Battlefield not beyond the courtroom.
Ralph,
I think you're missing the point a bit. It isn't about spending priorities. It is about the Government saying things are OK when they know damn well they aren't, which is illegal.
The point being that, whilst the public may wish to build 3,000 cottage hospitals and have troops armed only with a toothpick, everybody is clear just how capable the toothpick is. In a democracy, this means that Parliament may decide against a Government deployment of the Army to Hades with said toothpicks, and the public may vote out Government for suggesting it and/or Parliament for agreeing to it.
p.s. It also means the troops are clear on what they've got to the job with, and can thus make an informed opinion on whether they wish to remain in the Armed Forces....at which point the public might decide that the one suicidal idiot left, with a toothpick, is insufficient 'Armed Forces' to allow themselves to get to sleep at night.
I think you're missing the point a bit. It isn't about spending priorities. It is about the Government saying things are OK when they know damn well they aren't, which is illegal.
The point being that, whilst the public may wish to build 3,000 cottage hospitals and have troops armed only with a toothpick, everybody is clear just how capable the toothpick is. In a democracy, this means that Parliament may decide against a Government deployment of the Army to Hades with said toothpicks, and the public may vote out Government for suggesting it and/or Parliament for agreeing to it.
p.s. It also means the troops are clear on what they've got to the job with, and can thus make an informed opinion on whether they wish to remain in the Armed Forces....at which point the public might decide that the one suicidal idiot left, with a toothpick, is insufficient 'Armed Forces' to allow themselves to get to sleep at night.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 20th Jun 2013 at 19:59.
ROLAND PULFREW.
Pr00ne here on cue....
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the battlefield should be beyond a court of law. Ever since 1987 the Government has had a duty of care toward its MoD staff, this was decreed by Parliament and what we are seeing in respect of the WIMIK snatch vehicles is as a consequence of that action.
As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up. The Government provides the Ministry of Defence with the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, and on top of that the operational costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan are met from the Government contingency reserves, this alone has cost many billiuons of pounds in UORs alone.
That Government duty of care is exercised through actions and offices of the senior officers and civil servants of the MoD, and as we all know the MoD is NOT largely staffed and run by civil servants, it is run by the Top Level Budget Holders who are very senior uniformed officers of all three services.
They have a complex and multi layered uniformed command structure that stretches all the way down to the platoon level actions in the field in Afghanistan or wherever they are asked to serve.
All that has happened in the recent case is that a group of relatives have been given leave to sue the MoD. They will have to prove their case, and the MoD will have to fight its case.
Let me give you just one totally hypothetical case, a wholly unrealistic case but the sort of thing that the law, ALL laws, are there to prevent.
Let us assume that there is a Company or Platoon level engagement in Afghanistan, and that YOUR son is a Private in that Platoon. During the engagement there is a fortified and well defended position that is causing this hypothetical Platoon a real problem. It has to be taken out. The Company or Platoon Commander, for whatever reason, decides not to use the Javelin fire team on his right and instead orders a frontal assault by the section on his left, a ludicrous order resulting in a suicidal action but one that if it is disobeyed could result in a charge of disobeying a direct order in the face of the enemy.
The frontal assault goes in, it is unsuccessful and the section is wiped out. The Commander then orders a Javelin strike, and the position is neutralised.
Wouldn't YOU want to be able to query the actions of that Unit Commander? Wouldn't YOU want the death of your son to be the subject of a trial in a public court where individuals can be held to account for their actions and their consequences?
THAT is why the battlefield should never be beyond the court room.
Pr00ne here on cue....
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the battlefield should be beyond a court of law. Ever since 1987 the Government has had a duty of care toward its MoD staff, this was decreed by Parliament and what we are seeing in respect of the WIMIK snatch vehicles is as a consequence of that action.
As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up. The Government provides the Ministry of Defence with the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, and on top of that the operational costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan are met from the Government contingency reserves, this alone has cost many billiuons of pounds in UORs alone.
That Government duty of care is exercised through actions and offices of the senior officers and civil servants of the MoD, and as we all know the MoD is NOT largely staffed and run by civil servants, it is run by the Top Level Budget Holders who are very senior uniformed officers of all three services.
