Battlefield not beyond the courtroom.

[Al R]

Why did the state ever try and drag this out? The Military Covenant is all well and good, and so is Armed Forces Day but lets face it - that is state window dressing; its all about saving money upfront (and afterwards).

BBC News - Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853)

The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled. The case was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq. The court rejected the government's argument that the battlefield was beyond the reach of the legislation. Judges also ruled the Ministry of Defence owes soldiers a duty of care under the law of negligence.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68234000/jpg/_68234877_snatchlandrover_304.jpg

[Wander00]

Suspect theer is a syntax failure in Post 1 - however, to the point, so judges are now going to be experts in battle fighting are they - platoon commanders quizzed about decisions made under fire - what are we coming to.

[Al R]

Wanderoo,

Isn't it more about institutional failure and shortcomings re logistics etc? Subjective decision making by individuals in the heat of battle is another thing completely.

[Wander00]

Aah, that's what they imply, but you have heard of mission creep - well did you ever know lawyers not try a similar concept. Where does the line get drawn - company, battalion. brigade..............MOD. Conversely how far down the chain will some lawyer go to try to get some claimant their "rights" - I am pretty sceptical. I hope I am wrong.

[Martin the Martian]

So presumably the families of aircrew who died flying such aircraft as the Fairey Battle, BP Defiant and Bristol Blenheim, or all those who were killed while flying as the squadron Tail-End Charlie during Fighting Area Attacks in 1940 will also get the same rights?

How far can this one go?

[ShotOne]

Unfortunately thats how the world is going Get used to it! Those operating airliners have long had to contend with the possibility of having to explain in court a decision taken under the extreme duress of a life threatening emergency. Roundels on the wing,it seems, doesn't change that.

Is this even new though? Didn't the Chief of the Defence Staff feel it necessary to demand legal advice a the outset of the Iraq war?

[Sandy Parts]

AlR - hear what you are saying but I note the MoD 'lawyers/spokesperson' replied to the ruling with a statement to the effect that "a variety of vehicles were provided and it was up to the commander to decide on the suitability of the vehicle for the task" or words to that effect. The day we get full transparency/responsibility will be the day a lot of senior people take sudden 'early retirement' (on full pension and with resettlement grant naturally). Sadly, I see the only effect of this ruling is a LOT of public money being moved into compensation-specialist law firms' pockets with many 'grieving relatives' being persuaded they now have a case. That money will have to come from somewhere, more than likely the same pot that needs to stretch to pay for the better equipment we would all like to see. :(

[Al R]

I hope that there will soon be a few robust precedents set about decisions made in the heat of the battle and that there is a difference between 'donkeys lead by men', and well meaning tough decision making. That is one end of the spectrum and MoD material incompetence is at the other. I can see that in the middle, any commander in the build up to conflict is going to need one eye on the mission needs and the other firmly fixed (more and more) on justifying even the smallest courses of action. Instead of second guessing the enemy, second guessing claim firms will possibly be the order of the day (is there a difference?).

Isn't the real danger though, extradition?

edit: Sandy, our posts crossed - I touched on what you said. Commanders will have to have one eye on being judged in hindsight by someone in urbane, calm and serene Chambers.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Al R
Is there a difference
Second guessing lawyers will be far more dangerous than fighting the enemy. One only has to look at some of them that have pocketed £10K+ of "legal aid" to fight for compo to realise that the ambulance chasers will be all over this soon. This ruling is a disgrace and it will reduce commanders' options in the future; not only will we need political approval to take a course of action, as well as legal advice to make sure that the target is legit and that ROEs aren't being breached but then we will have to risk assessments on a course of action in case we are subsequently sued for a human rights breach. The sooner we get rid of Mr and Mrs Blair's law the better!! Cue pr00ne........

[air pig]

Surely this decision is a result of politicians who did not or would not authorise or fund preparations in relation to GW II.

I suspect that IF a war is suddenly declared under international law you have to go into battle with what you have on the day conflict, then there can be no comeback in law.

If in the case of planned or urgent operations under UN mandate and war is NOT declared or the so called War on Terror, if you do not provide equipment and supplies, you could be liable if I read this judgement correctly.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown killed these men.
Every advice they had were that snatch vehicles were a deathtrap, and other allied forces wouldn't have dreamt of equipping their troops so poorly.

[air pig]

One also has to ask, what did the Secretary of State for defence have to say about the deficiencies of equipment, did he make his unease felt also the Chief of the Defence Staff and their logistics chiefs say about inadequate equipment.

Now we have had this case, will equipment be sold off after the present operations, such as Jackal and Mastiff or will they be held in equipment stores, similarly clothing and protective equipment. Now that would make the bean counters unhappy.

[SOSL]

Ever since "Crown Immunity" was binned, individuals have been able to sue the Government on the grounds of negligence (ISTR that was around the time of the 1974 HSAW Act).

From what I can see, this ruling, by the supreme court, simply extends the grounds to include the protections provided to human beings under the Human Rights Act.

Individuals may be given the right to sue but, that doesn't guarantee they'll win. If they can't prove (to the required standard) that the MoD acted in contravention of the HRA, they won't win.

However, on the other hand, if they can .........

All individuals and corporate bodies (including the government) are subject to the rule of the law of the land, however inconvenient that might be.

Well that's just my opinion, I'm no expert.

Rgds SOS

[TomJoad]

Ever since "Crown Immunity" was binned, individuals have been able to sue the Government on the grounds of negligence (ISTR that was around the time of the 1974 HSAW Act).

From what I can see, this ruling, by the supreme court, simply extends the grounds to include the protections provided to human beings under the Human Rights Act.

Individuals may be given the right to sue but, that doesn't guarantee they'll win. If they can't prove (to the required standard) that the MoD acted in contravention of the HRA, they won't win.

However, on the other hand .........

All individuals and corporate bodies (including the government) are subject to the rule of the law of the land, however inconvenient that might be.

Well that's just my opinion, I'm no expert.

