Human Rights act.

[Fittster]

Judges have thrown out a government appeal by deciding that the Human Rights Act can apply to British troops, even on the battlefield.

The judgement the MoD appealed against said "right to life" meant it had a legal duty to supply proper equipment.

The rulings centred on a case brought by the family of Pte Jason Smith, who died of heatstroke while serving with the Territorial Army in Iraq in 2003.

However, the MoD has been given leave to appeal again, to the House of Lords.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8054875.stm

I take it proper equipment = the most expensive available. When it comes to the crunch budgets will impact what equipment the military get. So if the military are going to be dragged to court everytime someone gets killed does that mean they will refuse to undertake certain missions (e.g. Our tanks aren't the most expensive available therefore we won't go into battle with them in case we get sued.)

[randlemarcus]

Interestingly, during my time in the TA, it was made very very clear to me, and I made a point of making it incredibly clear to troops under my command that heatstroke would be considered a self-inflicted injury, and that the end responsibility for hydration rested with the individual.

The equipment one is less about cost than appropriate for the conditions - i.e. not using soft skinned vehicles where the prevailing threat is IED and RPG based.

[V8mate]

randlemarcus said:

Interestingly, during my time in the TA, it was made very very clear to me, and I made a point of making it incredibly clear to troops under my command that heatstroke would be considered a self-inflicted injury, and that the end responsibility for hydration rested with the individual.

Hydration isn't a panacea for heat-stroke though, is it? Surely there are lots of other factors.

[randlemarcus]

V8mate said:

randlemarcus said:

Interestingly, during my time in the TA, it was made very very clear to me, and I made a point of making it incredibly clear to troops under my command that heatstroke would be considered a self-inflicted injury, and that the end responsibility for hydration rested with the individual.

Hydration isn't a panacea for heat-stroke though, is it? Surely there are lots of other factors.

Thus the responsibility thing though. You hydrate, you keep an eye on your own feelings and behaviour, as well as that of your mates, and you manage to avoid it for the most part.
The fascinating part was that those who came down (or got further down the path with it) recovered really really quickly with a goodly slug of water/salt/sugar mix.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

As much as I deplore the Military for not supplying addequate equipment to the guys on the front......


This is just another case of HR gone mad! They take it too far! There are no accidents anymore, there is always someone to blame! And it's wrong.

HR & PC are crippling this country.

[V8mate]

randlemarcus said:

V8mate said:

randlemarcus said:

Interestingly, during my time in the TA, it was made very very clear to me, and I made a point of making it incredibly clear to troops under my command that heatstroke would be considered a self-inflicted injury, and that the end responsibility for hydration rested with the individual.

Hydration isn't a panacea for heat-stroke though, is it? Surely there are lots of other factors.

Thus the responsibility thing though. You hydrate, you keep an eye on your own feelings and behaviour, as well as that of your mates, and you manage to avoid it for the most part.
The fascinating part was that those who came down (or got further down the path with it) recovered really really quickly with a goodly slug of water/salt/sugar mix.

And if your CO tells you to 'sit on top of that tank over there' from 11am until 4pm in the desert sun, your personal culpability/susceptibility starts and ends where?

[randlemarcus]

V8mate said:

And if your CO tells you to 'sit on top of that tank over there' from 11am until 4pm in the desert sun, your personal culpability/susceptibility starts and ends where?

In my case, with me questioning the military necessity of sitting in the open sunshine

I see your point though, but thats where a flexible chain of command comes in. There may well be a need for someone to be eyes on from the tank, but the chain of command should accomodate the basic safety, i.e shade, water etc.

No idea of the specifics of this particular case, and if its got to court, then I would suggest that its out of the ordinary, and something went wrong.

[Jasandjules]

I am sure there will be limits to this, BUT at least it may mean that HMG spend enough to give the troops suitable equipment.

[Fittster]

Jasandjules said:

I am sure there will be limits to this, BUT at least it may mean that HMG spend enough to give the troops suitable equipment.

I would have thought the budget will stay the same, therefore more/better equipment means less actual troops.

[JMGS4]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

As much as I deplore the Military for not supplying addequate equipment to the guys on the front......

And it's been happening for the last 50 years! When I joined at the beginning of the sixties we were issued with uniforms which were obsolete before WW2!! FFS. Our gasmasks were pre1935! I've seen more modern uniforms on Dad's Army! FFS. Never mind the st boots we had in the south atlantic, which were the same as we used in Aden/Oman 15 years before!!!

