British Military, You stand accused of gross negligence, murder and failing your servicemen!

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Some of this is not new, except perhaps a story involving a crash of a Nimrod that I will outline below.
But the disgusting attitude of the British Military needs to be documented here on ATS, I believe that the scale of cost cutting will shock some members.

It will also be shocking to know that it has actually cost US lives as well.

The very minimum a service person should expect is that any and all equipment is adequately provided, serviced and suitable for the job. If you're expecting young men and women to lay down their lives for their country, this is the very minimum.

THE MILITARY COVENANT History


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.


I'll let you be the judge if the Government of the United Kingdom could look us in the eyes and say they have lived up to this covenant.

My interest (although long standing) in this peaked this week after a report in respected UK papers that MoD cost-cutting led to Nimrod spy plane crash that killed 14.


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."


Fourteen men died as a direct result of MoD (Ministry of Defence) policy putting Pounds ahead of Safety.



Just as disgusting is the report's shameful attempt to deflect culpability away from the MoD and onto two officers that have left their posts.


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.


Not surprising really.

Examples of Military Deaths resulting from lack of funding.

Iraq death due to kit shortage


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.


Body armour, this is sick. How can you expect soldiers to go out on combat missions without sufficient protection.

You may as well send them out with no bullets, well read this:

Criticism over Red Caps' deaths


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.


Oh really, couldn't have been avoided?


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.


I'm no soldier, but I'd imagine Six Guys with 150 rounds each, could hold off a crowd longer than Six Guys with 50 rounds, and if they had decent radios they may have been able to call for assistance.

But as usual:


But the coroner said having and using better communications would not have saved the men on that day.


Then we have transport, or lack thereof:

MoD sent men to die in ‘unsafe’ helicopter


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.


That is bad enough, but a cover up reportedly ensued.


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.


This crash also involve and American serviceman too.


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”.


This article is from November 1st 2009, and follows revelations yesterday that:


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”.


Commander issued helicopter warning weeks before Afghanistan death.



Tragically this fallen officer was correct.

Another example of inadequate equipment provided to UK servicemen is the Snatch Land Rover.


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.


Even though they was widespread concern over the use of, and deaths in this inadequately armed vehicle:

Hutton (Minister of Defence): Snatch essential to operations


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.


I think we're seeing a familiar pattern here, MoD cuts corners - People die- MoD tries to avoid being held accountable.

It is unbelievable that several years after embarking on a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can sit here in 2009, quoting stories from Today's Papers. that highlight the continued failure of the British Government's Ministry of Defence.

I find it abhorrent to see time and time again the efforts to cover up the extent of the issue, ignore warnings, and continually fail to improve the situation. If they can find £200 Billion to bail out the bankers, then they can, no they MUST send our servicemen and women to war with everything they need.

Lets send the Sons and Daughters of MPs and Aristocrats to War and see how quickly the equipment situation changes.

I leave you with one more story from 2007, keep in mind there are to years of death and failure since then:

The cruellest sacrifice: Revealed: 88 casualties of MoD's failures


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.


Please read the article, as I have just run out of room. I hope you've been enlightened by this thread, only when you see the failures all in one place does it really hit home.

Peace Kiwifoot

[edit on 1-11-2009 by kiwifoot]




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
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
www.helpforheroes.org.uk...



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

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
www.helpforheroes.org.uk...


Thanks mate, I was going to post that but ran out of room!

I was also going to post the MoDs email so that we can get on their backs!

But hey, they've ignored the problem for years!

I'm gonna put www.helpforheroes.org.uk... in my signature.

thanks again!



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen, how much longer am I going to have to read stories like these before the MOD and Parliament give the British military the budget that they need to perform their required duties?

How many more mother's sons and daughters have to die because their were not enough helicopters available because the politicians wanted to save some money and thus they had to go about on foot or vehicle (and leaving them more vulnerable to IEDs and ambushes)? The lack of helicopters and air support has been a constant problem for the British military since the Falklands and that was almost 30 years ago!

At the rate your going, pretty soon you won't even have enough troops to mount guard duty outside Buckingham Palace



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
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....



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

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....


If the MoD was a company, lets say BP for instance, and the same number of people were killed on one of their oil rigs, there would be hundreds of millions of pounds in fines, compensation and fees, all arising from health and safety issues, the MoD should be held accountable, the same way any company is, in fact more so.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
ISO 9001:2008 (ISO 9001) Certification

WHAT IS IT?
ISO 9001 is the internationally recognised standard for an organisation's internal Quality Management. The term 'quality' refers to all those features of a product or service which are required by the customer. An organisation's 'Quality Management' refers to an organisation's actions to ensure that its products or services satisfy its customers' quality requirements and complies with any regulations applicable to those products or services.


Hence the need for and independant body to regulate... "Trade unions"



[edit on 1-11-2009 by foxhoundone]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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.


So how do you know?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

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.


No worries, and yep you're right, strong words for an important topic!

I think it's a given that the UK doesn't support its troops or spend enough, but until you see a few examples in one place, it's hard to comprehend the seriousness and extent of the problem!

All the best, Kiwifoot



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Just a story that illustrates ( I think) the flawed system that the Uk's MOD has with regards to funding, a news story from the UK today:

Anger over MoD civil servants' bonuses


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.


Just boils my blood!

I know, I know, if you want to employ accountants, lawyers and pen pushers, then you have to do this.

But when a young boy of 18 is getting £17,000 a year to spill his blood, with little helicopter support, well this is shocking.


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.


Just sick, day after 11/11 too.

Ain't that a kick in the teeth.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
i think you either supply your troops correcvtly or you pull out. It should be as simple as that. You can't send men in to harms way without the correct equipment.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by woodwardjnr]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
All due respect for the ones that serve. Can someone tell me if the UK military is voluntary?
If they are forced to stay in combat with substandard equipment it is criminal. In the Nam it was bubble gum and bailing wire. I would like to see them back home, Yanks too. They have done enough.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I would like to say that this is just an issue with the UK and not a widespread thing, but that would be a lie. I will try and find all the articles I had about the Canadian DND, and how they keep cutting corners. Like when we bought 4 diesel subs from Great Britain. Or the helicopters that can't seem to stay int he air. Or the fact that our guys didn't, and still don't have desert camo. Even worse is that they don't have winter camo, and for a country that is pretty white in the winter, we should probably have that.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
It's the equivelant of sending fire fighters into a burning building with no hoses, respirators or fire proof clothing.

So why is it still happening?

Just exactly what is our defense budget being spent on???

As much as i'm against the war of terror, i do support our troops, as i have friends over there and ultimately they are doing a dirty job, decided by corrupt leaders.




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
And some could say it is on purpose.

Why win any conflict if you can prolong it for years.

Look at the profit, follow the money. If you can make more money by prolonging a war, why not?

It took 4 years to stop both the German and Japanese militaries, but we cannot stop some supposed jihadists.

YEAH RIGHT! War is a profitable corporate affair.

We the People are idiotic, ignorant and generally very very stupid.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


And how many US army choppers have also crashed in Afghanistan, and what about the friendly fire incidents against British troops that can be considered extreme incompotence?

My point being, that war is messy, and sh*t happens!

Anyone claiming it's all "planned" in advance to kill our own troops intentionally is a complete lunatic.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

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]



Case in point. You either know nothing about warfare or are deliberately being obtuse. You do not fight an enemy on their own terms.

Read The Art of War and we will have further communication or would you like to argue like a child?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join