Erm, Strongbowfan, because they were/are witnesses at an inquest, I guess. An inquest which is, like all inquests, not a trial, but a means of establishing who the dead people were, and when, where and how they died. As the coroner explained today.
I mean, why should service personnel not be named at an inquest? No one else (well practically no one) gets anonymity.
I would have thought a better question would have been 'why were so many of the service witnesses at the Hercules inquest identified only by letters?' In fact, in the case of one of them, he named himself, and the coroner said he was not to be named by the press. No explanation given.
Today's RAF witnesses didn't all have to be in uniform - one was in a suit.
I suppose the very occasional one might become threatened by having their photo and/or moving pix broadcast to the world - but surely not many, and anyone who is seriously worried can presumably ask for anonymity.
I'm sure that the MoD's barrister David Evans (I presume I can name him here?) would have been out of the trap like a shot if he thought someone was possibly courting the tiniest smidgeon of lack of security.
I suggest that there is sometimes a bit too much 'special pleading' for members of the armed forces to be treated differently to other citizens of this country that we're all proud to be part of.
It's that kind of attitude that can lead, if we're not very careful, to the MoD using security as an excuse for not telling the taxpayer why they've screwed up. Fortunately, they'd never do that, would they?
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 7th May 2008 at 19:21.
Reason: word missing