Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unbelievable
"The “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” test was intended to be capable of practical application, and in the view of the Department required a distinction to be drawn between honest or genuine doubt and implausible conjecture. Thus it was not
permissible to avoid a finding of negligence by recourse to an hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which is revealed as wholly implausible when tested against the known facts."
or in other words the determination of negligence through the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever should not be avoided merely because there may be some doubt
and another thing...
whose version of the facts? Day was specifically criticised by their lordships for being unable to distinguish between fact and unsubstantiated opinion
"5. A sufficiently detailed picture of the circumstances of any particular accident, pointing conclusively towards aircrew responsibility was clearly necessary before a finding of negligence could properly be made. This was so in respect of the Chinook
accident. Even though an investigation into any serious accident will inevitably be unable to answer every technical question with absolute certainty, this does not mean that the established facts when taken together cannot compel a particular conclusion."
so the true test for negligence is revealed - although there is doubt as to whether there were any technical malfunctions, gross negligence is to determined if it can be inferred, imputed and assumed from hypothesis based on opinion. this, the MoD believes, satisfies the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
this took 6 months?!
if this is the best the MoD and their woefully substandard legal team can come up with, god help us.
i find it incredibly arrogant that the MoD favours the ruling of 2 legal laymen over 4 distinguished law lords.
brian, chocks et al, assuming this decision is open to judicial review or further action, might it be worth considering establishing a trust on behalf of the families (with their permission of course) in order to finance such a move? I for one would gladly contribute.
If i hadnt pvr'd i'd resign my commission in disgust.
"The “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” test was intended to be capable of practical application, and in the view of the Department required a distinction to be drawn between honest or genuine doubt and implausible conjecture. Thus it was not
permissible to avoid a finding of negligence by recourse to an hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which is revealed as wholly implausible when tested against the known facts."
or in other words the determination of negligence through the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever should not be avoided merely because there may be some doubt
and another thing...
whose version of the facts? Day was specifically criticised by their lordships for being unable to distinguish between fact and unsubstantiated opinion
"5. A sufficiently detailed picture of the circumstances of any particular accident, pointing conclusively towards aircrew responsibility was clearly necessary before a finding of negligence could properly be made. This was so in respect of the Chinook
accident. Even though an investigation into any serious accident will inevitably be unable to answer every technical question with absolute certainty, this does not mean that the established facts when taken together cannot compel a particular conclusion."
so the true test for negligence is revealed - although there is doubt as to whether there were any technical malfunctions, gross negligence is to determined if it can be inferred, imputed and assumed from hypothesis based on opinion. this, the MoD believes, satisfies the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
this took 6 months?!
if this is the best the MoD and their woefully substandard legal team can come up with, god help us.
i find it incredibly arrogant that the MoD favours the ruling of 2 legal laymen over 4 distinguished law lords.
brian, chocks et al, assuming this decision is open to judicial review or further action, might it be worth considering establishing a trust on behalf of the families (with their permission of course) in order to finance such a move? I for one would gladly contribute.
If i hadnt pvr'd i'd resign my commission in disgust.
I think that this poor response is an insult to the HoL Select committee whose enquiry was painstaking, skillful and well considered. I am absolutely disgusted.
Lord Chalfont said on BBC news tonight that there would be a debate in the Lords and that he would be asking the MoD:
Who was responsible for this Chinook being used in the light of the doubts about its safety, and,
Who authorised the transport of so many important passengers in one helicopter.
It sounds like the campaign is going onto the offensive. I look forward to hearing how we may help i.e more letters, money etc. I wondered if now might be a good time to write to selected members of the Lords to support them. It would seem that the future morale of our armed forces is now in their hands
One of my sons is currently applying to the Navy as a pilot. I now have serious reservations about this but he will make his own decision. At the moment he is extremely angry so, if that comes out in his interviews, he may well fail anyway.
Lord Chalfont said on BBC news tonight that there would be a debate in the Lords and that he would be asking the MoD:
Who was responsible for this Chinook being used in the light of the doubts about its safety, and,
Who authorised the transport of so many important passengers in one helicopter.