They have a complex and multi layered uniformed command structure that stretches all the way down to the platoon level actions in the field in Afghanistan or wherever they are asked to serve.
All that has happened in the recent case is that a group of relatives have been given leave to sue the MoD. They will have to prove their case, and the MoD will have to fight its case.
Let me give you just one totally hypothetical case, a wholly unrealistic case but the sort of thing that the law, ALL laws, are there to prevent.
Let us assume that there is a Company or Platoon level engagement in Afghanistan, and that YOUR son is a Private in that Platoon. During the engagement there is a fortified and well defended position that is causing this hypothetical Platoon a real problem. It has to be taken out. The Company or Platoon Commander, for whatever reason, decides not to use the Javelin fire team on his right and instead orders a frontal assault by the section on his left, a ludicrous order resulting in a suicidal action but one that if it is disobeyed could result in a charge of disobeying a direct order in the face of the enemy.
The frontal assault goes in, it is unsuccessful and the section is wiped out. The Commander then orders a Javelin strike, and the position is neutralised.
Wouldn't YOU want to be able to query the actions of that Unit Commander? Wouldn't YOU want the death of your son to be the subject of a trial in a public court where individuals can be held to account for their actions and their consequences?
THAT is why the battlefield should never be beyond the court room.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Some of us may think that more deserving targets are the self serving politicians who cry crocodile tears and, with no shame, announce the names of dead young men and women, in the house of commons, almost every day.
The politicians hang their heads and put on a solemn expression, but the sad thing is these kids didn't die to protect our historical freedoms. They died because of stupid, flawed and possibly criminal decisions made by donkeys who we elected to parliament.
To all bereaved families please understand that nothing I have said detracts one iota from the bravery and heroism of your loved one (s).
Rgds SOS
The politicians hang their heads and put on a solemn expression, but the sad thing is these kids didn't die to protect our historical freedoms. They died because of stupid, flawed and possibly criminal decisions made by donkeys who we elected to parliament.
To all bereaved families please understand that nothing I have said detracts one iota from the bravery and heroism of your loved one (s).
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 21st Jun 2013 at 08:30.
As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up.
Gordon Brown admits mistake over defence spending claim | Politics | guardian.co.uk
..and it's got to be pretty bad before the Grauniad prints evidence about Labour defence spending (hint: The Grauniad doesn't even have a defence section)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe that many of you, clearly intelligent chaps, think that this is a clever move. You really believe that the inevitable witch hunt will ascend the food chain as far as the guilty party? No it bloody won't. It will start and probably end at the poor bugger at the sharp end desperately trying to prove that he (or just maybe she) was a victim of the system.
Operational planning includes deciding what assets, in what quantity are needed for the task. All very well in the ideal world but in the real world it's usually planning around what assets are actually available. That is an invitation for two eventualities;
a. the task's binned to the detriment of the overall objective/campaign.
b. the task is undertaken at the risk of losing life and limb of those actually undertaking it.
Unless the risk is clearly suicidal, option b has tended to be the British tradition. For how long now, though? I can't see the blame ascending very far up the food chain. The blunties who didn't provide the right kit will probably be well insulated from the blame trail. I can say that from some experience. Many years ago, I had a frank and open exchange of views with a certain Portsmouth DD's XO. They'd lost a number of Liferafts in some inclement WX and were SPC 1 demanding replacements. Liferafts are serviced and packed to a very planned and tight programme and there was (probably still is) rarely packed units ready sitting on a pallet. As it happened, the last of that week's Sea Survival Equipment Test Centre's (Portsmouth, the one and only) production was already on the Trunker magic roundabout wagon to Devonport for a certain FF's post Upkeep sea trials. He wasn't happy that the lads in SSETC couldn't magic up some serviceable Rafts within 24 hours and I wasn't going to authorise the Trunker being intercepted for the needed Rafts to be liberated for his use. In measured tones, he warned me that if there was an incident and lives were lost for lack of Rafts, I wouldbe held responsible. My reply was that I would be directlyresponsible for his CAT A OPDEF but it would be the Ship's responsibility if tasking continued with a known material deficiency.
