tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post1777231999746517838..comments2024-03-20T12:03:26.126+00:00Comments on Thin Pinstriped Line: Litigation does not always protect the living. Thoughts on the Supreme Court 'snatch' ruling. Sir Humphreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-61203229652707751302013-07-01T23:02:16.442+01:002013-07-01T23:02:16.442+01:00Perhaps when Snatch was deployed the primary threa...Perhaps when Snatch was deployed the primary threat wasn't IEDs. The Iraq of 2003-2006 was very different to the Iraq of 2007+.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-49107071112651860162013-06-27T07:38:56.654+01:002013-06-27T07:38:56.654+01:00Good article, but think you miss the main point. ...Good article, but think you miss the main point. MoD and Ministers lied over Snatch. <br /><br />It is one thing to say it is fit for purpose and it turns out not to be, perhaps because the oppo has developed a bigger and better IED.<br /><br />But it is quite another to say it is fit for purpose when everyone knows it has been agreed long ago it isn't and was due for replacement in NI. <br /><br />That single fact destroys MoD's argument. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-18152306791713555582013-06-26T14:41:17.297+01:002013-06-26T14:41:17.297+01:00Well it might have been at the request of S02...Well it might have been at the request of S02...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-14754428623997600862013-06-25T22:25:37.586+01:002013-06-25T22:25:37.586+01:00"Censorship in a free and open society - the ..."Censorship in a free and open society - the reasons must have been compelling."<br /><br />Censorship is hyperbole. At the end of the day it is a blog (a very interesting one but still just a blog) and only a fool is going to put a blog over real world concerns. <br /><br />"Unlike Messrs Pseudonyms and Anonymous freedom to speak is not the same as freedom of speech."<br /><br />Some of us post "Anonymously" because we can't get this blogspot thing to work properly and under a Pseudonym so we can speak something approaching our minds without it biting us in the arse years down the line. And because the internet is full of freaks and can get nasty and menacing. <br /><br />Lord Lt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-20802157370131524682013-06-25T20:03:20.983+01:002013-06-25T20:03:20.983+01:00We are privileged to be included in Sir Humphrey&#...We are privileged to be included in Sir Humphrey's fireside chats and I, for one, would not wish to endanger that by questioning his wisdom in matters of his own discipline.<br />Unlike Messrs Pseudonyms and Anonymous freedom to speak is not the same as freedom of speech.Derek McBridenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-16912984589281667122013-06-25T14:13:30.996+01:002013-06-25T14:13:30.996+01:00As a user of Snatch on many occasions and others i...As a user of Snatch on many occasions and others issues S02 brought up in his post,a lot of what he brought up rang very true to me. <br />As to the issue of the post I'm afraid I can only agree with S02's (sadly) now deleted comments. The MoD firmly had it's head up it's arse on this issue. Despite the issues you bring up in the blog, it was more a lack of fires being lighted under backsides. If there are had of been there, to my mind, there is little doubt a replacement vehicle could and should have been brought into theatre faster. It wasn't a problem that was of Byzantine complixity, just an issue that needed focusing on and some leadership. Sadly in my opinion that was lacking, which is the real issue here. <br /><br />Over the wider legal issues, the MoD sadly needs rulings like this from time to time to shock them into action. If it takes something like this to force some leadership to occur then so be it. <br /><br />As to the deleted posts Sir H, it's disappointing to see them removed, I won't try and second guess why, but I believe you've weakened the blog by doing so. Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-30587017481581060832013-06-24T22:28:13.466+01:002013-06-24T22:28:13.466+01:00On this occasion I had my reasons. That's all ...On this occasion I had my reasons. That's all that I will say on this matter. Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-15614822605290656542013-06-24T21:19:46.704+01:002013-06-24T21:19:46.704+01:00"I thought SO2's arguments to be a well i..."I thought SO2's arguments to be a well informed and welcome... "<br /><br />I agree, though I think he was optimistic, if not actually simplistic, in his conclusions. Be that as it may the fact that his comments have disappeared raises questions. Our good Host has been around today, witness his post on "Think Defence", so perhaps he could enlighten us why SO2's views have been disappeared. HurstLlamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01086351645473769872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-59083046728878682252013-06-24T18:21:12.743+01:002013-06-24T18:21:12.743+01:00I an aware that, unlike Humphrey, there are many i...I an aware that, unlike Humphrey, there are many in the MOD who welcome this development as it should guard against the wilful removal of even basic survivability features from the requirements for future platforms on land, sea and in the air; often removed due to Industry pressure as "its all too difficult", justified by inflated (often ludicrous) cost estimates and frequently supported by senior military personnel in project teams who take Industry's opinion over the contrary advice of MOD's subject matter experts in Dstl and elsewhere. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-88233266537084415022013-06-23T16:11:36.183+01:002013-06-23T16:11:36.183+01:00Another vote in support of S02's missing comme...Another vote in support of S02's missing comment/guest post.<br /><br />Cases such as XV230 demonstrate the need for the MOD to be held accountable for its Duty of Care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-2981346781686868702013-06-23T00:06:01.771+01:002013-06-23T00:06:01.771+01:00I've no knowledge over MOD legal framework but...I've no knowledge over MOD legal framework but this is nicely argued.<br /><br />BTW, you are a nice defence blogger compared to some arrogant ones.Jeneral28https://www.blogger.com/profile/16332640271661260029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-6757532290591421502013-06-22T05:48:33.530+01:002013-06-22T05:48:33.530+01:00SO2's arguments, IMO do not really consider wh...SO2's arguments, IMO do not really consider why the immunity was either granted or at least de facto tolerated for so many years.<br /><br />Even if we assume we can limit this to so-called "administrative policy" such as arms procurement, it can still be hazardous and lead to an overemphasis on tactical (or even technical) factors over operational-strategic ones.