Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Spanish_Dave, May 18, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Have just read the BBC report, but I am still confused about this. Does this mean that we cant fight if there is no assurance we wont get injure/killed. If so it makes it all a bit pointless. Any lawyers out there to clear this up?
Not a lawyer, but I thought it meant that you'd still fight, but would have to have proper kit, radios that worked in hot countries, fire suppressants in your Nimrods, enough body armour to go round, enough and adequate night vision goggles and that it would stop Government cost-cutting costing lives unnecessarily.
Some bloke on R4 this morning tried to make out the commanders wouldn't be able to ask men to do dangerous things. Personally I think they'll still do that, but it it were my lad I'd like to think he was doing dangerous stuff with enough of the best protection possible.
I think it means that any soldier going out on patrol gets a lawyer to accompany him and protect him from harm. Sounds a good idea to me and finds something useful for lawyers to do.
My understanding is it,s about Transparancy( including inquests) and Duty of Care that MOD has to it,s soldiers and the protection of them, in conflict Area,s and training.
I have to say that the kneejerk reaction I had was that this is unenforceable on the battlefield.
The Best equipped army in the world can't guarantee it supply train (US in Iraq), so what makes it possible because a bureaucrat says it is?
Battle Prep, absolutely all the kit should be there, but once in battle - impossible to say what will be and wont be needed, and impossible to say that you will be able to get it to the people fighting the battle.
Edited for Mong England.
Fair point, and I agree absolutely. But the examples to which I alluded were examples where the basic supplies weren't there due to cost cutting back home, and imho that is now going to be so visible that those making the decisions will not be able to get away with it.
I also hope (with a cynic's understanding that hope isn't always met) that it will mean MoD will be more inclined just to tell the truth of what happened, which is mostly all families and colleagues want to hear, rather than spend years and thousands covering it up. The truth needn't be published in newspapers, and could be covered by the OSA if necessary, but we'll avoid the long waits for inquests, the hiding of information from them, and the constant drip drip of cases where it takes years for truth to come out, or worse soldiers/pilots/others at the coal face are blamed as a smokescreen. They, to me, show the contempt which MoD and others hold service personnel and their families.
The sad truth of the matter is that it is likely to be the local commander who bears the brunt of any charges under Human Rights Legislation as he'll be the person who actually sends Tommy into battle. It is hard enough sending your men into dangerous situations knowing that they may not come back whole or indeed at all without then being charged with failure to safeguard their human rights whilst the true criminals are sat back in the MoD deciding which cuts to implement next.
In theory very simple really:
".....a legal duty to provide adequate equipment...."
What "adequate equipment" means in the context of real world conditions is the stuff of dreams for fee gouging lawyers and so must carry with it huge contingent laibilities for HMG, who know there are still some very clear deficiencies.
Depressingly that might be about the only thing that forces Treasury to "revise" their bonkers views on funding.
Having gone back to read the reports on the orginal Coroner's inquest that ssesm to have sparked this it seems that MoD did f**k it.
The Coroner raised a couple of very valid points, of which the main one is this:-
The Heat injury cards issued advised a water intake of 5 litres a day when theexperts questioned by the Coroner were saying they would advise 10 litres of water in the tempartures given for the days in which the troops were working. A lack of electrolyte dehydration powders was reported
In this case MoD did f**K up as the advise they gave was wrong. Beyond that the argument was over the application of HRA to British Troops deployed overseas. MoD got caught out being stupid at great cost to MoD.
Considering our history of commanders at all levels compromising the HRA 'right to life' of themselves and those they led into battle against so-called 'overwhelming odds' or 'certain death', it appears that surrender will be the safest option in more ways than one from now on.
'MoD got caught out being stupid at great cost to MoD.' Let's get this straight, there is no such thing as cost to MoD (or for that matter 'Government Money') - it is Taxpayers (i.e. yours and my) Money. Every claim, every successful lawsuit against pennypinching which causes death or injury comes from our pockets.
As mentioned above, whilst I fully realise that people die and get wounded/injured in action, which you cannot legislate for, I am in full agreement with the idea that if people die because adequate equipment was not available or issued then the full facts should be aired in public, and, if necessary, someone should carry the can for it (some hope).
It is interesting to note that the great libertarian and lover of hecklers, Jack Straw, has finally dropped the attempts to muzzle coroners, due to massive opposition, which he has been trying to get through, tagged onto various illiberal bills, for a while.
They must really be running scared - they never took any notice of opposition before.
Must be the French influence at the European Court of Human Rights (Cour europÃ©enne des droits de lâhomme) in ..... oh yes, France!
Does the Human Rights act apply to the enemy on battlefields as well as our own forces?
So, if someone is killed, and the resultant Board of Enquiry shows that the right kit was provided, could the dead person's family then sue the enemy?
Separate names with a comma.