Battlefield not beyond the courtroom.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I just clarify something.
A "Snatch" L/R is really just a Land rover with a few extras
but no armoured or blast protection whatsoever ?
A "Snatch" L/R is really just a Land rover with a few extras
but no armoured or blast protection whatsoever ?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could not agree more with you SOSL. Hopefully this legislation will help those with the responsibility and authority to consider fully what they are asking our people to do and with what. In extremis, there will always be the ops which demand truly exceptional risk due to equipment availability/capability limits but these should not be accepted as the norm. It takes courage and leadership to say we can't do it.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While agreeing the snatch was a deathtrap as I understand it you join the army to fight and there are risks in doing so. This ruling is a joke as you could claim any bit of kit has problems, even claiming the fuel tanks are too small so I ran out of fuel. Where will it end.
Dyson
The point is that MoD admitted it was unfit for purpose, then denied it. Not unlike the Cumbria NHS debacle that is ongoing - a report was commissisoned, then hidden as it was inconveniently accurate. The difference here is that the Health Secy has firmly stated this is not being tolerated in HIS department, yet Hammond is saying it is acceptable in HIS department.
The admission, and the endorsement of a replacement in the 90s, meant MoD met (up to that point) their obligation and were being seen to do something.
The claim, by MoD and Ministers, that Snatch was fit for purpose clearly contradicted the above. At that point, MoD's behaviour crossed the line into illegality.
I don't doubt that someone involved in the Ministerial briefing wasn't aware of the replacement programme; but many were, at all levels of the MoD. Who among them spoke up? The politicians were lied to and misled; but convention dictates they and their staffs speak with one voice. I don't see Blair and Brown (and Ainsworth, Ingram etc) calling for the heads of those who lied to them.
I make no claim as to Snatch's fitness for purpose. I'm simply stating verifiable fact.
The point is that MoD admitted it was unfit for purpose, then denied it. Not unlike the Cumbria NHS debacle that is ongoing - a report was commissisoned, then hidden as it was inconveniently accurate. The difference here is that the Health Secy has firmly stated this is not being tolerated in HIS department, yet Hammond is saying it is acceptable in HIS department.
The admission, and the endorsement of a replacement in the 90s, meant MoD met (up to that point) their obligation and were being seen to do something.
The claim, by MoD and Ministers, that Snatch was fit for purpose clearly contradicted the above. At that point, MoD's behaviour crossed the line into illegality.
I don't doubt that someone involved in the Ministerial briefing wasn't aware of the replacement programme; but many were, at all levels of the MoD. Who among them spoke up? The politicians were lied to and misled; but convention dictates they and their staffs speak with one voice. I don't see Blair and Brown (and Ainsworth, Ingram etc) calling for the heads of those who lied to them.
I make no claim as to Snatch's fitness for purpose. I'm simply stating verifiable fact.
I was going to say that naked ladies appeared to have taken over from Trabants (see the OP) but I notice that the Trabbies have returned by 500N's post 21. What is it with PPRune and the L a n d R o ve r?
500N - Yes, you've got it right, that is at the centre of the problem. Not sure about "whatsoever" but certainly insufficient.
500N - Yes, you've got it right, that is at the centre of the problem. Not sure about "whatsoever" but certainly insufficient.
Re SOSL's point about the case in question (using LRs in IED land) now being decided in a court of law and that being the right direction to take, I suspect we will see a hugely expensive out-of-court settlement instead! The MoD has a habit of delaying and then paying in order to prevent any chance of establishing a precedent that will open the floodgates. Would be nice to see the case tested fairly in our courts but, unlike the troops, the MoD mandarins/lawyers never seem to have the bottle.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything that highlight's MoD deficiencies in equipment and training can only be a good thing.
However even if litigation is successful against the MoD does anybody here think anything will change? So they may have to fork out a few Million in damages etc but match that against the cost of say providing more helicopters for troop transport and Damages pail into a very insignificant amount.
In short Crown imunity has been replaced with Crown indifference - But they'll cough up.
However even if litigation is successful against the MoD does anybody here think anything will change? So they may have to fork out a few Million in damages etc but match that against the cost of say providing more helicopters for troop transport and Damages pail into a very insignificant amount.
In short Crown imunity has been replaced with Crown indifference - But they'll cough up.
have any done so so far in all the similar cases against the MoD? - I suspect they would receive strong 'legal' advice to the contrary (depending on the amount offered and percentage to the legal team)...or am I just as cynical as Capt McCynical of Cynical City?
Smujsmith:
me too, but its a position that any commander might be in and no doubt many that post and read here have been in. What did they do? What did they say? If nothing, then little point in throwing stones within the same glass house.
