Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by RAMC_Medic, Jul 31, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
A British soldier died in Iraq because he was not wearing enhanced body armour he had had to give up because of shortages, an official report found.
Wrong, it should read
A British soldier died in Iraq because some to$$er shot him with the intention to kill him. an official report found.
Again, another attempt to try and move the blame. Yes, he MAY (you can't prove it) have survived with body armour, but that isn't the reason he died. He died because of the situation in Iraq and thus where does the blame really lie?
According to the BBC article that might not be the case:
Failure to supply correct working equipment is a lapse in H&S isn't it?
Isn't the MOD culpable for his death as they could have prevented it?
MOD = Penny pinching political arrse licking cnuts, IMHO.
Oneshot, he was killed by one of his own who was operating a weapon that he was insufficiently trained in (according to the BBC article) therefore surely the MoD are to blame for this failing.
The fact he wasn't wearing armour is also probably contributerory to his death. After all his body will have been checked by people who know about these things.
Fair enough, I bow to those who know more about it than I do,
My main point is based around the fact that the MoD is always the first to be blamed when incidents like this happen. IE blaming it on the lack of body armour. IMHO war isn't a game, we should be looking to the cause of the rounds being fired and running them down to the ground rather than the individual points of blame. If a similar incident happens again and its in an area not covered by body armour, who do we blame then?. Again, IMHO if we want to ensure no one dies, then we bring everyone home,
As a result of the Sgt Roberts coroners report the MoD admit that tank crews are insufficiently trained on their personal weapons (it is accepted that 'Tank Crews' need extra training) if they do the same as the rest of us in regard to MATTTs are we all to be considered not properly trained?
Sounds like a body swerve by the MoD.
There was a bloke from Jane's on Five Live yacking about sights and stuff; looking through the right eye and firing through the left
Neat trick that, firing through an eye
That is not what the BOI says. It says that tank crews were not taught about using the turret coax at very close ranges.
I think we should be careful about being flippant about this. Let's not forget that the worst of all situations happened with a British soldier being tragically shot by his own comrades.
If lessons can be learned to help prevent this happening again, its worth looking at what the board says.
Without this descending into a free for all, I think it's fair to say that it is a bloody tragedy and one that may or may not have ended the way it did. Body armour isn't fallable and in the end may have not had been any use to Sgt Roberts.
"An urgent request from army commanders for enhanced combat body armour to give extra protection to troops preparing to fight a war with Iraq in 2003 was delayed for two months by Geoff Hoon, then Defence Secretary.
A devastating report by a board of inquiry into the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, who was not wearing one of the vital life-savers and died of a bullet wound in the chest on the fifth day of the war, said he would have survived had he been protected by the special body armour."
"The Ministry of Defence is criticised in the report for failing to give "timely attention" to shortages in kit." BBC News
So which do you think reported the inquiry better?
Separate names with a comma.