I can hear the sharp intakes of breath now, but that's one of the unpleasant realities of the Support Chain. I was limited by my budget. SSETC wasn't my asset and they were limited by their budget. I'm sure the point I'm making won't be lost
Operational planning includes deciding what assets, in what quantity are needed for the task. All very well in the ideal world but in the real world it's usually planning around what assets are actually available. That is an invitation for two eventualities;
a. the task's binned to the detriment of the overall objective/campaign.
b. the task is undertaken at the risk of losing life and limb of those actually undertaking it.
Unless the risk is clearly suicidal, option b has tended to be the British tradition. For how long now, though? I can't see the blame ascending very far up the food chain. The blunties who didn't provide the right kit will probably be well insulated from the blame trail. I can say that from some experience. Many years ago, I had a frank and open exchange of views with a certain Portsmouth DD's XO. They'd lost a number of Liferafts in some inclement WX and were SPC 1 demanding replacements. Liferafts are serviced and packed to a very planned and tight programme and there was (probably still is) rarely packed units ready sitting on a pallet. As it happened, the last of that week's Sea Survival Equipment Test Centre's (Portsmouth, the one and only) production was already on the Trunker magic roundabout wagon to Devonport for a certain FF's post Upkeep sea trials. He wasn't happy that the lads in SSETC couldn't magic up some serviceable Rafts within 24 hours and I wasn't going to authorise the Trunker being intercepted for the needed Rafts to be liberated for his use. In measured tones, he warned me that if there was an incident and lives were lost for lack of Rafts, I wouldbe held responsible. My reply was that I would be directlyresponsible for his CAT A OPDEF but it would be the Ship's responsibility if tasking continued with a known material deficiency.
I can hear the sharp intakes of breath now, but that's one of the unpleasant realities of the Support Chain. I was limited by my budget. SSETC wasn't my asset and they were limited by their budget. I'm sure the point I'm making won't be lost
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 21st Jun 2013 at 02:08. Reason: Bloody Microsoft!
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
I wonder whether those who go to court will bring up
information like this when they say they were told
"no money was available".
"One civil servant received £60,000 on top of a bumper salary. Payments of £48,720, £36,541 and £35,729 were banked by other unnamed bureaucrats. The basic salary of an Army new recruit risking life and limb on the front line is about £17,265.
Critics yesterday said the bonuses were ‘insensitive’ when military resources were being pared back and pay rises for personnel are being capped at 1 per cent for two years.
information like this when they say they were told
"no money was available".
"One civil servant received £60,000 on top of a bumper salary. Payments of £48,720, £36,541 and £35,729 were banked by other unnamed bureaucrats. The basic salary of an Army new recruit risking life and limb on the front line is about £17,265.
Critics yesterday said the bonuses were ‘insensitive’ when military resources were being pared back and pay rises for personnel are being capped at 1 per cent for two years.
Last edited by 500N; 21st Jun 2013 at 15:14.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief!!!
This started with the Government not providing the right equipment and already we're down to the individual actions of a Platoon Commander in the face of the enemy!!
Pr00ne
No law would prevent the ludicrous decision in your hypothetical case.
Just suppose MY son was part of the enemy 'neutralised' by your Javelin strike; should I have access to that same court room?
This started with the Government not providing the right equipment and already we're down to the individual actions of a Platoon Commander in the face of the enemy!!
Pr00ne
...the sort of thing that the law, ALL laws, are there to prevent
Just suppose MY son was part of the enemy 'neutralised' by your Javelin strike; should I have access to that same court room?
pRoone - not sure of your mil background but I certainly don't think you've used a realistic example to demonstrate your point. Any British Army commander who acted in that way (and in doing so would have been STRONGLY advised otherwise by his 2ic, JNCOs and even raw squaddies) would have to answer to his commander in the field. That may then lead to further sanctions using the military courts martial process - devised especially for military use. While the mil system is not perfect and can be improved, having it replaced by a (much?) delayed civil court action is entirely the wrong course of action in my opinion. As a former serving SNCO and officer, those were the arrangements I signed up to (via the Oath) and agreed with throughout my 22 years. Command decisions must absolutely be considered and under advice (SNCO, JNCOs etc) - not based on the commander's knowledge (or lack of it) in regard to civil legalese. There is however a place for the civil action in regard to procurement and actions by MoD staff not subject to military discipline.
