Troops have 'some rights' under the Human Rights Act.

[Grumpmeister]

So let me get this straight. British troops in combat have less rights under the Human Rights Act than a failed asylum seeker. That is basically what you are saying?

And as for it being impossible to give troops in combat the benefit of the HRA I think that there is bound to be some part which would show it to be against the Act to send them out into a country that we have illegally invaded.

This is what happens when you put some mealy mouthed arse who has never served in the armed forces into the position of Defence Minister 

Human rights laws do apply "to some degree" to British soldiers in combat, Defence Secretary Des Browne has said.

His comments come after a ruling by the High Court that means sending troops into action without proper kit could breach their human rights.

Government lawyers had argued it was impossible to give soldiers in combat the benefits of the Human Rights Act.

Mr Browne told the BBC the government would appeal against the ruling to seek clarification on its position.

The landmark judgement came in a test case relating to the death of Scottish soldier Pte Jason Smith in Iraq.

Clarity

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Browne said there had been a number of judgements made recently which were "inconsistent" with Friday's ruling by Mr Justice Collins.

"We have for example a judgement made earlier this week from the House of Lords which raised some of these issues about the Human Rights Act and its applicability - which we believe is partially inconsistent with Mr Justice Collins' decision," he said.

Asked whether soldiers should enjoy any human rights, Mr Browne said: "The Human Rights Act applies to some degree in those circumstances, and we have some cases that set out the degree to which they apply."

He was then asked why the government was to appeal, if he accepted the High Court's ruling that human rights laws can be applied to British troops even in combat.

Mr Browne said the law needed "clarification".

He said the judge had granted the government leave to appeal because he understood that if it was to send young people into operational environments then "we have to have clarity and stability about the legal circumstances in which they go".

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said the government did not believe the latest judgement reflected some of the legal precedents and was seeking clarification.

"In the vast majority of cases, when troops are in combat, you can't offer them the same rights as a civilian," he added.

Compensation claims

During the ruling, Mr Justice Collins said that although a duty of care could not be expected in combat, troops did not lose all protection.

For example, he said, sending a soldier out on patrol with defective equipment might be a breach of Article 2 of the Human Rights Act - the right to life, which in the event of death requires an independent inquiry.

The court also ruled families of those killed in conflict should get legal aid and access to military documents.

The judgement came during a request for military inquest guidelines in the case of Pte Smith, 32, from Hawick, in the Scottish Borders, who died of heatstroke in Iraq in 2003.

Many believe the judgement will make it easier for the families of those injured or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to claim for compensation.

[Snoopy]

Attack it from whatever angle you like the fact is that the "Troops" have always and rightly assumed that they will be provided with the right kit to do the job asked of them and that, when anything goes wrong, the "country" will look after them. Note NOT the Government but the "Country". No serviceman I have ever known has anytime for politicians and would as soon turn their arms on them as the enemy BUT we all served and they continue to serve Queen and Country and it is to them that we look for support when it is needed. It is this government in particular, following a lead set in train under Tom King when he was Minister for Defence under the Blessed Margaret, that has seen fit to interfere with the "implied contract".
But why blame Tom King, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown. My Granddad said much the same about Lloyd George when he returned from 4 years on the Somme.

Kipling summed it up best:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[Nick]

Iraqi kid shot by mistake gets £2 million compo.

Soldiers with legs and/or arms blown off get max £280K

Can anyone explain why?

[Grumpmeister]

Its the 'caring' face of the MOD. The rationale being that if they pay boatloads of cash out to people hit by 'friendly' fire they will be less likely to start rallying the insurgents for revenge.

[Nick]

So that hasn't worked then!

[Grumpmeister]

Show my any part of the invasion of Iraq that has worked Nick because I'm buggered if I can see any.

[Nick]

Well oil prices have, um, doubled.

See what you mean

[Barman]

Iraqi kid shot by mistake gets £2 million compo.

Soldiers with legs and/or arms blown off get max £280K

Can anyone explain why?

It is quite disgusting… what is an Iraqi kid going to be able to spend two million Pounds compo on… 



 

[Grumpmeister]

A ticket out of the country perhaps?