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.