Command decisions must absolutely be considered and under advice (SNCO, JNCOs etc) - not based on the commander's knowledge (or lack of it) in regard to civil legalese. There is however a place for the civil action in regard to procurement and actions by MoD staff not subject to military discipline.
I thought “Good post”, but it worried me slightly.
As an aircraft engineer, the analogy I draw is airworthiness and fitness for purpose. The former is achieved first; attaining and maintaining it are governed by mandated regulations which Military and Civilians alike are bound by.
The latter is an operational issue. This is what I believe you are talking about when discussing “command decisions” (in the field). To be “fit for purpose” often requires an enhancement from the airworthy standard. This has been ignored for more than two decades now, and is more often viewed as accepting a lesser standard. That is, savings at the expense of safety. (ESF in Hercules being the best known example).
My own view is that operational decisions must be taken out of the equation as far as civil legal action is concerned. In this case (Snatch) the failure and legal liability (in my opinion) rests with those who misled Ministers, by omission and commission. To mislead in this way denies the opportunity to make an informed decision. I do not know if they were civilian or military. Probably both. I know for a fact it was well known in MoD that the statement Snatch was fit for purpose was absolutely false. Misleading Ministers (withholding the fact that Snatch had been declared unfit for purpose in a more benign theatre (NI) and did not mitigate the risk exposed by any threat or vulnerability assessment for Iraq) is both a breach of Military law and the Civil Service Code.
Up to that point, one could excuse Ministers, as none are selected for having any knowledge of their Department. But this changes as soon as the facts are made known to them. If the facts had been conveyed to VSOs and Ministers, and the decision taken to proceed at risk, then that would be recorded and most would accept it; as long as mitigation action was put in hand at the same time. (The law talks of “reasonable period” and anyone versed in airworthiness is intimately familiar with their obligations). The point here is the mitigation was in hand, and then cancelled; and this has been concealed.
Were Commanders in the field informed of the above? Most of them, almost certainly not. From my purely civilian perspective, even if a Platoon or Company Commander had known Snatch had been condemned, I would not blame him in any way for ordering his guys to use it, because nothing else had been provided. From that same perspective, and having spoken at length to such people immediately prior to deployment (in an official capacity, trying to get them the kit they wanted and needed, not what had been endorsed), I know they were desperately looking forward to the Snatch replacement arriving at the scheduled ISD (commencing 2003), but in the supposedly brief interim accepted the need to go with what they had. Years later the odd vehicle was being delivered, spun by Ministers as a positive reaction to emerging requirements. This completely ignored the fact others had been proactive and thwarted by the orders to save money while undergoing Transition to War.
A complex procurement and operational issue, made simple in a legal sense by the one constant. MoD lied.
Wouldn't YOU want to be able to query the actions of that Unit Commander? Wouldn't YOU want the death of your son to be the subject of a trial in a public court where individuals can be held to account for their actions and their consequences?
THAT is why the battlefield should never be beyond the court room.
THAT is why the battlefield should never be beyond the court room.
As has already been pointed out, your hypothetical example is highly unlikely to happen, but if it did I would hope that the platoon commander had good reason for his decision, supported and backed up by his NCOs. A court of law, staffed by a bunch of people who have no concept of what it was like or what led to that decision are not the people to judge whether something was lawful or not; they cannot and will never understand. It's war; s**t happens. For a commander to constantly have to second guess what some ambulance chasing lawyer will create in court after the event is wrong. It will reduce commanders' flexibility and it will lead to more risk aversion; something that is already becoming prevalent in the Armed Forces. Sadly if you don't take risks we become ineffective; if you become ineffective you will lose.
That is why the battlefield should be beyond the courtroom (and it's not and arguably never has been, because using your example, there would be a military enquiry anyway).
I am not convinced that Ministers are 'misled'. Over the last 30 years, we have a generation of Ministers who generally don't want to hear anything but the words 'Yes, Minister'. In order to ensure this happens, they surround themselves with Special Advisors, whose jobs directly depend on the Ministers liking them. The SpAds then ensure that the civil servants, VSOs, etc only tell them things which can be weaseled into a form that allows the words 'Yes, Minister' to be used.
