It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices – including the ultimate sacrifice – in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service. In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation. This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.
A Nimrod spy plane crashed in Afghanistan in 2006 with the loss of 14 personnel because the MoD placed business and financial targets ahead of the safety of those on board, a report said.
The damning verdict, from leading aviation lawyer Charles Haddon-Cave QC, attributed the tragedy to a "systematic breach of the military covenant".
He said: "There was a shift in culture and priorities in the MoD towards 'business' and financial targets, at the expense of functional values such as safety and airworthiness."
Aircraft XV230 exploded in mid-air over Kandahar in September 2006, causing the biggest single loss of life for UK forces since the Falklands War.
The Nimrod crash report noted: "Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency and cynicism. The best chance to prevent the accident to XV230 was, tragically, lost."
He singled out two Chiefs of Defence Logistics, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, who held their posts between April 1999 and December 2004, for criticism.
He said they bear responsibility for "the episode of cuts, change, dilution and distraction and its consequences". The two officers have been moved to new posts where they have no responsibility for safety or airworthiness.
A British soldier died in Iraq because he was not wearing the enhanced body armour he had had to give up because of shortages, an Army report has found.
Sgt Steven Roberts, of Shipley, West Yorks, was accidentally shot dead when UK troops opened fire during a disturbance near Basra in March 2003.
The board of inquiry said bullet-proof plates on his Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) would have saved him.
Six Red Caps killed by a mob in Iraq in 2003 should have been better equipped, but their deaths could not have been avoided, a coroner has said.
The coroner said the men should not have been given antiquated radios and inadequate ammunition, and said he would write to Defence Secretary John Reid about army equipment and procedures.
The soldiers had 50 rounds rather than the standard 150 rounds and had left base without an iridium satellite phone.
But the coroner said having and using better communications would not have saved the men on that day.
The overruling of aircraft safety warnings by the Ministry of Defence resulted in the deaths of six British servicemen in a helicopter crash, a senior official has revealed.
He also alleged that documents were withheld from the board of inquiry and the inquest to cover up the way in which airworthiness regulations were ignored. The former civil servant said he had refused to declare the Royal Navy’s Sea King Mk7 helicopters airworthy, but was overruled by superiors trying to save money.
He said that two years before two Sea Kings collided off Iraq in 2003, killing six Royal Navy officers and one American serviceman, he issued warnings about the risks. Anti-collision lights on Sea Kings had been replaced with strobe lights that “blinded the pilots at low level, over water or in mist — so they switched them off”.
that Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the most senior British officer to have died in Afghanistan, had warned his superiors that helicopter operations there were “not fit for purpose”.
Why are they controversial?
A number of incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq have raised concerns about the safety of the Land Rovers.
The thin-skinned vehicles are designed to withstand small arms fire, but have been criticised for offering insufficient protection against roadside bombs.
At least 37 British soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan while using the vehicles since 2005.
Concerns over the vehicles have been raised by MPs, military personnel and the families of dead soldiers.
Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced today that he will not be instituting a public inquiry into the use of Snatch Land Rovers by the British military on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
More than one in three servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan might still be alive if not for avoidable blunders and equipment problems, an investigation by The Independent on Sunday has revealed.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by kiwifoot
A regular complaint by several British members here on ATS has been the serial under funding of the British Armed Forces since Thatcher's days.
A culture of cost cutting by Military Administrators has become endemic throughout the military resulting in the incidents you have highlighted.
The British Armed Forces are undoubtly amonst the best trained and resolute in the world, that they and our allies are suffering and dying through a lack of basic equipment, incompetence and cost cutting is crimianl and those guilty should be tried.
In addition the level of support our armed personnel recieve after returning from service is negligible.
Please offer any support possible to Help For Heroes
Originally posted by foxhoundone
The trials and develop/research teams who sign off this equipment "fit for fighting" should be brought up on charges of "duty of care"...... That was aways an issue of mine why there was no trade union/health and safety involvement in the military, so the standards could be set and adhered to, and and independent body could regulate and draw up "issues".. With MOD officials,
For example risk assessment adhering to ISO standards....
Originally posted by andy1033
Trust me, even though i have never been in the uk military i advise everyone one of you to never even thing about joining the uk military. You have no idea what your doing, if you do.
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Those are some strong words, kiwifoot, but it looks as though you have the documentation to back them up. We are all, all of us, in such a mess.
Good job, and thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq today reacted angrily to news that civil servants at the Ministry of Defence shared performance bonuses of almost £300 million since the start of the war in Iraq.
Official MoD figures showed a total of £287,809,049 has been paid out in bonuses to civil servants since 2003, including more than £47 million this year.
Bereaved families said the bonuses were "absolutely disgusting" while troops were "making do" in Afghanistan.
Hazel Hunt, whose son died in August, said it was "obscene" that troops were being short-changed.
Private Richard Hunt was injured following an explosion while on vehicle patrol for the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh in Helmand Province. The 21-year-old from Abergavenny, South Wales, died in hospital two days later.
We the People are idiotic, ignorant and generally very very stupid.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by endisnighe
We the People are idiotic, ignorant and generally very very stupid.
I agree about that last point about you!
The Germans and Japanese fought conventional warfare and didn't hide away using brainwashed children and women as suicide bombers against troops and civilians, or use mines and hide away inside caves either!
How many millions of children are potential recruits for the terrorists, who are too cowardly to fight their enemy themselves face-to-face?
[edit on 12-11-2009 by john124]