MoD loses human rights court case

  peter99co 10:15 18 May 2009

British soldiers can be covered by human rights laws while on the battlefield.

The ruling could lead to more families wishing to sue the MoD for negligence.

The MoD appealed amid fears that the judgement raised serious questions over sending troops into combat abroad, because absolute protection could never be guaranteed on the battlefield.

Have you a view?

  crosstrainer 10:42 18 May 2009

I do, but rules and regs. prevent me from posting it.

I am an ex service person.

  john bunyan 10:42 18 May 2009

JUst imagine being in close combat and giving orders: "Fix bayonets but leave the scabbard on in case you cut yourself. Use blanks in case of blue on blue. Leave the pins in grenades in case they go off too close, Dont jump out by parachute in case the main and reserve fail, etc, etc"
Thank God I've retired from all that.

  crosstrainer 10:57 18 May 2009

..Remember, is that all service personnel are under orders./

You follow these, irrespective of your own opinions.

Can you make war "Safe"

Don't be daft..Of course not!

  PILECAP 11:38 18 May 2009

thrown out a Government appeal by deciding that the Human Rights Act can apply to British troops, even on the battlefield.

This Judgement is centred on the fact that "right to life" meant it had a legal duty to supply proper equipment. It has nothing to do with making war “Safe.” If a Government is sending troops to war, then it should supply the best kit available and make sure the availability is afforded to every soldier that requires it.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 12:06 18 May 2009

What about the 'human rights' of civilians caught up in the fighting?


  JanetO 12:19 18 May 2009

In the forces you're trained to kill the enemy, to defend yourself at all costs. If human rights comes into the equation on the battlefield then perhaps it's a good time to stop having wars.

  peter99co 12:40 18 May 2009

It's a good time to stop having wars.

I think that is true but only if the other lot are playing by the same rule book.

Maybe the people who keep making bombs and bullets could be made to stop production.

  john bunyan 12:43 18 May 2009

Yes ideally there would be no wars. Sadly there are those who have not got the message so one has to defend oneself and country, sometimes with even lethal force. People like Hitler or Bin Laden will never give up without a fight.

  DieSse 13:40 18 May 2009

"Maybe the people who keep making bombs and bullets could be made to stop production."

Perhaps you could write a letter to the Taliban, Hamas, etc, etc etc, and ask them politely to stop.

Or perhaps you could make them stop, as you suggest. A war against them might do that trick?

  JanetO 13:40 18 May 2009

It was in jest of course. Human nature is such that a non-war planet is probably a few centuries away.

But there's a few wars we could and should have stayed out of, then there's some countries where a UN presence would help millions (like Zimbabwe).

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Honor 9 Lite review

How Social Media has Propelled Political Graphic Design and Art in the Last Decade

The best kids apps for iPhone & iPad 2018

HomePod d’Apple : date de sortie, prix et fiche technique