Judge warning MoD over equipment

[EdSet100]

Most of us have seen footage of our troops in contact. I took note of the kit they were wearing. Without exception they were all properly dressed for the occasion. The troop commanders do not need a judge to tell them what will happen if any of their lads are without essential kit when they deploy onto the battle field. I would be very surprised if there was not a detailed list of kit (and condition thereof) published in Company Orders.

This judgement was aimed squarely at the staff officers in MOD, who issue troop movement orders without any thought given to ensuring that 500 soldiers require 500 times the essential indvidual kit, in good working order, before they leave the UK. I'm sure that every effort is made by the CO's before deploying to ensure that everyone is kitted out. After all, they do not wish to stand in front of a Coroner.

This is no more than a gypsies warning aimed at the old buffers (if there any left) who value their horse more than their batman.

[Chugalug2]

GAR:This case has been brought by pressure groups who wish to make it impossible for the UK to wage war for any reason.

The people who are hell bent on making it impossible for this country to successfully wage war are to be found in this government aided and abetted by their vassals in the MOD. The spotlight is now being shone on their dark deeds and with luck they will be brought to account soon.

Richatom: If you look at country's with more evolved and accountable systems of democracy than the UK - eg Switzerland - they don't get caught up in pointless wars.

Well they certainly didn't get caught up in WW2, did they? That 'pointless war' netted them massive inflows of Gold Bullion plundered by Germany from the central banks of the enslaved nations of Europe and even from the very mouths of the victims of the Holocaust . Nice people to do business with indeed!

[DouglasDigby]

Perfect kit all the time for all 3 Services?

Different bl~~dy argument, & you know it! Completely different from "acceptable risk" too.

How about enough enough functional kit (body armour, NVG, weapons, etc) to do the task? How about Nimrod fuel leaks or ESF for Hercs, acceptable armoured personnel carriers........????

Huge deficiencies & procedural problems. About time those REMFs in high-up offices get their backsides kicked from here to kingdom come.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Do you really believe that it will be "REMFs in high-up offices get their backsides kicked from here to kingdom come"? It will be the low level REMFs and commanders in the Field.

We are cheering for a home goal.

[Kitbag]

Do you really believe that it will be "REMFs in high-up offices get their backsides kicked from here to kingdom come"? It will be the low level REMFs and commanders in the Field.

Not if they document their requirements properly, the buck will stop with the person who denies the funding for the capability i.e. the 'Gate' decision makers.

[45 before POL]

The legalities of this case must have been looked into before the final decision. however it is a common theme of the government (and that is all departments...mod as well) to object to the decision. they will continuously do this to drag out any form of compensation(gulf war syndrome is a classic example) The problem they have with this decision is they are right in the dwang......... if they fail to overturn it they will find it to be the biggest compensation claim this country has ever seen............that aside, my opinion is as i believe most people believe is...give the troops the kit they deserve...and need!!!!!

[OilCan]

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
I agree with you - complete legaleeze twoddle which will only cascade downwards.

DouglasDigby
to me and you it's a "Different bl~~dy argument" but, since when has that stopped the legal profession!!!.

Does anybody really believe it would be any different under a different government?

[Chugalug2]

Does anybody really believe it would be any different under a different government?

What's that got to do with the price of fish? This government has a basic dilemma, to stay in power it must seem to be against continually raising taxes. We all know that isn't the case, but the taxes raised are stealth ones with a perceived low political cost. But it still has very expensive tastes, for the answer to all shortcomings in Social Welfare, Education and Health issues is to throw more and more of our money at them. The shortfall has to be made up by the Departments that the members of this government have a historic antipathy to. Chief amongst these by far is Defence. Their problem is that the 'solution' of reducing the size of our Armed Forces to match the reduced resources available is already at or below minimum for the ever increasing tasks placed upon them by the same government. The 'something' that has consequently to give is the quantity and quality of equipment needed. Add in the particularly high level of plain and simple incompetence exhibited by those trying to pull off this conjuring trick and the result is the present dangerous shambles. That they are aided and abetted in this treachery by the professional heads of our Armed Forces, who conveniently see their roles as "Orders must be obeyed at all times without question" is to my mind the real scandal of this scandalous situation. That the potential saviours of the Nation would appear to be the Judges and the Coroners speaks well of them and volumes about Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

[general all rounder]

DouglasDigby: How about enough enough functional kit (body armour, NVG, weapons, etc) to do the task? How about Nimrod fuel leaks or ESF for Hercs, acceptable armoured personnel carriers........????

