Battlefield not beyond the courtroom.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
et 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.
Didn't Lt-Col H Jones of 2 Para do something similar at Goose green 31 years ago?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, in fact is there not something in the "rules of war" which prohibit a declaration of war unless there is a reasonable chance of success. I may be way off beam with that but it does kinda stick in my mind from some place; if I'm talking nonsense then please forgive. If it is so them I would argue the same must apply at all op levels. Look, nobody is arguing that this is going to make the forces some kind of risk adverse boy scout movement. Rather it should stop bloody recklessness either through deficient equipment programmes or ego stroking actions. If it were my son or daughter I would rest easier knowing that, yes they are to take risk, but that those risks are truly measured, justified and managed. The people that take the opposite view tend to approach this in absolute terms of all out war; not really representative of where we are at the moment.
Last edited by TomJoad; 21st Jun 2013 at 23:12.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 billions of pounds in UORs alone.
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review, which was never adequately funded.
The deployment of forces far beyond the planning assumptions of the 1998 SDR.
The cutbacks of the post-Iraq invasion Developing Security in a Changing World white paper in 2004.
The further cuts in core capability (e.g. early withdraw of MR2) in December 2009 to fund operations in Afghanistan.
The SofS for Defence prohibiting CDS from liaising with Chief of Defence Logistics to prepare for the Iraq invasion, giving the MOD and industry just 4 months to prepare as opposed to the 6 months indicated by Ex Saif Sareea II. Hence forces entering Iraq without adequate NBC kit and bits of kit turning up 2 months later (i.a.w. the indicated 6 months.
The Treasury limiting the initial Helmand deployment to just 3,150 (later 3,350) personnel and £1.3 billion for a limited three-year campaign - based on no apparent military assessment of the mission.
By no means are Blair and Brown, or even other politicians, alone. But some of these decisions were political and the responsibility went to the top just as some of the responsibility in other ways lies with VSO who failed in their duty - whether by nonfeasance, misfeasance or, in a few cases, malfeasance.
One concern that has been raised about the ruling (in terms of the MOD having a Duty of Care that can be challenged judicially) is that individuals will focus on covering their arse and not taking calculated risks. But is that any different or worse than what we've had up to now: Ministers and VSOs taking uncalculated risks and arse-covering ex post facto through lies, denials and obfuscation?
Last edited by ninja-lewis; 22nd Jun 2013 at 01:13.
is there not something in the "rules of war" which prohibit a declaration of war unless there is a reasonable chance of success.
I remember giving a lecture on the topic, pointing out that this clause was b#llocks and using Thermopylae as one of the examples.
.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 22nd Jun 2013 at 08:13.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are thinking of the 'Just War' doctrine of the Catholic Church, as originally espoused by St Augustine of Hippo, with contributions by Thomas Aquinas and others. The clause is part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I remember giving a lecture on the topic, pointing out that this clause was b#llocks and using Thermopylae as one of the examples.
.
I remember giving a lecture on the topic, pointing out that this clause was b#llocks and using Thermopylae as one of the examples.
.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fox3WheresMyBanana:7902861
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shock, horror;
BBC News - Legal claims 'could paralyse' armed forces
Well nobody saw that one coming.
The totally unexpected response being;
A "sustained legal assault" on British forces could have "catastrophic consequences" for the safety of the nation, an influential right-leaning think tank has warned.
A report for Policy Exchange says legal action may paralyse the armed forces.
It highlights a surge in legal claims against the Ministry of Defence - totalling 5,827 in 2012-13.
A report for Policy Exchange says legal action may paralyse the armed forces.
It highlights a surge in legal claims against the Ministry of Defence - totalling 5,827 in 2012-13.
Well nobody saw that one coming.
The totally unexpected response being;
Martyn Day from the law firm Leigh Day, which has also fought several high profile cases against the MoD, labelled the report "biased".
He said his firm would argue that it is "the breaking of laws which poses the greatest threat to those who risk all for their country.
