Soldiers: World Gone Mad?

The Supreme Court in the UK has this morning ruled that relatives of soldiers killed in action can take legal action against the government.

The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence.

No one has more respect for soldiers than me, but this is a disgraceful decision. If you're brave enough to sign up to the army you know there is a higher risk of death than if you worked in an office.

I can understand families grief, but this is not the answer. What next, coppers taking legal action because a suspect punched them or fireman taking legal action because they got burnt?

Has the world gone mad?

Well i agree with it dependant on the situation.

If they were put into battle under resourced or the victim of machine malfunction because of negligence then there is something there to complain about.

In some cases I can't see what the families have to argue about, these men and women are going into war what exactly do they think will happen?....Everyone sits around a fucking campfire singing?

for once... I totally agree with you nat - so much so that ive stolen a shorten'd version of this for my latest Facebook status update...

I suspect there is more to the story than posted here.

If your son, daughter, brother, sister was killed because the army neglected to service a chopper would you see that as "something she/he signed up for?" I wouldn't.

Natasha Whittam wrote:The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence.

Hipster is quite correct. The key to this little piece of EU legislation is the word negligence. The MOD have a duty of care to all members of the Armed forces. An incompetent General sending his men to certain death on a 'fools errand' is no longer acceptable.

A recent example is the two cops who are currently in court charged with manslaughter of one of their colleagues during a routine firearms training exercise.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I suspect there is more to the story than posted here.

If your son, daughter, brother, sister was killed because the army neglected to service a chopper would you see that as "something she/he signed up for?" I wouldn't.

If that was the case I would agree with you but the ruling is far wider than that - trust me, it will be used for personal gain for people that shouldn't be due a penny.

We expect our young lads and lasses to put their lives on the line for this country so it's only right that the people in charge who are leading them make sure that they are properly trained and have the correct equipment.

Casualties are always a part of any war and that is always accepted by the courts. In order to succeed with a legal action one would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the death was as a direct result of negligence.

True, but the army has a duty of care to soldiers as all employers have for their staff. I don't think anyone would argue if a soldier was killed by the enemy in the line of duty, but that's not what this is about. It's about the British Army effectively killing it's own soldiers.
That used to happen a lot when reckless generals ordered kids to charge the trenches in a suicidal bid for glory, but the modern warfare equivalent is less obvious.
If a soldier is killed because of the stupidity or negligence of the Army there may be a case to answer and this legislation merely gives the relatives of the dead the right to take them to court to get an answer - and acknowledges that negligence leading to death or injury is a crime - just as it already is in the rest of society as embodied in employment legislation.
At the end of the day, the Army is an Employer and as such should have the same responsibilities as all other British employers. The Courts will decide what reasonable risk is as they do for everyone else and I imagine that the risk will be judged to be much higher than normal in this case, but wherever they set the bar, negligence beyond that will and should be a criminal offence.

I suspected Nat would leave out the vital bit of information.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I suspected Nat would leave out the vital bit of information.

...for journalistic effect perchance?

Rather than reading the dumbed down BBC version - download the full 43 page verdict.

Then come back to me and say I'm talking bollocks.

can we have a link to this document nat?

Reebok_Rebel wrote:can we have a link to this document nat?

No.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:can we have a link to this document nat?

Why do you need to read it, you've already had a facebook rant.

does it exist?

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:can we have a link to this document nat?

Why do you need to read it, you've already had a facebook rant.

Ive not.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:can we have a link to this document nat?

Why do you need to read it, you've already had a facebook rant.

Ive not.

Oh was that a joke?

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:can we have a link to this document nat?

Why do you need to read it, you've already had a facebook rant.

Ive not.

Oh was that a joke?

no...

why do you always have to act like an up-your-own-arse, patronizing little wanker who got bullied in school, Bullied for being an up-your-own-arse, patronizing wanker?

oh dear.

raw nerve.