10 Downing Street - Military Deaths Petition

[Al R]

Please post ANYTHING I have written which I need to apologise to her for, or which is factually, objectively (or in anyway), incorrect.

This is al3 of my post.. the first versions of which reflected, to varying levels, on your motives, sanity and grasp of reality.

[Chugalug2]

Al R. This is my last post replying to you, so you get to have the last word, which means you win in your terms I suspect. I'll try to keep this simple. Chappie's post was from her own perspective, ie

we are represented by the wiltshire coroner but like so many familes we are waiting

is referring to her family and others, not MFAW. Whether she is right in legal terms or not is by the way. She feels (with some justification) that the only defence she and others have against the MOD's obscuration is the Coroner, hence he is her "representative". Having confused yourself on that issue, you go on to compound it by saying:

you represent some military families and I very much doubt, many of the beliefs of those who died anyway.

You might think that by "you" you meant MFAW, but she isn't MFAW she is herself, and to someone who lost her brother in the tragedy that is again before the coroner, that is a very hurtful thing to read.
It seems to me you saw MFAW and a red mist came down. Well that is your problem, but the resultant post is ours (the PPRune community's) when it can hurt the vulnerable. I suggest you do the decent thing, admit you misread Chappie's post, apologise for any distress it may have caused, and we can all move on. I know you guys do a lot of "banter", we civvies don't. Chappie is a civvie, but a friend of the Service Family. Accord her the respect that she deserves. Message ends. Out.

PS I'm sorry that I said:

Now you may ally yourself with the MOD in this

I didn't then understand where you were coming from. There are many apologists on this forum for Browne's circus. You are not one of them. I was wrong. I am sorry. See? Its easy!

[Al R]

Andrew Walker (for example) is a coroner with a fine record of hassling the government for the facts. He does not do it because he feels he represents the families, and for you (or anyone) to suggest that he does, is in danger of subverting the system. Long after the bloody yoghurt knitters in MFaTW have latched on to another axe to grind, the coroners system will still be living with the consequences of being labelled anti g'ment 'stoolies', or 'puppet'.. to coin your vernacular. See, they can't win? The only way for them to maintain their independendance is NOT to be adopted by the families, or by the system. If the family wants representation, it gets a solicitor which I believe it did, in the case of Matty Hull for instance. This has to be seen to be done too.

As you realise.. this is a military forum, best you start affording us the respect WE deserve. People here say thank you and sorry each day probably more times than you've had hot dinners and certainly for more imprtant reasons than expressing an opinion (in my case, in a respectful manner) which is contrary to someone else's. If so, then you live with it and I'm not sure about you, but I've earned the right to my opinion. I'm one of the lucky ones, unlike the guys who haven't made it back. Believe me, I could fill a book with tales of the MoDs damned incompetence and negligence if I wanted to, and every time my war pension gets paid in, I say thank you and reflect on a career cut short and thank god that it was only a career.

I also believe that for every Typhoon sortie that CAS minces about in, he should feel honour bound to carry out 5 in Afghanistan in an unmodified C130, or carry out a week's air to air refuelling training in Nimrod, if he wants to establish any level of empathy. So read this and take it on board. I'm no one's stoolie, least of all the MoDs and I don't need the likes of you trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't say or think. So stop preaching to the converted and coming here, holier than thou, telling me how to behave and think, and prattling on about red mists (I don't 'do' red mists) and the like, simply because I don't fit in with your idea of a perfect world or because I might relate more closely to a world that you cannot even begin to conceive exists. I find it intensely dissrespectful and annoying when the likes of you, and other civvies come along and start telling 'us' how 'we're' being duped by the politicians and 'Brownes circus', how 'we're' engaged in unlawful activities and how 'we' are obviously too stupid to realise for ourselves what is blindingly clear to w#nk organisations like MFaTW.

And finally, you ponitificate about pseudo military maxims? Here's one for you that you won't find in any book.. 'no justice, just us'. Go away and think about it.