It sounds like the campaign is going onto the offensive. I look forward to hearing how we may help i.e more letters, money etc. I wondered if now might be a good time to write to selected members of the Lords to support them. It would seem that the future morale of our armed forces is now in their hands
One of my sons is currently applying to the Navy as a pilot. I now have serious reservations about this but he will make his own decision. At the moment he is extremely angry so, if that comes out in his interviews, he may well fail anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelievable arrogance!
"No investigation into a serious accident can ever answer every question with cast-iron certainty".
"In a case where there were deceased aircrew, the relevant departmental guidance required the reviewing officers to be in no doubt whatsoever that their negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident."
It would appear that there is a fundamental conflict in the statements above.
There was no cast iron certainty of what caused the accident, and that was needed before the crew could be accused, and found guilty in absentia, of gross negligence.
The BoI failed to find the crew guilty due to insufficient evidence, technical investigation was unable to rule out mechanical failure, the House of Lords found that the Air Marshals were wrong in law, and now we are asked to accept that 2 Brass Bound Blimps, and Buff Hoon know best!
If this travesty is permitted to stand it will mark a low point in British Military Justice, and it will forever brand the two Air Marshals as cowards for taking the easy road, and far from occupying the moral high ground they claimed, have shown themselves as being completely lacking in any sense of responsibility for the well being of the servicemen and women under their command.
And for the Secretary of State for Defence; he deserves to be treated with the same contempt which he has displayed towards the august members of the House of Lords Committee whose legal acumen is beyond reproach.
This surely is a blunder of such magnitude that it now represents more than the initial campaign to clear the reputations of the crew, and is now a struggle of where does the power of justice reside?
"No investigation into a serious accident can ever answer every question with cast-iron certainty".
"In a case where there were deceased aircrew, the relevant departmental guidance required the reviewing officers to be in no doubt whatsoever that their negligence was a cause (although not necessarily the sole cause) of the accident."
It would appear that there is a fundamental conflict in the statements above.
There was no cast iron certainty of what caused the accident, and that was needed before the crew could be accused, and found guilty in absentia, of gross negligence.
The BoI failed to find the crew guilty due to insufficient evidence, technical investigation was unable to rule out mechanical failure, the House of Lords found that the Air Marshals were wrong in law, and now we are asked to accept that 2 Brass Bound Blimps, and Buff Hoon know best!
If this travesty is permitted to stand it will mark a low point in British Military Justice, and it will forever brand the two Air Marshals as cowards for taking the easy road, and far from occupying the moral high ground they claimed, have shown themselves as being completely lacking in any sense of responsibility for the well being of the servicemen and women under their command.
And for the Secretary of State for Defence; he deserves to be treated with the same contempt which he has displayed towards the august members of the House of Lords Committee whose legal acumen is beyond reproach.
This surely is a blunder of such magnitude that it now represents more than the initial campaign to clear the reputations of the crew, and is now a struggle of where does the power of justice reside?
In all of the discussion that I have seen on this tragic accident and the seemingly indefensible accusation of gross negligence against the pilots, there are a few aspects that warrant deeper analysis. I have not seen these discussed before and have not previously aired my thoughts in public. The details below are written from memory of documentation that I read at the time and from discussion with knowledgeable friends. I hope that someone reading this is able to follow them up.
a. Why put a large number of highly important intelligence personnel together on a military, tactical helicopter and transport them at low level? Why not use commercial transport with the commensurate lower probability of a catastrophic accident? It IS possible to travel incognito and securely on a scheduled airline when involved in highly classified projects. Surely, the political embarrassment of making such an horrific and uneducated decision regarding the transport of such important people has been the driver behind making the pilots scapegoats!
b. The Mark 2 Chinook was, at the time of the accident, prohibited from flying in icing conditions. This was quite normal for a helicopter that was just being introduced to service and had only a limited clearance. However, as I recall, the cloudbase around the accident site was approximately 1000 ft and the freezing level was only just above this. Therefore, the crew did not have an option to climb above safety altitude and obey the Release to Service icing limitations existing on their aircraft.
