Soldiers to sue MOD

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by green_slime, Feb 27, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Telegraph story

    If this case goes the full way it could have real implications. As they are able to sue as it is a 'crime' not 'war', would the responsibility remain with the MOD or be passed to the commanders?

    All the best to the injured soldiers win or lose.
  2. "The men claim that their senior officers knew the valley they had been sent to clear was heavily mined, but did not pass on any warnings."

    If they were ordered in there on a nonoperationally necessary jolly (which i strongly doubt) then it seems quite a simple case, CoC have to be culpable for this, just like any other H&S issue.

    Add in an operational requirement, and things get too murky for me.

  3. Jesus! This is should NOT be discussed here until the case is closed either way!
  4. I don't think my lowly opinion will sway the case, if it did i'd be a hot-shot lawyer earning bucket loads. I'm not.

  5. Agreed.
  6. I might have this wrong, AJ, but I understood green_slime's post to be an invitation to discuss the ramifications (it any), rather than concentrate on the actual case itself. I await correction.

  7. Its in the national news folks, i hate to break it to you but it's going to be discussed whether you like it or not.

    We've had loads of similar (and difficult) discussions on here before, ranging from how the MOD treats its staff to friendly fire incidents.

    Why is this one taboo? As long as you weren't directly involved in the incident (i.e. a witness in a possible case) i can't see the harm.

  8. I am being serious here- what happened to the phrase- leading your men.
    If the officers where so adamant about crossing the valley of mine fields why not go right ahead and clear a path for the men. This stinks.
  9. I'm sure the thought police are watching and it's their call.

    But the many threads about Deepcut disappeared as if Sooty had waved his magic wand and said "Izzy, Whizzy, Let's Get Bizzy!!!"
  10. Totally agree TB,
    And I think this is another important issue of 'duty of care' and accountability. The story linked also highlights the ruling on 'crime' rather than 'war' - an issue that I was not aware of.
  11. I was unaware of this too... seems like an odd definition. I guess it follows logically from the argument that terrorism is a crime, but then i wouldn't count insurgency as terrorism. It doesn't sit well to my mind. I'm sure someone with a greater knowledge of the legalities of war can enlighten us.

  12. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    Does this therefore mean, that all that time in a snap vcp on the falls in August 83 to draw an asu out for an ambush, I can claim as I wasnt told of the risks?
  13. Taking this argument on, if your commander orders an attack knowing full well that the enemy will fire at and kill you is he doing something they should not or is it a hazard of the job.

    I think the problem is that

    It then brings up the point that when the Paras do an operational jump they expect to have casualties. The commander and soldiers accept this. But is the commander putting them at risk?
  14. My intention was more of a general discussion rather than on the details, which would be highly inappropriate sub-judice.

    Are we going down the line of soldiers suing after being ordered to move from a safe area in a contact scenario? (this is probably trully extreme, but in this litigious world who knows)
  15. From reading the telegraph piece it seems to depend on whether or not you're legally at war at the time, which is worrying for the reasons mentioned above.

    The conventional warfare bits at the start of Iraq and Afganistan were won very quickly, so what is the following period defined as... peace?!!