You have to sack the guy at the top, because s/he is the only one with the authority to ensure they are being told the truth.
You have to sack the guy at the top, because s/he is the only one with the authority to ensure they are being told the truth.
As to Blair and Brown being somehow responsible for the deaths of these individuals, I simply do not see how that stacks up. The Government provides the Ministry of Defence with the 4th largest defence budget on the planet, and on top of that the operational costs of both Iraq and Afghanistan are met from the Government contingency reserves, this alone has cost many billiuons of pounds in UORs alone.
One thing is for sure, everyone, no matter how thoughtful or thoughtless, makes their own case according to their politics. This 4th largest defence budget argument has been dragged out every time "defence capability" is questioned. But assets and personnel tell completely different story. I'm certain that while treasury reserves met the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan that cost was being off set elsewhere and largely at the expense of other assets. Armoured units, Fast Jet Squadrons, airbases indeed the now much in demand and therefore in vogue, infantry battalions. We've lost the the Navy's through deck cruisers now as well. This government wants to squeeze the last few actual fixed-wing air combat squadrons onto three air bases and can only afford 48 out of the original 138 F35Bs. The number of T45 Destroyers originally ordered under Blair and Brown have been cut significantly and the only reason we're cracking on with the two new carriers is because it's the least worst option financially. I wouldn't argue that we have the fourth largest bag of money for our Defence Ministry, but just what the hell do they fritter it all away on?
FB
A quick PS. I was reading that the albeit largest, but under pressure defence budget, that of Uncle Sam, still allows the Navy and Marines, not the principal air arm, to field land based and on carriers;69 Squadrons of F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. Then you start counting all the other fixed-wing air units they deploy including their, and the last of our much credited, Harriers, bought at clearance sale I understand. The U.S.M.C. expect to keep the Harrier going alongside their own F-18s and F-35Bs to 2030. Now can you honestly make, I accept a rough comparison, with the U.K. approximating to a fourth of what all that indicates as a whole of U.S. military capability. Or even a tenth!
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 21st Jun 2013 at 15:19.
in war:
"whatever you do, you lose a lot of men" General Mangin, Great war, translated from the French.
Or the abbreviated form:
"**** happens"
"whatever you do, you lose a lot of men" General Mangin, Great war, translated from the French.
Or the abbreviated form:
"**** happens"
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Langleybaston agreed. I would also add that you should also do your almost to ensure your losses are minimised. Or in abbreviated form you do everything you can to spot the **** rather than stepping in it. I hope the new legal interpretation focuses a few minds and it tempers any cavalier attitudes if they existed.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there is the likes of an office to investigate UFOs for a start! I'm sure there are still other "dead weight" departments/offices around the MoD yet.
I wouldn't argue that we have the fourth largest bag of money for our Defence Ministry, but just what the hell do they fritter it all away on?
I still have the minutes of the meeting. The Navy (civvy side, they had a sense of humour as well as having an elderly lady Admin Officer who did the equivalent job for the FAA) had them framed and put on a wall at Yeovilton. 
Crikey chaps,
Respect all round, but even I have to accept Pr00ne's arguments. However, to my thinking, just like the "yes men" of the NHS who we are currently witnessing going through their wriggling and obfuscation to remain in their posts, the question needs to be answered. If the equipment supplied by the government is not adequate for the task, then surely, commanders have a duty of care to highlight this and make their opinion public (openness being a major fad of this government). As we saw no such representation, by any senior commanders, I suggest that we have to accept that all were content, until after the event. It's no joking matter, it has cost a lot of brave service men's lives. Unfortunately, I for one can't see the political system changing any time soon.
Smudge
Respect all round, but even I have to accept Pr00ne's arguments. However, to my thinking, just like the "yes men" of the NHS who we are currently witnessing going through their wriggling and obfuscation to remain in their posts, the question needs to be answered. If the equipment supplied by the government is not adequate for the task, then surely, commanders have a duty of care to highlight this and make their opinion public (openness being a major fad of this government). As we saw no such representation, by any senior commanders, I suggest that we have to accept that all were content, until after the event. It's no joking matter, it has cost a lot of brave service men's lives. Unfortunately, I for one can't see the political system changing any time soon.
Smudge