c. The crew were going to be very close to exceeding their duty time by the time they returned to base at the end of the planned sorties. This would have made them reluctant to deviate from the planned track and thus extend the flight time.
d. A crew under pressure is more likely to make mistakes than one that is not (providing the task is not so mundane as to put them in a state of underarousal). The above points, b and c especially, would have put the crew under considerable pressure, as would their known fears concerning the relatively common FADEC runaways.
e. A Mark 1 Chinook was available for the mission. This had a clearance for flight in icing conditions and did not suffer from engine control problems. Therefore, the use of a Mark 1 would have reduced the pressure on the crew significantly.
The fact that the charge of gross negligence against the pilots was first made by a senior officer who was well up the command chain and not the actual Board of Inquiry has been reported in the public domain before. The fact that to justify a verdict of gross negligence requires there must be NO doubt at all has also been reported. Perhaps my memory has been influenced by the sadness and anger within me at the political injustice that has been perpetrated against two highly professional pilots who were trying to carry out what I consider to be a poorly planned mission in adverse conditions. But I hope that that my views may lead to the long overdue justice that the pilots deserve and that their families are owed.
a. Why put a large number of highly important intelligence personnel together on a military, tactical helicopter and transport them at low level? Why not use commercial transport with the commensurate lower probability of a catastrophic accident? It IS possible to travel incognito and securely on a scheduled airline when involved in highly classified projects. Surely, the political embarrassment of making such an horrific and uneducated decision regarding the transport of such important people has been the driver behind making the pilots scapegoats!
b. The Mark 2 Chinook was, at the time of the accident, prohibited from flying in icing conditions. This was quite normal for a helicopter that was just being introduced to service and had only a limited clearance. However, as I recall, the cloudbase around the accident site was approximately 1000 ft and the freezing level was only just above this. Therefore, the crew did not have an option to climb above safety altitude and obey the Release to Service icing limitations existing on their aircraft.
c. The crew were going to be very close to exceeding their duty time by the time they returned to base at the end of the planned sorties. This would have made them reluctant to deviate from the planned track and thus extend the flight time.
d. A crew under pressure is more likely to make mistakes than one that is not (providing the task is not so mundane as to put them in a state of underarousal). The above points, b and c especially, would have put the crew under considerable pressure, as would their known fears concerning the relatively common FADEC runaways.
e. A Mark 1 Chinook was available for the mission. This had a clearance for flight in icing conditions and did not suffer from engine control problems. Therefore, the use of a Mark 1 would have reduced the pressure on the crew significantly.
The fact that the charge of gross negligence against the pilots was first made by a senior officer who was well up the command chain and not the actual Board of Inquiry has been reported in the public domain before. The fact that to justify a verdict of gross negligence requires there must be NO doubt at all has also been reported. Perhaps my memory has been influenced by the sadness and anger within me at the political injustice that has been perpetrated against two highly professional pilots who were trying to carry out what I consider to be a poorly planned mission in adverse conditions. But I hope that that my views may lead to the long overdue justice that the pilots deserve and that their families are owed.
Quite right!
There was very little support from anyone in the House yesterday for Hoon's statement. His statement continued to show that there was insuffcient evidence to make the verdict of gross negligence sustainable; he still cannot show that there was 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'......
The Shadow Defence Spokesman neatly summarised the flaws in Hoon's argument; however, Hoon did seem to concede that a Judicial Review was one possibility for the way ahead. But should such a review proceed and were it to find against Hoon's statement, would the government still cling to its position? Or would it have to fall in line?
There was very little support from anyone in the House yesterday for Hoon's statement. His statement continued to show that there was insuffcient evidence to make the verdict of gross negligence sustainable; he still cannot show that there was 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'......
The Shadow Defence Spokesman neatly summarised the flaws in Hoon's argument; however, Hoon did seem to concede that a Judicial Review was one possibility for the way ahead. But should such a review proceed and were it to find against Hoon's statement, would the government still cling to its position? Or would it have to fall in line?