This all comes down to how much money the Treasury is prepared to provide. Historically, Defence Budgets received 2.5% of GDP during peace, 6% during medium-scale regional wars and up to 50% during Total War (although it's quite difficult to measure during Total War). The current Defence Budget is equivalent to 2.4% of GDP - go figure. If the government wants to prosecute 2 medium scale campaigns and ensure that all of the kit is the best all of the time- which as you know is quite difficult, it will have to provide more than peace time levels of funding. The issue is not about 'staff officers' at the MOD (although the way the MOD is organised could certainly be improved), most of whom have themselves been on the front-line only too recently, it is about political will. The Public and the much of the media does not support the military campaigns therefore there is no political will to fund them properly (at the expense of health and education) - the MOD is caught in the middle. If you are going to criticise then at least get your targetting right. Even better why not make a positive case for what the military is doing to as many of your family, friends and neighbours as possible to create the conditions for political will to be hardened? If Defence spending is to go up, the first question voters have to ask of prospective MPs at the next election is "Will you increase Defence Spending?".

[OilCan]

Chug; What's that got to do with the price of fish? This government has a basic dilemma,

...and if it was a different government, the difference would be....?....

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Historically, Defence Budgets received 2.5% of GDP during peace

My, what short memories we have. How long qualifies for historic?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ndefence22.xml

Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of the UK's GDP — or around £32 billion — was likely to be spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88.

OK, that report was over a year ago but nothing has factually changed since.

[Beatriz Fontana]

Did anyone else hear Swiss Des being eaten alive by the Humph on this morning's Today Programme? Blimey, the bloke has to go... Swiss, that is.

[Chugalug2]

Quote:
Chug; What's that got to do with the price of fish? This government has a basic dilemma,

...and if it was a different government, the difference would be....?....

OilCan, why is this always the default response from the apologists for this particular government? Every administration has to answer to its own record, good, bad or indifferent. This rhetoric is surely admission in itself that the present one is indifferent to say the least. When their record on Defence is raised, or for that matter on any other department, it hardly does them credit if the knee jerk answer is that no other government would be any different. It is an illogical stance. If you think that some previous Labour governments have been quite strong on Defence, ie they had a coherent policy, I would agree. To my mind this one hasn't, it is full of self contradictions that will rebound on them. Unfortunately in the meantime it is already rebounding on us.

[richatom]

Perfect kit all the time for all 3 Services? Why have only 80 aircraft on a carrier? Surely 80 000 000 would be much safer. Infantry should have electro-magnetic force fields issued immediately, never mind that the cost would be a trillion trillion pounds!

There have been some cases recently where I think your point is valid. For example, in the case of the Coroner who recently decided that the MOD were at fault for the death of an SAS Captain during HALO training because they "failed to provide £50 radios". Surely the officer had done his static line course beforehand, and surely it was drummed into his bone to check his canopy, and pull the reserve if in the slightest doubt? I don't understand at all why he should need an experienced soldier on the ground to take a decision like that for him. During my static-line course at Brize Norton it was absolutely drummed into us to pull the cord if we had the slightest doubt, and we were never bollocked for pulling it prematurely (which happened occasionally). I did a few freefall jumps too with Danish jaegertruppe and it was no different there. I have no experience of current UK HALO training though so perhaps somebody might put me right on that.

But I do agree with Coroners verdicts in most of the other cases, which have usually revolved around body armour. If commanders on the ground decide that body armour is required, then everybody should have it. If there are not enough resources for everybody to have it, then the politicos should not have overridden ground commanders and the troops should not have been there.

