Glen Ogle Accident 1994
Roving
I think the point, certainly from my perspective, is that the calls for proper inquiries relate to accidents where maladministration and misconduct by senior officers and officials has been demonstrated. MoD glories in this misconduct, taunting families with the ruling that only serving MoD staff may lodge a complaint.
Going back to my previous point, what would happen if a judge was found to be making up his own laws, applying them and finding people guilty of manslaughter? I suspect the verdict would be set aside and he'd be disbarred. On Chinook, we have the setting aside, but nothing else.
Why stop with just these two incidents, why not re-open the Vulcan crash at Heathrow after all it was only 61 years ago?
Going back to my previous point, what would happen if a judge was found to be making up his own laws, applying them and finding people guilty of manslaughter? I suspect the verdict would be set aside and he'd be disbarred. On Chinook, we have the setting aside, but nothing else.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it happens, in the UK much of the law is 'developed-on a case by case basis by the Judges. If you had studied law you would have known that.
If you can prove that you are a British citizen and not for example a Russian blogger, there is an easy to raise the issue.
Create an online petition:
If the petition receives 10,000 signatures the Government will respond.
If the petition gets 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate in parliament.
You will of course have to disclose your identity and address.
Meanwhile filling space here will not help.
If you can prove that you are a British citizen and not for example a Russian blogger, there is an easy to raise the issue.
Create an online petition:
If the petition receives 10,000 signatures the Government will respond.
If the petition gets 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate in parliament.
You will of course have to disclose your identity and address.
Meanwhile filling space here will not help.
Roving
I am talking about judges (VSOs) who are allowed to judge their own case. You are talking about judges who sit facing the jury and those in the dock.
I have published what I have said, and more, under my own name. MoD is always welcome debate with me in public, but has so far refused. Ask BBC Newsnight, BBC Radio and Radio Talk Europe. And MoD knows where I live, as it has sent people here.
As airpolice says, pprune has been very helpful. If you care to read its archives, you'll realise that both the Nimrod and Mull of Kintyre Review arose from posts and threads here.
I am talking about judges (VSOs) who are allowed to judge their own case. You are talking about judges who sit facing the jury and those in the dock.
I have published what I have said, and more, under my own name. MoD is always welcome debate with me in public, but has so far refused. Ask BBC Newsnight, BBC Radio and Radio Talk Europe. And MoD knows where I live, as it has sent people here.
As airpolice says, pprune has been very helpful. If you care to read its archives, you'll realise that both the Nimrod and Mull of Kintyre Review arose from posts and threads here.
Roving
I should perhaps add details of the one letter of criticism I received after publishing. The widows of two of the deceased (Chinook ZD576), and legal representative, wrote to the Lord Advocate's office in Edinburgh asking what action would now be taken, given the serious offences revealed in evidence to Lord Philip (and accepted by him as true). His 2i/c, a QC, replied saying none, but criticising me at length for uncovering and revealing lies told by MoD; to families, court, Ministers and committees of both Houses. Rather ironic, I thought, coming from a man who has spent his career trying to reveal lies by the accused in courts. But apparently it's ok if you're above a certain rank.
I should perhaps add details of the one letter of criticism I received after publishing. The widows of two of the deceased (Chinook ZD576), and legal representative, wrote to the Lord Advocate's office in Edinburgh asking what action would now be taken, given the serious offences revealed in evidence to Lord Philip (and accepted by him as true). His 2i/c, a QC, replied saying none, but criticising me at length for uncovering and revealing lies told by MoD; to families, court, Ministers and committees of both Houses. Rather ironic, I thought, coming from a man who has spent his career trying to reveal lies by the accused in courts. But apparently it's ok if you're above a certain rank.
