Thread: MoD refuses to hand over video to Coroner

Originally Posted by Sven

I am not condoning the covering up of blue on blue incidents, but to think, or teach, that they are totally avoidable in warfare is rediculous. As is holding an inquest for them.

So you are not condoning the covering-up of blue on blue incidents, but you are condoning the covering up of evidence connected to same - which sounds like much the same thing to me. No-one has suggested that blue on blue incidents are unavoidable. In any case, the Coroner is not considering whether or not such incidents are avoidable; his task is to inquire into the circumstances of death. An inquest is a legal requirement in every case of sudden or violent death. Your assertion that inquests into the deaths of Service personnel killed in blue-on-blue incidents should not be held is both risible and illogical, and a insult to the relatives and friends of the deceased, who have a right to know what happened.

The behaviour of the government in these inquests, from TCH's refusal to appear to the disgraceful delays in holding inquests has been appalling.

Remember that a similar inquest found the killing of an ITV reporter illegal

I do not recall there being any suggestion that MOD was witholding evidence in this case, so what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

The Coroner can allows agree to view the tape in closed session which may appease the US Govt.

According to BBC Radio 5 Live last night the tape's pictures are not the best quality but a pilot is heard to say 'Some one is going to go to jail for this'.

I have a lot more faith in independent coroners findings than anything presented by the MoD or the Attorney General. I do not believe the coroner in this case would have been shaking with rage at the MoD for no reason.

This is the same coroner who castigated the MoD and Hoon over the entirely avoidable death of Sgt Roberts. It is reassuring to think that some institution's still operate without political interference in this country.

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

It beggars belief. When will the MoD ever, ever learn? There has to be someone with the brains and moral courage to realise that events like this do not do them any favours. It stinks of whitewash and cover up already.

Wake up Whitehall ffs!

In the long term, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

By the way, Whitehall is not saying that the Coroner cannot have the video, only that it will take a week to find it

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

It beggars belief. When will the MoD ever, ever learn? There has to be someone with the brains and moral courage to realise that events like this do not do them any favours. It stinks of whitewash and cover up already.

Wake up Whitehall ffs!

In the long time, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

By the way, Whitehall is not saying that the Coroner cannot have the video, only that it will take a week to find it

I've been longing to ask this.
Do you have a source Sven?

Let's not forget the Coroner is 'Her Majesties Coronor' a direct agent of the Crown not some jumped up punk making a fuss.

Originally Posted by PassingBells

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

It beggars belief. When will the MoD ever, ever learn? There has to be someone with the brains and moral courage to realise that events like this do not do them any favours. It stinks of whitewash and cover up already.

Wake up Whitehall ffs!

In the long time, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

By the way, Whitehall is not saying that the Coroner cannot have the video, only that it will take a week to find it

I've been longing to ask this.
Do you have a source Sven?

BBC News at 6 - 18:10

I'm sure that it will be repeated at 22:00

One week when they have had the video for 3 years. I believe they (the MoD) should treat the coroner and the families with more respect.

Originally Posted by nigegilb

One week when they have had the video for 3 years. I believe they (the MoD) should treat the coroner and the families with more respect.

One week when they have had 3 years for it to get mixed up amongst a whole load of dtritus from the war.

The question is - when was it requested by the court?

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

It beggars belief. When will the MoD ever, ever learn? There has to be someone with the brains and moral courage to realise that events like this do not do them any favours. It stinks of whitewash and cover up already.

Wake up Whitehall ffs!

In the long term, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

By the way, Whitehall is not saying that the Coroner cannot have the video, only that it will take a week to find it

It's only been about 205 weeks since it happened so i guess one more wont hurt will it?

I presume that a lot of the evidence put before the coroner will be based on an SIB case file. Sad to say they have already had a lot of bad press about their delivery during that period in that theatre. I hope it is an inaccurate represntation. Either way it could hold some interesting questions about who knew about the video and for how long.

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

It beggars belief. When will the MoD ever, ever learn? There has to be someone with the brains and moral courage to realise that events like this do not do them any favours. It stinks of whitewash and cover up already.

Wake up Whitehall ffs!

In the long term, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

By the way, Whitehall is not saying that the Coroner cannot have the video, only that it will take a week to find it

It's only been about 205 weeks since it happened so i guess one more wont hurt will it?

As I asked in the post directly above Yours, how long ago did the court request the video

Originally Posted by Sven

In the long term, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

All the evidence should be placed before the Coroner; it is for him to decide upon its relevance.

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by TheBigUn

It beggars belief. When will the MoD ever, ever learn? There has to be someone with the brains and moral courage to realise that events like this do not do them any favours. It stinks of whitewash and cover up already.

Wake up Whitehall ffs!

In the long term, what will it acheive to air the video in court. Is it the only proof that these two pilots were the ones who fired on the convoy? Is it the only evidence that will make it incontravertable?

By the way, Whitehall is not saying that the Coroner cannot have the video, only that it will take a week to find it

No, according to reports the Coroner has already seen the video. The issue is whether it can be shown as part of the inquest.

The cockpit video may show what the pilots would have seen when they made the decision to open fire. For all I know, it may be apparent from the video that the Union flags on the vehicles, soldiers waving to show they were friendly, etc, were not readily apparent from the aircraft.

With respect, I am honestly astonished that any members of this website should be arguing so strenuously against evidence being admitted in such an inquest. Or even arguing that no inquests should be held!? Most of us fully understand that blue-on-blues do happen.

Last time i was involved in a CAST any Blue on Blue incedent had to be repoerted, an incedent report had to be raised due to the new rules over liability. Isnt this the same type of thing then?