So the criminal negligence by the Government (especially Labour by reducing HM forces by 20% in the last 10 years) by not supplying correct kit has led to unnecessary deaths amongst our Forces. It's time someone was nailed for this and not just swept under the carpet so a nameless nonentity can be blamed!
And dehydration is always a self inflicted injury, was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Just because we're in the 21st century it does not mean that youngsters are exempted from their reponsability to themselves or others!

[Skywalker]

JMGS4 said:

So the criminal negligence by the Government (especially Labour by reducing HM forces by 20% in the last 10 years) by not supplying correct kit has led to unnecessary deaths amongst our Forces. It's time someone was nailed for this and not just swept under the carpet so a nameless nonentity can be blamed!

Hear hear.

The MoD spanking on about making it difficult for commanders in the field in the heat of battle is just a smoke-screen.

Where this bites is the MoD having to provide decent (not necessarily the most expensive) equipment, together with effective training and maintenance - and THAT is why they are squealing.

40yr old battlefield helicopters being flown and fought to destruction...hmmm it is going to be harder for the Head Sheds and Civil Serpents to say "Well..."

[Jasandjules]

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

I am sure there will be limits to this, BUT at least it may mean that HMG spend enough to give the troops suitable equipment.

I would have thought the budget will stay the same, therefore more/better equipment means less actual troops.

10 men with top of the range kit are worth more than twenty with obsolete equipment. Ever seen what happened the Russian Army when it took on the Wermacht?

[JMGS4]

Skywalker said:

Hear hear.
Where this bites is the MoD having to provide decent (not necessarily the most expensive) equipment, together with effective training and maintenance - and THAT is why they are squealing.

40yr old battlefield helicopters being flown and fought to destruction...hmmm it is going to be harder for the Head Sheds and Civil Serpents to say "Well..."

What we need are commanders who will stand up to these dirty politicos and refuse to go into theatre without the correct kit. Dougie Bader did it in WW2 when he refused to report his squadron operational as all his spares etc were non-existant. He got a right bking BUT he got all his kit within 48 hours

The trouble is we have political swine who know nothing about SERVICE (just troughing) and refuse to accept that their safety is guaranteed by HM Forces. I'd love to put scum like Balls, Mandelscum, Millibland Bros and the rest of the troughers into uniform and send them out to A-Stan and let them get shot at bombed, dehydrated. The pigs would squeal very fast...

I remember how the scum arrived in Aden and Oman, refused to travel except in an armoured vehicle and spent all their time increasing my mess bills, a bunch of cowardly wkers then, even more so now!

[JMGS4]

Guam said:

Agree with pretty much all the Points on here, however I concur with the Dehydration issue you are told again and again and again about things like dehydration, hygiene (for dysentry) and even Sunburn FFS. If someone dies of dehydration then generally they are a twit (there may be exceptional circs in this case) but as a broad principle you always know what you need to do!! Cheers

AND your colleagues also know to keep their eyes open for mates who are not keeping hydrated.. especially with flak vests
There may have been medical reasons why he couldn't hydrate, then there's no doubt the "duty of care" was not properly regarded.

Edited by JMGS4 on Tuesday 19th May 10:15

[bobbylondonuk]

Commonsense party says:

The troops fight for the commanders
The commanders fight for the govt.
The govt fights for the nation.


working backwards

the govt is responsible for the commanders safety and supplies
the commanders are responsible the safety and supplies to the troops


So why are we going through courts and HR acts etc?
assess the theatre, enemy, weapons in use by the enemy.
Take recommendations from our commanders based on their strategic planning for resources and provide them with what they need to fight. whats the big deal?

I understand the govt tells the commanders to fight with the resources that is available and thats the problem...but why is it so difficult to change it? its a simple ideology as above that is needed??? do we neeed some bloke in a wig to tell us to implement this?

[Fittster]

Jasandjules said:

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

I am sure there will be limits to this, BUT at least it may mean that HMG spend enough to give the troops suitable equipment.

I would have thought the budget will stay the same, therefore more/better equipment means less actual troops.

10 men with top of the range kit are worth more than twenty with obsolete equipment. Ever seen what happened the Russian Army when it took on the Wermacht?

Err, it won? It's the result that counts in the history books.

[XitUp]

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

I am sure there will be limits to this, BUT at least it may mean that HMG spend enough to give the troops suitable equipment.

I would have thought the budget will stay the same, therefore more/better equipment means less actual troops.

10 men with top of the range kit are worth more than twenty with obsolete equipment. Ever seen what happened the Russian Army when it took on the Wermacht?

Err, it won? It's the result that counts in the history books.

And they lost over twice as many troops.