Aged 32, Jason Smith had served with the Territorial Army since 1992 and came from Hawick. A soldier in the 52nd Lowland Regiment, he was serving in Iraq attached to the 1st Battalion, The King's Own Scottish Borderers. He was unmarried but had a long-term partner.
Though when i read the topic heading one thing worried me, bloody liberals or biffs using it as an excuse to kick poop into the fan as per previous examples of the rights act being taken too literally. Good to see the common sense has extended to war is tough, but dont kick the guys when they are already down.
Though that "some" may be an excuse for whitehall to still do bugger all.
You really have to wonder what kind of folk sit in those fancy offices in whitehall who appeal against human rights for troops. I can understand them fighting the case, but that just shows major lack of attention to reality.
While a greater emphasis on proper equipment can only be a good thing, using the HRA seems a pretty fraught way to do it: after all, the HRA also protects a right to life and a right to a family life. How is that compatible with sending people into situations which have a high risk of being fatal and, of necessity, separating them from their families?
To my mind, and it's a bit geffuddled at the moment, it's about time the goberment got it's cards marked. It's not about conducting risk assessments, it's about the people who send us there, having a get out clause, so they don't have to spend money as well as using money as an excuse, when the guys get hurt or die. The RAF crash, amongst others (No I'm not RAF), spring to mind.
No-one is advocating 'risk assessments', all the soldiers and their families ask is that if you are sending someone in harms way that you provide the best equipment that is available, whatever the cost.
Or shall we ask MP's to downgrade from Sky TV to terrestrial, using the argument, that they will get up to date news eventually. It may be out of date when they get it, but it was once breaking news?
Until the MoD are hit punitively, they will not change their procurement stance. Its a fact that new body armour may cost, lets say 13 squillion, but the actual cost of dead soldiers, in terms of payments to families and widows is less. Anyone who thinks that, that is not a factor or a consideration, is I am afraid in my opinion kidding themselves.
There that's my pennies worth, scrambled brain or not.
Previous attempts to pass legislation to effectivly overturn Court Rulings has been tried in the past, can't remember what for but I suspect asylum seekers. It went castrophicaly wrong first run out in the Courts. Judges tend not to like Governments that move the goal posts AFTER the Courts have ruled.