Rgds SOS


I tend to agree, and I think this move will ultimately be a good thing. It is one thing to take risk in the military context when that risk has been properly weighed and justified. Working from a baseline acceptance of knowingly deficient equipment is another thing altogether. I would expect that best endeavours would be made to provide the best resources available within the constraints of the time and any military imperative. All too often the military risk has just been casually accepted without any great thought. Our recent history in Afghanistan and Iraq is replete with such failings.

[ralphmalph]

What happens when the job just needs to be done......no questions?

**** odds and bad equipment.

In that case what does it matter?

And when is the line drawn?

[ralphmalph]

IMHO.....if this is driven to the root of the question we risk undermining ability for our forces to conduct war fighting.

We can always be sanctimonious, but horrible things happen in war....when the public loose this reality, we are in a bad situation!

Its not normal to kill others..........When you ask that it happens, what do think might occur?

[tucumseh]

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown killed these men.
Every advice they had were that snatch vehicles were a deathtrap, and other allied forces wouldn't have dreamt of equipping their troops so poorly. (And other similar posts)


Although I don't know the details of the legal claim, I believe it important that Snatch had already been deemed unfit for purpose in a more benign theatre and a programme endorsed to replace it.

It follows that, as part of any threat and vulnerability assessment (mandated upon MoD), any proposed use of Snatch in ANY theatre would be red flagged and the question would be asked "Is the intended use in a more, or less, benign environment to that in which Snatch is already unfit for purpose?"

On numerous occasions Ministers, on MoD advice, stated Snatch was fit for this intended purpose, when they knew very well it was not. This is made irrefutable by the existence of a funded endorsed replacement programme, with a firm In Service Date. It matters not if the proposed replacement vehicle was fit for this new purpose. (The replacement programme was already very late when it was cancelled, in the early 00s, which actually makes matters worse).

And the opinion of individuals such as myself doesn't matter either. Those responsible had already decided it wasn't suitable. A slam dunk, in legal terms; although I imagine MoD will continue to lie and wiggle.

[SOSL]

I think some of us feel that the line should be drawn when the important job isn't done because of **** odds and bad equipment.

I also think that we risk undermining ability for our forces to conduct war fighting.

by putting them into stupid and **** odds with bad equipment

Rgds SOS

[VinRouge]

Perhaps if the costs were prohibitive, politicians would be less inclined to send us away on fights of folly and instead focus on the sort of op the majority of us joined for. The defence of the realm, not p@ssing off jinglies in countries with a history of wars of attrition.

[smujsmith]

Fox 3

"Tony Blair and Gordon Brown killed these men.
Every advice they had were that snatch vehicles were a deathtrap, and other allied forces wouldn't have dreamt of equipping their troops so poorly."

That's where the truth behind these rulings lie. A commander in the field is always going to be constrained by the equipment available to him. His problem comes when, as in Iraq/Afghan they know the threat IEDs and they know the weakness, the Snatch L/R. Whilst I remember reading many press reports that these commanders were "leaking" that they were unhappy to the press, it strikes me that few, if any, made any real noises back up the chain of command. Perhaps they did and were rebuffed, hence the press leaks. At the end of the day, were the commanders doing their duty to their men, or the politicians like Bliar and McBroon. I know it's not a position I would ever like to be in. Unfortunately, despite today's rulings, the pollies will never take responsibility.

Smudge

[500N]

Can I just clarify something.

A "Snatch" L/R is really just a Land rover with a few extras
but no armoured or blast protection whatsoever ?

[TomJoad]

I think some of us feel that the line should be drawn when the important job isn't done because of

I also think that
by putting them into stupid and with

Rgds SOS

Could not agree more with you SOSL. Hopefully this legislation will help those with the responsibility and authority to consider fully what they are asking our people to do and with what. In extremis, there will always be the ops which demand truly exceptional risk due to equipment availability/capability limits but these should not be accepted as the norm. It takes courage and leadership to say we can't do it.

[Dysonsphere]

While agreeing the snatch was a deathtrap as I understand it you join the army to fight and there are risks in doing so. This ruling is a joke as you could claim any bit of kit has problems, even claiming the fuel tanks are too small so I ran out of fuel. Where will it end.

[tucumseh]

Dyson

The point is that MoD admitted it was unfit for purpose, then denied it. Not unlike the Cumbria NHS debacle that is ongoing - a report was commissisoned, then hidden as it was inconveniently accurate. The difference here is that the Health Secy has firmly stated this is not being tolerated in HIS department, yet Hammond is saying it is acceptable in HIS department.

The admission, and the endorsement of a replacement in the 90s, meant MoD met (up to that point) their obligation and were being seen to do something.

The claim, by MoD and Ministers, that Snatch was fit for purpose clearly contradicted the above. At that point, MoD's behaviour crossed the line into illegality.

I don't doubt that someone involved in the Ministerial briefing wasn't aware of the replacement programme; but many were, at all levels of the MoD. Who among them spoke up? The politicians were lied to and misled; but convention dictates they and their staffs speak with one voice. I don't see Blair and Brown (and Ainsworth, Ingram etc) calling for the heads of those who lied to them.

I make no claim as to Snatch's fitness for purpose. I'm simply stating verifiable fact.

[Tankertrashnav]

I was going to say that naked ladies appeared to have taken over from Trabants (see the OP) but I notice that the Trabbies have returned by 500N's post 21. What is it with PPRune and the L a n d R o ve r?

500N - Yes, you've got it right, that is at the centre of the problem. Not sure about "whatsoever" but certainly insufficient.

[Sandy Parts]

Re SOSL's point about the case in question (using LRs in IED land) now being decided in a court of law and that being the right direction to take, I suspect we will see a hugely expensive out-of-court settlement instead! The MoD has a habit of delaying and then paying in order to prevent any chance of establishing a precedent that will open the floodgates. Would be nice to see the case tested fairly in our courts but, unlike the troops, the MoD mandarins/lawyers never seem to have the bottle.

