Originally Posted by nigegilb
You keep saying that the video adds nothing and is of no importance to Mrs Hull. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. The video could have shown that the orange panels were not visible to the pilots. In fact it showed the opposite. All four vehicles had panels visible to the pilots. This is crucial evidence. The HUD film shows that the pilots failed to identify the vehicles. This failure needs to be addressed. Was it a failure of briefing, training or a simple human failure on the day? Is it safe for British troops to enter killboxes with the current combat ID capability?
Was any of this in question? Does any of this change the outcome? Hull died, the reasons why were stated, the video merely confirms the facts. I still don't see what it adds or why it was necessary. I guess I'm missing something & we'll agree to disagree on this point.
I don't believe Mrs. Hull should have been lied to.
This is an extremely emotional subject - understandably. However, we must strive to keep emotion separate from logic when analysing this.
Perhaps I don't appreciate or understand the difference between your BoI & Coroner's Inquest. If the sole purpose of the CI is to point the finger at the pilots, the existence of a tape is still largely immaterial IMO. We know what happened. There is no question.
If we want to delve into culpability, that's another issue entirely. I don't think we'll ever have all the info we need to make an accurate assessment - because ROE are classified.
Every single accident is preventable. All of them. Simply choose not to accept any risk & you won't have accidents. If we never fly, we never crash, we never mis-identify targets, we never commit frat (with air power). We all know that will never happen. Apportioning blame is a dangerous task. During times of conflict, even moreso. There really must be blatantly gross negligence, or willful malicious intent to assess culpability during conflicts. Otherwise, it's a witch-hunt and it erodes our combat capability. In fact, I would argue, it already is - it has made leadership skittish to the point they lead through liability control - decisions are based on how much risk they are exposed to. This erodes combat capability.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't search for the truth in an effort to prevent these tragic mishaps. We should - by any means available.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Why should this remain classified to the coroner? They are DV cleared.
The posession of a clearance does not authorise you for disclosure - I KNOW you know this. There is still the element of 'need to know' - here is where I'm sure we'll diverge - I don't think a coroner has a need to know ROE. Again, I'm sure I'm illustrating my ignorance on the purpose of a coroner's inquest. But I'll circle my wagon back around to say placing culpability during times of war is a dangerous game that only serves to weaken the armed forces for the sake of mollifying bereaved families.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
And yes, it is important that everyone knows the at the MoD lied when they said the HUD film did not exist or had been damaged.
I believe this is part of a different campaign. In and of itself, it isn't important to the facts of this case. Together with a history of deceit, you can then conduct a different case against the gov't as a whole. But to this case, it is but a footnote.
Nige, I'm not singling you out, just that you have an excellent perspective on this & bring up outstanding issues.
As mentioned, I'm not real clear on the purpose of a Coroner's Inquest - to me & my way of thinking (culture) - a coroner does nothing more than determine the cause of death. Obviously, there is much more to it in the UK, but I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the inquest. If someone would explain it to me, maybe it will help me see where I'm digressing so much from the common view here about the video. Feel free to PM me to keep the thread on track.