<br /><br />Let's go back to WWII. We'll say Britain's tank industry was more competent, and produced 2 designs. Cromwell (it was perfected a bit earlier than in real life) and a copy of the Panther. The relative merits I suppose don't have to be repeated here. So what should Britain build?<br /><br />There is a strong case for arguing to build the Cromwell because the percentage of times it'll meet a Panther is relatively limited and a large number of Cromwells is more advantageous on an operational level - which is to say, it is better for the nation.<br /><br />But even if this is so, there will inevitably be days when it meets Panther in Panther's home ground and it'll get killed. Which under the new legal doctrine is reasonable grounds for a lawsuit. I mean, the MoD knowingly accepted a vehicle with less armor and firepower, and now some crews are dead. Is that not negligence? Ignoring duty of care?<br /><br />So now it gets fought out in a civil court. Sure, it still has to be fought, but MoD is in an adverse position. What do you think the civilian judge finds easy to understand? Authoratative numbers on penetration tables or operational considerations so complex that many a professional military officer would never approach true understanding? How do you think he would judge?<br /><br />On the other hand, if I choose to build the Panther-copy, sure, it means a lot of infantry won't have tank support. It is likely a bunch of them will die for this. But that's not as easily traced in a civilian's mind to being a valid negligence case. And even if I go to court, I can point out that it is important to protect tanker's lives, and British war industry is going full out - simple arguments that the court can understand. That is, I'm less likely to get sued and if I do I can fight on advantageous ground.<br /><br />Now, if I'm Bureaucrat, what would I pick? It is that simple.arkhangelskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247250672432027166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-25441171305195545942013-06-21T18:46:10.773+01:002013-06-21T18:46:10.773+01:00Both odd and disappointing.
I thought SO2's ar...Both odd and disappointing.<br />I thought SO2's arguments to be a well informed and welcome antidote to the usual media knee jerk misdirection and clap trap, which is what this site is usually so good at too. Shame.Anthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07384593323102710174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-84634527764515175432013-06-21T09:58:38.702+01:002013-06-21T09:58:38.702+01:00A very good question. Mr. So2's first version...A very good question. Mr. So2's first version appeared as a reply here then very quickly became a guest post in its own right. Now both versions have gone. I does seem rather odd.HurstLlamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01086351645473769872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-36911979824577414922013-06-20T20:22:08.648+01:002013-06-20T20:22:08.648+01:00What happened to SO2's guest post?
http://thin...What happened to SO2's guest post?<br />http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/smith-ors-end-of-world-as-we-know-it-or.html<br />Anthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07384593323102710174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-85916549479256204652013-06-20T18:48:55.000+01:002013-06-20T18:48:55.000+01:00Interesting post.
I broadly agree with the autho...Interesting post. <br /><br />I broadly agree with the author that, philosophically, nobody and no institution should be above the law. <br /><br />What I do worry about is the same as a lot of people and that's a ridiculous risk aversion resulting from the MoD losing its case. <br /><br />Sometimes's I am very surprised about how sensible the law can be, and sometime's very shocked at how ridiculous and detached from reality it is - I hope that I am of the former rather than the latter mind when this is finished. Until then I await developments. <br /><br />Lord Lt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-18673242558422861742013-06-19T22:09:13.180+01:002013-06-19T22:09:13.180+01:00Where this judgement will lead is to relatively ju...Where this judgement will lead is to relatively junior officers having their operational decisions second guessed by lawyers years latter. In action as, people here will no better than the population as a whole, decisions often have to be made on the rush, in difficult circumstances, on incomplete information. The lawyers, who will likely have no military experience, will be reviewing them in warm comfy offices with plenty of time and the benefit of full hindsight.<br /><br />A relatively junior officer whose decisions could be subject to a civil suit based on the allegation he/she was negligent, has but one protection, record keeping. From my time in the Home Office, where in certain areas this or similar threats have become commonplace, the keeping of contemporaneous logs setting out what one knew and what one didn't know and the basis for each decision (along with written risk assessments) have become de rigueur. The idea of a platoon commander sitting in his hole in the pissing rain filling out a risk assessment before he sends out a patrol, might seem laughable but if he don't and two years down the line he is in the witness box facing Michael Mansfield QC his career will be in tatters.<br /><br />Mr. SO2, seems to think this ruling will lead to the big boys being held to account. It might, but I doubt it - those Civil Servants never ordered Snatch Landrovers out on patrol - the blame, like sh1t will roll down hill, and it will be the company and Platoon leaders who will catch the flack. It is a recipe for massive risk aversion and military paralysis as decisions are shuffled up and down the line like a M26L2 with the pin out. HurstLlamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01086351645473769872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-765610336313736392013-06-19T20:22:54.428+01:002013-06-19T20:22:54.428+01:00No matter what the MOD and military leadership doe...No matter what the MOD and military leadership does, or doesn't do servicemen and women will be killed and seriously injured on active service. That is the brutal nature of war and there is no escaping from it. Best that can be done is to minimise casualties.<br /><br /> In some ways I do see this issue as being in a long British tradition of blaming our side for military deaths while effectively ignoring the enemy who actually did the killing. Should it not be them that the families should sue? In an ideal world, yes, but I recognise we don't live in an ideal world.<br /><br /> Will this ruling set a new precedent? Could, to pick a somewhat OTT example, someone who's relative was killed at Loos in 1915 sue the MOD for the shortage of artillery shells? Is the MOD now liable for casualties caused because British tank design in WW2 was often sub-standard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com