[althenick]

Anything that highlight's MoD deficiencies in equipment and training can only be a good thing.
However even if litigation is successful against the MoD does anybody here think anything will change? So they may have to fork out a few Million in damages etc but match that against the cost of say providing more helicopters for troop transport and Damages pail into a very insignificant amount.
In short Crown imunity has been replaced with Crown indifference - But they'll cough up. :yuk:

[VinRouge]

What if the families refuse payment and instead decide to take it all the way?

[Sandy Parts]

have any done so so far in all the similar cases against the MoD? - I suspect they would receive strong 'legal' advice to the contrary (depending on the amount offered and percentage to the legal team)...or am I just as cynical as Capt McCynical of Cynical City?

[Chugalug2]

Smujsmith:
I know it's not a position I would ever like to be in.
me too, but its a position that any commander might be in and no doubt many that post and read here have been in. What did they do? What did they say? If nothing, then little point in throwing stones within the same glass house.
To answer my own question, I know of one person alone that posts on this thread and elsewhere that did and does speak out, not only about snatch vehicles (see what I did there?) but about the biggest scandal that has affected the fighting ability of the RAF for over half its existence. I speak of course about the deliberate and malevolent attack against military airworthiness provision by VSOs and about the subsequent cover up that continues three decades on. The death toll resulting from that betrayal of trust should be added to that caused by the inappropriate use of "trabants" and the culprits named in both cases.

[tucumseh]

Did you also notice how Hammond continually tries to emphasise it is the decision of the Commander on the ground? In the same way his predecessors always wanted to concentrate on the final act when it came to determining liability for aircraft accidents.

Accidents such as these never have a single cause. In this case, as with Chinook, Sea King, Nimrod and the rest, there were a number of preconditions, all known to senior staffs and ignored. Hammond's response yesterday does nothing to address those preconditions, or even the concept of their existence, so no Commander on the ground can be held responsible for preventing recurrence.

It is about time Hammond and those who advise him had a career brief on their brief careers.

[SOSL]

Any commander on the ground should only be held responsible for a fukc up if:

a. His chain of command had given him discretion to refuse the task and

b. He had been given the right equipment for the job and

c. He and his people had been properly trained on the kit and the job and

d. He or his people fukced up.

Otherwise the responsibility for the fukc up lies higher in the chain of command.

a. is somewhat unlikely.

b. is very unlikely.

c. is sadly, but increasingly unlikely

d. is only remotely possible.

As I said, I'm no expert. This is my opinion. Look further up the chain of command. At the top there are politicians who have their own motives.

Rgds SOS

[althenick]

I have no wish to open any old wounds but does this mean that past Mod balls ups can be pursued in the courts? I'm thinking of the Nimrod accident in Iraq?

[500N]

What about the Herc incident from ground fire in Iraq ?

[ralphmalph]

SOSL,

Please enlighten us roughly as to your background?

Have you commanded troops in an operational (war) environment?

Your thoughts are interesting.....kind of, in a utopian way.

In your educated opinion, should someone who has never commanded troops "on the ground" even spout about this subject?

[ralphmalph]

SOSL,

To elaborate.

A. Please define the term "order"

B. Subjective, but no soldier is every completely content......the budget des not stretch that far...always. This was very true before GW2.

C. This is only beginning to be implemented.....he many times have soldiers been given kit and told to "get on with it"

D. Subjective......to be proven by inquiry.

[NutLoose]

The thing with vehicles is you could argue none are fit for purpose, take the Snatch mentioned and its faults, once withdrawn for an armoured upgraded vehicle, all that needs is a bigger bomb, so you have to up armour which is then answered by a bigger bomb... Where do you stop? They might be fit for purpose on day one, but that fitness reduces as your opposition learn how to take them out... rather like the Tanks in Syria.

[tucumseh]

I have no wish to open any old wounds but does this mean that past Mod balls ups can be pursued in the courts? I'm thinking of the Nimrod accident in Iraq?


I think you are quite right to ask. And this decision on Snatch MUST be considered together with the news which is consuming the press today - the decision to name those involved in burying a critical health care report. The two are inseparable.

The link is clear. Highly critical reports were similarly buried by MoD, leading directly to the deaths of the Servicemen and civilians in the accidents we discuss here.

Had they not been buried, many of those deaths would have been avoided.

I am uneasy at the double standards presented by the media and politicians. Hammond and his predecessors have spent long years protecting those who covered up the MoD deaths. In a sense, the latter even became the MoD's spokespersons, because their every word to the media was taken up by Defence Ministers and repeated without question - even when their lies had been exposed. (Chinook is the best example). Yet the media still gives them a platform and a legitimacy. Hence, the inconsistent media attitude becomes part of the problem. The unavoidable conclusion is the corporate manslaughter of Servicemen is somehow acceptable.

Just to be absolutely clear about the accidents mentioned above (Nimrod and Hercules). The root causes were identified in detail years beforehand, formal reports commissioned and no action taken. MoD withheld and/or denied the existence of the reports. On another case (Sea King ASaC) they even deny an investigation was carried out in the first place, never mind the resultant report. It is about time this culture changed and if it takes the Snatch case, so be it. But I'll almost guarantee one thing. No press report will point out that it had been condemned in the 90s and a replacement schemed, but cancelled. THAT is the one fact MoD will be desperately trying to play down and is why they are trying to shift focus to the front line commanders.

[SOSL]

Get a grip Ralph.

As to your first post above

My background is laid bare in all my previous posts (not on this thread but on all threads I have ever posted on, in PPrune). I was a Royal Air Force officer and now I am happily and comfortably retired.

Yes, I have commanded troops on the ground, "in an operational (war) environment" - about 40 of them out of Salalah, during the Omani civil war in 1974-75, when I was a Fg Off with quite some juniority.

I don't quite understand your use of the word "utopian" in this context.

In my "educated opinion" any PPruner can "spout" about anything posted here. The thread is about a Supreme Court ruling.

