The Part time Defence Secretary....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Part time Defence Secretary....
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I couldn't help but notice a little story on the radio this morning. Our marvelous part time defence secretary wants to gag Coroners......He doesn't want them to keep blaming the MoD (er government) for failing to provide the services with what they need to do the job that they are asking them to do. That's my understanding anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere between hope and despair
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Des,
How about, as minister in charge of the MOD, you personally ensure that said MOD finally gets it sh!t in one sock thereby removing the need for Coroners to be in a situation needing them to be critical in the first place.
On the other hand, you could resign and offer your services to the Chinese who currently have a vacancy in the "Good news from Tibet" department. I'm sure you would be well qualified and fit in perfectly.
How about, as minister in charge of the MOD, you personally ensure that said MOD finally gets it sh!t in one sock thereby removing the need for Coroners to be in a situation needing them to be critical in the first place.
On the other hand, you could resign and offer your services to the Chinese who currently have a vacancy in the "Good news from Tibet" department. I'm sure you would be well qualified and fit in perfectly.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the legal niceties (and I do have my reservations about how Walker has politicised the process), the deaths of Private Smith and every other death which could and should have been avoided out there should be firmly laid at the door of the Secretary of State for Defence. Somehow though, I don't think that he is likely to bother himself too much about it. The only thing he is any good at defending, is his arse.
People like Browne know the price of everything and value of nothing. I look forward to seeing the day when Crown Immunity is lifted for acts of criminal incompetence and hiding behind the law is done away for ever. I look forward to the day too, when things are done because they are the right thing to do.. and not simply buffing these up by hiding behind words like 'prudent' and 'tough decisions'. I reflect on the likes of Lord Carrington who resigned out of a sense of honour, loyalty and commitment to the system he realised that he was responsible for letting down.
I think though, that within the MoD, it would be more than Broon who would be looking at themselves this morning if that were the case.
People like Browne know the price of everything and value of nothing. I look forward to seeing the day when Crown Immunity is lifted for acts of criminal incompetence and hiding behind the law is done away for ever. I look forward to the day too, when things are done because they are the right thing to do.. and not simply buffing these up by hiding behind words like 'prudent' and 'tough decisions'. I reflect on the likes of Lord Carrington who resigned out of a sense of honour, loyalty and commitment to the system he realised that he was responsible for letting down.
I think though, that within the MoD, it would be more than Broon who would be looking at themselves this morning if that were the case.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: listening to the sound of aviation
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be interested in what is going on on Arrse: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.p...=92201#1858981
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere between hope and despair
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift but couldn't see the need to start a new one just to highlight another govt-bashing article, this time in the Times summarising the Basra palace withdrawal. Final 3 paras quoted, link at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3571258.ece
Painfully aware that the Army was now more of an antagonistic influence on Basra than a palliative one, and that it was clearly unable to fight simultaneous campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was little other option but for the British to draw up their plans to pull back from Basra Palace to a final overwatch position at the airport.
By the time this penultimate chapter occurred, a generation of British soldiers had emerged from the Iraq experience battle-hardened and cynical. They are aware that the demands placed upon them were seldom matched by support from the Government, which had committed them to an unpopular and ultimately futile war. The sense of vestigial anger within the Army will unlikely be appeased in Afghanistan, where they face a different set of challenges but labour under a similar set of shortfalls, directed by a political strategy that remains at best opaque.
However, history finally records the British Army’s involvement in Iraq, the question “What was it all for?” seems certain to haunt the dreams of thousands of veterans for years to come.
By the time this penultimate chapter occurred, a generation of British soldiers had emerged from the Iraq experience battle-hardened and cynical. They are aware that the demands placed upon them were seldom matched by support from the Government, which had committed them to an unpopular and ultimately futile war. The sense of vestigial anger within the Army will unlikely be appeased in Afghanistan, where they face a different set of challenges but labour under a similar set of shortfalls, directed by a political strategy that remains at best opaque.
However, history finally records the British Army’s involvement in Iraq, the question “What was it all for?” seems certain to haunt the dreams of thousands of veterans for years to come.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Des Browne is a disgrace, a mendacious incompetent slimy sh!t.
It is pointed out on ARRSE that this may be linked to the upcoming inquests into the Herc and Nimrod crashes, both of which have generated extensive commentary on safety concerns, whether defensive aids or airworthiness.
On the plus side, this will backfire. On ARRSE, someone has posted a response from Liam Fox's office so the Tories will run with this.
