Human Rights do apply, even on the battlefield.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Rights do apply, even on the battlefield.
BBC NEWS | UK | MoD loses battlefield rights case
<Judges have thrown out a government appeal by deciding that the Human Rights Act can apply to British troops, even on the battlefield. The Court of Appeal said the 'right to life' meant the MoD had a legal duty to provide adequate equipment.>
I suppose the next point will be to define 'adequate'.
<Judges have thrown out a government appeal by deciding that the Human Rights Act can apply to British troops, even on the battlefield. The Court of Appeal said the 'right to life' meant the MoD had a legal duty to provide adequate equipment.>
I suppose the next point will be to define 'adequate'.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temporarily unsure of precise position
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope that this ruling doesn't result in a flood of extra currencies that all deploying personnel must complete in order to ensure the command chain has its a*se covered - most of us spend too much time "tick-chasing" as it is!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labour Govt only has itself to blame for this ruling.
A. By agreeing to sign up to HRA when in Opposition and in doing so displaying both naivity and idealism.
B. Sending UK Forces to war with woefully deficient equipment using "military risk" as a get out clause.
C. Weak, politicised, Chiefs of Staff, refusing to stand up for and protect the men and women for which they had a duty of care.
Stand by for another drubbing in the courts over Nimrod and quite possibly Hercules legal actions.
We still have the odious sight of suspected terrorists being set free in the UK who would have been deported before Labour Govt agreed to sign up to HRA.
This is a very real problem and is exercising legal and Intelligence minds to a great degree.
A. By agreeing to sign up to HRA when in Opposition and in doing so displaying both naivity and idealism.
B. Sending UK Forces to war with woefully deficient equipment using "military risk" as a get out clause.
C. Weak, politicised, Chiefs of Staff, refusing to stand up for and protect the men and women for which they had a duty of care.
Stand by for another drubbing in the courts over Nimrod and quite possibly Hercules legal actions.
We still have the odious sight of suspected terrorists being set free in the UK who would have been deported before Labour Govt agreed to sign up to HRA.
This is a very real problem and is exercising legal and Intelligence minds to a great degree.
Last edited by nigegilb; 18th May 2009 at 12:01.
So, please correct me if I've got this wrong here but in order to protect the "Right to Life" of a colleague on the battlefield is it still okay to take away the "Right to Life" of the enemy combatant who is trying to remove it from him????*
(* for him, please read her if necessary in the interests of pink and fluffy equal opportunities and a genuine desire not to upset anyone whether engaged in combat operations or not).
(* for him, please read her if necessary in the interests of pink and fluffy equal opportunities and a genuine desire not to upset anyone whether engaged in combat operations or not).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure the Talibs have signed up to HRA, but it hasn't stopped naive western governments trying to impose scandinavian style govt on a medieval society.
Next year perhaps?
WRT left wing parliaments across europe, they are perplexed by the decision of the great liberal in chief President Obama to go for an Iraq style surge in Afghanistan. Perhaps another clause to HRA?
Next year perhaps?
WRT left wing parliaments across europe, they are perplexed by the decision of the great liberal in chief President Obama to go for an Iraq style surge in Afghanistan. Perhaps another clause to HRA?
I was present when Pte Smith died. Having come down with heat exhaustion he was left alone in an airconditioned room for several hours. However, due to the summer temps, the generators used to trip offline at midday, with them went any aircon. He subsequently ended up in a sweltering room. The next time anyone checked, he had fitted and was close to death. We started the cab in record time, but he never made to the aircraft.
You can take any standpoint you like on this issue, but if it prevents any of you going through a similar incident, I'm all for it.
RIP fella.
You can take any standpoint you like on this issue, but if it prevents any of you going through a similar incident, I'm all for it.
RIP fella.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temporarily unsure of precise position
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much applaud MGD's sentiment; if this ruling results in British forces invariably deploying fully-trained and fully-equipped, then great.
However.. As with much of the British military, so much comes down to money. I'm sure that, given adequate resources, reliable aircon could've been provided at Basra; up in Baghdad, the aircon at the US bases never missed a beat. I'm equally sure that, given adequate resources, the C-130 shotdown north of Baghdad would have had the fire-suppressant fuel tanks which would have prevented said tragedy.
I could go on and on with examples, but my point is: British defence spending hasn't got anywhere close to matching British defence commitments over the past 5 years or so - and just when we thought the Iraq drawdown would ease the pain, along comes a recession, with the increased budgetary pressure that brings. So my cynical / pragmatic side tells me that the British military will simply not be able to afford the equipment required to sustain the "right to life" enshrined in the ECHR.
Therefore, somewhere in the command chain, someone will still have to make the difficult calls - "this aircraft type gets the new DAS fit, this one doesn't"; "these people get improved body armour, these people don't" etc etc etc. Whilst our lords and masters are indeed paid to take tough decisions - if I understand this ruling correctly, they now risk being personally sued should their decision go tragically wrong. It's not often I have much sympathy for our senior officers, but for them to be potentially held personally accountable for the criminal failure of government to fund our wars adequately seems just a touch harsh!
