Iraq soldiers' families can sue UK

[webfact]

Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue

LONDON: -- The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The case was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq.

The court rejected the government's argument that the battlefield was beyond the reach of the legislation.

Judges also ruled the Ministry of Defence owes soldiers a duty of care under the law of negligence.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853


-- BBC 2013-06-19

[thaikahuna]

This is opening a whole new can of rotten apples. As an American Disabled Veteran from Vietnam I have the right to compensation for illness and injury as a result of the war. My wife is entitled to a portion of that compensation when I pass. HOWEVER, I sympathize with the families of those who lost loved ones but they have no right to compensation.

There are 2 rules of war. Rule one, people die. Rule two, you can't change rule one.

[simple1]

This is opening a whole new can of rotten apples. As an American Disabled Veteran from Vietnam I have the right to compensation for illness and injury as a result of the war. My wife is entitled to a portion of that compensation when I pass. HOWEVER, I sympathize with the families of those who lost loved ones but they have no right to compensation.

There are 2 rules of war. Rule one, people die. Rule two, you can't change rule one.

You have overlooked negligence & duty of care by the UK Ministry of Defence by not providing sufficient "tools of trade". Same issues were raised with the initial deployment of UK forces to Afghanistan, by very senior military officers, which resulted in unnecessary deaths.

[JoePai]

How stupid - what do they expect when they take the Queen's shilling

[BeforeTigers]

That's just not how it works.

[stiggy]

How stupid - what do they expect when they take the Queen's shilling

Well I guess they expected.

Proper training

Proper and necessary equipment

Well assessed risk management by there squadron leaders ,who should also be equipped with the above.

I doubt any solider is unaware of the rest of the risk's, that includes laying down there life in battle.

[sustento]

The relevant line is:

"The case was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq."

​The Snatch Land Rover was developed for use in low threat areas and is not fit for purpose in a war zone.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

Please re-read the OP and stick to the topic.

[marstons]

Tricky one they voluntarily sign up to fight wars, but in this case as with the Americans the equipment supplied was not fit for the purpose, but then again has it ever been.

[naboo]

Damn right, the government should never have sent them there in the first place.

Totally wrong, the idiots should never have signed up for the army.

War is never right. Peace.

[Baerboxer]

The army, and therfore the government, has a duty of care. This would entail provding appropriate training and equipment and providing leadership so as not to stupidly waste lives or negligently endanger them. (Like the clown generals of WW1 did).

However, people enlisted in armed services accept the risks involved in thier chosen occupation.

The Supreme Court have been presumably based their decision on the believe that the army new the snathc landrovers were not suitable, but allowed them to be used and in so doing put lives unecessarily at risk.

Tricky - too many rules and possible consquences make decisions in war situations more difficult. Not enough and we're back to WW1 with generals accepting appalling losses wily nily.

I wonder how many Supreme Court judges have actually been in a military conflict situation.

[simple1]

The army, and therfore the government, has a duty of care. This would entail provding appropriate training and equipment and providing leadership so as not to stupidly waste lives or negligently endanger them. (Like the clown generals of WW1 did).

However, people enlisted in armed services accept the risks involved in thier chosen occupation.

The Supreme Court have been presumably based their decision on the believe that the army new the snathc landrovers were not suitable, but allowed them to be used and in so doing put lives unecessarily at risk.

Tricky - too many rules and possible consquences make decisions in war situations more difficult. Not enough and we're back to WW1 with generals accepting appalling losses wily nily.

I wonder how many Supreme Court judges have actually been in a military conflict situation.

As I said some very senior UK military officers were appalled by the under equipping of soldiers under their command. e.g. Major-General Andrew Mackay, who oversaw critical operations in Afghanistan. After his resination he said "the government was not providing the right equipment or support to troops on the ground or delivering a clear strategic direction". Same issues were raised with the deployment to Iraq with UK forces in Basra, obviously reflected in the OP.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/09/25/idINIndia-42708820090925

[Bagwan]

This is opening a whole new can of rotten apples. As an American Disabled Veteran from Vietnam I have the right to compensation for illness and injury as a result of the war. My wife is entitled to a portion of that compensation when I pass. HOWEVER, I sympathize with the families of those who lost loved ones but they have no right to compensation.