Add fuel to the flames. Write to the papers. Remember, full name and address and contact phone number, request anonymity if serving.
letters @ thetimes.co.uk
dtletters @ telegraph.co.uk
letters @ guardian.co.uk
letters @ independent.co.uk
Browne and Hoon should be in the dock for presiding over a system of institutional criminal negligence. Why can't the MoD be prosecuted under Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 when the failings have occured in the UK, as with the tragic parachute death when a two-way radio (as requested by the training staff) may have saved him?
It is pointed out on ARRSE that this may be linked to the upcoming inquests into the Herc and Nimrod crashes, both of which have generated extensive commentary on safety concerns, whether defensive aids or airworthiness.
On the plus side, this will backfire. On ARRSE, someone has posted a response from Liam Fox's office so the Tories will run with this.
Add fuel to the flames. Write to the papers. Remember, full name and address and contact phone number, request anonymity if serving.
letters @ thetimes.co.uk
dtletters @ telegraph.co.uk
letters @ guardian.co.uk
letters @ independent.co.uk
Browne and Hoon should be in the dock for presiding over a system of institutional criminal negligence. Why can't the MoD be prosecuted under Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 when the failings have occured in the UK, as with the tragic parachute death when a two-way radio (as requested by the training staff) may have saved him?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD Liability
The Government still enjoys Crown Immunity against a criminal action on Health and Safety but NOT for civil liability - the Public and Commercial Services Union offers the following comments on their web site:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/Templates/Inte...?NodeID=884239
Crown Immunity
Crown Immunity, under health and safety law, is a term that is known by many but understood by few. It is often cited to PCS Safety Reps as a reason for inaction by management who wrongly believe that it means that they do not have to worry about health and safety law.
We look here at precisely what 'Crown Immunity' means. BUT this is only applicable in health and safety terms, as different exemptions may apply under other legislation.
Health & Safety Law
To properly understand Crown Immunity, it is necessary to first understand the legal framework for health and safety.
The law governing health and safety can be split into two - Statute Law and Common Law. Statute law is concerned with regulations and Acts of Parliament. Common Law is based on the past decisions of judges - precedent - and the common law rule that everyone owes a duty to everyone else (the 'duty of care').
Criminal or Civil liability?
If an employer fails to take reasonable care to protect an employee from a foreseeable injury, he or she could be found by the courts to have breached the 'duty of care'. This is 'Civil Liability' and in such cases, damages can be awarded against the employer. There is no immunity for the Crown, and PCS takes many successful cases through their legal scheme against Government Departments and Agencies.
Criminal liability arises mainly from statute law - though it also arises for the common law offences of murder and manslaughter. Prosecution is in the criminal courts, in most cases are taken by either Health and Safety Executive Inspectors or local authority Environmental Health Officers and penalties on conviction can be a fine and/or imprisonment.
It is quite possible for an employer to be sued, under common law, by an injured employee for damages and to be prosecuted under criminal liability for breaching statute law.
Crown Immunity from Criminal Liability
Action in the criminal courts is taken 'on behalf of the Crown'. Statute law is approved by the Crown (Royal Assent). It would, it is said, be strange for the Crown to prosecute itself and this is the basis for the Crown being 'immune' from prosecution for criminal liability.
The Crown is not, however, 'immune' from the requirements of health & safety legislation generally. All of these duties are placed on the Crown just as on any other employer. The only difference is what action can be taken under criminal law if the Crown fails in its duties.
What is meant by 'the Crown'?
With the on-going changes to the Civil Service, it is increasingly difficult to come to a strict definition of what is meant by 'the Crown'. The HSE will look at each particular case as it arises before finally deciding whether the employer is covered by Crown Immunity.
Whilst it is fair to assume that all core Departments within the Civil Service will enjoy Crown Immunity, it is possible that some Agencies will no longer be protected in this way.
Campaigning for change
PCS is opposed to crown immunity - we believe that it is fundamentally responsible for many of the shortcomings in current health and safety arrangements in government departments and agencies. After years of quiet campaigning, we saw a first success in 2000, when the government's Revitalising Health and Safety strategy document committed them, for the first time, to the abolition of Crown Immunity for health and safety offences. Since then, we have been pressing for the earliest possible legislation on this. To date, we are still waiting, though now others, such the Centre for Corporate Accountability, are beginning to take an interest in the issue.
JB
http://www.pcs.org.uk/Templates/Inte...?NodeID=884239
Crown Immunity
Crown Immunity, under health and safety law, is a term that is known by many but understood by few. It is often cited to PCS Safety Reps as a reason for inaction by management who wrongly believe that it means that they do not have to worry about health and safety law.
We look here at precisely what 'Crown Immunity' means. BUT this is only applicable in health and safety terms, as different exemptions may apply under other legislation.