roving:-
Your learned opinion is noted and I have no doubt that the points of law you make are correct. The trouble is that, as tuc has pointed out, we have been around this buoy many times before. Like you, others have posted on each fatal air accident thread in this forum that this case is different, that the BoI has said everything that there is to say, and that further discussion on a public forum would only cause needless distress to loved ones and ex colleagues. Yet those very threads resulted in the setting aside of the infamous Mull ROs' findings, the fitting of ESF to RAF Hercules, the grounding of the Nimrod 2's, and the scrapping of their successor. Other threads have yet to reach a conclusion, viz the death of Red Arrows pilot Flt Lt Cunningham. All these threads (and others) have one thing in common, severe shortcomings by the Military Air Regulator (aka the MOD and its "independent" subsidiary the MAA). All the Inquiries into these accidents have one thing in common, they were all investigated by Service BoIs (or the MOD's "independent" subsidiary the MilAAIB, or whatever it is called this week).
As tuc and air police have suggested, unless and until all military air accidents are investigated by a truly independent air accident investigator, then the whole point of such investigation ( to discover the true causes in order to avoid future repeats) is lost. Similarly the actions or lack of them by the military air regulator must come under close and independent scrutiny in order that only airworthy aircraft are released into service and thereafter kept airworthy. Airworthiness related fatal air accident threads on this forum alone have accounted for some 74 deaths.
It is because of that track record that a truly independent inquiry is called for here, pending the creation of an independent MAA and MilAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. Until that happens avoidable accidents will continue and needless deaths result. As tuc suggests, perhaps you should read in to some of the threads mentioned. You will find the usual suspects posting pro and con in each, but the MOD apologists that railed against the sullying of certain Air Marshals' reputations are heard rather less these days...
Writing as a retired barrister, whom during my career was involved in all sorts of 'sensitive' enquiries and born the son of a Royal Air Force pilot who flew military a/c until the age of 64 and the step son of former WRAF S/L, I disagree.
I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.
I most certainly do NOT think it is (or in this case -was some twenty years ago) in the public interest to hold any form of public enquiry into the circumstances of this tragic accident.
As tuc and air police have suggested, unless and until all military air accidents are investigated by a truly independent air accident investigator, then the whole point of such investigation ( to discover the true causes in order to avoid future repeats) is lost. Similarly the actions or lack of them by the military air regulator must come under close and independent scrutiny in order that only airworthy aircraft are released into service and thereafter kept airworthy. Airworthiness related fatal air accident threads on this forum alone have accounted for some 74 deaths.
It is because of that track record that a truly independent inquiry is called for here, pending the creation of an independent MAA and MilAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. Until that happens avoidable accidents will continue and needless deaths result. As tuc suggests, perhaps you should read in to some of the threads mentioned. You will find the usual suspects posting pro and con in each, but the MOD apologists that railed against the sullying of certain Air Marshals' reputations are heard rather less these days...
Last edited by Chugalug2; 12th Oct 2017 at 21:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had this accident happened in England, or Wales, then there would have been an inquest, which would have gone a long way in addressing some of the issues raised on this thread. Unfortunately, the accident took place in Scotland where the legal system has refused to investigate military accidents/deaths since the introduction of the 1976 FAI Act. However, a change in the law now makes is mandatory for a Fatal Accident Inquiry to be held for all military deaths, AND for the Lord Advocate to reopen a case where there is new evidence. Do we have any new evidence?
DV
DV
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had this accident happened in England, or Wales, then there would have been an inquest, which would have gone a long way in addressing some of the issues raised on this thread. Unfortunately, the accident took place in Scotland where the legal system has refused to investigate military accidents/deaths since the introduction of the 1976 FAI Act. However, a change in the law now makes is mandatory for a Fatal Accident Inquiry to be held for all military deaths, AND for the Lord Advocate to reopen a case where there is new evidence. Do we have any new evidence?
DV
DV
Could you not argue that since there has not been a civil investigation, then all evidence is new?
Could you not argue that since there has not been a civil investigation, then all evidence is new?
