• 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

UKSF training staff to face CM over SAS(R) deaths

I'm not not sure if a conclusion that servicemen with the level of experience and training of those charged are generally negligent, incompetent and insufficiently trained was what they had in mind.
Bet it wouldn't have happended in your day.....
 
Bet it wouldn't have happended in your day.....
It did happen in his day and before his day. It's about the amount of loss of life.

Cruising past icebergs best speed in the dark with one lookout on duty was normal for a time, even though accidents happened. The loss of life that occurred when the Titanic went down was hard to ignore though so changes were made.

Similarly plenty of fires have happened using rain screen cladding of the type used in Grenfell tower. There were few lives lost though. Grenfell had a large loss of life so it was hard to ignore.

People have died before on 'that' course in 'those' hills, but usualy one at a time. This incident saw three dead and eight others down with hyperthermia, four of them hospitalised. It's hard to ignore.
 
Bet it wouldn't have happended in your day.....
Unfortunately it did, in exactly the same way and all too frequently as the levels of negligence, incomptence, and insufficient training and knowledge were at least as bad.

The only difference was that "in my day" the MoD was exempt from the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter (the 1987 loss of Crown Immunity was very limited) while now the MoD is similarly exempt from the 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act instead.

Any censures are as meaningless and ineffective as they always have been. Nothing's changed.

The excuse of 'realistic training' as a blanket excuse still gets trotted out and accepted just as it always has, with no requirement or attempt to show how observing a basic duty of care would make the training any less realistic or any less demanding.

Negligence, incompetence, and insufficient training and knowledge were, unfortunately, accepted 'in my day' - and according to the JAG they still are.
 
John's window on the world makes me smile.
 
John's window on the world makes me smile.
Well, if you think soldiers (or anyone else, for that matter) being needlessly killed and injured as a result of unaccountable negligence and incompetence by their leaders and commanders is something to 'smile' about then I'm glad I'm looking out of a different window.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
No, they were acquitted as the JAG decided there was no case to answer. That's a very different finding to 'not guilty',
Or possibly not:
In Brief said:
If the application is allowed, the trial stops at that point and the defendant will be acquitted. The jury will be brought back to the courtroom and the judge will explain his decision to the jury members. He then asks them to appoint a foreman to speak on behalf of the jury; and the court clerk takes from the foreman on each count on the indictment a verdict ofnot guilty’ upon judge’s direction.
No Case to Answer: A possible outcome in a criminal trial - InBrief.co.uk

UKCRIME.WORDPRESS said:
What’s the difference between an acquittal at half time and a ‘normal’ one?
The practical effect is nothing – it is still a not guilty verdict and neither is better or worse than the other. One major difference is that a Prosecutor can appeal a Judge’s finding that there is ‘no case to answer’ whereas they cannot appeal a jury’s verdict. This is going to be even rarer as the decision is often very fact specific and the Court of Appeal don’t generally like interfering with the factual findings of a Judge.
No Case to Answer

defence-barrister said:
So if the prosecution evidence has come out in such a way that the prosecution case is so weak that there is no point continuing with it, then a submission of no case to answer will succeed. The defence representative will make the submission and the prosecution representative will respond. If the application succeeds, the defendant will be found not guilty and, so long as he/she faces no other charges before the court, will be free to leave.
Magistrates Court Trial Part 2
 
Last edited:
"possibly" being the operative word.

The JAG stopped the case early, before directing the CM board. Technically, as your second link states rather clearly, there is at least one "major difference" (edit: although, still technically, none of your links refer to CMs but to me that really is splitting hairs).

It may be splitting hairs to some, obviously including you, but I'd suggest that there's a rather clear (in my view massive) difference between the board reaching a non-directed verdict that the two defendants had not been negligent and a directed verdict that although they'd been negligent they hadn't been any more negligent than their equally negligent, badly trained and incompetent peers would have been:
"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.

I'd suggest that from the families' perspective as well as the perspective of the Army's moral and ethical responsibility (one and the same thing since that's why the families of the deceased consistently say they pursued the case rather than to find scapegoats) that there's an absolutely massive difference between the board reaching an undirected verdict and this directed verdict.

Had the CM run it's full course and the defendants been found 'not guilty' that would have exonerated not only them but the Army (as, to some extent, a 'guilty' verdict would have also exonerated the Army). Instead, while the two defendants have been found 'not guilty', the directed verdict spells out for all to see that the Army's as guilty as hell.

That, to me, is "a very different verdict" - whether it has any affect on the Army's ability to continue to be guilty as hell without facing any consequences beyond a meaningless H&S censure is obviously yet to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Ok having worked for a long time within the army forces I, and as a former PTI (R) know that it is quite difficult to maintain the level of fitness required for such a long period of time to complete reservist selection. A close friend of mine was taken off that course because his continuous training was causing his muscles to work against themselves causing haemorrhaging bleeding and damage to his body. (He is still the madest fittest man I know). As a PTI, hydration is massively important a wet bulb reading would have given an indicator of whether the challenge should have been attempted but those folks where miles away from any Med Centre and with only a short opportunity to complete it. The directing staff should have been more attentive agreed. However there are some golden rules in the armed forces. YOU drink until you piss clear and then some more & don't share your water with anyone especially on a task like that. I witnessed (as a Trooper on a march to Onion range in the Falklands 1991-2) two very fit Guardsmen get Hel-evacted out, one with hypothermia and the other shortly afterwards with heat exhaustion. One hadn't had any breakfast and the other was pissed the night before and hugely dehydrated? Sad for all, but true as a member of our armed forces there are some fundermental areas which are your responsibility so that in times of crisis you can not be a burden on your team and complete whatever task you have been relied apon to do.
 
As a PTI, hydration is massively important a wet bulb reading would have given an indicator of whether the challenge should have been attempted but those folks where miles away from any Med Centre and with only a short opportunity to complete it.
?????

Sorry, but I've got to disagree with pretty well everything you wrote but most of all with this. You don't need to be near a med centre to take a wet bulb reading as all you need is a wet bulb thermometer - or a dry bulb one and a wet tissue; a sling psychrometer costs a few pounds and is the size of a biro!

... and how much "opportunity" do you need? It takes less than a minute, FFS!

The idea that the three soldiers who died and those who were hospitalized did so because they failed in "fundermental areas which are (their) responsibility " is not just absolute bollox, contradicted by the findings of the coroner's court and by everything the Army teaches, but it shows an amazing lack of knowledge by someone who "as a PTI" claims to know what they're talking about. Read @Sarastro's posts at #268 and 273 for a full explanation. Ill-informed, unnecessary, and totally out of order.
 
Well I’m glad that the right decision was made. There were a lot of blokes on here calling for their heads, which is disappointing.

Edit - For grammar.
As you obviously haven’t read the judgement, the result of this CM doesn’t exonerate the Army in any way, and it certainly doesn’t agree with your slightly strange view that people dying because it’s selection is acceptable.
 
As you obviously haven’t read the judgement, the result of this CM doesn’t exonerate the Army in any way, and it certainly doesn’t agree with your slightly strange view that people dying because it’s selection is acceptable.
Spot on - while fair, it's the worst possible judgement for the Army, and far worse than a 'guilty' or un-directed 'not guilty' verdict would have been.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G The NAAFI Bar 129
P The Intelligence Cell 6
K Army Reserve 24

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top