Andrew Walker nominated for award
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew Walker nominated for award
Channel 4 are asking people to vote for the person they feel had the most 'Political Impact' in the past year. The nominees are:-
Gordon Brown
Boris Johnston
Vince Cable
Peter Mandelson
Eliza Manningham- Buller
Andrew Walker
The last name on this list will be very familiar to those of us who were affected by the loss of the XV230 Nimrod in Afghanistan. If you feel that Andrew Walker should be rewarded for his hard work at the inquest in May and in many other military inquests please visit Channel4.com and vote on the political awards page.
Thanks
helgar33
p.s. there are only 8 days left to vote!!!!!!!!!
Gordon Brown
Boris Johnston
Vince Cable
Peter Mandelson
Eliza Manningham- Buller
Andrew Walker
The last name on this list will be very familiar to those of us who were affected by the loss of the XV230 Nimrod in Afghanistan. If you feel that Andrew Walker should be rewarded for his hard work at the inquest in May and in many other military inquests please visit Channel4.com and vote on the political awards page.
Thanks
helgar33
p.s. there are only 8 days left to vote!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Shhhh!!
Age: 56
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a bugger to find
Are we simply talking "impact"? Positive or negative, no preference?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost opportunity
I was initially surprised by his lack of impartiality, then dismayed at the way he chose to pursue a line of questioning to suit his own theory, and in the process essentially ignore the testimony of people who were the real experts ..........so yes, he had an impact for sure..........a very negative one. He almost single handedly ruined my faith in a system that I expected so much more from 
Those at ISK are all awaiting the report that we feel will be accurate and have real substance, and that is when the QC announces he has finished his investigation into where it went wrong.
Those at ISK are all awaiting the report that we feel will be accurate and have real substance, and that is when the QC announces he has finished his investigation into where it went wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nr Salisbury UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The man is far from impartial, and given his way, would have a lawyer, a H&S assessor and a claims adjuster behind every serviceman/woman deployed... He has consistently refused to allow the facts to get in the way of his own personal agenda. I should know, I have spent days in his court watching him enact his own little conspiratorial fantasies.
Just my personal opinion of course...
Just my personal opinion of course...
To be fair to the man he has had to carry out an onerous task in the face of serial lying, deceit, concealment and evasion by MoD. Perhaps this attitude helped him form an opinion, which could be construed as an agenda. What did MoD’s representative say to him during the Nimrod inquest? “We didn’t think Military Airworthiness Regulations were relevant”. Anyone would get a little bit cynical at that one, and frustrated that those to blame are never brought to book; or even in front of him.
It has to be remembered that very little discussed in his court has been a revelation. On the contrary, time after time he (and his Wiltshire colleague) has had to listen to evidence that MoD made deliberate decisions to avoid their legal obligations and that the precise cause of accidents were flagged up as risks years, even decades, before.
Also remember that before the Inquest there is the Board of Inquiry report. More often than not it is the BoI who has raised these issues first (for example, failure of Airworthiness process), thus setting the agenda for the Inquest.
I, too, await the QC’s report with interest. I predict it will not mention or name the various 2, 3 and 4 Stars and successive Ministers who have been informed of the “systemic failings” yet openly condoned them. I hope I’m wrong.
It has to be remembered that very little discussed in his court has been a revelation. On the contrary, time after time he (and his Wiltshire colleague) has had to listen to evidence that MoD made deliberate decisions to avoid their legal obligations and that the precise cause of accidents were flagged up as risks years, even decades, before.
Also remember that before the Inquest there is the Board of Inquiry report. More often than not it is the BoI who has raised these issues first (for example, failure of Airworthiness process), thus setting the agenda for the Inquest.
I, too, await the QC’s report with interest. I predict it will not mention or name the various 2, 3 and 4 Stars and successive Ministers who have been informed of the “systemic failings” yet openly condoned them. I hope I’m wrong.