Last edited by BEagle; 23rd Jul 2002 at 07:07.
Lomcevak:
The points you raise are very good, particluarly those regarding FADEC and flight in icing. However, what more did you expect from Hoon and the whole Blair crowd? There really is little evidence of backbone from any of them and while the C in C who found the pilots negligent is still alive, I dont believe the government will change its mind.
I suspect, although I dont know, that the guys flying made a mistake. Who hasn't, especially under pressure. But the point is, I cannot put my hand on my heart and state that as a fact. Therefore, it is unjust to find them negligent and in this respect the C in C involved was wholly wrong to over-ride the B of I with his finding.
The points you raise are very good, particluarly those regarding FADEC and flight in icing. However, what more did you expect from Hoon and the whole Blair crowd? There really is little evidence of backbone from any of them and while the C in C who found the pilots negligent is still alive, I dont believe the government will change its mind.
I suspect, although I dont know, that the guys flying made a mistake. Who hasn't, especially under pressure. But the point is, I cannot put my hand on my heart and state that as a fact. Therefore, it is unjust to find them negligent and in this respect the C in C involved was wholly wrong to over-ride the B of I with his finding.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxburner
Look at http://www.lcd.gov.uk/civil/procrule...s/prot_jrv.htm for details of judical review and guidance for applicants
Look at http://www.lcd.gov.uk/civil/procrule...s/prot_jrv.htm for details of judical review and guidance for applicants
Just a numbered other
Astounding!
I haven't trawled through all of the document yet, and my recording of the late running debate turned up a lot about foot and mouth, but not much of the Hoon laugh in.
If it is true that the MOD said:
"No investigation into a serious accident can ever answer every question with cast-iron certainty".
Then they are once again admitting that they have failed to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that this tragedy was caused by pilot negligence.
That extremely high burden of proof was required expressly to protect dead pilots from whitewashes like this one. That it is damned hard to attain was deliberate. You have to be damned certain before you stain the characters of dead aircrew.
The HoL select committee grasped this fundamental and found the Air Marshalls lacking. Dark forces are at work, and they must be attacked 'gloves off'.
I say again:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Ark. So @!&*ing angry my keyboard is suffering
I haven't trawled through all of the document yet, and my recording of the late running debate turned up a lot about foot and mouth, but not much of the Hoon laugh in.
If it is true that the MOD said:
"No investigation into a serious accident can ever answer every question with cast-iron certainty".
Then they are once again admitting that they have failed to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that this tragedy was caused by pilot negligence.
That extremely high burden of proof was required expressly to protect dead pilots from whitewashes like this one. That it is damned hard to attain was deliberate. You have to be damned certain before you stain the characters of dead aircrew.
The HoL select committee grasped this fundamental and found the Air Marshalls lacking. Dark forces are at work, and they must be attacked 'gloves off'.
I say again:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found.
Ark. So @!&*ing angry my keyboard is suffering
slj,
Thanks for the link on judicial enquiries.
From this I see that a:
"Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest in a decision or action by a public body to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of:
an enactment; or
a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function"
So a judge will review the evidence and make a judgement.
The HoL Select Committee, comprising a majority of judges, reviewed the evidence and made a judgement which the MoD reject.
Yes I can now see the clear difference between the two procedures
Thanks for the link on judicial enquiries.
From this I see that a:
"Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest in a decision or action by a public body to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of:
an enactment; or
a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function"
So a judge will review the evidence and make a judgement.
The HoL Select Committee, comprising a majority of judges, reviewed the evidence and made a judgement which the MoD reject.
Yes I can now see the clear difference between the two procedures
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judicial Review
Obviously the opinion of a reputable QC would be helpful, but I suspct Hoon offers Judicial Review (JR) as a way forward as he knows it is a complete non-starter from our side.
