Allowing British soldiers to sue could put troops at even greater risk

Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | 8:37PM BST 20 Jun 2013 | Dominic Raab

[Olog-hai]

Far from protecting British troops, this week’s novel ruling by the Supreme Court—stretching the Human Rights Act (HRA) to allow soldiers to sue the Government over decisions on equipment, training and operations—will endanger our forces and undermine democratic accountability.

The claims followed casualties in Iraq after a “friendly fire” incident between two Challenger tanks, and when a Snatch Land Rover patrol hit roadside bombs. The Ministry of Defense was accused of negligence in equipping the tanks and jeeps, training the servicemen and operational decision-making. In an unprecedented judgment, the court abandoned the bar to negligence claims against the MoD in such circumstances, and expanded the “right to life”, under the HRA, to allow the claims to proceed. …

[manc]

will we ever just get back to normal marriage, normal common sense, normal lives and laws ?

[SgtHooper]

Next on the agenda, the enemy suing for improper engagement.

[Gay State Conservative]

In the 1980's there was a great Britcom called "Yes,Prime Minister".One episode featured a scene where the readiness of NATO troops was being discussed.At one point the Prime Minister's aide said something like "well,Dutch troops are quite effective on weekdays".The PM,shocked,said "only on weekdays?" and the aide said "yes,their contract allows them to all go home on weekends".So the PM responds "so I guess that we'd prefer the Russians to attack on a weekday"

That sounds more and more like it's the reality in all Western armies.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

To some extent, I can understand this. A lot of coalition troops died unnecessarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the (then) Liberal government sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan, as if they were on a "peacekeeping" mission. Troops drove around in open Iltis jeeps -- so as to win hearts and minds. Everything was based on "peacekeeping" modus operandi. In addition, Canadian troops had (almost) no helicopters. They had to drive over IED-infested ground.

If troops can sue, perhaps governments won't consider them quite so expendable.

[G Larry]

I’m waiting for murder charges for our troops killing the enemy without a prior conviction and sentence by a U.S. court......

[Savage Beast]

21st century Britain is but a sorry vestige of the once great British Empire.

Britons got lost somewhere along the way and decided that Britannia need not rule the waves and that to be slaves couldn't be all that bad, could it? They're gonna find out.

[manc]

have you seen here too, we can already sue for some in the military, we have cross dressers, homosexuals, affirmative action , women in the marines, hell even the UK won’t allow women in combat or their elite ,marines, we have women on ships getting pregnant, sexual diseases on the rise, record levels of men being raped.

Yea if anything we might be worse

[wally_bert]

That was a good episode. I found it on YouTube a couple months ago.

[Savage Beast]

Yep. If anything we might be worse.

[Gay State Conservative]

That was a good episode. I found it on YouTube a couple months ago.

I've been an Anglophile for years and a fan of Britcoms for almost as long so I may have a leg up on most Yanks in understanding and appreciating them.If you have time check out more episodes,they're all outstanding.Cerebral *and* funny at the same time.Sophisticated humor for sure...although I love the unsophisticated type too (I'm no snob!).I read once that it was one of Margaret Thatcher's favorite shows while she was PM.

[BitWielder1]

Lawyer infested decision making and fear-of-lawsuit paralysis and increasing costs has worked so well in other areas of life so why not try it in the Military too? /s