As for your second post, above, you don't need me to define the term "order" for you and the rest is nonsense.

However, I get the impression that you and I are violently agreeing with each other.

In my own way, I have been saying that the government, ie the MoD, has wickedly betrayed and let down our fighting men and women over many years, in so many ways.

I am glad that this ruling may, in some small way, open the door to hold them to account, and, in future, force them to think more realistically before committing our brave boys and girls to stupid but politically expedient adventures without the equipment etc that they need to do a professional job.

That's all I have to say - now can we be friends?

Rgds SOS

[ralphmalph]

SOSL,


I think that the government (of any year) has been abusing soldiers since time and memorial.

However, war is horrible, nasty, and disgusting.....and it doesn't abide by conventions. It's just the ultimate way to expose the fragility of man.

These rules will help us to regulate at a high level....but when It comes down to cutting another mans throat......it's cannot be dressed up as anything else.

As far as the tax payer goes....if it were the choice between a new engine for a Lynx in Afghanistan or a cottage hospital........I know what they would choose!

So really, we can ask for what we like.....but it is not going to happen!

[SOSL]

Ralph.

O.K. mate I get your point.

Rgds SOS

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Ralph,
I think you're missing the point a bit. It isn't about spending priorities. It is about the Government saying things are OK when they know damn well they aren't, which is illegal.
The point being that, whilst the public may wish to build 3,000 cottage hospitals and have troops armed only with a toothpick, everybody is clear just how capable the toothpick is. In a democracy, this means that Parliament may decide against a Government deployment of the Army to Hades with said toothpicks, and the public may vote out Government for suggesting it and/or Parliament for agreeing to it.

p.s. It also means the troops are clear on what they've got to the job with, and can thus make an informed opinion on whether they wish to remain in the Armed Forces....at which point the public might decide that the one suicidal idiot left, with a toothpick, is insufficient 'Armed Forces' to allow themselves to get to sleep at night.

[pr00ne]

ROLAND PULFREW.

Pr00ne here on cue....

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the battlefield should be beyond a court of law. Ever since 1987 the Government has had a duty of care toward its MoD staff, this was decreed by Parliament and what we are seeing in respect of the WIMIK snatch vehicles is as a consequence of that action.

As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up. The Government provides the Ministry of Defence with the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, and on top of that the operational costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan are met from the Government contingency reserves, this alone has cost many billiuons of pounds in UORs alone.

That Government duty of care is exercised through actions and offices of the senior officers and civil servants of the MoD, and as we all know the MoD is NOT largely staffed and run by civil servants, it is run by the Top Level Budget Holders who are very senior uniformed officers of all three services.

They have a complex and multi layered uniformed command structure that stretches all the way down to the platoon level actions in the field in Afghanistan or wherever they are asked to serve.

All that has happened in the recent case is that a group of relatives have been given leave to sue the MoD. They will have to prove their case, and the MoD will have to fight its case.

Let me give you just one totally hypothetical case, a wholly unrealistic case but the sort of thing that the law, ALL laws, are there to prevent.

Let us assume that there is a Company or Platoon level engagement in Afghanistan, and that YOUR son is a Private in that Platoon. During the engagement there is a fortified and well defended position that is causing this hypothetical Platoon a real problem. It has to be taken out. The Company or Platoon Commander, for whatever reason, decides not to use the Javelin fire team on his right and instead orders a frontal assault by the section on his left, a ludicrous order resulting in a suicidal action but one that if it is disobeyed could result in a charge of disobeying a direct order in the face of the enemy.

The frontal assault goes in, it is unsuccessful and the section is wiped out. The Commander then orders a Javelin strike, and the position is neutralised.

Wouldn't YOU want to be able to query the actions of that Unit Commander? Wouldn't YOU want the death of your son to be the subject of a trial in a public court where individuals can be held to account for their actions and their consequences?

THAT is why the battlefield should never be beyond the court room.

[SOSL]

Some of us may think that more deserving targets are the self serving politicians who cry crocodile tears and, with no shame, announce the names of dead young men and women, in the house of commons, almost every day.

The politicians hang their heads and put on a solemn expression, but the sad thing is these kids didn't die to protect our historical freedoms. They died because of stupid, flawed and possibly criminal decisions made by donkeys who we elected to parliament.

To all bereaved families please understand that nothing I have said detracts one iota from the bravery and heroism of your loved one (s).

Rgds SOS

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up.

For one thing, Brown cut the Defence budget 4 times whilst we were at war, then lied about it. Sorry, you and I lie, he "corrects evidence"

Gordon Brown admits mistake over defence spending claim | Politics | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/gordon-brown-defence-spending-mistake)

..and it's got to be pretty bad before the Grauniad prints evidence about Labour defence spending (hint: The Grauniad doesn't even have a defence section)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I can't believe that many of you, clearly intelligent chaps, think that this is a clever move. You really believe that the inevitable witch hunt will ascend the food chain as far as the guilty party? No it bloody won't. It will start and probably end at the poor bugger at the sharp end desperately trying to prove that he (or just maybe she) was a victim of the system.

Operational planning includes deciding what assets, in what quantity are needed for the task. All very well in the ideal world but in the real world it's usually planning around what assets are actually available. That is an invitation for two eventualities;

a. the task's binned to the detriment of the overall objective/campaign.

b. the task is undertaken at the risk of losing life and limb of those actually undertaking it.

Unless the risk is clearly suicidal, option b has tended to be the British tradition. For how long now, though? I can't see the blame ascending very far up the food chain. The blunties who didn't provide the right kit will probably be well insulated from the blame trail. I can say that from some experience. Many years ago, I had a frank and open exchange of views with a certain Portsmouth DD's XO. They'd lost a number of Liferafts in some inclement WX and were SPC 1 demanding replacements. Liferafts are serviced and packed to a very planned and tight programme and there was (probably still is) rarely packed units ready sitting on a pallet. As it happened, the last of that week's Sea Survival Equipment Test Centre's (Portsmouth, the one and only) production was already on the Trunker magic roundabout wagon to Devonport for a certain FF's post Upkeep sea trials. He wasn't happy that the lads in SSETC couldn't magic up some serviceable Rafts within 24 hours and I wasn't going to authorise the Trunker being intercepted for the needed Rafts to be liberated for his use. In measured tones, he warned me that if there was an incident and lives were lost for lack of Rafts, I wouldbe held responsible. My reply was that I would be directlyresponsible for his CAT A OPDEF but it would be the Ship's responsibility if tasking continued with a known material deficiency.