Any Judge would be bound by the Wednesbury 'Unreasonableness' principle in JR proceedings, which basically means the judge could only overturn an administrative decision by the Govt (such as the Reviewing Officers' Bof I finding) if we could show that no reasonable person could have made that decision. In practice this is a very difficult thing to do, and in laymans terms, we would have to prove positively that only a complete imbecile smacked out of his face on narcotics could have made the decision complained of.
However wrong Day and Wratten have been, it is almost impossible to show that their finding is 'unreasonable' to the extent required by Wednesbury and the JR procedure.
I suspect the only way out now is if both Houses recognise this for what it is - a test of the accountability of the executive to Parliament. AFAIK, Parliament in our democracy is supposed to be sovereign, and if both Houses were to reject the MoD's response, we could take it that reputations were restored.
Any Judge would be bound by the Wednesbury 'Unreasonableness' principle in JR proceedings, which basically means the judge could only overturn an administrative decision by the Govt (such as the Reviewing Officers' Bof I finding) if we could show that no reasonable person could have made that decision. In practice this is a very difficult thing to do, and in laymans terms, we would have to prove positively that only a complete imbecile smacked out of his face on narcotics could have made the decision complained of.
However wrong Day and Wratten have been, it is almost impossible to show that their finding is 'unreasonable' to the extent required by Wednesbury and the JR procedure.
I suspect the only way out now is if both Houses recognise this for what it is - a test of the accountability of the executive to Parliament. AFAIK, Parliament in our democracy is supposed to be sovereign, and if both Houses were to reject the MoD's response, we could take it that reputations were restored.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misterp
you have a good handle on the wednesbury unreasonableness aspect of JR but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of JR. The purpose of JR is not to only examine the decision itself but how the decision was reached. minor point but exceptionally important.
one of the principles most sacred amongst lawyers and the judiciary is that justice must not only be done but must also be perceived to have been done. perception is almost more important than actual justice.
secondly, this finding of gross negligence is equivalent to manslaughter and the satisfaction of the burden of proof has received much commentary. This raises the question of whether the pilots received a fair trial - a human right guaranteed by Art 6 (1) of the human rights act. As there will be human rights issues the principle of wednesbury unreasonableness is restricted so that it is almost irrelevant, it also has the effect of shifting the onus from the complainant to prove the decision was unreasonable to the defendant to prove that it was not.
thirdly, in my opinion it could be demonstrated that the MoD fettered their discretion (individually capable of JR) when dealing with this case. The MoD has refused to accept the findings of a fatal accident inquiry, public accounts committee inquiry and the house of lords select committee. I dont think it would be too difficult to argue that the MoD's collective mind remained closed and refused to examine the case on its legal merits.
few points just off the top of my head from a tin-pot ex lawyer. just imagine what a suitably eminent QC would make of it. i suggest Mrs Cherie Bliar QC, quite good apparently - husband a bit of a gutless no-mark...
things arent so black just yet.
i say again - i for one would gladly contribute to a trust for the families to continue this fight.
you have a good handle on the wednesbury unreasonableness aspect of JR but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of JR. The purpose of JR is not to only examine the decision itself but how the decision was reached. minor point but exceptionally important.
one of the principles most sacred amongst lawyers and the judiciary is that justice must not only be done but must also be perceived to have been done. perception is almost more important than actual justice.
secondly, this finding of gross negligence is equivalent to manslaughter and the satisfaction of the burden of proof has received much commentary. This raises the question of whether the pilots received a fair trial - a human right guaranteed by Art 6 (1) of the human rights act. As there will be human rights issues the principle of wednesbury unreasonableness is restricted so that it is almost irrelevant, it also has the effect of shifting the onus from the complainant to prove the decision was unreasonable to the defendant to prove that it was not.
thirdly, in my opinion it could be demonstrated that the MoD fettered their discretion (individually capable of JR) when dealing with this case. The MoD has refused to accept the findings of a fatal accident inquiry, public accounts committee inquiry and the house of lords select committee. I dont think it would be too difficult to argue that the MoD's collective mind remained closed and refused to examine the case on its legal merits.
few points just off the top of my head from a tin-pot ex lawyer. just imagine what a suitably eminent QC would make of it. i suggest Mrs Cherie Bliar QC, quite good apparently - husband a bit of a gutless no-mark...
things arent so black just yet.
i say again - i for one would gladly contribute to a trust for the families to continue this fight.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Peter
Cherie Booth (Mrs Blair) or one of her colleagues at Matrix Chambers http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/frames/frame.html would be a good choice as the practice specialises in human rights, judicial review and that sort of stuff.