Cheers.

[Da4orce]

Back to the point of the thread.... we are up to 846 now

[pr00ne]

AI R

You said...........

"this is a military forum, best you start affording us the respect WE deserve."

AI R, from an ex Flt Lt.....

You are an arrogant git.

[Al R]

Its your opinion chum (thankfully, my annual assessments were a little more informed that yours), just as I'm entitled to mine. I may come across as arrogant, but I'd say in return, you're an assumptive pillock who doesn't know me from Adam, or of my 'tale'. So please don't start making knee jerk reactions about me, based on some posts on an internet site, simply because I don't tell the world.

If you look back, you'll see that my issue with the post to which I responded was a simple one, I had two in fact.. one related to a factual point and one a more subjective one, about those wankers at MFaTW. I was polite, I wasn't insulting to the woman and all I got was grief from some prissy scroat who decided that my opinion wasn't worth salt and that anyone who had the temerity to make a contra point on this should surely be cast into hell.

Well, here's a thing. I've earned the right to express my opinion about the MoD, and the way the MoD treats its people, and I know a little about the judicial process involved here too. However unpalatable it might be to you, I'll express that as I see it. I was still polite.. well, as polite as gnr can be, but if you don't like it.. oh well.

(edited to make it polite)

[pr00ne]

AI R

I stand corrected and I hereby apologise.

You are not an arrogant git.

You are in fact an offensive, illinformed and ignorant arrogant git.

[Al R]

Illinformed? I have 28 inches of legal files relating to my 9 year action against the MoD, and I've dragged a stn cmdr before the small claims court. Trust me my little learned friend.. illinformed I aint.

Offensive? Rather that than being a sanctimonious tit (thats you by the way).

Arrogant? Granted, but justifiably so.

Ignorant? Here' a tip. Never ask a question or make a statement you don't know the answer to. I wonder how many hours you gave up to collect for the Legion, service charities, design and print leaflets, and to help disabled (for many reasons) squaddies get to the shops, doctors and to British Legion legal clinics last year without shouting about it.

Now. If you want to allow this to descend into a pi$$ing contest, fine.. crack on. But please feel free to check back and once again. My sentiment was aimed at a factual innacuracy (which I stand by) and comments about a wank tosspot organisation (again, which I stand by). At no stage did I say anything to insult the lady who has in the most awful of circumstances, lost her brother. As I heard mention earlier.. he might be in better hands now, but I'm sure she'd rather he was still in 'ours'.

Finally, and before I rest, you pious tit, kiss my big hairy ex rockape arse.

(I will call that not suffering fools gladly, you will call it arrogance. Thats quits I feel).

[airsound]

Al R

When I read your bitter, twisted, vitriolic and misleading attack on Chappie on 21 sep, I was so taken aback that I couldn’t immediately see how to respond to you. I’m glad that Chugalug (and some others) have taken up the cudgels against your unreasonable spleen, and I can understand why Chug now feels it is time to rest his case.

But, in answer to one of your points:

Please post ANYTHING I have written which I need to apologise to her for, or which is factually, objectively (or in anyway), incorrect.

How about

I object to the politicisation and hijacking by the deceased person's family, simply to prove an (invariably) personal point. You do NOT represent Military Families, you represent some military families and I very much doubt, many of the beliefs of those who died anyway.

Now, bearing in mind that this was addressed directly to Chappie, perhaps you should consider that she was posting on a thread entitled “Military Deaths Petition”. Her post was about signing the petition, and getting others to do so. I fail to see how you can possibly construe her words as politicisation and hijacking. And as for telling her she doesn’t represent people - where did you get the idea that she believes she does represent Military Families? She merely said she knew how to contact some of them.

I was going to disagree with you also on the question of who is represented or not by the coroner, but I see that Chugalug has already covered that ground satisfactorily.

