Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Been Killed In A War That Was Not Your Fault....sue Someone Now...
The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Surely if you sign up for the army the fact you may die is one of the risks if you go to war.
Maybe in future anyone joining the army will have to sign a document saying they understand they may die doing this job and therefore cant sue.
Good job we did not have this in the first world war or it could have bankrupt most of the countries in Western Europe.
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -229678 53
Surely if you sign up for the army the fact you may die is one of the risks if you go to war.
Maybe in future anyone joining the army will have to sign a document saying they understand they may die doing this job and therefore cant sue.
Good job we did not have this in the first world war or it could have bankrupt most of the countries in Western Europe.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VHG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Are you deliberately misunderstanding this for dramatic effect? or are you just not getting it?
The point is that the judges have ruled that the MOD cannot hide negligence by pretending British law did not apply in Afghanistan.
This sounds to me completely the correct decision - Soldiers committing offences in Afghanistan are not handed over to Afghan courts and so clearly they are subject to UK juristiction
Given that they are subject to UK legislation they are entitled to the same duty of care from the MOD that they would be entitled to in the UK.
That's not to say that anyone killed on active service is entitled to compensation in the way you're suggesting but it does mean that if they died as a result of negligence on behalf of the MOD then they would be.
For example if the MOD supplied them with defective body armour, the MOD knew it was defective and that non-defective armour would have saved them I think most people would agree that a law suit and compensation would be appropriate
Wouldn't you?
AOG - "The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled."
I think you have missed your calling - as a tabloid journalist.
What you have managed to do in one sentence is take a specific circumstance which is clearly outlined in your link, and turn it into a potentially sensationalist opening by generalising to the point where the essence of the facts are lost in a welter of knee-jerk outrage from readers.
It's quite a skill - but it does rather cloud the issue.
Of course soldiers must expect to die in battle, their raison d'etre is actually to fight an enemy rather than simply drill and rehearse for an entire career.
However, that is a world away from dying because of inappropriate safety measures and a lapse in a basic duty of care - which is the circmstance here.
"Good job we did not have this in the first world war or it could have bankrupt most of the countries in Western Europe."
On the contrary - if generals had been more accountable for the deaths of entire regiments, maybe they would have been a lot less cavalier about sending thousands of men to certain death by making them walk into the range of enemy guns with resultant carnage that belies belief even today.
I think you have missed your calling - as a tabloid journalist.
What you have managed to do in one sentence is take a specific circumstance which is clearly outlined in your link, and turn it into a potentially sensationalist opening by generalising to the point where the essence of the facts are lost in a welter of knee-jerk outrage from readers.
It's quite a skill - but it does rather cloud the issue.
Of course soldiers must expect to die in battle, their raison d'etre is actually to fight an enemy rather than simply drill and rehearse for an entire career.
However, that is a world away from dying because of inappropriate safety measures and a lapse in a basic duty of care - which is the circmstance here.
"Good job we did not have this in the first world war or it could have bankrupt most of the countries in Western Europe."
On the contrary - if generals had been more accountable for the deaths of entire regiments, maybe they would have been a lot less cavalier about sending thousands of men to certain death by making them walk into the range of enemy guns with resultant carnage that belies belief even today.
This story as it's written explains what is being claimed for here and the difference between that asnd the battlefield. The massacres of WW1 are clearly active combat situation, even if some 'bad' decisions were taken.
" The MoD had argued that there was "combat immunity" for troops in action and it was not "fair, just or reasonable" to impose a duty of care on the MoD when soldiers were on the battlefield.
During Wednesday's hearing, the Supreme Court justices ruled that immunity did not apply in this case, because the decision about the use of the tanks was "sufficiently far removed from the pressures and risks of active operations against the enemy"."
" The MoD had argued that there was "combat immunity" for troops in action and it was not "fair, just or reasonable" to impose a duty of care on the MoD when soldiers were on the battlefield.
During Wednesday's hearing, the Supreme Court justices ruled that immunity did not apply in this case, because the decision about the use of the tanks was "sufficiently far removed from the pressures and risks of active operations against the enemy"."
I think the point they are trying to make is that 35 of the deaths may have been avoided if they had been in armour cars rather than the non armoured variety the army seem to favour in this conflict.
However that said, I agree with the OP if you join the forces you must realise that there is a possibility that you will lose your life.
However that said, I agree with the OP if you join the forces you must realise that there is a possibility that you will lose your life.
if it's negligence on the MOD's part then sure they should You can't send troops out into combat without the right kit, if the vehicles were known to be inadequate or guns that didn't work properly, then that would be down to the people who sent them out. they spend enough already surely the least service personnel can expect is decent kit. I remember the Americans who fought in the Battle of Bastogne in WW2 most of whom didn't have enough ammo nor warm clothing, we have gone past that stage one would hope. Sure i could find other examples of our own soldiers poorly equipped.
Undoubtedly mistake were made and troops were sent out not adequately protected.
The MoD, The Labour Government and Defence Ministers all have blood on their hands. In any other circumstance, deaths of employees by negligence would carry massive fines and even prison sentences.
So they can count themselves lucky that this is just a bid for compensation.
The MoD, The Labour Government and Defence Ministers all have blood on their hands. In any other circumstance, deaths of employees by negligence would carry massive fines and even prison sentences.
So they can count themselves lucky that this is just a bid for compensation.
At what point does a weapon or a vehicle become unfit for purpose? If I'm issued with the standard rifle and get shot by a sniper using a weapon capable of shooting further then mine, has my rifle become unfit for purpose? If the enemy try to blow up my vehicle and find they can't do and then make a bigger bomb and succeed, has my vehicle become unfit for purpose.
no, why do the top bods not recall kit if it's not fit for purpose, it's like giving a blunt spoon and tell a miner that is what he has to dig coal with.
one vehicle was blown up because the size of the bomb blew it into the air and it landed with such force that it crushed those inside, you can't cater for that i admit.
one vehicle was blown up because the size of the bomb blew it into the air and it landed with such force that it crushed those inside, you can't cater for that i admit.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.