Health & Safety Law
To properly understand Crown Immunity, it is necessary to first understand the legal framework for health and safety.
The law governing health and safety can be split into two - Statute Law and Common Law. Statute law is concerned with regulations and Acts of Parliament. Common Law is based on the past decisions of judges - precedent - and the common law rule that everyone owes a duty to everyone else (the 'duty of care').
Criminal or Civil liability?
If an employer fails to take reasonable care to protect an employee from a foreseeable injury, he or she could be found by the courts to have breached the 'duty of care'. This is 'Civil Liability' and in such cases, damages can be awarded against the employer. There is no immunity for the Crown, and PCS takes many successful cases through their legal scheme against Government Departments and Agencies.
Criminal liability arises mainly from statute law - though it also arises for the common law offences of murder and manslaughter. Prosecution is in the criminal courts, in most cases are taken by either Health and Safety Executive Inspectors or local authority Environmental Health Officers and penalties on conviction can be a fine and/or imprisonment.
It is quite possible for an employer to be sued, under common law, by an injured employee for damages and to be prosecuted under criminal liability for breaching statute law.
Crown Immunity from Criminal Liability
Action in the criminal courts is taken 'on behalf of the Crown'. Statute law is approved by the Crown (Royal Assent). It would, it is said, be strange for the Crown to prosecute itself and this is the basis for the Crown being 'immune' from prosecution for criminal liability.
The Crown is not, however, 'immune' from the requirements of health & safety legislation generally. All of these duties are placed on the Crown just as on any other employer. The only difference is what action can be taken under criminal law if the Crown fails in its duties.
What is meant by 'the Crown'?
With the on-going changes to the Civil Service, it is increasingly difficult to come to a strict definition of what is meant by 'the Crown'. The HSE will look at each particular case as it arises before finally deciding whether the employer is covered by Crown Immunity.
Whilst it is fair to assume that all core Departments within the Civil Service will enjoy Crown Immunity, it is possible that some Agencies will no longer be protected in this way.
Campaigning for change
PCS is opposed to crown immunity - we believe that it is fundamentally responsible for many of the shortcomings in current health and safety arrangements in government departments and agencies. After years of quiet campaigning, we saw a first success in 2000, when the government's Revitalising Health and Safety strategy document committed them, for the first time, to the abolition of Crown Immunity for health and safety offences. Since then, we have been pressing for the earliest possible legislation on this. To date, we are still waiting, though now others, such the Centre for Corporate Accountability, are beginning to take an interest in the issue.
JB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 67
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an airline operated an aircraft as dangerous as some of the Nimrod fleet,they would be grounded forthwith.
To the arrogant communists in new labour,a British serviceman's life is not worth sh*t.
To the arrogant communists in new labour,a British serviceman's life is not worth sh*t.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Somerset
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could well be that the squirming toe-rags might be hoist by their own petard:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3578801.ece
I wonder if the Hercules and Nimrod families are considering the same sort of action?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3578801.ece
I wonder if the Hercules and Nimrod families are considering the same sort of action?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've emailed my MP, a pro-forces Tory, asking him what the Conservatives are actually doing to bring Comrades Brown and Browne to book over this disgraceful episode. I pointed out that what they are actually doing will go a long way towards deciding who I actually vote for at the next election. I await his reply with interest.
They very appropriately named http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ has a postcode search so you can find your MP or you can email them directly via that site.
They very appropriately named http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ has a postcode search so you can find your MP or you can email them directly via that site.
I wonder whether anyone will be grilling Incapability Brown at today's PMQs about Swiss Des' attempt to stifle the coroners' verdicts?
How can anyone not see the Stalinist nature of this pathetic excuse for a current government with its surveillance society and attempted control of the judiciary? Surely even Comrade Pr00ne must now see them for what they truly are?
How can anyone not see the Stalinist nature of this pathetic excuse for a current government with its surveillance society and attempted control of the judiciary? Surely even Comrade Pr00ne must now see them for what they truly are?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I pointed out that what they are actually doing will go a long way towards deciding who I actually vote for at the next election. I await his reply with interest.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordons Reply to Two Jobs Des petition
A response has been made to the petition on the 10 Downing Petitions site referring to Two Jobs Des.
Here is the original petition:-
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Require the Secretary of State for Defence to be the sole responsibility of a single Minister."
Details of Petition:
"The complex and demanding brief of Defence cannot be handled by a minister who has other portfolios, such as the shared responsibility of Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland. The role of Secretary of State for Defence must be a sole responsibility of a single Minister, otherwise it undermines decision-making ability and sends the clear message that defence is a part-time concern. We therefore call on the Prime Minister to reshuffle the Cabinet to reorganise the Defence portfolio so it is the sole responsibility of a single Minister, and to establish it as convention that this is to be the case henceforth.
