In the current news cycle there is 'news' of how the M.O.D. (Ministry of Defence) continues to fail our armed forces by opting out of the laws of the land with legal jiggery pockery. 

Now to explain my position, I am ex-forces, both regular and territorial, serving 18 years under the Queens Colours.  I have been an Army Trainer in the past and taught all the typical subjects to both recruits and candidates.  I left in 1996.  I've since worked under fire as a civilian in Northern Iraq in 2007-2009 working with U.S. Armed Forces. 

I am appalled that the M.O.D. has been allowed to get away with murder, because that's how I see it.  There should be a basic duty of care to all who work, this is how our original 1974 Act was constructed, with the idea of the betterment of British subjects. 

How many more deaths before the law removes Crown imunity?  

Yeah I had thought so too, apparently not.  This current item was about the 3 guys who died on the Brecon Beacons.  It was the hottest day of the year, there was no drinking water available, no ambulance, no medical personel nearby, no communications, no overall on the ground control, not even any shelter between stages.  It was a shambles, 15 other candidates could have died too. 

Edited by user 19 February 2020 22:30:25(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Sorry but I don't agree training deaths is an 'acceptable and necessary risk'.

I also appreciate that training must be realistic and can be dangerous, therefore mishaps can happen. However, poor planning and management of training is not an acceptable excuse in my book. There have been several incidents of fatalities whilst training and someone needs to get a grip and be accountable when things go wrong.

Crown censure is basically a slap on the wrist.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/services/armedforces/application.htm#

The HSW Act does not apply in respect of the MOD's work activities and operations abroad.

Is training not a work activity

Edited by user 20 February 2020 09:21:33(UTC)  | Reason: finish posting - windows update struck

#6 I usually agree with most things that you have a view on Ray, but think you are wrong on this one.

With the best will in the world and all necessary procedures followed and suitable plans in place - we still lost the occasional jet.

There have been mid air collisions where such was the combination of circumstances, too long to expalain here, that, aircraft hit each other  (mainly a unique set of human factors issues), natural causes from birdstrikes bring aircraft down - sure avoiding known bird activity areas etc, but low flying is inherently dangerous.

Aircraft going into the sea due to loss of crew spacial awarness/situational awareness. Very difficult to train out the risk etc.

Risks are more predictable for ground based activities I would agree and hence more manageable etc. 

We all accept risk in life, for the benefits brought about. Are you going to cancel your 2 weeks in the sun because the aircraft might crash or you get killed in an RTA on the way to the airport? 

I think that Crown Immunity is a red herring (certain lawyers are looking at ways of extending their range of services perhaps?). Currently the MoD can be prosecuted for Corporate Manslaughter and individuals can also be prosecuted if it can be demonstrated that they were at fault.

The question is what system do we want to hold people to account and will it be fair both on the victims but also on those people who might be held liable? It would make no sense to jail the Chief of the Defence staff for a training accident since they could not have any control over the event that lead to this happening. Equally it would be wrong to entirely place the blame on the junior officers and NCO’s running the training exercise, as they were probably following procedures put in place by more senior people. People do get angry about this but sometimes in the real world it’s difficult to pin the blame on any one person or on the organisation as a whole. We cannot impose a fine so massive that the entire MoD has to close down, which is an option for a commercial business that fails in its duty of care under H&S law.