I can hear the sharp intakes of breath now, but that's one of the unpleasant realities of the Support Chain. I was limited by my budget. SSETC wasn't my asset and they were limited by their budget. I'm sure the point I'm making won't be lost

[500N]

I wonder whether those who go to court will bring up
information like this when they say they were told
"no money was available".

"One civil servant received £60,000 on top of a bumper salary. Payments of £48,720, £36,541 and £35,729 were banked by other unnamed bureaucrats. The basic salary of an Army new recruit risking life and limb on the front line is about £17,265.


Critics yesterday said the bonuses were ‘insensitive’ when military resources were being pared back and pay rises for personnel are being capped at 1 per cent for two years.

[OilCan]

Good grief!!!

This started with the Government not providing the right equipment and already we're down to the individual actions of a Platoon Commander in the face of the enemy!!

Pr00ne

...the sort of thing that the law, ALL laws, are there to prevent

No law would prevent the ludicrous decision in your hypothetical case.

Just suppose MY son was part of the enemy 'neutralised' by your Javelin strike; should I have access to that same court room?

[Sandy Parts]

pRoone - not sure of your mil background but I certainly don't think you've used a realistic example to demonstrate your point. Any British Army commander who acted in that way (and in doing so would have been STRONGLY advised otherwise by his 2ic, JNCOs and even raw squaddies) would have to answer to his commander in the field. That may then lead to further sanctions using the military courts martial process - devised especially for military use. While the mil system is not perfect and can be improved, having it replaced by a (much?) delayed civil court action is entirely the wrong course of action in my opinion. As a former serving SNCO and officer, those were the arrangements I signed up to (via the Oath) and agreed with throughout my 22 years. Command decisions must absolutely be considered and under advice (SNCO, JNCOs etc) - not based on the commander's knowledge (or lack of it) in regard to civil legalese. There is however a place for the civil action in regard to procurement and actions by MoD staff not subject to military discipline.

[tucumseh]

Command decisions must absolutely be considered and under advice (SNCO, JNCOs etc) - not based on the commander's knowledge (or lack of it) in regard to civil legalese. There is however a place for the civil action in regard to procurement and actions by MoD staff not subject to military discipline.


I thought “Good post”, but it worried me slightly.

As an aircraft engineer, the analogy I draw is airworthiness and fitness for purpose. The former is achieved first; attaining and maintaining it are governed by mandated regulations which Military and Civilians alike are bound by.

The latter is an operational issue. This is what I believe you are talking about when discussing “command decisions” (in the field). To be “fit for purpose” often requires an enhancement from the airworthy standard. This has been ignored for more than two decades now, and is more often viewed as accepting a lesser standard. That is, savings at the expense of safety. (ESF in Hercules being the best known example).

My own view is that operational decisions must be taken out of the equation as far as civil legal action is concerned. In this case (Snatch) the failure and legal liability (in my opinion) rests with those who misled Ministers, by omission and commission. To mislead in this way denies the opportunity to make an informed decision. I do not know if they were civilian or military. Probably both. I know for a fact it was well known in MoD that the statement Snatch was fit for purpose was absolutely false. Misleading Ministers (withholding the fact that Snatch had been declared unfit for purpose in a more benign theatre (NI) and did not mitigate the risk exposed by any threat or vulnerability assessment for Iraq) is both a breach of Military law and the Civil Service Code.

Up to that point, one could excuse Ministers, as none are selected for having any knowledge of their Department. But this changes as soon as the facts are made known to them. If the facts had been conveyed to VSOs and Ministers, and the decision taken to proceed at risk, then that would be recorded and most would accept it; as long as mitigation action was put in hand at the same time. (The law talks of “reasonable period” and anyone versed in airworthiness is intimately familiar with their obligations). The point here is the mitigation was in hand, and then cancelled; and this has been concealed.

Were Commanders in the field informed of the above? Most of them, almost certainly not. From my purely civilian perspective, even if a Platoon or Company Commander had known Snatch had been condemned, I would not blame him in any way for ordering his guys to use it, because nothing else had been provided. From that same perspective, and having spoken at length to such people immediately prior to deployment (in an official capacity, trying to get them the kit they wanted and needed, not what had been endorsed), I know they were desperately looking forward to the Snatch replacement arriving at the scheduled ISD (commencing 2003), but in the supposedly brief interim accepted the need to go with what they had. Years later the odd vehicle was being delivered, spun by Ministers as a positive reaction to emerging requirements. This completely ignored the fact others had been proactive and thwarted by the orders to save money while undergoing Transition to War.



A complex procurement and operational issue, made simple in a legal sense by the one constant. MoD lied.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Wouldn't YOU want to be able to query the actions of that Unit Commander? Wouldn't YOU want the death of your son to be the subject of a trial in a public court where individuals can be held to account for their actions and their consequences?

THAT is why the battlefield should never be beyond the court room.

pr00ne. No. No. And I disagree.

As has already been pointed out, your hypothetical example is highly unlikely to happen, but if it did I would hope that the platoon commander had good reason for his decision, supported and backed up by his NCOs. A court of law, staffed by a bunch of people who have no concept of what it was like or what led to that decision are not the people to judge whether something was lawful or not; they cannot and will never understand. It's war; s**t happens. For a commander to constantly have to second guess what some ambulance chasing lawyer will create in court after the event is wrong. It will reduce commanders' flexibility and it will lead to more risk aversion; something that is already becoming prevalent in the Armed Forces. Sadly if you don't take risks we become ineffective; if you become ineffective you will lose.

