Soldiers Rights

This all seems very strange to me I must say:

In a blow to Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, a senior judge said troops in combat zones have a "right to life" at all times, even while under fire on the battlefield.

Makes you rather wonder whether the politicians actually read and understood the Human Rights Act 1998 before they waved it into law.

This I rather like though:

But rejecting Mr Browne\’s bid, the judge said: "A finding that there was a failure to act in a particular way does not appear to determine a question of civil liability. I do not think that findings of fact, however robustly stated, can be forbidden."

Rock on Judge! A finding of fact being simply another word fo "truth".

5 thoughts on “Soldiers Rights”

  1. “Makes you rather wonder whether the politicians actually read and understood the Human Rights Act 1998 before they waved it into law.”

    Makes you rather wonder whether the critics of the Act understood that it was already law before it was passed. It merely allowed our own courts to rule on it, rather than the ECJ, lowering the cost of justice. A bad thing?

  2. We’re all getting confused by the words “right to life”. It means that someone has a right for their life not to be thrown away due to negligence.

  3. I think “right to life” is deceptive. What we are talking about is a right to standard protective measures.

    Why shouldn’t a serviceman have the same right to due diligence as a coalminer, or a farm labourer. No occupation is entirely without risk, so we establish normal standards. And they result in normal levels of investment.

    If you try to save money, by putting your staff at risk of harm, then whenever that goes wrong, it has to cost you much more money than you ever saved. If the MOD was made to buy adequate insurance at market rates for servicemen, the market would sort it all out.

    Oh, and once our guys are on the battlefield, the other guys rights are covered by the Geneva Convention, which means we can shoot them.

  4. Our service people should have the best kit available to afford them the best protection. This means armoured landrovers or even better vehicles which do exist and are IED resistant. Top of the range body armour such as Dragon skin number 5 (if the US will allow their allies to actually buy it……It’s classified). This ruling means that the MoD has a duty to supply the best, not just the most cost effective. Now perhaps they will ditch the SA80 and buy some better assault rifles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *