• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

CDS blames mistakes by troops.......

#3
Jock blames the culture where people do not admit their mistakes? How about him and his cronies admitting theirs now and again!!

Anyway, what soldier is going to freely admit a mistake that ends up in the death or injury of a colleague when the SIB and the SPA are waiting in the wings to pounce and put them through the cogs of the 'fairest' legal system in the world!!!!!!
 
#4
The DESider is a procurement glossy magazine which claims to talk about how "well" DE&S is doing. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a credible vehicle for a serious policy debate. I'll take a look tomorrow and find out what the article was really about, as I have a sneaking suspicion that the Telegraph has taken Sir Jock significantly out of context.
 
#5
leveller said:
That should go down well with 'his' men?

Anywonder why brown wants to keep him, keep towing the line 'sir'.
Not everything in the garden is rosy if this sort of thing still happens:

Sunday Telegraph said:
...Captain Tom Sawyer, 26, and Corporal Danny Winter, 28, were killed when they were hit by a Javelin missile fired by British troops on January 14th...
CDS appears to be saying that we can't avoid repeating mistakes like this in a culture where people don't report things honestly owing to a fear of being hung out to dry. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Daytona955 said:
<snip>Anyway, what soldier is going to freely admit a mistake that ends up in the death or injury of a colleague when the SIB and the SPA are waiting in the wings to pounce and put them through the cogs of the 'fairest' legal system in the world!!!!!!
Prezactly. The aviation world is certainly a much safer place with its pro-active, initial 'no-blame' incident reporting measures. I suspect CDS's reference to 'unfair punishment' has as much to do with external legal pressures as it has to do with internal procedures.
 
#6
Don't jump to conclusions. The core subject is safety management. Much of what CDS is quoted as saying is a straight lift from an "MoD" publication which was actually prepared by a defence consultancy. It was commissioned by what is now called DE&S and published about 4 years ago. As such, it does not actually purport to be MoD policy, however MoD seem to have accepted the contents and it is widely available to those involved in safety management.

He mentions a "just culture" which is a key departure (in the publication) from the MoD policy of a "blame free" culture. There is a subtle but important difference. "A just culture is one in which individuals are not free of blame if they are culpably negligent, and where the organisation gives due regard to honesty". The book continues, to reinforce the previous point, "Such an attitude works well in industries like air transportation....".

It also says "Reports of equipment failures, design faults or procedures which might cause a hazard must be encouraged without threat of disciplinary action". Again, this is a significant departure from MoD policy and a throwback to long ago.

Those who rightly condemn the current system whereby those who are culpably negligent are rarely, if ever, held to blame should be glad he's said this. But, why now? The book has been available for 4 years and, in theory, such a system exists already, but it is not funded. Investigations may reveal what went wrong, but recommendations are seldom implemented in full, so we see the same causes over and over again. In which case, I'd say the culpable negligence extends to a very high level, including the political arena, which is who I think (and hope) CDS is having a pop at.

I wonder if this is a preemptive strike to dilute the impact of forthcoming criticism, say by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, or even http://www.nimrod-review.org.uk/.
 
#7
leveller said:
That should go down well with 'his' men?

Anywonder why brown wants to keep him, keep towing the line 'sir'.
I think you may find you'll soon have to amend that to "keep toeing the party line My Lord"

Perhaps when looking at blue on blue tragedies, the CDS should focus more on effective comms, integrated GPS systems and a credible IFF system - all identified and available since GW1.

I hope this article proves to be a series of mis-quotes and CDS produces some clarification asap.
 
#9
Dunservin said:
leveller said:
That should go down well with 'his' men?

Anywonder why brown wants to keep him, keep towing the line 'sir'.
Not everything in the garden is rosy if this sort of thing still happens:

quote]

Granted, but you dont want the MD (CGS), telling all and sundry all the cock up's made. Thats what an enquiry is about.
If lessons are still not being learned after an enquiry, then there is a problem with higher managment inplementing (cost) new procedures.
 
#10
When will people realise that when there are tens, hundereds and thousands of people throwing munitions at eachother then accidents will eventually happen.

To imply that the troops on the ground don't do enough to prevent this is disgusting.

CDS and his cronies have hours, days, weeks, months and years to ponder what "Should have been done."