Cherie Booth (Mrs Blair) or one of her colleagues at Matrix Chambers http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/frames/frame.html would be a good choice as the practice specialises in human rights, judicial review and that sort of stuff.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone.
Well, I hate to be the one to say "I told you so".
Interesting how it wasn't Minister Hoon who had the bottle to initially break the news formally. That honour fell to a good old Junior Minister. The cynic in me notes that the Junior Minister was also a Lord. ??Subliminal message.
We all know this is a disgusting decision, left (despite several assurances from Mr Hoon) until the very last minute before recess so that he would not have to face the full heat of the response.
I'm currently studying the Government response so will refrain from an in-depth reply at the moment. I promise I won't take six months to reply though!
Interesting slant on the negligence angle though - "Negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident".
What about - "Government Departments can operate either alone or in conjunction with Senior Officers and weak Ministers to avoid responsibility for an accident"
Just my slant on things
I would encourage everyone to write again to your MPs to express your disgust at the latest statement. Whilst I appreciate that they are soon off on their hols, your letter will be waiting for them upon their return and they will be reminded of this injustice. Ask that they write to Minister Hoon to clarify why this decision has been made. Also get them to ask for the full details of the Boeing simulation as Minister Hoon said that he would make everything available. Hoon will find a rather large post bag waiting for him, which he will promptly pass on to the MoD.
The campaign continues, and everyone has a lot of writing to do!
Rest assured I, and my friends in the Campaign Group are in no hurry to go anywhere. There is a strategy meeting planned and I will keep you all informed of the developments. Rest assured, the gloves have been removed.
Please try, wherever possible, to keep this injustice in the public eye.
To those still serving and flying I would say this: Be sure that the aircraft you are going to fly is fully serviceable. No matter how small the snag, consider using another aircraft. Should that tiny little snag cause loss or damage to the aircraft (or heaven forbid anything worse), how can you be sure that you will not be held to account? Protect yourself. It is clear that there are only a few who are indispensable.
I was also pleased to note that the BBC website covering this story places the campaign web site higher than that of the House of Commons and the Ministry of Defence. Coincidence? Nah!
Jon, Rick and their families need us all now more than ever.
Keep up the good work everyone!
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Well, I hate to be the one to say "I told you so".
Interesting how it wasn't Minister Hoon who had the bottle to initially break the news formally. That honour fell to a good old Junior Minister. The cynic in me notes that the Junior Minister was also a Lord. ??Subliminal message.
We all know this is a disgusting decision, left (despite several assurances from Mr Hoon) until the very last minute before recess so that he would not have to face the full heat of the response.
I'm currently studying the Government response so will refrain from an in-depth reply at the moment. I promise I won't take six months to reply though!
Interesting slant on the negligence angle though - "Negligence can operate either alone or in conjunction with other factors to cause an accident".
What about - "Government Departments can operate either alone or in conjunction with Senior Officers and weak Ministers to avoid responsibility for an accident"
Just my slant on things
I would encourage everyone to write again to your MPs to express your disgust at the latest statement. Whilst I appreciate that they are soon off on their hols, your letter will be waiting for them upon their return and they will be reminded of this injustice. Ask that they write to Minister Hoon to clarify why this decision has been made. Also get them to ask for the full details of the Boeing simulation as Minister Hoon said that he would make everything available. Hoon will find a rather large post bag waiting for him, which he will promptly pass on to the MoD.
The campaign continues, and everyone has a lot of writing to do!
