The Septics might have used chemicals, sue the Brits!

#1
The same bunch of "not allowed to be mentioned on Arrse" lawyers from this thread are now trying to sue the MOD for Operation "Phantom Fury", the 2004 Fallujah attacks.

Use of white phosphorus (completely legal if used for smoke generation) and depleted uranium (not ruled a chemical weapon in any competent court I'm aware of) by the Yanks make us another easy, legal aided, target for Mr Shiner and his cronies.

the law firm representing the Iraqi families, wants the Government to release this advice in full and say whether any British soldiers were involved in the fighting or supplied or helped fire prohibited weapons. During the attack coalition forces are alleged to have used weapons including white phosphorus, a modern form of napalm, and depleted uranium.
The man himself said:
The rate and severity of both foetal abnormalities and inexplicable illnesses such as leukaemia or those suffered by our clients in infants born to mothers in Fallujah has been the subject of numerous reports and letters to governments.... The full extent of the emerging public health crisis is unknown.... Doctors report a "massive, unprecedented number" of congenital health problems. The BBC investigation found that the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah has reached a rate 13 times higher than in Europe.
A war crime? An MOD responsibility? Really?
 
#2
Apart from the fact 1) we weren't at Fallujah, 2) WP is legal and 3) WP is NOT a modern form of napalm, they might have a case.

Apart from the fact that this came up a couple of months ago after the John Simpson TV programme, and it was quite clear that although DU might have a role in the birth defects, there were also 101 other potential culprits loose in the environment.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=145202.html
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Is it still illegal to send lawyers into minefields to clear the way ahead so that troops can cross?
 
#4
HectortheInspector said:
Apart from the fact 1) we weren't at Fallujah, 2) WP is legal and 3) WP is NOT a modern form of napalm, they might have a case.

Apart from the fact that this came up a couple of months ago after the John Simpson TV programme, and it was quite clear that although DU might have a role in the birth defects, there were also 101 other potential culprits loose in the environment.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=145202.html
While all of the above is accurate, you're forgetting that the Labour government has instructed the MoD to throw money at whatever (non-injury-based) claims cases it encounters.

It was recently (but quietly) renamed to the Ministry of Donating-money-to-whichever-person-claims-some-bullshit-compo-claim. Its not very catchy, but reality rarely is.
 
#6
Biped said:
Is it still illegal to send lawyers into minefields to clear the way ahead so that troops can cross?
I LIKE THIS! Time to write my assorted representatives in senate, the house, etc... wait... their all f'ing lawyers. Damn...
 
#7
Hell they are so inbred over there... DU is the only way of getting changes in the gene pool... they should be giving US money for helping them onto the evolutionary ladder!!
 
#8
HectortheInspector said:
Apart from the fact 1) we weren't at Fallujah, 2) WP is legal and 3) WP is NOT a modern form of napalm, they might have a case.

Apart from the fact that this came up a couple of months ago after the John Simpson TV programme, and it was quite clear that although DU might have a role in the birth defects, there were also 101 other potential culprits loose in the environment.
1) Although not on mass, Brits were part of Op Phantom Fury.

2) WP is legal as long as it's used in the correct manner. Some of the regulations on its usage contradict themselves.

3) To a civvie, Napalm and WP are both "sticky burny things" so i can understand their confusion.
 
#9
sneeky_turd said:
HectortheInspector said:
Apart from the fact 1) we weren't at Fallujah, 2) WP is legal and 3) WP is NOT a modern form of napalm, they might have a case.

Apart from the fact that this came up a couple of months ago after the John Simpson TV programme, and it was quite clear that although DU might have a role in the birth defects, there were also 101 other potential culprits loose in the environment.
1) Although not on mass, Brits were part of Op Phantom Fury.

But did WE use WP in the fighting? If NO, then go back to square 1.

2) WP is legal as long as it's used in the correct manner. Some of the regulations on its usage contradict themselves.

Sounds like one for the lawyers. But if WE didn't use it, how can we be blamed? Is everyone in the stadium responsible for a bottle thrown at the goalie?
If we did use it, did we do so in accordance with the ROE? If so, then the MoD lawyers come in.
If it was used against ROE, then that's a court martial for the operator. Really, can it be proved that a British WP round caused birth defects, cows to abort and chickens to melt? If not, then no case.



3) To a civvie, Napalm and WP are both "sticky burny things" so i can understand their confusion.
Is that relevant in Court, where the fine distinctions matter? Mr Shiner may be trying to be emotive (Napalm BAD! Mongo not like!) but that won't cut any ice with the judge. Alternatively, despite his long association with suing things military, he may be thick as mince and simply not understand the difference himself.
 
#10
HectortheInspector said:
Is that relevant in Court, where the fine distinctions matter? Mr Shiner may be trying to be emotive (Napalm BAD! Mongo not like!) but that won't cut any ice with the judge. Alternatively, despite his long association with suing things military, he may be thick as mince and simply not understand the difference himself.
I think he is trying on a lot of things because he cannot sue the Yanks.

He would love us to have been directly responsible for some of 'this' so he can abandon a good two thirds of his circumlocution and just yell "evil squaddie rapist war-mongering baby eating criminal scum" at the judge until the MOD give up.

In the absence of that, he wants to see if he can say MND(SE) should have forced the senior MNC(I) to do it 'our way' - for which he means any 'way' he can allege is the 'right way'.

If that doesn't work, he wants us to have handled the ammo at some point, so he can allege that we should have realised that it was going to be used for rape and baby-eating (it is actually probably easier to cook babies with WP than hexi - I've never tried it but I'd place a small bet ...) so we should have confiscated it.

Although the Black Watch BG were involved in some aspects of the operation, he demonstrates his clear lack of understanding by differentiating demanding to know whether we:

were involved in the fighting or helped fire prohibited weapons
It doesn't matter whether British troops were involved if they didn't fire "prohibited weapons". And as DU isn't and WP has to be used improperly to be, etc, etc.

I think he just knows that a few pictures of damaged children and the MOD will just pay out. Luckily, hopefully, we'll have somewhat a more robust political CoC on Friday and he'll be told to prove it in court.
 
#11
Sadly HtI, there's only one thing thicker than Mr Shiner, and that's our lovely MOD civil servants who roll over at the slightest sign of litigation!
 
#12
Spanner said:
Sadly HtI, there's only one thing thicker than Mr Shiner, and that's our lovely MOD civil servants who roll over at the slightest sign of litigation!
Alas, it's not just the MoD!
The Government has salaried house lawyers so good they couldn't make a living in private practice... Err...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top