I do strongly reinforce the suggestion that you should apologise to Chappie for your disgraceful early series of posts. While you’re about it, you might want to reread your subsequent posts, which seem to have ratcheted themselves up into a self-reverential spiral of ill-considered bile and nastiness.

I have had the privilege of serving with quite a few Rockapes, and I admired them immensely. I am sorry to see that you describe yourself as ‘has been Rockape’ (with or without a big hairy arse). I fear that you are not doing the reputation of the Rocks any good with your behaviour in this thread.

Any Rockapes out there want to disown the unlovely Al?

airsound

[Biggus]

Quote from Al R on another thread, 31 Aug 07.......

"Biggus,

I'll give you a few days to check and report back about how many threads I've been 'insulting' in........."

I guess this will be one more to add to the list then. I believe last time I suggested anger management, to which you replied that I needed to learn to get angry...............

I'll let people make their own minds up......

I have to confess I didn't 'check and report back' as I had better things to do with my time!

[Al R]

Yowza. We are having a bitch fest aren't we?

I've said more than enough about who I was referring to, and also, my thoughts about the lady in question and her resolve. I certainly don't feel the need to justify it any more to a couple more nancy boys, who don't have even the originality to come up with something fresh.

Biggus.. yes, I did suggest you get angry. Let me tell you what I was doing today. I was chatting with an 83/84 (he couldn’t remember) year old ex- rear gunner inbetween Grantham and Lincoln, in fact I spent most of the day with him. Pride of place on his mantlepiece was a picture of him being introduced to Prince Charles in 1969 when he was a Warrant Officer. He was reminding me that once upon a time, RAF officers stood up for their men when it was needed and they wouldn’t HAVE to rely on the likes of petitions and demonstrations and the likes of me having to help him (his home help has been withdrawn) do something as noddy as move furniture, lay a new section of laminate floor, hoover his car and mow his little piece of England. I say that, not to come across as a holier than thou Dudley do right (because I’m not.. I’m an offensive and arrogant tool), but because there are thousands of living ex military servicemen and families in need up and down the country, old servicemen who are living, who are infirm, butwho aren't meeja friendly, who aren't well connected, who aren't urbane or affluent, who don't move in the right circles, who don't have a political mandate, who aren't personable and who are living with the hell, every day, of the consequences of their military service.. from long before this damned war. Who is there to stand up for them?

And I do object to their politicisation of this issue, and I shrug my shoulders at the marginalisation that it has been attracting by yet another faction who want these day (rightly so), their right to know what happened. Why do you think you have this petition facility? I'll tell you why. Because its going to increase the amount of single issue causes to flex their muscles and (boy!).. have their say. And what’s wrong about that I hear you ask. Be under no illusions.. even if the MoD did co operate fully (and lets remind ourselves of the need of the Spams to play ball with them too), the difference in having their day wouldn't be shattering.. coroners nowadays are deluged with lots of single issue grievances.. families such as this lady's, families of elederly folk dying in nursing homes, families of folk dying of hospital induced infection, families of those young men who commit suicide (did you know that more males kill themselves than die in car accidents? The commonest cause of death among those males aged 16 to 35 in the UK, in 2005 with 1,600 deaths incidentally). There is a plethora of demands made on coroners, and the sad part is, that there are just 2 coroners departments who take the brunt, where the remains of our fallen men and women are alighted once they come home. Truth of it is, another petition with a few hundred names is going to do nothing. Think back to the motorists one which got almost 2 million responses and a subsequent cold shoulder.