There are 2 rules of war. Rule one, people die. Rule two, you can't change rule one.

You have overlooked negligence & duty of care by the UK Ministry of Defence by not providing sufficient "tools of trade". Same issues were raised with the initial deployment of UK forces to Afghanistan, by very senior military officers, which resulted in unnecessary deaths.

It is quite comforting to know that you can be placed in dangerous situations equipped with the cheapest gear that the Government can buy.

Old Navy adage. If you can't take a joke then you shouldn't have joined. This action opens a whole new can of worms.

When doing full power trials off the Isle of Wight we lost overboard a 16 year old Boy Seaman whose seagoing experience was all of 6 weeks when 'God' on the bridge decided to go hard a'port at the end of the run. Green water over a foot deep washed along the deck at 30 knots plus as the ship heeled over. The young lad was probably dead before he went overboard. In any event wearing seaboots and an oilskin coat he would have sunk like a stone. His body was never recoverd. He was an only son and his widowed mother received nothing from the Admiralty, just the standard letter of regret from the C.O. Custom of the Navy was that all his kit be auctioned and ridiculous prices were paid by his shipmates who barely knew him, and often gear purchased was returned by the buyer to be auctioned again. Over 2K sterling was raised, a considerable sum considering rates of pay in 1959.

[GentlemanJim]

How stupid - what do they expect when they take the Queen's shilling

As ex Military my take on this is as follows.

When 'they' take the Queen's shilling they accept that the army will fulfill it's covenant to them. When a man is willing to go to battle and potentially die, then part of the covenant of the army is to make sure that the soldier has all the correct equipment to conduct operations in that environment. The neglect displayed by the Government and the Ministry of Defence was woeful and many young men and women died when the correct equipment would have saved their lives. The Government deserve to be sued. If nothing else it will ensure that the next time soldiers are sent in to Battle they will be properly equipped.

[7by7]

I think that all soldiers, and other service personnel, must, and do, accept the fact that they may be killed in the line of duty. They have my full admiration for that.

But the days of treating lower ranks as cannon fodder to be sacrificed are, or should be, long gone and the army, or rather the government in the form of the MoD, does have a duty to ensure that those prepared to die for this country, whether they be British or not, should be properly equipped.

Everyone knew that these snatch Land Rovers were not fit for purpose, and I wish the families luck in their case.

I hope that, as GentlemanJim says, it ensures that British soldiers are never again sent into battle under equipped. But I fear it wont.

Remember, this government is currently laying off thousands of fully trained, experienced soldiers whilst at the same time actively recruiting 17/18 year olds to replace them. All in the name of cost saving.

[billd766]

As a member of the RAF from 1960 to 1984 I originally signed on as a Boy Entrant for 9 years but extended to 22 years in 1970.

At 15,16,17,18 or so you really don't understand what active service means.

Fortunately for me in all my service career I was never on a front line and only once was I issued with a rifle, 20 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition and a bayonet and had minimal training in its use.

I would probably have shot anything that moved including myself.

Since those days many things have improved but not a lot.

I suspect that JoePai

quote

Posted 2013-06-19 18:17:46

How stupid - what do they expect when they take the Queen's shilling

Has never been in the military and has no real idea of how it works but he probably watched a lot of movies about it. Not the same as real life though.

It IS a good life and many mates you meet will be mates for ever and if push comes to shove and one of your mates has been shot wou will put your own life on the line for him, as he would for you.

The biggest problem is that nobody in the last few government has EVER been in a war zone where people are actuvely trying to kill you because you are there and the governments have no idea what they let the military and the country in for. Most of them are bean counters and think that by svaing a million or so here and there they are doing the best for the country.

Soldiers don't start wars, the military don't start wars, only dumbass civilian governments start wars and they don't have to fight in them.

It is the easiest thing in the world to start a war and one of the hardest things to stop and the military are the ones who have to do it with little support from governments or the people at home.

If I were one of the guys whose family could sue the government for my death I would plead with them not to do it or to go down to that level.

I was proud of my time in the RAF including the only medal I got which was for long service and good conduct.

The men and women of todays armed forces are proud of being there and all of them know they have the chance to die for their country. None of them want to but they are willing to do so for their Queen, Country and even for the <deleted> who slag them off but aren't big enough to do the job themselves.