That is why the battlefield should be beyond the courtroom (and it's not and arguably never has been, because using your example, there would be a military enquiry anyway).

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I am not convinced that Ministers are 'misled'. Over the last 30 years, we have a generation of Ministers who generally don't want to hear anything but the words 'Yes, Minister'. In order to ensure this happens, they surround themselves with Special Advisors, whose jobs directly depend on the Ministers liking them. The SpAds then ensure that the civil servants, VSOs, etc only tell them things which can be weaseled into a form that allows the words 'Yes, Minister' to be used.

You have to sack the guy at the top, because s/he is the only one with the authority to ensure they are being told the truth.

[SOSL]

F3WMB - you're right - it's the guy at the top.

Rgds SOS

[Finningley Boy]

As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up. The Government provides the Ministry of Defence with the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, and on top of that the operational costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan are met from the Government contingency reserves, this alone has cost many billiuons of pounds in UORs alone.


pr00ne,

One thing is for sure, everyone, no matter how thoughtful or thoughtless, makes their own case according to their politics. This 4th largest defence budget argument has been dragged out every time "defence capability" is questioned. But assets and personnel tell completely different story. I'm certain that while treasury reserves met the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan that cost was being off set elsewhere and largely at the expense of other assets. Armoured units, Fast Jet Squadrons, airbases indeed the now much in demand and therefore in vogue, infantry battalions. We've lost the the Navy's through deck cruisers now as well. This government wants to squeeze the last few actual fixed-wing air combat squadrons onto three air bases and can only afford 48 out of the original 138 F35Bs. The number of T45 Destroyers originally ordered under Blair and Brown have been cut significantly and the only reason we're cracking on with the two new carriers is because it's the least worst option financially. I wouldn't argue that we have the fourth largest bag of money for our Defence Ministry, but just what the hell do they fritter it all away on? :confused:

FB:)

A quick PS. I was reading that the albeit largest, but under pressure defence budget, that of Uncle Sam, still allows the Navy and Marines, not the principal air arm, to field land based and on carriers;69 Squadrons of F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. Then you start counting all the other fixed-wing air units they deploy including their, and the last of our much credited, Harriers, bought at clearance sale I understand. The U.S.M.C. expect to keep the Harrier going alongside their own F-18s and F-35Bs to 2030. Now can you honestly make, I accept a rough comparison, with the U.K. approximating to a fourth of what all that indicates as a whole of U.S. military capability. Or even a tenth!:}

[langleybaston]

in war:
"whatever you do, you lose a lot of men" General Mangin, Great war, translated from the French.

Or the abbreviated form:
"**** happens"

[TomJoad]

in war:
"whatever you do, you lose a lot of men" General Mangin, Great war, translated from the French.

Or the abbreviated form:
"**** happens"

Langleybaston agreed. I would also add that you should also do your almost to ensure your losses are minimised. Or in abbreviated form you do everything you can to spot the **** rather than stepping in it. I hope the new legal interpretation focuses a few minds and it tempers any cavalier attitudes if they existed.

[TomJoad]

pr00ne,

I wouldn't argue that we have the fourth largest bag of money for our Defence Ministry, but just what the hell do they fritter it all away on? :confused:




Well there is the likes of an office to investigate UFOs for a start! I'm sure there are still other "dead weight" departments/offices around the MoD yet.

[Wrathmonk]

an office to investigate UFOs

That was closed/disbanded/cut 4 years ago.....

Clicky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6723067/MoD-department-that-investigated-UFO-sightings-closed.html)

[tucumseh]

I wouldn't argue that we have the fourth largest bag of money for our Defence Ministry, but just what the hell do they fritter it all away on?

We all have our favourites, but my all time winner has got to be the Group Captain supplier (DDSM11(RAF)) who insisted on buying Active Dipping Sonar kit for Hercules. :D I still have the minutes of the meeting. The Navy (civvy side, they had a sense of humour as well as having an elderly lady Admin Officer who did the equivalent job for the FAA) had them framed and put on a wall at Yeovilton. :ok:

[smujsmith]

Crikey chaps,

Respect all round, but even I have to accept Pr00ne's arguments. However, to my thinking, just like the "yes men" of the NHS who we are currently witnessing going through their wriggling and obfuscation to remain in their posts, the question needs to be answered. If the equipment supplied by the government is not adequate for the task, then surely, commanders have a duty of care to highlight this and make their opinion public (openness being a major fad of this government). As we saw no such representation, by any senior commanders, I suggest that we have to accept that all were content, until after the event. It's no joking matter, it has cost a lot of brave service men's lives. Unfortunately, I for one can't see the political system changing any time soon.

Smudge

[althenick]

et us assume that there is a Company or Platoon level engagement in Afghanistan, and that YOUR son is a Private in that Platoon. During the engagement there is a fortified and well defended position that is causing this hypothetical Platoon a real problem. It has to be taken out. The Company or Platoon Commander, for whatever reason, decides not to use the Javelin fire team on his right and instead orders a frontal assault by the section on his left, a ludicrous order resulting in a suicidal action but one that if it is disobeyed could result in a charge of disobeying a direct order in the face of the enemy.


Pr00ne has had a wee bit of unfair flak over this I think. There are no doubt death-and/or-glory people in the UKDF Officer Corps.

Didn't Lt-Col H Jones of 2 Para do something similar at Goose green 31 years ago?

[TomJoad]

Pr00ne has had a wee bit of unfair flak over this I think. There are no doubt death-and/or-glory people in the UKDF Officer Corps.

Didn't Lt-Col H Jones of 2 Para do something similar at Goose green 31 years ago?