So, as I have explained on a number of occasions, I was referring to the politicisation of the issue by MFaTW, and, as was accepted by another poster, the word 'you' referred to them in the general sense, and not to her in a personal one. I think I have explained this clearly enough already, as I have my sympathy admiration and feelings towards the lady's resolve too. With regards to the issue of the familiy representation by the coroner, I'd refer you to g'ment guidelines. Where does it say that a coroner exists to represent the deceased person's family? The Coroners Act 1988 is being updated yet again anyway, and even so, it still says sod all about standing up for the family of a dead person.

http://www.dca.gov.uk/corbur/coron05.htm

A coroner's duties are:

· to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of all persons whose bodies are lying within his or her jurisdiction where he or she has reason to believe that the death was violent, unnatural or of unknown cause
· to decide whether a post mortem examination is necessary for the purpose of his or her investigation and, if so, to give directions to an appropriate medical practitioner
· to hold an inquest, with or without a jury, where he or she is satisfied that he or she is required to do so in accordance with section 8 of the 1988 Act
· to notify the Registrar of Deaths of the findings of the inquest, or, if no inquest is held, of the fact that the death reported to him or her does not need to be subject to an inquest
· to pay the relevant fees and allowances to witnesses and jurors, and to submit accounts to the relevant council
· to make annual returns to the Secretary of State in connection with the inquests held and deaths he or she has enquired into
· to appoint a deputy coroner, and, if required, an assistant deputy coroner.


Finally, I'd just like to say that your and that other idiot's inability to grasp the real issue(s) here will ensure that it stays a single issue/minority issue. Get angry, get cross.. address the issues which count too. It might mean you'll get off your sanctimonious arse and actually get something done rather than snipe in such a gratuitious, shallow, vaccous and dull manner.

[Da4orce]

850 now

[Shack37]

850 now



DA4orce,

A subtle but clear reminder of what this thread's about. Let's hope they notice and shift the vitriol to Jet Blast.

atb
s37

[nigegilb]

Wow.

Couple of thoughts. There is a potential problem with the Inquest procedure.

Firstly, the families do not receive legal aid. In theory they do not need legal aid because the Coroner's job is to set out the reason for death and make comments. However, the MoD are spending £100,000s on the very best legal advice, hardly an equal playing field. The 2nd point of concern is the fact that all the statements go to the MoD first. The MoD decides the classification and the amount of redaction. Can anyone explain any other legal process where this happens. Politicisation of FOI requests has already occurred with regard to the Nimrod. I am concerned about the free hand given to the MoD to act as self-censor. Thirdly, US Military are refusing to cooperate with the British Inquest system. There is a definite link to the US in this Inquest.

I have every confidence in the Coroner and the Investigation, but I am not surprised about the concern expressed by the families.

Finally, MFAW, Military Families Against the War. Is exactly what it says on the label. A collection of military families against the war. Last time I checked we lived in a democracy. If A1R was/is still serving, he probably noticed that back in August he had a whole load of rights taken off him by this Govt. I hope A1R is not naive enough to think that any of the self-serving Ministers to do the right thing by the families. They have already been asked to sign away their pensions in the event of a compensation pay-out. Don't knock MFAW out of spite, remember we are free and many people died so that we can be.

[Airborne Aircrew]

I am concerned about the free hand given to the MoD to act as self-censor. Thirdly, US Military are refusing to cooperate with the British Inquest system. There is a definite link to the US in this Inquest.

There is nothing new in this. I recall a multiple fatality crash back in 1987(?) where we were told, with no "wiggle room" given, that we were not to speculate about the cause of the accident, we were not to discuss a certain specific failure, (that was broadly believed to be the cause of the crash), and we were not to communicate with the families about the accident. The reason given - it would cause the manufacturer a few embarrassing moments.

[nigegilb]

In the case of XV179 Inquest, the MoD will have had months to look through the evidence ahead of the actual date of the Inquest. Requests for legal funding for the families have been turned down by the very same MoD indulging in taxpayers coffers for their own defence. The failure of USAF to cooperate will not be a problem for the MoD. Remember they lied about the presence of the HUD video in the Matty Hull Inquest.

Cast your mind back to the Lynx shooting down in Basra. National security was the reason given for the highly redacted BoI. I happen to know there is another reason, similar to that described by AA. I contacted Andrew Walker's Office with regard to the Lynx, he had the information but it remains classified.

