Consultation about to close on legal protection for personnel and veterans; Queen's Speech 14.10.2019

Lord Dannatt has expressed dismay at reports that legislation to provide more legal protection for armed forces personnel and veterans has reportedly been "left out" or "removed from" tomorrow's Queen's Speech:
The Forces Pension Society reminded us all on Monday that the MoD launched a public consultation 12 weeks ago on proposals to provide legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans after serving in operations outside the UK.

The proposals included a presumption that where a Service person has been investigated and charges have not been brought, then, absent compelling reasons (such as the emergence of new evidence), that position (i.e. no prosecution) ought to be final.

Although it was launched under the previous Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt, the public consultation is STILL CURRENT BUT CLOSES AT 2359 HRS TONIGHT SUNDAY 13 OCT 2019:
Anyone can still participate in the consultation by online survey or by email.

More to follow.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I said on another site that I am in two minds over this. If the Vet's Protection bill, or whatever it is called, is in this Queen's Speech then it has little chance of going anywhere as there will be a GE soon with another restart and Queen's Speech. I would prefer to see that in the second QS with a chance of actually getting through parliament.
 
I agree with A-Y (which I usually do because I like his hat). The consultation itself is still vitally important because it will (and must) be taken into account by any post-GE Government and Parliament.

There is still time for anyone here to refer to the link and complete the survey online or by email.

Also, BAFF has been running an internal consultation, over a shorter time than is ideal, but it was announced on the BAFF website and on its FB page:
The draft BAFF reply to the consultation (led by myself) is just about complete. In view of the urgency I think BAFF may agree to making the reply publicly available on their website as soon as possible with the opportunity for anyone to comment there (TBC), and/or comment here on BAFF if preferred.

Ultimately I will be guided most heavily by views of BAFF full members, but in the event of disagreement which can't be resolved in the time available I always have the option of making a personal response to MOD taking other views into account.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I said on another site that I am in two minds over this. If the Vet's Protection bill, or whatever it is called, is in this Queen's Speech then it has little chance of going anywhere as there will be a GE soon with another restart and Queen's Speech. I would prefer to see that in the second QS with a chance of actually getting through parliament.
I'd rather we didn't receive any special protection in law but that the law was applied equally with no get out of jail cards for anyone!
Also I'd like to see an end to public money funding cases against the crown by ambulance chasing lawyers!
There is a need for legal aid and it should be means tested and costs recoverable. You lose your case against the crown you pay full costs, that might makenbthe legal eagles think twice about it.
If public money is to be used to prosecute the public for gain then costs should be recovered from any awards!
 
The reason it has been dropped is quite simple. It follows discussions with Varadkar and the DUP re BREXIT, and is simply too contentious a subject to rock the boat at this particular time.
 
The reason it has been dropped is quite simple. It follows discussions with Varadkar and the DUP re BREXIT, and is simply too contentious a subject to rock the boat at this particular time.
Except the consultation has nothing to do with NI.
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
I don't believe that military veterans should receive any special protection. What I would like to see is any investigation is done properly and done once, unless significant and compelling evidence comes to light. Conducting witch hunt style investigations to suit a political agenda is unnecessary, creates animosity, is likely to be detrimental to recruitment and retention and smacks of toxicity.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
OK, I understand that the BAFF pages on this are in the process of being made publicly available and anyone will be able to comment there. Consolidated BAFF response to consultation to be finalised this evening.

Also of course anyone can reply directly to the MOD consultation by 2359 hrs tonight.

Anyone can do both if they like, i.e. rep[y individually to MOD and also comment on BAFF drafts.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Not read the article then, fairy'nuff
I've not read the consultation article as it is an utter irrelevance. Seeking views from non-entities, views that will be consigned to File 13 in pretty short time, is merely designed to pacify the blazer-wearing Bde.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I've not read the consultation article as it is an utter irrelevance. Seeking views from non-entities, views that will be consigned to File 13 in pretty short time, is merely designed to pacify the blazer-wearing Bde.
Tube!
 
You choose - the legislation was intended to cover NI.
Not as proposed in the MOD consultation, which is what we are dealing with here. The consultation specifically excludes NI ops but it doesnt mean that they won't be or shouldn't be addressed separately. The draft BAFF response does say in effect that NI still needs to be addressed.

There isn't time to get bogged down in that issue today, but it can always be continued tomorrow after the immediate deadline has passed.
 

Latest Threads

Top