To answer my own question, I know of one person alone that posts on this thread and elsewhere that did and does speak out, not only about snatch vehicles (see what I did there?) but about the biggest scandal that has affected the fighting ability of the RAF for over half its existence. I speak of course about the deliberate and malevolent attack against military airworthiness provision by VSOs and about the subsequent cover up that continues three decades on. The death toll resulting from that betrayal of trust should be added to that caused by the inappropriate use of "trabants" and the culprits named in both cases.
I know it's not a position I would ever like to be in.
To answer my own question, I know of one person alone that posts on this thread and elsewhere that did and does speak out, not only about snatch vehicles (see what I did there?) but about the biggest scandal that has affected the fighting ability of the RAF for over half its existence. I speak of course about the deliberate and malevolent attack against military airworthiness provision by VSOs and about the subsequent cover up that continues three decades on. The death toll resulting from that betrayal of trust should be added to that caused by the inappropriate use of "trabants" and the culprits named in both cases.
Did you also notice how Hammond continually tries to emphasise it is the decision of the Commander on the ground? In the same way his predecessors always wanted to concentrate on the final act when it came to determining liability for aircraft accidents.
Accidents such as these never have a single cause. In this case, as with Chinook, Sea King, Nimrod and the rest, there were a number of preconditions, all known to senior staffs and ignored. Hammond's response yesterday does nothing to address those preconditions, or even the concept of their existence, so no Commander on the ground can be held responsible for preventing recurrence.
It is about time Hammond and those who advise him had a career brief on their brief careers.
Accidents such as these never have a single cause. In this case, as with Chinook, Sea King, Nimrod and the rest, there were a number of preconditions, all known to senior staffs and ignored. Hammond's response yesterday does nothing to address those preconditions, or even the concept of their existence, so no Commander on the ground can be held responsible for preventing recurrence.
It is about time Hammond and those who advise him had a career brief on their brief careers.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Any commander on the ground should only be held responsible for a fukc up if:
a. His chain of command had given him discretion to refuse the task and
b. He had been given the right equipment for the job and
c. He and his people had been properly trained on the kit and the job and
d. He or his people fukced up.
Otherwise the responsibility for the fukc up lies higher in the chain of command.
a. is somewhat unlikely.
b. is very unlikely.
c. is sadly, but increasingly unlikely
d. is only remotely possible.
As I said, I'm no expert. This is my opinion. Look further up the chain of command. At the top there are politicians who have their own motives.
Rgds SOS
a. His chain of command had given him discretion to refuse the task and
b. He had been given the right equipment for the job and
c. He and his people had been properly trained on the kit and the job and
d. He or his people fukced up.
Otherwise the responsibility for the fukc up lies higher in the chain of command.
a. is somewhat unlikely.
b. is very unlikely.
c. is sadly, but increasingly unlikely
d. is only remotely possible.
As I said, I'm no expert. This is my opinion. Look further up the chain of command. At the top there are politicians who have their own motives.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 20th Jun 2013 at 14:44.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOSL,
Please enlighten us roughly as to your background?
Have you commanded troops in an operational (war) environment?
Your thoughts are interesting.....kind of, in a utopian way.
In your educated opinion, should someone who has never commanded troops "on the ground" even spout about this subject?
Please enlighten us roughly as to your background?
Have you commanded troops in an operational (war) environment?
Your thoughts are interesting.....kind of, in a utopian way.
In your educated opinion, should someone who has never commanded troops "on the ground" even spout about this subject?
Last edited by ralphmalph; 20th Jun 2013 at 16:44.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOSL,
To elaborate.
A. Please define the term "order"
B. Subjective, but no soldier is every completely content......the budget des not stretch that far...always. This was very true before GW2.
C. This is only beginning to be implemented.....he many times have soldiers been given kit and told to "get on with it"
D. Subjective......to be proven by inquiry.
To elaborate.
A. Please define the term "order"
B. Subjective, but no soldier is every completely content......the budget des not stretch that far...always. This was very true before GW2.
C. This is only beginning to be implemented.....he many times have soldiers been given kit and told to "get on with it"
D. Subjective......to be proven by inquiry.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
The thing with vehicles is you could argue none are fit for purpose, take the Snatch mentioned and its faults, once withdrawn for an armoured upgraded vehicle, all that needs is a bigger bomb, so you have to up armour which is then answered by a bigger bomb... Where do you stop? They might be fit for purpose on day one, but that fitness reduces as your opposition learn how to take them out... rather like the Tanks in Syria.
I have no wish to open any old wounds but does this mean that past Mod balls ups can be pursued in the courts? I'm thinking of the Nimrod accident in Iraq?
