This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live
Two SAS soldiers, known only as 1A and 1B,were brought before a court martial over the deaths amid high temperatures in July 2013.
They denied 'negligently performing a duty' for failing to take reasonable care for the safety of those on the march and a judge today ruled they had no case to answer.
Judge Blackett found that their lack of training on heat illness and risk assessments meant that other servicemen in their position would not have acted differently.
"I have determined that there is no evidence of negligent performance of duty when the conduct of these defendants is measured against the reasonable serviceman of similar experience, knowledge and training," he said.
A board properly directed could not properly convict and I intend to stop the case now."
Prosecuting, Louis Mably QC said he would not seek leave to appeal the judge's decision that the defendants had no case to answer.
The servicemen, who were the safety officers for the march, were acquitted by a five-person board on the direction of Jeff Blackett, Judge Advocate General
The problem as I see it is that soldiers are trained to recognise signs and symptoms of heat related conditions in themselves and in their comrades. The problem is that there is a point in both heat and cold when the ability to self diagnose is impaired. When a test is necessarily an individual one, with minimal supervision, there is bound to be some risk. Especially if participants are strongly self-motivated not to give in.
Maybe the answer will lie in some sort of remote monitoring?
It is slightly more complicated than the brief paragraphs quoted in the news. Your familiarity with JSP 539 may well be because you were trained on it (para 222 of the JSP mandates it before assuming a training post), however I think the problem is how the JSP gives guidance to people conducting an activity as demanding as the AFT, the Marines "30 miler" or an "endurance activity" of the type being conducted here. It doesn't, and never has done until May 2017 for the AFT. There is still no guidance for commanders running endurance activities.
If you think you understand the JSP sufficiently you may wish to read the DSA Service Inquiry extract here:
As opposed to trying to be inflammatory, I suppose I could of said that individuals that were calling for heads failed to see the huge amount of preparation the Reserves and Regulars have in the way of courses and experience implementing those skills the courses teach even before they get to Loadstone or Test week.
There were other factors outside of negligence that were afoot.
The one I had a very brief read of was wildly inaccurate to the point of absurdity, as were his perviously supposedly 'informed' comments about the Caracal bns in the IDF (totally contradicted by the IDF!).
Extremely unlikely given the details available on who was running things and who was "present", which anyone who has read about it as widely as you claim couldn't fail to be unaware of.
@gam47 / Mr G.A.Mackinlay, your comments supposedly from the coroner's report were taken totally out of context and in isolation and were totally unrepresentative of the coroner's report and its conclusions. I previously made some posts on this incident in another thread based on a mis-understanding of media reports and incorrect reporting, and as soon as I was deservedly chastised and my error pointed out I had no hesitation in apologising for it unreservedly.
No, they were acquitted as the JAG decided there was no case to answer. That's a very different finding to 'not guilty', particularly when you read the JAG's explanation, namely: "I have determined that there is no evidence of negligent performance of duty when the conduct of these defendants is measured against the reasonable serviceman of similar experience, knowledge and training,"
That the case was dropped because they were no more negligent, incompetent, and untrained than their peers in the military is about as damning an indictment of the Army in general and SF in particular as it's possible to get.