Roving, if either accidnet had taken place in England we would have had an inquest. The concern is not that something untoward happened, but there was no judicial determination of the cause of a workplace death.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete Mosley was my uncle
Hi Roger, I’ve read some of these threads and they’re pretty distressing to say the least.Did you know my uncle? If you could email me at [email protected] or via Twitter. I would very much appreciate it many thanks nick Leaman [QUOTE=Piggies;8962368]I haven't been on this site for a long time, because quite frankly it bores me, but I was interested to learn any news about the deployment of Chinooks to Nepal, not least because I had a minor involvement this week.
I'll out myself.
Several years ago, yer man 'Beagle' made what I considered to be inflammatory comments about this incident on the Chinook Mull of Kintyre Thread. I sent him a PM explaining my situation and asked him for details on where he got his information. As I recall, he cited Data Protection as a reason not to answer me.
I was programmed to fly with PM on 1 September 1994. On that day, I was asked to go to a meeting with GM at Stn Ops, so asked RH to fly in my place, which he readily accepted. RH did not survive that sortie.
I am well aware of the rumours concerning PM and RH and the inferences that have been made. These have followed me around in the nearly 21 years since. If you knew the personalities, you would know the truth.
My wife was 7 months pregnant on 1 September 1994. I am fully aware that if it had been me, and not RH, in the boot that day, those exact same rumours would have surrounded me and my widow would have had to live with them.
There was nothing going on. It is distasteful to suggest otherwise and it dishonours the memories of two members of the Royal Air Force.
And it really pisses me off.
Roger Smith
I'll out myself.
Several years ago, yer man 'Beagle' made what I considered to be inflammatory comments about this incident on the Chinook Mull of Kintyre Thread. I sent him a PM explaining my situation and asked him for details on where he got his information. As I recall, he cited Data Protection as a reason not to answer me.
I was programmed to fly with PM on 1 September 1994. On that day, I was asked to go to a meeting with GM at Stn Ops, so asked RH to fly in my place, which he readily accepted. RH did not survive that sortie.
I am well aware of the rumours concerning PM and RH and the inferences that have been made. These have followed me around in the nearly 21 years since. If you knew the personalities, you would know the truth.
My wife was 7 months pregnant on 1 September 1994. I am fully aware that if it had been me, and not RH, in the boot that day, those exact same rumours would have surrounded me and my widow would have had to live with them.
There was nothing going on. It is distasteful to suggest otherwise and it dishonours the memories of two members of the Royal Air Force.
And it really pisses me off.
Roger Smith
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please can anyone who knew Pete contact me please?
I am the nephew of the pilot Pete Mosley. He was my mums youngest brother and we loved him dearly.
i would love some answer as would my family regarding the accident. My email is [email protected] or I’m on Twitter NickJLeaman. Many thanks
i would love some answer as would my family regarding the accident. My email is [email protected] or I’m on Twitter NickJLeaman. Many thanks
Noosh80, as I wrote 3 years ago:
I have nothing further to add, except to say that I hope that the information I'd been given at the time was totally untrue.
Piggies, it wasn't data protection which precluded a response. My information came verbally from someone who, though well-placed, would have been in the clag if people guessed his identity. The information was also confirmed by an independent source.
Very many apologies if my comments had been perceived as inflammatory.
A well-known contributor to the Mull thread gave me an insight into the sensitivity surrounding the accident to which you referred and we agreed that any further public comment should be avoided. Any PMs will also be ignored. And so it remains.
Very many apologies if my comments had been perceived as inflammatory.
A well-known contributor to the Mull thread gave me an insight into the sensitivity surrounding the accident to which you referred and we agreed that any further public comment should be avoided. Any PMs will also be ignored. And so it remains.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAI
Yes my uncle and Patrick’s tragic death were a prime example of when an FAI should have been held, but it wasn’t offered to my Grandmother and if it was, she was in no for state to push for one. She was unaware that as soon as her son crossed the border into Scotland, it’s not a given for an FAI to be conducted. If I was old enough I would have made sure one was done. The BOI done by the RAF was a complete sham.
