If I am reading these responses correctly, many of you chaps actually believe that this will put the a**es of the Government and the MoD in the kicking line? Well think it through. The argument will go on the lines that the kit was provisioned, irrespective of its serviceability state after issue and the adequacy of quantity. So who’s fault is it then? The IPT Inventory Manager for not issuing it to every Unit that demanded it and part quantities for the ones that did? The Unit stacker/dusty for not making it available or not in an adequate material state to the "end user"? Or the commander in Theatre for tasking an operation, whatever the consequences of failing to do so, without the correct and serviceable kit?
I had experience of this, many years ago, with Navy sea survival equipment. The SSE commodity manager (yes, unashamed fishspeak) was unable to provide in sufficient quantities some particular stores in the time available. It was physically impossible to service sufficient repairable stock through the Base maintenance centre nor use qualified Contractors to meet the demanded required delivery date. The Unit made the very valid point that this was a safety of life matter and any injury or loss of life would be the CM's responsibility. The CM’s head of section made the counter point that it would be the Unit’s responsibility if the task was conducted without adequate SSE. The Unit correctly lodged an Operational Deficiency; and, by whatever means, completed the task anyway without incident.
I’ve moved around a bit since then but appearing in Court for Human Rights violation doesn’t exactly appeal to me. The authors and supporters of reducing the SSE maintenance facilities as a savings measure would, no doubt, read about it in the papers. Maybe I should have taken up law as I would now have the opportunity to become very rich.