Crown Immunity to end?

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7076328.stm

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.

PB
 
#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.

ZXR
 
#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
rickshaw-major said:
I fear that this wil 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.
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.

msr
 
#6
msr said:
rickshaw-major said:
I fear that this wil 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.
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.

msr
Look at the HSE recent performance regarding throwing the grenade during trg!!!!
 
#7
msr said:
rickshaw-major said:
I fear that this wil 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.
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.

msr
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!

4 Military activities

(1) Any duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence in respect of—

(a) operations within subsection (2),
(b) activities carried on in preparation for, or directly in support of, such
operations, or
(c) training of a hazardous nature, or training carried out in a hazardous way, which it is considered needs to be carried out, or carried out in that way, in order to improve or maintain the effectiveness of the armed forces with respect to such operations, is not a “relevant duty of care”.

(2) The operations within this subsection are operations, including peacekeeping operations and operations for dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, in the course of which members of the armed forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.

(3) Any duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence in respect of activities carried on by members of the special forces is not a “relevant duty of care”.

(4) In this section “the special forces” means those units of the armed forces the maintenance of whose capabilities is the responsibility of the Director of Special Forces or which are for the time being subject to the operational command of that Director.
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?
 
#12
geo7863 said:
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?[/quote]

Absolutely - HMF would deal with this very seriously as there was a c0ck up somehwere - pure and simple and very, very serious.
 
#13
geo7863 said:
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?
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.

Jimima
 
#14
Jimima_Shark said:
geo7863 said:
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?
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.

Jimima
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
rickshaw-major said:
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 will be interesting to see what the legal profession makes of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

They will be looking for leaks as we speak.
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.

Jimima
 
#16
Risk minimisation starts with removing the risk and then minimising it if removal is not possible.
That sums it up well. as long as someone has considered the risk and mitigated against the worst of it then the MOD will have done its best. They probably do that now anyway, and any changes will just envolve a paper trail (I am also an HSSE professional)
 
#17
Recruiting_Office_reject said:
Risk minimisation starts with removing the risk and then minimising it if removal is not possible.
That sums it up well. as long as someone has considered the risk and mitigated against the worst of it then the MOD will have done its best. They probably do that now anyway, and any changes will just envolve a paper trail (I am also an HSSE professional)
I agree - what I don't agree with is that when things go wrong the HSE Inspectors are the people to deal with it due to their approach. Plus I am highly suspicious of HSE legal eagles - I have stated before that it is a fine piece of legislation hijacked by the legal profession.
 
#18
Surely the best approach from an HSE point of view is to have all future military training conducted in the safe environment of simulators with HSE overview, of course, to ensure that monitors and chairs are ergonomically acceptable and lighting, temperature, ventilation, humidity, etc., are at the correct levels. No more lessons learnt from human errors or equipment failures because there won't be any. All it needs then is to persuade the enemy to conduct his fighting in simulators too. Problem solved. Can I have my GEMS award now, please?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top