[Bunker Mentality]

Risk aware or risk averse?

There are never enough resources to do everything we want, so decisions have to be made about priorities. In making those decisions, assessments of risk need to be made. Risks can be managed and reduced, but they can't always be eliminated. Often, however, the wisdom of accepting or rejecting a particular risk receives no attention at all from the wider public untill something goes wrong. By that time, the context in which the decision was taken to allocate resources in a particular way will have been forgotten, and the relative priorities prevailing at the time a decision was taken may have changed. The unwillingness of politicians and public alike to accept casualties in current operations is an example of this. So, a decision to prioritise, say, defensive aids for a fast-jet fleet over fire-retardent filling for transport ac fuel tanks looks very different today from when it was made n years ago. The 20/20 hindsight available to coroners and high court judges is, sadly, not available in reverse to those who have to make decisions now that will affect future capabilities.

One of the most important tools military commanders have is the ability to take calculated risks. Let us suppose that a commander chooses to use a particular aircraft in a support role during an operation, even though he knows it is carrying a number of defects. There is a war on, after all, and the commander assesses that the contribution this ac and crew could make to protecting the lives of troops on the ground, through increasing the likelihood of rapid success, outweighs the slightly increased risk to the aircrew invovled. Let us further suppose that everything goes to plan and everyone gets home safely in time for tea and medals. What have the public and the judge to say in this case?

Then look at the other alternative - the commander takes the same risk, but this time a combination of factors involving at least one of the known defects results in the loss of the aircraft and its crew. Fortunately, the work already done by this crew and others have helped set the conditions for the operation as a whole to succeed, but the tragic loss of the brave men and women on the aircraft causes outrage in the media. What have the public and the judge to say now?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Wars end at the start of HERRICK 2 and TELIC 2 respectively; and isn’t that part of the problem? Armed peacekeeping in aid to Civil Power (the elected Governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively), I believe, has different legal requirements to a declared war. If it was a war (and the septics keep muddying the waters here), surely we wouldn’t be holding inquests for very loss of life?

This is where I see the responsibility under the discussed Judgement gravitating down Command Chains. In that context, I think Bunker Mentality makes some very valid points.

[Chugalug2]

Bunker Mentality makes a very good presentation of why we are where we are, and in the main I accept the thrust of his argument. Let us take as an example the issue of Hercules aircraft not being fitted with ESF. 40 years after this fleet was created it has only now been so fitted, and not completely at that. Why was this when the very air force through which they were obtained (negotiations with Lockheed were, IIRC, via USAF for reasons which I do not recall but assume were IAW US law) was then fitting it as standard in its own fleet? Well financial of course, but to pick up on Bunker's point because;
a. The cost would have been in $US, a very big problem then (the K was stuffed with UK electronics to lower the dollar cost)
b. The only war the RAF then contemplated was WW3, and ESF was not going to save any transport aircraft jumped by the Red Airforce.
c. There was, and still is, a capacity cost to ESF which would have had an adverse effect on the worldwide strategic capability of the fleet then being exploited.
However, the job of the Air Staff and the responsibility of Air Officers is to continuously review capability and future requirements. I would say that by the time the J was being contemplated, let alone ordered this would have flagged up a deficiency in a fleet that was to be put more and more into a hot tactical front-line. That it was decided (for it surely was) not to fit ESF as part of the build was an abrogation of those responsibilities. Calls, both formal and informal, from the work face drawing attention to this deficiency that were effectively fobbed off merely add to that abrogation. It is that abrogation, writ large, that is at the core of this issue. It is one thing to balance the 'wish list' to resources, it is quite another to supply kit unfit for purpose merely to conform to government spending policy.

[BEagle]

Hoon could face charges over death

From today's The Sunday Times:

POLICE and the Crown Prosecution Service are taking legal advice on whether Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, could be held liable for a soldier’s death in Iraq.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3736571.ece