The boot on the ground probably had anywhere from a second make just one of many of the most important decisions of his life up to that date.

Whether he has said it or the press has mis-quoted. Even suggesting it is the work of a cnut.
 
#11
I'm not entirely sure what he means by "entirely avoidable"!


Does he mean accident caused by confusion and the general 'fog of war' - or deaths caused by lack of adequate communication systems, under protected vehicles being used for high threat roles, insufficient fixed and rotary wing assets, inadequate body armour (or not enough of it), force protection inadequacies, or strategic policy cockups?
 
#12
What we need are HAZIDS done prior to any activity, every member of the "Team" should be empowered to halt any activity if they believe it is hazardous, perhaps using a stop card reporting system

An incentive scheme could be developed, points make prizes, if you report anything dangerous you get ten points etc, you can build your points account up then select a prize from the RAF cuckoo clock catalogue

It may eventually mean a reduction in gallantry awards (But a safer working environment for all) but this isn't a bad thing as the VC metal is running a bit low
 
#13
PullUpASandbag said:
So whats this tw#ats history? He ever done any fighting or does he just make the big bucks sitting in an office somewhere with his gay blue uniform on?
Well considering he was awarded the AFC for risking his own life to save a student's, I'd say his history is rather good.
 
#14
It wont be long before troops starting filling out risk assessment forms (before a patrol etc), I mean for FFS, the rules on what a soldier can or cannot do these days is becoming less clear. As are the instructions to take an objective (possibly with some casualties) only to hand it back the next day, with a further follow up 2 weeks later to re take the objective. This ROT has started at the top and is only working its way down :?
 
#15
thegimp said:
What we need are HAZIDS done prior to any activity, every member of the "Team" should be empowered to halt any activity if they believe it is hazardous, perhaps using a stop card reporting system

An incentive scheme could be developed, points make prizes, if you report anything dangerous you get ten points etc, you can build your points account up then select a prize from the RAF cuckoo clock catalogue

It may eventually mean a reduction in gallantry awards (But a safer working environment for all) but this isn't a bad thing as the VC metal is running a bit low
May sound good, but.....

Government Dept + Fore thought

Have you tried pushing two magnets together pole to pole?
 
#16
A big driver on this, I believe, is the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act (2007 I think). Now I'm no legal-beagle, but as I understand it this was a piece of legislation brought in to ensure that accidents / incidents such as Piper Alpha, Herald of Free Enterprise and Hatfield Train Crash aren't repeated, by introducing an element of accountability (ie it's no longer acceptable to say "Sorry, it was an accident, here's your pay-off"). Another Bliar brainchild, in same way as FOIA.

Bottom line is that unlimited fines and prison sentences can be handed out if firms / organisations are found to be culpably negligent. We ain't exempt at organisational / policy level, but I believe it doesn't apply in Op Theatres (open to correction on that from anyone so professionally qual'd)
 
#17
chasndave said:
A big driver on this, I believe, is the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act (2007 I think). Now I'm no legal-beagle, but as I understand it this was a piece of legislation brought in to ensure that accidents / incidents such as Piper Alpha, Herald of Free Enterprise and Hatfield Train Crash aren't repeated, by introducing an element of accountability (ie it's no longer acceptable to say "Sorry, it was an accident, here's your pay-off"). Another Bliar brainchild, in same way as FOIA.
I think I've got this right, but if you go back further, the "official" reaction to these/similar disasters was the repeal of the Crown protection Act, whereby MoD employees lost Crown Immunity. I'd say the above legislation reinforces this.
 
#18
Jock is a cock has he been there and had to make the hard choices on the ground. don't bloody think so, as for the government they bloody sent us there with 4 chinook's in Bastion bloody clown's there the one's who have made the ultimate mistakes
 
A

armadillo

Guest
#19
jock strap government mouthpiece and woolly jumpered liberal, and blue suit to boot. no shock there. This is the same bloke who said that he would expect a pilot to do a kamikaze job if osama bin laden was in view.
 
#20
The CDS adds: "To me such a culture is based on trust. It suggests a working environment where individuals are encouraged to contribute to providing essential safety information and where they are commended for owning up to mistakes.
A fine example of trust then?

Leading or perhaps deflecting?
 

Top