"This includes not training or equipping soldiers adequately before putting service personnel into a combat zone."
He added: "Greater adherence to the laws, both domestic and international, are the only way in which the MoD's litigation will decrease."
He said his firm would argue that it is "the breaking of laws which poses the greatest threat to those who risk all for their country.
"This includes not training or equipping soldiers adequately before putting service personnel into a combat zone."
He added: "Greater adherence to the laws, both domestic and international, are the only way in which the MoD's litigation will decrease."
The totally unexpected response being
One has to question whether a lawyer actually knows what constitutes
training or equipping soldiers adequately before putting service personnel into a combat zone
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 18th Oct 2013 at 14:05.
(By the by, was it Martin Day who had a bit of a debacle over the 'hundreds of Kenyan women raped by the British Army' allegations a few years ago?)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland Pulfrew
It may be an entirely predictable response from that solicitor, but it's not a response from the legal profession.
I don't know the precise figures for the entire UK, but there are about 128,000 solicitors and about 15,000 barristers in practice in England & Wales. Tarring the entire legal profession with the same brush is as silly as tarring any other profession with the same brush.
There are, of course, some lawyers who use the media to obtain publicity/free advertising for their firms, and some who have political agendas, but they are a tiny minority.
FL
Surely that was an entirely predictable response from the ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal legal "profession"?
I don't know the precise figures for the entire UK, but there are about 128,000 solicitors and about 15,000 barristers in practice in England & Wales. Tarring the entire legal profession with the same brush is as silly as tarring any other profession with the same brush.
There are, of course, some lawyers who use the media to obtain publicity/free advertising for their firms, and some who have political agendas, but they are a tiny minority.
FL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In many lines of work these days, there are the media 'heroes'. Day is one of them. He looked after my oppo 20 years ago, when he was badly shot and dumped by the RAF, and on the basis of that, I subsequently sat down with his fellow director in Manchester when it was me injured. He might come across as an agenda driven malcontent, but at least he was MY agenda driven malcontent! The issue is not so much the likes of him, but the system. The law of averages requires that the more solicitors there are, the more work they have to find for themselves and the more qualified dross slips through the net. I blame New Labour; it, and Cherie Blair, were instrumental in deluging us with so much bad, asinine and counter productive legislation. My father retired as a judge a short while back - as he put it, 'not a moment too soon'.
We NEED people like Martin Day; fearless advocates with a sense of outraged who recognise that Goliath needs the occasional kick in the nuts, simply as a matter of course, to remind him who is the real boss. Whatever his motivation, if it means we sometimes have to put up with some of the more lurid campaigns Leigh Day & Co success allows him to subsidise, then so be it. Because quietly ticking away behind the scenes, more and more people are being subjugated to bad law, bad practice and injustice. Ever increasing, centralised authority and layer upon layer of accountability denying opaqueness means we do need the occasional claymore wielding freak to shake things up. Sometimes, you can't pick your battles.
We NEED people like Martin Day; fearless advocates with a sense of outraged who recognise that Goliath needs the occasional kick in the nuts, simply as a matter of course, to remind him who is the real boss. Whatever his motivation, if it means we sometimes have to put up with some of the more lurid campaigns Leigh Day & Co success allows him to subsidise, then so be it. Because quietly ticking away behind the scenes, more and more people are being subjugated to bad law, bad practice and injustice. Ever increasing, centralised authority and layer upon layer of accountability denying opaqueness means we do need the occasional claymore wielding freak to shake things up. Sometimes, you can't pick your battles.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
This thread is arguing over 2 separate issues;
1. Procurement and deployment of equipment that is not 'Fit for Purpose'.
2. The effectiveness of local command decisions during operations.
Both may ultimately be subject to legal scrutiny, but it's much easier to prove that complacency and needless bean counting delivered inappropriate equipment to the field, rather than prove a command decision taken in the heat of battle was negligent in nature.