The XV179 BoI does not mention SF. If we are down to this level of censorship I am not at all sure we will get the level of openness that this case desperately needs.

[Al R]

Hi,

Respectfully, and I know this will cast me as small minded, but what would you say to those who'd suggest that as a crime wasn’t committed against you, you haven’t committed one and until the inquest returns, there is no evidence that one has been committed anyway.. so objectively, why should legal aid be granted to you? And surely, with limited resources, how would you grade the needs of the likes of Jordon Lyon’s mum and dad, to get to the truth in a greater public interest? Ultimately I suppose, how the MoD spends its legal budget is up to it. It would seem to me, that if they didn’t get the very best legal advice, they’d be thick. As the employer of the dead servicemen and women, they have a duty to find out what happened, and I suppose that the resistance from the US military infuriates them as much as anything. Where we would agree as well, is that you want to know what happened, and you need to know swiftly as possible. The delays are unacceptable and if the MoD is lying, and if they get caught in a lie, they should be lambasted and crucified, mercilessly. There are other ways of going about it though, which may be more effective?

With regards to MFaTW, I’m not knocking it out of spite (I have no reason to be spiteful), so however many words you put in my mouth, remember that they’re still your words . No, I’m knocking it because it’s a crock of ****. It may be semantic, but be honest with me.. are you a serving military member, and is all of your family against the war? Lets face it.. you are so named because you want to exploit and capitalise on a tenuous connection, and you want to make a political point. Forgive me for being straight, and I don’t wish to appear rude, tasteless or vicious, but if you referred yourselves simply as some people seeking answers in the face of MoD and US obstruction, lies or bull****, or if you’re highlighting deficiencies in logistics, I’d have more respect for ‘you’ (I have to say ‘you’ advisedly, as it caused confusion before). I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in MFaTWs opinions on ‘The War’- its self proclaimed collective mandate as ‘military families’ to speak on it means as much to me as does Bono’s and Bob Geldoff’s thoughts on Africa, simply because they’ve had a #1. Your naming might not be a deceit, but it is certainly (at best) a disingenuous conceit and a cheap and nasty ploy to get yourselves the credibility and recognition you wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of otherwise attracting. The homepage is full of single issue rubbish and tedious rehashed political views and notes from hand wringing mothers having zero respect for their children's freedom to choose a career path without them undermining it. Why should we give a damn about their maternal association???

With regards to your final point, I am no longer serving, but it seems to me that however pointless, petty and counterproductive the measures promulgated in August were, they were no more than a reminder of the Official Secrets Act.. which I happily signed anyway. I have no illusions whatsoever about this damned g’ment and its ministers, but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. It would seem to me too, that the announcement was a waste of time anyway, and don’t forget, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 allows those with a genuine grievance, or an issue with a potential miscarriage of justice to air, the protection of the law.

Cheers,

al.

[nigegilb]

al, MFAW is highly political. In the past, military families accepted the consequences of war, be they loss of life or terrible injury. These losses were endured, silently. The Iraq War changed everything, quite probably illegal, highly contoversial and carried out in the face of mass protest. It was unprecedented for military families to come together in protest at the loss of their loved ones for a cause deemed illegal. Whilst, their loved ones may have volunteered, many did not agree with the war. Soldiers carry out orders it is their job. However, you cannot simply ignore the reasons that brought about the formation of MFAW. A mother will only allow her son/daughter to join up if she thinks he/she will be looked after. Iraq quite probably broke this trust and UK Military is still suffering in terms of recruitment and retention. The point is that a volunteer force only works through consent. I would struggle to recommend a life in UK AF for my kids at the mo, but what has the Govt done to shore up confidence?

The Army has traditionally recruited from poor, working class neighbourhoods. Don't be surprised by the political backers behind MFAW. See throught it and understand why MFAW came about. It is only by dealing with these issues that confidence will be restored.

