England.

Originally Posted by MrShanklysboots

I have to say that the kneejerk reaction I had was that this is unenforceable on the battlefield.

The Best equipped army in the world can't guarantee it supply train (US in Iraq), so what makes it possible because a bureaucrat says it is?

Batlle Prep, absolutely all the kit should be there, but once in battle - impossible to say what will be and wont be needed, and impossible to say that you will be able to get it to the people fighting the battle.

Fair point, and I agree absolutely. But the examples to which I alluded were examples where the basic supplies weren't there due to cost cutting back home, and imho that is now going to be so visible that those making the decisions will not be able to get away with it.

I also hope (with a cynic's understanding that hope isn't always met) that it will mean MoD will be more inclined just to tell the truth of what happened, which is mostly all families and colleagues want to hear, rather than spend years and thousands covering it up. The truth needn't be published in newspapers, and could be covered by the OSA if necessary, but we'll avoid the long waits for inquests, the hiding of information from them, and the constant drip drip of cases where it takes years for truth to come out, or worse soldiers/pilots/others at the coal face are blamed as a smokescreen. They, to me, show the contempt which MoD and others hold service personnel and their families.

Originally Posted by Grownup_Rafbrat

Originally Posted by MrShanklysboots

I have to say that the kneejerk reaction I had was that this is unenforceable on the battlefield.

The Best equipped army in the world can't guarantee it supply train (US in Iraq), so what makes it possible because a bureaucrat says it is?

Batlle Prep, absolutely all the kit should be there, but once in battle - impossible to say what will be and wont be needed, and impossible to say that you will be able to get it to the people fighting the battle.

Fair point, and I agree absolutely. But the examples to which I alluded were examples where the basic supplies weren't there due to cost cutting back home, and imho that is now going to be so visible that those making the decisions will not be able to get away with it.

I also hope (with a cynic's understanding that hope isn't always met) that it will mean MoD will be more inclined just to tell the truth of what happened, which is mostly all families and colleagues want to hear, rather than spend years and thousands covering it up. The truth needn't be published in newspapers, and could be covered by the OSA if necessary, but we'll avoid the long waits for inquests, the hiding of information from them, and the constant drip drip of cases where it takes years for truth to come out, or worse soldiers/pilots/others at the coal face are blamed as a smokescreen. They, to me, show the contempt which MoD and others hold service personnel and their families.

The sad truth of the matter is that it is likely to be the local commander who bears the brunt of any charges under Human Rights Legislation as he'll be the person who actually sends Tommy into battle. It is hard enough sending your men into dangerous situations knowing that they may not come back whole or indeed at all without then being charged with failure to safeguard their human rights whilst the true criminals are sat back in the MoD deciding which cuts to implement next.

In theory very simple really:

".....a legal duty to provide adequate equipment...."

What "adequate equipment" means in the context of real world conditions is the stuff of dreams for fee gouging lawyers and so must carry with it huge contingent laibilities for HMG, who know there are still some very clear deficiencies.

Depressingly that might be about the only thing that forces Treasury to "revise" their bonkers views on funding.