All the lawyer haters out there are guilty of a failure of imagination if they can't see the day when MoD malfeasance or negligence could hurt them or their colleagues. Accountability isn't some new fashion driven by the Daily Mail and the Human Rights Act - it's the basic tenet of an effective military organisation.
1. Procurement and deployment of equipment that is not 'Fit for Purpose'.
2. The effectiveness of local command decisions during operations.
Both may ultimately be subject to legal scrutiny, but it's much easier to prove that complacency and needless bean counting delivered inappropriate equipment to the field, rather than prove a command decision taken in the heat of battle was negligent in nature.
All the lawyer haters out there are guilty of a failure of imagination if they can't see the day when MoD malfeasance or negligence could hurt them or their colleagues. Accountability isn't some new fashion driven by the Daily Mail and the Human Rights Act - it's the basic tenet of an effective military organisation.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al R
Your gratitude is understandable but your belief that lawyers like that are motivated by a sense of outrage is naive. Lawyers are in business to make money just like everyone else.
I knew I'd read that firm's name somewhere and a bit of googling found this.
Motto & others v Trafigura Limited 2011
A Trafigura ship discharged toxic materials off the Ivory Coast. Leigh Day & Co paid local agents a 3% commission to find claimants. They recruited 29,614 claimants.
Despite allegations of dire injury and damage it turned out that the victims had mild flu-like symptoms.
Trafigura agreed to pay £30m damages plus costs to settle the case.
Leigh Day & Co put in a bill for £104.8 million costs!
Trafigura contested the bill and it was eventually reduced by more than 40% so Leigh Day had to make do with only about £62 million.
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/c.../figure-it-out
You should mention that to Mr Day.
His website says he's an Executive Committee Member of the Society of Labour Lawyers as well as a Director of Greenpeace.
Lawyers don't subsidise.
They invest in what they assess as sure winners on a no-win/no-fee basis and reap the profits when the case ends.
fearless advocates with a sense of outraged who recognise that Goliath needs the occasional kick in the nuts
I knew I'd read that firm's name somewhere and a bit of googling found this.
Motto & others v Trafigura Limited 2011
A Trafigura ship discharged toxic materials off the Ivory Coast. Leigh Day & Co paid local agents a 3% commission to find claimants. They recruited 29,614 claimants.
Despite allegations of dire injury and damage it turned out that the victims had mild flu-like symptoms.
Trafigura agreed to pay £30m damages plus costs to settle the case.
Leigh Day & Co put in a bill for £104.8 million costs!
Trafigura contested the bill and it was eventually reduced by more than 40% so Leigh Day had to make do with only about £62 million.
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/c.../figure-it-out
I blame New Labour
His website says he's an Executive Committee Member of the Society of Labour Lawyers as well as a Director of Greenpeace.
lurid campaigns Leigh Day & Co success allows him to subsidise
They invest in what they assess as sure winners on a no-win/no-fee basis and reap the profits when the case ends.
Last edited by Bronx; 19th Oct 2013 at 17:18.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twos in, spot on. The requirement should be that any short term stuff should absolutely not be limited by any laws, other than any generic operational planning and procurement should do the best that is reasonably practicable for any future op.
What gets my goat is the same operational risk issues faced by myself and crews are the same ones I was dealing with10 years ago in Iraq, are widely documented, yet are still ignored, all down to a lack of resource. By the way, the numbers of trained people is the biggest one, with those remaining close to breaking point with a greater workload with far fewer people. It's not as if the planners didn't know a drawdown and pullout was going to happen, so why have they been reducing numbers constantly on Sqns since sdsr? Manpower in logs and aircrew numbers should have been increased a long time before now.
Lack of deployed engineering kit, spares, manpower, lack of decent ground support equipment for the support trades. Iraq 2005, still happening in Afghanistan 2013. And I absolutely believe that if something were to happen as a result of these known issues, the powers that be should be absolutely dry fisted in court as a result.