The back log of Inquests only underscores the need for a body to pressurize the Govt and accountability to be seen to be achieved.

Take a read of this account from Parliament, and bear in mind that the Crown considers itself immune from charges of Corporate Manslaughter. Then ask yourself if the families deserve the very same legal representation enjoyed by the MoD.

Armed Forces: Steven Roberts Inquiry


3.40 pm

Lord Tyler asked Her Majesty’s Government:


Why the Minister for Europe, Mr Geoff Hoon, formerly Secretary of State for Defence, refused the request of the coroner to give evidence to the inquest into the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, on 14 December, the coroner presiding over the Sergeant Roberts inquest indicated his intention to invite the right honourable Geoff Hoon MP as a witness. Mr Hoon was overseas. The MoD offered a witness who could provide the evidence requested. The coroner and the family’s counsel indicated that the witness fully dealt with their questions, and the coroner confirmed that Mr Hoon’s attendance was not necessary. At no stage did Mr Hoon refuse to give evidence.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sergeant Roberts came originally from my constituency and that I therefore took his widow and members of his family to see Mr Hoon, who, I have to report to your Lordships’ House, promised a full investigation and full disclosure of his death? Do the Government now accept the conclusion of the coroner that his death was the result of delay and serious failures? The coroner continued:


10 Jan 2007 : Column 226


“I have heard justification and excuse and I put these to one side as I remind myself that Sergeant Roberts lost his life because he did not have that basic piece of equipment”.

Can the Minister confirm the clear inference of the evidence that was given to the inquest: that the deliberate decision to delay the ordering of essential sets of enhanced combat body armour was not a military or, indeed, a Civil Service decision, but was taken by the Secretary of State himself? Can the Minister also confirm the evidence given by Mr David Williams on behalf of the ministry that buying sufficient numbers of ECBA sets would,
“obviously indicate the department was pressing ahead with preparations for war while negotiations were still firmly at the diplomatic stage”?

Can the Minister confirm that this decision was a misguided attempt to distance the MoD from the conservative demand for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq and President Bush’s war preparations? Can the Minister finally confirm that it is not now the habit of his department to allow civil servants to answer for the misjudgment of the Secretary of State?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am aware, first, that the noble Lord was the Member for the constituency from which Sergeant Roberts came and I recognise his interest in this matter. He has asked me a number of questions and, with the indulgence of the House, I shall do my best to answer directly the points he made.


I absolutely do not accept that this was a political decision. Having looked at this, I believe that the advice from the military to Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State at the time, relating to decisions about equipment was the right advice. The decision that he took not to take action on certain elements that would give clear indication of a preparation for military action when a diplomatic process was going on was the right thing to do. We need to recognise, as a number of Members of this House who have held positions within the Ministry of Defence—either as Secretary of State or as ex-chiefs and members of the military—know, that often decisions have to be taken in very difficult circumstances and when there is significant diplomatic pressure. Those decisions have to be made taking acceptance of the risks in the real world. The military has to have the ability to do what is necessary to deal with those realities. I believe that we need to have the political will to take those decisions. We have to ask ourselves whether in future we are going to be prepared to take these kinds of decisions. On this side of the House we have that political will. The kind of questioning of decisions that has taken place in those circumstances degrades the military effectiveness of this country and is not to be pursued.

Lord Bach: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that lessons have been learnt from this tragedy, that enhanced combat body armour is now the standard body armour issued to all personnel on all operations and that that decision was taken by my right honourable friend Geoff Hoon when he was Secretary of State for Defence?