Rest assured I, and my friends in the Campaign Group are in no hurry to go anywhere. There is a strategy meeting planned and I will keep you all informed of the developments. Rest assured, the gloves have been removed.
Please try, wherever possible, to keep this injustice in the public eye.
To those still serving and flying I would say this: Be sure that the aircraft you are going to fly is fully serviceable. No matter how small the snag, consider using another aircraft. Should that tiny little snag cause loss or damage to the aircraft (or heaven forbid anything worse), how can you be sure that you will not be held to account? Protect yourself. It is clear that there are only a few who are indispensable.
I was also pleased to note that the BBC website covering this story places the campaign web site higher than that of the House of Commons and the Ministry of Defence. Coincidence? Nah!
Jon, Rick and their families need us all now more than ever.
Keep up the good work everyone!
My regards, as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: France
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to register my sorrow yet again over this latest cowardly statement. yes WHERE was the minister at the time of this cop out - probably discussing which particular Marine officer's reputation they will sacrifice for a now habitual cover up for use of faulty MOD equipment - ie: the SA 80 rifle - anyone notice a similarity here? No not a poorly selected rifle - just a whole army of poorly trained marines - no not a faulty piece of chinook hardware assessed by inadequate nameless ones just 2 fine well trained pilots to the sacrifice!!!!
I rest my case - but please tell me what we can do next to help the families who deserve some peace .
I rest my case - but please tell me what we can do next to help the families who deserve some peace .
Guest
Posts: n/a
My anger spilled over into a letter to my MP tonight and I had to re-write it. Much better tempered now but I have put it plainly that this injustice must NOT be allowed to continue, and am seeking his help in any way he sees fit. He is a good man so maybe................who knows.
It is truly disgusting that Hoon has behaved so badly. And what happened to the simulator evidence he sought - to help him reach a decision? Is there no depth to which the MoD and Hoon will sink?
It is truly disgusting that Hoon has behaved so badly. And what happened to the simulator evidence he sought - to help him reach a decision? Is there no depth to which the MoD and Hoon will sink?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To inject a little levity it may be that the MCC could recruit some "Wizards of Spin", not from the traditional County teams, but from MoD where they all seem to be plying their mystical art
On a more serious note it would appear that the UK's misguided Secretary of State for Defence is closely related in abilities to New Zealand's pathetic excuse for a Minister of Defence, aptly titled the Misnomer of Defence
On a more serious note it would appear that the UK's misguided Secretary of State for Defence is closely related in abilities to New Zealand's pathetic excuse for a Minister of Defence, aptly titled the Misnomer of Defence
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Early Day Motion continues to pick up names - another four since the announcement, making 160.
Thanks to:
John Burnett
Peter Ainsworth
Edward Garnier
Cheryl Gillan
Out of the current 1997 open EDM's, ours is number 54. We only need another four names to make the Top 50! This is outstanding - keep up the good work.
If you want to check whether your MP has signed, check here
If your MP hasn't signed yet, you can easily email them via the Parliament website using this link
If you don't know who your MP is, they are listed by constituency here
Thanks to everyone who has helped with this - as of this week the battle is now firmly established in parliament, and the EDM is one of our best weapons.
Also, don't forget the petiton on the campaign website is still open - I've got another forty or so names to add this week (are you listening Mr Hoon?), bringing it almost to 500 names! Access it via the website, or just email your name to [email protected]
Thanks to:
John Burnett
Peter Ainsworth
Edward Garnier
Cheryl Gillan
Out of the current 1997 open EDM's, ours is number 54. We only need another four names to make the Top 50! This is outstanding - keep up the good work.
If you want to check whether your MP has signed, check here
If your MP hasn't signed yet, you can easily email them via the Parliament website using this link
If you don't know who your MP is, they are listed by constituency here
Thanks to everyone who has helped with this - as of this week the battle is now firmly established in parliament, and the EDM is one of our best weapons.
Also, don't forget the petiton on the campaign website is still open - I've got another forty or so names to add this week (are you listening Mr Hoon?), bringing it almost to 500 names! Access it via the website, or just email your name to [email protected]