What gets my goat is the same operational risk issues faced by myself and crews are the same ones I was dealing with10 years ago in Iraq, are widely documented, yet are still ignored, all down to a lack of resource. By the way, the numbers of trained people is the biggest one, with those remaining close to breaking point with a greater workload with far fewer people. It's not as if the planners didn't know a drawdown and pullout was going to happen, so why have they been reducing numbers constantly on Sqns since sdsr? Manpower in logs and aircrew numbers should have been increased a long time before now.
Lack of deployed engineering kit, spares, manpower, lack of decent ground support equipment for the support trades. Iraq 2005, still happening in Afghanistan 2013. And I absolutely believe that if something were to happen as a result of these known issues, the powers that be should be absolutely dry fisted in court as a result.
Last edited by VinRouge; 19th Oct 2013 at 16:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx,
Good call, thanks.
I did say 'like' Day, etc. I have no issue with a company trawling for potential claimants (it gets annoying on Talksport, yes) but those sorts of figures are obscene. All companies speculate and many pro bono, to an extent. We need to differentiate between the shysters and the charlatans and those who want to work hard for an honest (decent) buck.
Maybe too much John Grisham?!
Good call, thanks.
I did say 'like' Day, etc. I have no issue with a company trawling for potential claimants (it gets annoying on Talksport, yes) but those sorts of figures are obscene. All companies speculate and many pro bono, to an extent. We need to differentiate between the shysters and the charlatans and those who want to work hard for an honest (decent) buck.
Maybe too much John Grisham?!
Flying Lawyer
Of course you are correct and my apologies to those lawyers/barristers who are decent and honest. What I perhaps should have said was:
certain ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal parts of the legal "profession"?
However, just like "squaddies go on drunken rampage" headline tars the whole military in the publics mind, don't be surprised when the actions of a not so small, and increasing number of irresponsible, politically motivated and ambulance chasing section of the legal "profession" tars you all with the same brush. My local radio station, regrettably, runs regular adverts for ia number if law firms for services to help illegal immigrants "beat" deportation, to help drunk drivers get off their conviction and to claim for injuries at work. The massive growth in the compo-4-you industry suggests that it is not such a small part of the profession. But sorry for the slur on all of you, my comments were aimed at a section of the profession.
I don't know the precise figures for the entire UK, but there are about 128,000 solicitors and about 15,000 barristers in practice in England & Wales. Tarring the entire legal profession with the same brush is as silly as tarring any other profession with the same brush.
certain ambulance-chasing, bleeding-heart, liberal parts of the legal "profession"?
However, just like "squaddies go on drunken rampage" headline tars the whole military in the publics mind, don't be surprised when the actions of a not so small, and increasing number of irresponsible, politically motivated and ambulance chasing section of the legal "profession" tars you all with the same brush. My local radio station, regrettably, runs regular adverts for ia number if law firms for services to help illegal immigrants "beat" deportation, to help drunk drivers get off their conviction and to claim for injuries at work. The massive growth in the compo-4-you industry suggests that it is not such a small part of the profession. But sorry for the slur on all of you, my comments were aimed at a section of the profession.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would the Victorians have thought?
We've changed from "We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do, we've got the ships we've got the men and we've got the money too-"
To "We don't want to fight because we ain't got the ships, haven't many men and we're bloody skint - plus we would be shafted by legal weasels anyway".
Fair makes yer proud, dunnit?
We've changed from "We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do, we've got the ships we've got the men and we've got the money too-"
To "We don't want to fight because we ain't got the ships, haven't many men and we're bloody skint - plus we would be shafted by legal weasels anyway".
Fair makes yer proud, dunnit?
I can't help thinking MoD don't half dig a hole for themselves and signpost it "Lawyers, this way, help yourselves." If you trace each case backwards you almost always come to a point where common sense or doing the job properly would have avoided the problem in the first place.