Here is Gordon Browns Office reply:-
The Government holds our Armed Forces in the highest regard and the Secretary of State for Defence's priority remains the defence of the UK, the success of our ongoing operations and providing the best possible support to our Service personnel and their families back at home.
Since Des Browne was appointed as Secretary of State for Defence in 2006 he has continued to give the role his full attention. For example, he has visited Afghanistan and Iraq on twelve occasions, three visits of which have taken place since he was appointed as Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of June 2007. The Secretary of State's record speaks for itself. Since holding the two positions, the Ministry has delivered an improved operational welfare package, with additional council tax relief and free post beyond the Christmas period; further financial and practical support to assist in speeding up inquests; a review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme with improved compensation for those with multiple injuries; sustained outstanding operational medical capability; improved commitments and funding for accommodation, especially for single living accommodation; ongoing provision of equipment for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - with more helicopters and further Protected Patrol Vehicles. This demonstrates the Government's commitment to defence and to the men and women who serve with the utmost bravery in our Armed Forces.
The Secretary of State is engaged in defence business seven days a week. Officials in his Private Offices in both departments liaise closely to manage diary commitments and through use of email and video conferencing facilities he is able to deal with defence business and make important decisions regardless of where he is located.
Here is the original petition:-
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Require the Secretary of State for Defence to be the sole responsibility of a single Minister."
Details of Petition:
"The complex and demanding brief of Defence cannot be handled by a minister who has other portfolios, such as the shared responsibility of Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland. The role of Secretary of State for Defence must be a sole responsibility of a single Minister, otherwise it undermines decision-making ability and sends the clear message that defence is a part-time concern. We therefore call on the Prime Minister to reshuffle the Cabinet to reorganise the Defence portfolio so it is the sole responsibility of a single Minister, and to establish it as convention that this is to be the case henceforth.
Here is Gordon Browns Office reply:-
The Government holds our Armed Forces in the highest regard and the Secretary of State for Defence's priority remains the defence of the UK, the success of our ongoing operations and providing the best possible support to our Service personnel and their families back at home.
Since Des Browne was appointed as Secretary of State for Defence in 2006 he has continued to give the role his full attention. For example, he has visited Afghanistan and Iraq on twelve occasions, three visits of which have taken place since he was appointed as Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of June 2007. The Secretary of State's record speaks for itself. Since holding the two positions, the Ministry has delivered an improved operational welfare package, with additional council tax relief and free post beyond the Christmas period; further financial and practical support to assist in speeding up inquests; a review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme with improved compensation for those with multiple injuries; sustained outstanding operational medical capability; improved commitments and funding for accommodation, especially for single living accommodation; ongoing provision of equipment for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - with more helicopters and further Protected Patrol Vehicles. This demonstrates the Government's commitment to defence and to the men and women who serve with the utmost bravery in our Armed Forces.
The Secretary of State is engaged in defence business seven days a week. Officials in his Private Offices in both departments liaise closely to manage diary commitments and through use of email and video conferencing facilities he is able to deal with defence business and make important decisions regardless of where he is located.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Out East
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Letters to MPs
Have written to my MP Edward Leigh (sadly a p**tt), but you can only write to your own. Also asked him to tell "Dave" Cameron to stop poncing about and really oppose this government. All they do is pussy foot about when they should show them up for what they really are. As so succinctly put in the ARRSE link above.
Unfortunately the only MP around my neck of the woods who is worth a light is Gillian Merron, who is sadly "one of them". He may be Labour, but Frank Field is the sort of guy we need, even if he is "one of them" too!
Unfortunately the only MP around my neck of the woods who is worth a light is Gillian Merron, who is sadly "one of them". He may be Labour, but Frank Field is the sort of guy we need, even if he is "one of them" too!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is Gordon Browns Office reply:-
The Government holds our Armed Forces in the highest regard and the Secretary of State for Defence's priority remains the defence of the UK, the success of our ongoing operations and providing the best possible support to our Service personnel and their families back at home.
Since Des Browne was appointed as Secretary of State for Defence in 2006 he has continued to give the role his full attention.
The Government holds our Armed Forces in the highest regard and the Secretary of State for Defence's priority remains the defence of the UK, the success of our ongoing operations and providing the best possible support to our Service personnel and their families back at home.
Since Des Browne was appointed as Secretary of State for Defence in 2006 he has continued to give the role his full attention.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was Scottish I'd be really annoyed that Defence was occupying too much of the Ministers time.
Perhaps a petition by the Scots might produce a similar response!
Perhaps a petition by the Scots might produce a similar response!