Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PE4rocks, Apr 11, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Well done Mr Justice Collins.
Human rights???? We are in tha Armed forces. We don't have any
Next thing you know mission command will go. There will be exact descriptions of how every type of manouevre is to be conducted and with what kit and its condition.
We go to war. We fight. People die and get injured. It's sh*t but thats what we signed on the dotted line for.
Next thing you know we will be allowed to strike!!!!
But surely it's the fact that people aren't given the correct kit/amount of ammo to do the tasks they're given which would be against human rights.
If people die but have the correct kit etc then it's unfortunate but as you say shit happens.
But if someone dies because they don't have the correct kit or ammunition, then that death might have been avoided.
You are right of course. Was just having a rant as one gets fed up of hearing that we never have the right kit and it's always broken.
If anything all blame should fall back on the government for not providing us with the funding to provide ideal conditions to operate as they want us to.
However knowing the MOD.... even if the funding was provided they'd probably just waste it bringing consultants to re image each and every organisation.
Feeling a little cynical today!
I can imagine during orders "risk assesments" got your goggles lads, steel toe boots for those mines. Hi viz jackest so you dont shoot each other.
Army be the best be the ISO9001/2001
edited because i did not check for spelling
Radio 4 NOW!
Now that is amusing
I know that is tongue in cheek, but what is wrong with having a mindset and process that aims to minimise risk? Surely that is good leadership?
The court case seems to have fixated on the death of a Scotish Pte who died of heatstroke. While the death of any servicemen/woman is a sad loss, I don't see how any equipment could have prevented this. I don't know the details of the case but guess what. Deserts are hot.
This case not withstanding, yes we should have human rights the same as everyone else. When you sign on the line though you agree to certain things that may be contrary to them. Pte Smiths death was unfortunate and he should be honoured with every one else that has made the sacrifice, but slagging off the MOD for the fact that poeple get hot is a little counter pro-ductive and typical of a civvy mindset.
Well if soldiers are getting hot, with reductions in efficiency and the government's doing nothing about it...well what was the point of all those summer weeks spent sat in a Warrior mock-up at APRE Farnborough?? Apart from being allowed to keep the smock.
There are a number of cooling systems available, cheap and not heavy that would do the job, I'll post links when I get a moment.
Even if they are good enough, and combat robust, thousands of soliders, sailors and airman have gone through and Iraqi summer and not died of heat injury. Should we purchase thousands of sets of body cooling equipment, at the risk of not buying something else, like Ospray, just incase it happens again.
Also, the fault may be his commander not listening to him. Or his own for not drinking enough. Like I said I don't know all the details, and I suspect you don't either.
Collins J must be the government's least favourite judge. He has behind him a string of judgements which have embarrassed it in judicial review, particularly on asylum and immigration. It was Collins J who, when dealing with a case under section 5 of the Asylum and Immigration Act which left an Iraqi Khurd shivering and starving under a railway bridge in London because the legislation deprived the man of his ability to work to support himself or to receive any kind of state benefit, drew attention to the callous inhumanity of the government in his judgement.
Collins J has shown himself to be no pushover in doing what judges are employed to do, defending the interests of the underdog against an overmighty executive. He is the closest resemblance there is to a real life John Deed!
It is an open secret that 'blind git Blunkett' hated his guts and prevailed upon the Lord Chancellor to find a way or removing him. That fact alone earns Collins J my personal respect.
I will post the judgement when I can find it but it seems to me to be entirely consistent with the legal principle: sentit commudum sentire debet et onus et e contra - meaning: 'he who takes the benefit also takes the burden' since if soldiers on operations abroad are constrained by the Human Rights Act in their dealings with civilians, then correspondingly, they also have the right to the benefit of it.
I also think, and I could be wrong, that it is a coded signal from the judiciary that despite it's attempts to muzzle the coroners under the counter-terrorism bill shortly to be heard in committee, the judiciary will not be so constrained when it comes to judicial review of the decision on the part of the Home Secretary to issue a gagging certificate.
Like this one:
If a soldier gets to rely on such equipment and then has the equipment removed (for instance in a multi day observation task where there is no resupply) doesn't this reduce His effectiveness?
Also, was the soldier concerned denied rehydration facilities?
Separate names with a comma.