I agree, in fact is there not something in the "rules of war" which prohibit a declaration of war unless there is a reasonable chance of success. I may be way off beam with that but it does kinda stick in my mind from some place; if I'm talking nonsense then please forgive. If it is so them I would argue the same must apply at all op levels. Look, nobody is arguing that this is going to make the forces some kind of risk adverse boy scout movement. Rather it should stop bloody recklessness either through deficient equipment programmes or ego stroking actions. If it were my son or daughter I would rest easier knowing that, yes they are to take risk, but that those risks are truly measured, justified and managed. The people that take the opposite view tend to approach this in absolute terms of all out war; not really representative of where we are at the moment.

[TomJoad]

That was closed/disbanded/cut 4 years ago.....

Clicky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6723067/MoD-department-that-investigated-UFO-sightings-closed.html)

Wrathmonk, sorry that was understood. Perhaps I should have made clear that I was being critical of an organisational culture that allowed expenditure without evidence of critical oversight. My bad!

[ninja-lewis]

As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up. The Government provides the Ministry of Defence with the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, and on top of that the operational costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan are met from the Government contingency reserves, this alone has cost many billions of pounds in UORs alone. How does that square with events such as:

The 1998 Strategic Defence Review, which was never adequately funded.

The deployment of forces far beyond the planning assumptions of the 1998 SDR.

The cutbacks of the post-Iraq invasion Developing Security in a Changing World white paper in 2004.

The further cuts in core capability (e.g. early withdraw of MR2) in December 2009 to fund operations in Afghanistan.

The SofS for Defence prohibiting CDS from liaising with Chief of Defence Logistics to prepare for the Iraq invasion, giving the MOD and industry just 4 months to prepare as opposed to the 6 months indicated by Ex Saif Sareea II. Hence forces entering Iraq without adequate NBC kit and bits of kit turning up 2 months later (i.a.w. the indicated 6 months.

The Treasury limiting the initial Helmand deployment to just 3,150 (later 3,350) personnel and £1.3 billion for a limited three-year campaign - based on no apparent military assessment of the mission.

By no means are Blair and Brown, or even other politicians, alone. But some of these decisions were political and the responsibility went to the top just as some of the responsibility in other ways lies with VSO who failed in their duty - whether by nonfeasance, misfeasance or, in a few cases, malfeasance.

One concern that has been raised about the ruling (in terms of the MOD having a Duty of Care that can be challenged judicially) is that individuals will focus on covering their arse and not taking calculated risks. But is that any different or worse than what we've had up to now: Ministers and VSOs taking uncalculated risks and arse-covering ex post facto through lies, denials and obfuscation?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

is there not something in the "rules of war" which prohibit a declaration of war unless there is a reasonable chance of success.
You are thinking of the 'Just War' doctrine of the Catholic Church, as originally espoused by St Augustine of Hippo, with contributions by Thomas Aquinas and others. The clause is part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I remember giving a lecture on the topic, pointing out that this clause was b#llocks and using Thermopylae as one of the examples.


.

[TomJoad]

You are thinking of the 'Just War' doctrine of the Catholic Church, as originally espoused by St Augustine of Hippo, with contributions by Thomas Aquinas and others. The clause is part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I remember giving a lecture on the topic, pointing out that this clause was b#llocks and using Thermopylae as one of the examples.

.

Cheers fella I was starting to wonder if I had made it up:confused:

[OutlawPete]

I am not convinced that Ministers are 'misled'. Over the last 30 years, we have a generation of Ministers who generally don't want to hear anything but the words 'Yes, Minister'. In order to ensure this happens, they surround themselves with Special Advisors, whose jobs directly depend on the Ministers liking them. The SpAds then ensure that the civil servants, VSOs, etc only tell them things which can be weaseled into a form that allows the words 'Yes, Minister' to be used.

You have to sack the guy at the top, because s/he is the only one with the authority to ensure they are being told the truth.

Completely agree. The purity of truth is led from the top and sadly there are many sycophantic tiers below that are happy to indulge the man at the top in his emperors new clothes. See it with my own eyes and I bet many contributors here have too.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Shock, horror;


A "sustained legal assault" on British forces could have "catastrophic consequences" for the safety of the nation, an influential right-leaning think tank has warned.
A report for Policy Exchange (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/the%20fog%20of%20law.pdf) says legal action may paralyse the armed forces.
It highlights a surge in legal claims against the Ministry of Defence - totalling 5,827 in 2012-13.

BBC News - Legal claims 'could paralyse' armed forces (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24576547)

Well nobody saw that one coming. :rolleyes:

The totally unexpected response being;


Martyn Day from the law firm Leigh Day, which has also fought several high profile cases against the MoD, labelled the report "biased".
He said his firm would argue that it is "the breaking of laws which poses the greatest threat to those who risk all for their country.
"This includes not training or equipping soldiers adequately before putting service personnel into a combat zone."
He added: "Greater adherence to the laws, both domestic and international, are the only way in which the MoD's litigation will decrease."

[Roland Pulfrew]

The totally unexpected response being



Surely that was an entirely predictable response from the ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal legal "profession"?

One has to question whether a lawyer actually knows what constitutes training or equipping soldiers adequately before putting service personnel into a combat zone really is or means!! :ugh:

[Archimedes]

Surely that was an entirely predictable response from the ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal legal "profession"?

One has to question whether a lawyer actually knows what constitutes really is or means!! :ugh:

I have a feeling that GBZ might have been being a bit sarcastic about the predicability of Martin Day's response...

(By the by, was it Martin Day who had a bit of a debacle over the 'hundreds of Kenyan women raped by the British Army' allegations a few years ago?)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Afirm on both counts. :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Roland PulfrewSurely that was an entirely predictable response from the ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal legal "profession"?

It may be an entirely predictable response from that solicitor, but it's not a response from the legal profession.

I don't know the precise figures for the entire UK, but there are about 128,000 solicitors and about 15,000 barristers in practice in England & Wales. Tarring the entire legal profession with the same brush is as silly as tarring any other profession with the same brush.

There are, of course, some lawyers who use the media to obtain publicity/free advertising for their firms, and some who have political agendas, but they are a tiny minority.