However.. As with much of the British military, so much comes down to money. I'm sure that, given adequate resources, reliable aircon could've been provided at Basra; up in Baghdad, the aircon at the US bases never missed a beat. I'm equally sure that, given adequate resources, the C-130 shotdown north of Baghdad would have had the fire-suppressant fuel tanks which would have prevented said tragedy.
I could go on and on with examples, but my point is: British defence spending hasn't got anywhere close to matching British defence commitments over the past 5 years or so - and just when we thought the Iraq drawdown would ease the pain, along comes a recession, with the increased budgetary pressure that brings. So my cynical / pragmatic side tells me that the British military will simply not be able to afford the equipment required to sustain the "right to life" enshrined in the ECHR.
Therefore, somewhere in the command chain, someone will still have to make the difficult calls - "this aircraft type gets the new DAS fit, this one doesn't"; "these people get improved body armour, these people don't" etc etc etc. Whilst our lords and masters are indeed paid to take tough decisions - if I understand this ruling correctly, they now risk being personally sued should their decision go tragically wrong. It's not often I have much sympathy for our senior officers, but for them to be potentially held personally accountable for the criminal failure of government to fund our wars adequately seems just a touch harsh!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think General Mike Jackson explained his decision to give the go ahead on the state of readiness of UK Forces for the commencement of the Iraq invasion, by saying, when is an army ever fully ready to go to war?
He knew full well that there was a shortage of body armour in theatre, the battlefield commenders had to make anguished decisions on who got the equipment and who didn't. The logistical difficulties were caused by a British Prime Minister trying to offset the go decision for as long as possible for purely political reasons. Loggy Cmd simply didn't have enough time to get the kit to those who needed it.
Jackson should, in my opinion have placed the interests of his men first. He didn't and the rest is histrory. Deaths caused by a lack of protection were "regrettable".
Well, this legal ruling has changed the equation considerably. Shame it has taken a protracted court case to get this ruling. But it is not good enough for generals to play politics with matters of life and death. The sooner we sweep away the discredited ruling political class and some senior military figures the better.
He knew full well that there was a shortage of body armour in theatre, the battlefield commenders had to make anguished decisions on who got the equipment and who didn't. The logistical difficulties were caused by a British Prime Minister trying to offset the go decision for as long as possible for purely political reasons. Loggy Cmd simply didn't have enough time to get the kit to those who needed it.
Jackson should, in my opinion have placed the interests of his men first. He didn't and the rest is histrory. Deaths caused by a lack of protection were "regrettable".
Well, this legal ruling has changed the equation considerably. Shame it has taken a protracted court case to get this ruling. But it is not good enough for generals to play politics with matters of life and death. The sooner we sweep away the discredited ruling political class and some senior military figures the better.
You can take any standpoint you like on this issue, but if it prevents any of you going through a similar incident, I'm all for it.
If the Govt wants them to fight wars (especially when the link with their own defence is tenuous) then they are obligated to supply them with adequate equipment and medical care. The fact that the Govt is fighting this is offensive enough! If the Govt had any common sense then the HRA would not even be necessary, they would just do what is required because it is the right thing to do.
It is the same situation the world over.
Can't be that hard! I passed before I had even completed year 12. I struggled with 2 Unit (QLD maths B) and found the testing well within my capabilities. Wader is on the money...
Trojan1981,
Sorry, you've lost me with that one. 
Can't be that hard! I passed before I had even completed year 12. I struggled with 2 Unit (QLD maths B) and found the testing well within my capabilities. Wader is on the money...
Al R:
WRT to Flying Machines, how about Airworthy and Fit for Purpose?
Tiger 16:
The further away from the Command Chain such decisions are made the better. An independent MAA is needed to ensure military aircraft are "adequate" in that sense, the MOD having proved to be decidedly inadequate in that task.
I suppose the next point will be to define 'adequate'.
Tiger 16:
Therefore, somewhere in the command chain, someone will still have to make the difficult calls - "this aircraft type gets the new DAS fit, this one doesn't";
I think the key word will be “compliance”.
The regs are there for a reason. The Secretary of State lays them down and his staffs are required to comply, and to be able to demonstrate they have complied. Too many don’t and/or can't, as there is no mechanism or will to do so. This systemic failure is a common factor across every accident discussed here.
I suppose its too much to hope for, but a good start and statement of intent would be to clear out those still serving who have been demonstrably responsible for or complicit in this refusal to obey orders. They are well known, so if they suddenly retired early or were shunted to some backwater posting, the message would be clear to all.
The regs are there for a reason. The Secretary of State lays them down and his staffs are required to comply, and to be able to demonstrate they have complied. Too many don’t and/or can't, as there is no mechanism or will to do so. This systemic failure is a common factor across every accident discussed here.
I suppose its too much to hope for, but a good start and statement of intent would be to clear out those still serving who have been demonstrably responsible for or complicit in this refusal to obey orders. They are well known, so if they suddenly retired early or were shunted to some backwater posting, the message would be clear to all.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What worries me is how long will it be before a solder is accused of infringing the human rights of an enemy by shooting him without warning him he was going to do so. 
