Crown Immunity to end?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PassingBells, Nov 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    It's all very good saying that the government should hold the military responsible for deaths and injuries while on training, however not to expose soldiers to extreme conditions means that they will be less prepared when it come to the real thing.

    A wiser man than me once said "Train hard; Fight easy!"

    While we all no doubt feel for the families concerned, they are hardly objective in the matter.

    On the other hand, if they're being put into the field without the proper kit, or without the proper training, then by all means crack on.

  2. Here's reply number one mate... I'll post later when I make more sense!
  3. Completely agree with that PB. It's sad to say but accidents/fatalities are going to happen, it's just not acceptable when the MOD can help to prevent them by issuing the correct kit at the right time.

  4. I fear that this will simply give the lawyers more swill to eat. Any death or incident is a tragedy but the efficiency of HMF will be seriously impaired by the HSE who don't understand what training is about. IIRC HMF on Active Service are not subject to the HSAWA 1974, not by Crown Exemption but by a Section of the Act - they are specifically excluded.

    Edited for Sunday morning spelling
  5. msr

    msr LE

    Why do you think that they know nothing about training?

    The nonsense here is, as with the Police, one part of the government taking money from another part.

  6. Look at the HSE recent performance regarding throwing the grenade during trg!!!!
  7. Because I have been involved witht them during investigations relating to MoD-related incidents and they were worse than useless. They do not understand the culture or the requirement for training. I am a qualified ROSPA H&S Inspector and know the viewpoint they take when approaching these problems i.e. a systems approach as opposed to actually investigating what went wrong on the ground.

    I agree with the nonsense about fines.

    Have you experience working with them on accident investigation as I would like to hear your opinion on what their approach would be? Please don't think I am being funny -I really would like to know as I was underwhelmed by them in my dealings with them.
  8. Actually the HSAWA 1974 does apply to the MOD but it can't be prosecuted in the same way as non "Crown Bodies" and works instead under a system of Crown Censures. Specific regulations do contain exemptions for MOD but these have to be requested.

    Most importantly though in this case, the new Corporate Manslaughter Bill does exempt the MOD and this extends not only to operations but also to training exercises.
  9. Below is an excerpt from the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 that has just been given Royal Assent suggests that things are not changing in the near future. Of course if we keep this lot in Government for much longer we'll all be skipping round SPTA holding hands in case we trip and fall!

    Linky Linky to the Parliament Website

    Edited to tidy the Quote up due to cut and pasting from Adobe.
  10. :boogie: STOP!!!!! skipping on spta ffs you might trip on the disturbed ground and have to sue your fellow skipee.............
    then again if you are wearing your issued PAD KNEE/ELBOW SKIPPING MK2 you should be ok !

    what next? firing rounds at the enemy but only if they have adequate protection because we will have a duty of care towards them as well??? :twisted:
  11. As A Health and Safety Professional all I can say is "reasonably practicable"

    Are all steps taken to reduce the risk reasonable and Practicable..... in the case of training for war obviously the training has to be as realistic as possible. you cant place civvy HSE standards on war training. if a guy died from falling off a dodgy ladder in the barracks thats a different matter.

    I cant comment on this young marines death, however if Live ammo was used instead of Blanks someone seariously fecked up..... is that a HSE issue or a criminal negligence issue... are they one and the same?
  13. Indeed serious questions would need to be asked (and that is an understatement). As to the example you give, I would argue that if a guy died during training falling from a dodgy ladder then surely that would be unacceptable as well.

    HSE should not be about stopping activities that are inherently dangerous but ensuring they are done with minimal risk to the individuals involved.

  14. But Jimima that is exactly what it is about. Risk minimisation starts with removing the risk and then minimising it if removal is not possible. It willbe interesting to see what the legalprofession makes of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

    They will be looking for leaks as we speak.
  15. You have argued exactly what I was saying. It is not about stopping activities because there is some risk it is about removing or reducing (good old ALARP) those elements of risk to those carrying out the activity. It is up to those that organise training and other activities to ensure that the risk is removed or ALARP and that the training still has some benefit to the troops.