10 Jan 2007 : Column 227



Lord Drayson: My Lords, my noble friend is right when he says that significant changes have been made to the policy on body armour. Decisions have been taken in the light of the lessons learnt from the tragic death of Sergeant Roberts—and, if I may say so, I am personally sorry for the death of Sergeant Roberts. His death has led to lessons being learnt. The most important lessons have concerned body armour policy and the provision of that armour. All our troops on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are now provided with enhanced combat body armour. We have developed the new Kestrel system, which provides protection for top-cover sentries. We have developed the Osprey system, to have the flexibility to meet threats. Lessons have also been learnt regarding logistics and the tracking system. These are a direct result of the “lessons learned” exercise that took place after Operation TELIC and they have been implemented.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister was not there when this happened, but I find his answer most surprising. The Government’s strategy at that time was to try and convince Saddam Hussein that if he did not comply with UN resolutions, he would face military action. So the right action to take was to give convincing evidence that military action was likely to take place, including preparing our forces for action if it came to that. It is absolutely tragic that the political decision was taken to somehow conceal the build-up to military action, which was counterproductive for the Government’s own policy at that time, which they have avowed to this House and to the country. I cannot accept the answer the Minister has given.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with deep respect for the noble Lord’s experience, this was not a political decision. The military was considering and advising on elements of the equipment list. To order substantial numbers of further body armour pieces beyond the number held in stock—approximately 13,000 at the time, if I recall correctly—would have sent a clear signal about the particular type of operation being contemplated. With the political process as it was, it was judged that that was not the right thing to do. Once the United Nations Security Council resolution had been taken, that was progressed.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, my noble friend’s point was precisely that; it was a political judgment, and the Government’s judgment was wrong. Indicating that this was going to go ahead would have put pressure on Saddam Hussein to capitulate. Surely the Minister can understand that point and should address it.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I fully understand the point—I just disagree with it. The point is that a judgment was taken by the Secretary of State at that time in that post, based on the military advice we had at the time. Having looked at that decision in the circumstances, I believe that it was right. I also respect people saying that they believe that it was the wrong decision, but to say that it was politically motivated is just plain wrong.


10 Jan 2007 : Column 228

The Army had requested ECBA to be ordered months before the invasion. Hoon sat on the requests while negotiations took placeand when the order for ECBA finally went in there was not enought time to issue the kit to everyone who needed it. A political decision indeed. Hoon has moved along and hides from his decision making. Accountability? Crown Immunity, Combat Immunity, self censorship, refusal to attend Inquests, refusal to provide legal support to the families. Fair few grievances there Al. When you signed the OSA I doubt UK Govt had signed up to the HRA. Think you might find a fair few breaches of HRA in the August DIN.

I had better sign that petition.

[Tappers Dad]

More funds for Iraq war inquests

LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE GOT THE MESSAGE

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/7028525.stm
More funds for Iraq war inquests

Inquests were held in Oxford until April
Extra funding has been agreed for one of 32 coroners holding inquests into the deaths of military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Ministry of Defence said it did not want a backlog of inquests to build up for Wiltshire coroner David Masters, although there was no current backlog.
An extra deputy coroner and coroner's officer will now be taken on.
A row had broken out after the Oxfordshire coroner was given extra funds to deal with his backlog.
Mr Masters told the BBC in September that he was confident that extra government money would mean no delays for military inquests in Wiltshire.
'Urgent need'
"With that funding, I don't intend to allow any backlog to build up," he said.
Until April, the Oxfordshire coroner handled deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan because the bodies were flown back to RAF Brize Norton in the county.
At the end of last year, Oxford had a backlog of more than 100 cases - to the distress of many relatives.
But from April, repatriation flights were switched to RAF Lyneham because of a two-year upgrade of facilities at Brize Norton, meaning that the inquests became the responsibility of the Wiltshire coroner.
A Royal British Legion spokesman said: "Last month, we identified the urgent need to address the distressing backlog of coroners' inquests, and this is a step in the right direction.
"Both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence should be congratulated on making additional resources available, but this is not before time."

[pr00ne]

Before we all get carried away with congragulating the MoD for making additional resources available it is worth pointing out that it is the MoD itself which is responsible for the vast majority of these delays as it takes so long to sanitise and authorise the cases before they are released to the Coroner.