FL

[Al R]

In many lines of work these days, there are the media 'heroes'. Day is one of them. He looked after my oppo 20 years ago, when he was badly shot and dumped by the RAF, and on the basis of that, I subsequently sat down with his fellow director in Manchester when it was me injured. He might come across as an agenda driven malcontent, but at least he was MY agenda driven malcontent! The issue is not so much the likes of him, but the system. The law of averages requires that the more solicitors there are, the more work they have to find for themselves and the more qualified dross slips through the net. I blame New Labour; it, and Cherie Blair, were instrumental in deluging us with so much bad, asinine and counter productive legislation. My father retired as a judge a short while back - as he put it, 'not a moment too soon'.

We NEED people like Martin Day; fearless advocates with a sense of outraged who recognise that Goliath needs the occasional kick in the nuts, simply as a matter of course, to remind him who is the real boss. Whatever his motivation, if it means we sometimes have to put up with some of the more lurid campaigns Leigh Day & Co success allows him to subsidise, then so be it. Because quietly ticking away behind the scenes, more and more people are being subjugated to bad law, bad practice and injustice. Ever increasing, centralised authority and layer upon layer of accountability denying opaqueness means we do need the occasional claymore wielding freak to shake things up. Sometimes, you can't pick your battles.

[Two's in]

This thread is arguing over 2 separate issues;

1. Procurement and deployment of equipment that is not 'Fit for Purpose'.

2. The effectiveness of local command decisions during operations.

Both may ultimately be subject to legal scrutiny, but it's much easier to prove that complacency and needless bean counting delivered inappropriate equipment to the field, rather than prove a command decision taken in the heat of battle was negligent in nature.

All the lawyer haters out there are guilty of a failure of imagination if they can't see the day when MoD malfeasance or negligence could hurt them or their colleagues. Accountability isn't some new fashion driven by the Daily Mail and the Human Rights Act - it's the basic tenet of an effective military organisation.

[Bronx]

Al R fearless advocates with a sense of outraged who recognise that Goliath needs the occasional kick in the nuts
Your gratitude is understandable but your belief that lawyers like that are motivated by a sense of outrage is naive. Lawyers are in business to make money just like everyone else.

I knew I'd read that firm's name somewhere and a bit of googling found this.
Motto & others v Trafigura Limited 2011
A Trafigura ship discharged toxic materials off the Ivory Coast. Leigh Day & Co paid local agents a 3% commission to find claimants. They recruited 29,614 claimants.
Despite allegations of dire injury and damage it turned out that the victims had mild flu-like symptoms.
Trafigura agreed to pay £30m damages plus costs to settle the case.
Leigh Day & Co put in a bill for £104.8 million costs!
Trafigura contested the bill and it was eventually reduced by more than 40% so Leigh Day had to make do with only about £62 million. :eek:
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/figure-it-out

I blame New Labour You should mention that to Mr Day.
His website says he's an Executive Committee Member of the Society of Labour Lawyers as well as a Director of Greenpeace.

lurid campaigns Leigh Day & Co success allows him to subsidiseLawyers don't subsidise.
They invest in what they assess as sure winners on a no-win/no-fee basis and reap the profits when the case ends.

[VinRouge]

Twos in, spot on. The requirement should be that any short term stuff should absolutely not be limited by any laws, other than any generic operational planning and procurement should do the best that is reasonably practicable for any future op.

What gets my goat is the same operational risk issues faced by myself and crews are the same ones I was dealing with10 years ago in Iraq, are widely documented, yet are still ignored, all down to a lack of resource. By the way, the numbers of trained people is the biggest one, with those remaining close to breaking point with a greater workload with far fewer people. It's not as if the planners didn't know a drawdown and pullout was going to happen, so why have they been reducing numbers constantly on Sqns since sdsr? Manpower in logs and aircrew numbers should have been increased a long time before now.

Lack of deployed engineering kit, spares, manpower, lack of decent ground support equipment for the support trades. Iraq 2005, still happening in Afghanistan 2013. And I absolutely believe that if something were to happen as a result of these known issues, the powers that be should be absolutely dry fisted in court as a result.

[Al R]

Bronx,

Good call, thanks.

I did say 'like' Day, etc. I have no issue with a company trawling for potential claimants (it gets annoying on Talksport, yes) but those sorts of figures are obscene. All companies speculate and many pro bono, to an extent. We need to differentiate between the shysters and the charlatans and those who want to work hard for an honest (decent) buck.

Maybe too much John Grisham?!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Flying Lawyer

I don't know the precise figures for the entire UK, but there are about 128,000 solicitors and about 15,000 barristers in practice in England & Wales. Tarring the entire legal profession with the same brush is as silly as tarring any other profession with the same brush.

Of course you are correct and my apologies to those lawyers/barristers who are decent and honest. What I perhaps should have said was:

certain ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal parts of the legal "profession"?

However, just like "squaddies go on drunken rampage" headline tars the whole military in the publics mind, don't be surprised when the actions of a not so small, and increasing number of irresponsible, politically motivated and ambulance chasing section of the legal "profession" tars you all with the same brush. My local radio station, regrettably, runs regular adverts for ia number if law firms for services to help illegal immigrants "beat" deportation, to help drunk drivers get off their conviction and to claim for injuries at work. The massive growth in the compo-4-you industry suggests that it is not such a small part of the profession. But sorry for the slur on all of you, my comments were aimed at a section of the profession.

[Rosevidney1]

What would the Victorians have thought?
We've changed from "We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do, we've got the ships we've got the men and we've got the money too-"
To "We don't want to fight because we ain't got the ships, haven't many men and we're bloody skint - plus we would be shafted by legal weasels anyway".
Fair makes yer proud, dunnit?

[dervish]

I can't help thinking MoD don't half dig a hole for themselves and signpost it "Lawyers, this way, help yourselves." If you trace each case backwards you almost always come to a point where common sense or doing the job properly would have avoided the problem in the first place.