Soldiers to sue MOD

#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.

TB
 
#3
Jesus! This is should NOT be discussed here until the case is closed either way!
 
#4
armchair_jihad said:
Jesus! This is should NOT be discussed here until the case is closed either way!
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.

TB
 
#5
armchair_jihad said:
Jesus! This is should NOT be discussed here until the case is closed either way!
Agreed.
 
#6
armchair_jihad said:
Jesus! This is should NOT be discussed here until the case is closed either way!
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.

MsG
 
#7
mistersoft said:
armchair_jihad said:
Jesus! This is should NOT be discussed here until the case is closed either way!
Agreed.
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.

TB
 
#8
TopBadger said:
"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.

TB
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
TopBadger said:
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.

TB
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.
SP
 
#11
Snagglepuss said:
The story linked also highlights the ruling on 'crime' rather than 'war' - an issue that I was not aware of.
SP
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.

TB
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#12
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
Snagglepuss said:
TopBadger said:
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.

TB
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.
SP
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

In December Government lawyers ruled that British servicemen injured in Iraq and Afghanistan should be classed as victims of crime not war, opening the door to sizeable compensation claims.
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?!!

TB
 
#16
At an opening brief in BATUS many years ago we were told that 6 soldiers die each year, most through RTA. If it is known that it is dangerous do we stop doing it? Or is it that we want someone to blame because we were unlucky and it could not possibly be our fault.

Does this mean that all casualties from NI can now sue?
 
#17
offog said:
At an opening brief in BATUS many years ago we were told that 6 soldiers die each year, most through RTA. If it is known that it is dangerous do we stop doing it? Or is it that we want someone to blame because we were unlucky and it could not possibly be our fault.

Does this mean that all casualties from NI can now sue?
Offog,
RTA - road traffic ACCIDENT! These things happen, they are not intentional.
The 'allegation' in the article is that troops were ordered to an area, which their superiors knew were mined. TOTALLY different.
Or if we want to use your logic, would you order someone to jump from a plane without a parachute??
SP
 
#18
Once again, I'll give this a chance if it's discussed in the broadest possible terms.

References to details of the case, will see the thread closed.

PTP
 
#19
Offog,
RTA - road traffic ACCIDENT! These things happen, they are not intentional.
The 'allegation' in the article is that troops were ordered to an area, which their superiors knew were mined. TOTALLY different.
Or if we want to use your logic, would you order someone to jump from a plane without a parachute??
SP
There's no such thing as an accident. Under most circumstances they are avoidable. Is a tank commander who offers inf a ride on top and then prangs tank injuring inf at BATUS any more or less culpable than an officer allegedly not planning to mitigate the risk of mines?

Duty of care, health and safety, whatever you want to call it, is part and parcel of good leadership. Whatever the environment a good leader is to evaluate the task, and if it needs to be done, mitigate as much of the risk as possible.
 
#20
Hopefully it will force the MOD to get some more/better vehicles.

I doubt it will happen though
 

Latest Threads

Top