I think you are quite right to ask. And this decision on Snatch MUST be considered together with the news which is consuming the press today - the decision to name those involved in burying a critical health care report. The two are inseparable.
The link is clear. Highly critical reports were similarly buried by MoD, leading directly to the deaths of the Servicemen and civilians in the accidents we discuss here.
Had they not been buried, many of those deaths would have been avoided.
I am uneasy at the double standards presented by the media and politicians. Hammond and his predecessors have spent long years protecting those who covered up the MoD deaths. In a sense, the latter even became the MoD's spokespersons, because their every word to the media was taken up by Defence Ministers and repeated without question - even when their lies had been exposed. (Chinook is the best example). Yet the media still gives them a platform and a legitimacy. Hence, the inconsistent media attitude becomes part of the problem. The unavoidable conclusion is the corporate manslaughter of Servicemen is somehow acceptable.
Just to be absolutely clear about the accidents mentioned above (Nimrod and Hercules). The root causes were identified in detail years beforehand, formal reports commissioned and no action taken. MoD withheld and/or denied the existence of the reports. On another case (Sea King ASaC) they even deny an investigation was carried out in the first place, never mind the resultant report. It is about time this culture changed and if it takes the Snatch case, so be it. But I'll almost guarantee one thing. No press report will point out that it had been condemned in the 90s and a replacement schemed, but cancelled. THAT is the one fact MoD will be desperately trying to play down and is why they are trying to shift focus to the front line commanders.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Get a grip Ralph.
As to your first post above
My background is laid bare in all my previous posts (not on this thread but on all threads I have ever posted on, in PPrune). I was a Royal Air Force officer and now I am happily and comfortably retired.
Yes, I have commanded troops on the ground, "in an operational (war) environment" - about 40 of them out of Salalah, during the Omani civil war in 1974-75, when I was a Fg Off with quite some juniority.
I don't quite understand your use of the word "utopian" in this context.
In my "educated opinion" any PPruner can "spout" about anything posted here. The thread is about a Supreme Court ruling.
As for your second post, above, you don't need me to define the term "order" for you and the rest is nonsense.
However, I get the impression that you and I are violently agreeing with each other.
In my own way, I have been saying that the government, ie the MoD, has wickedly betrayed and let down our fighting men and women over many years, in so many ways.
I am glad that this ruling may, in some small way, open the door to hold them to account, and, in future, force them to think more realistically before committing our brave boys and girls to stupid but politically expedient adventures without the equipment etc that they need to do a professional job.
That's all I have to say - now can we be friends?
Rgds SOS
As to your first post above
My background is laid bare in all my previous posts (not on this thread but on all threads I have ever posted on, in PPrune). I was a Royal Air Force officer and now I am happily and comfortably retired.
Yes, I have commanded troops on the ground, "in an operational (war) environment" - about 40 of them out of Salalah, during the Omani civil war in 1974-75, when I was a Fg Off with quite some juniority.
I don't quite understand your use of the word "utopian" in this context.
In my "educated opinion" any PPruner can "spout" about anything posted here. The thread is about a Supreme Court ruling.
As for your second post, above, you don't need me to define the term "order" for you and the rest is nonsense.
However, I get the impression that you and I are violently agreeing with each other.
In my own way, I have been saying that the government, ie the MoD, has wickedly betrayed and let down our fighting men and women over many years, in so many ways.
I am glad that this ruling may, in some small way, open the door to hold them to account, and, in future, force them to think more realistically before committing our brave boys and girls to stupid but politically expedient adventures without the equipment etc that they need to do a professional job.
That's all I have to say - now can we be friends?
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 20th Jun 2013 at 18:29.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOSL,
I think that the government (of any year) has been abusing soldiers since time and memorial.
However, war is horrible, nasty, and disgusting.....and it doesn't abide by conventions. It's just the ultimate way to expose the fragility of man.
These rules will help us to regulate at a high level....but when It comes down to cutting another mans throat......it's cannot be dressed up as anything else.
As far as the tax payer goes....if it were the choice between a new engine for a Lynx in Afghanistan or a cottage hospital........I know what they would choose!
So really, we can ask for what we like.....but it is not going to happen!
I think that the government (of any year) has been abusing soldiers since time and memorial.
However, war is horrible, nasty, and disgusting.....and it doesn't abide by conventions. It's just the ultimate way to expose the fragility of man.
These rules will help us to regulate at a high level....but when It comes down to cutting another mans throat......it's cannot be dressed up as anything else.
As far as the tax payer goes....if it were the choice between a new engine for a Lynx in Afghanistan or a cottage hospital........I know what they would choose!
So really, we can ask for what we like.....but it is not going to happen!