boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 For all of you who always moan about the HRA and call for it to be abolished, here's a case that was brought by the families of dead British soldiers who can now pursue damages against the British government..all because of the Human Rights Act. "Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled. Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank. The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence. The defence secretary has said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations". The ruling comes after a lengthy legal battle and previous judgements by the High Court and the Court of Appeal." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853 Wonder what Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage, outspoken critics of the HRA have to say about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 For all of you who always moan about the HRA and call for it to be abolished, here's a case that was brought by the families of dead British soldiers who can now pursue damages against the British government..all because of the Human Rights Act. "Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled. Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank. The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence. The defence secretary has said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations". The ruling comes after a lengthy legal battle and previous judgements by the High Court and the Court of Appeal." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853 Wonder what Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage, outspoken critics of the HRA have to say about this. Another idiotic ruling, its time the human rights act was scrapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 Another idiotic ruling, its time the human rights act was scrapped. Not very patriotic of you MrSmith. The government failed in their duty of care to provide safe transport for our troops and will pay the price for it. If soldiers are going to get themselves blown to bits at least get them into the field of battle first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Another example: didn't Theresa May block Gary McKinnon's extradition to the US last year on human rights grounds? To protect him from inhumane or degrading treatment or somesuch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Not very patriotic of you MrSmith. The government failed in their duty of care to provide safe transport for our troops and will pay the price for it. If soldiers are going to get themselves blown to bits at least get them into the field of battle first War is a messy business and its not always possible to afford troops the best possible protection, clearly the best way to protect them is to not go to war, when I joined up I understood the risks and accepted them as part of the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 War is a messy business and its not always possible to afford troops the best possible protection, clearly the best way to protect them is to not go to war, when I joined up I understood the risks and accepted them as part of the job. Of course there are risks commensurate with doing your job, but sending troops into battle in the military equivalent of a Lada is negligent, and the Supreme Court agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 For all of you who always moan about the HRA and call for it to be abolished, here's a case that was brought by the families of dead British soldiers who can now pursue damages against the British government..all because of the Human Rights Act. "Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled. Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank. The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence. The defence secretary has said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations". The ruling comes after a lengthy legal battle and previous judgements by the High Court and the Court of Appeal." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853 Wonder what Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage, outspoken critics of the HRA have to say about this. I think it's fair enough where the land rovers are concerned but I'm not sure about tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 The HRA needs to be overhauled, not scrapped because in it's current guise it's not fit for purpose as this ruling shows. Who'd have thought you could be injured/killed in an active warzone when you belong to one of the two factions engaged in combat. Soldiers willingly and without coercion sign up for service, knowing they will be putting their lives in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 I think it's fair enough where the land rovers are concerned but I'm not sure about tanks. I'm sure they consult experts better equipped to know these things rather than us? as for the ruling, its common knowledge our troops have been short changed in recent events in Iraq and a'stan regarding shoddy equipment and vehicles about time the government were brought to book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 Of course there are risks commensurate with doing your job, but sending troops into battle in the military equivalent of a Lada is negligent, and the Supreme Court agreed. That's not what they have ruled. What they have ruled is that the military are to be subject to civilian courts if the families of those killed choose to take them to court using the HRA. Which is an insanely costly idea which isn't going to help anyone and will cause inummerble problems for the military. Snatch Landrovers were rubbish, everyone concedes this. However the still offered more protection than nothing at all, so should infantrymen be able to sue if injured on patrol too? One of the cases is about a Challenger II for christs sake, what level of armour should the army provide to any given individual to be exempt from a HRA court case? Look at the murder of Lee Rigby, if that horror is repeated should the army be sued for not issuing loaded sidearms to all forces in the UK on and off duty? It's just another example of very very expensive civilian lawyers enriching themselves by extending their influence where it is not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.