Soldier's families to sue the government?

Whenever a person who has been injured by the negligence of somebody else tries to get justice there will be those who say they are just after money and the words compensation culture will be said - as I know only too well. (If the complaints of all the other women had been heeded my daughter would not have been butchered by an incompetent surgeon.)
If individuals and organisations are not held to account they will never improve.

I've been away since yesterday morning so have only just caught up with this thread. I am pleased that people do seem to have taken on board that it is the element of negligence that is the critical factor. If the MOD are able to demonstrate that they purchased, in a timely fashion, the appropriate equipment to safeguard the lives of the troops then there will be no case for compensation. I am convinced this case is not about money, but about justice. If I believed that negligence had been a contributory factor in my son in law's death I would have fought tooth and nail for justice too.

I marched against the war partly because "casualties" are someone's loved one and not a statistic.

If there was any deliberate ignoring of known additional risk then I think as in any workplace there may be a case for compensation. It must be added distress to those who have lost a family member to know that negligence may have contributed
to a death.

Loads of info on the Royal Navy website.

I don't know anything about thr rifles that were "known to jam". Did they always jam, or only in certain circumstances?

Some slightly informed guesses as to the answer to your second question, absent:

1. Strategic advance planning. We are buying American F35s apparently.
2. It would actually cost more to back out of the contract to build the aircraft carriers than it is to carry on. (And anyway, we are buying aircraft for one of them).
3. To help allies who do have aircraft. The aircraft carriers have been specifically designed so that the French can use them as well.

What about the rifles that were known to jam?

Also why is the MOD buying aircraft carriers for which there are no aircraft?

Biker Would you feel the same, or differently, if your son worked for a civil engineering contractor, and he was killed or injured during the course of his work, and the contractor was found to be in some way criminally negligent?
Is it different if someone is working in public service, or the armed forces, or for a company?
Unless an individual has indemnified his employer agains such legal action, I cannot see why the courts should not decide whether the Army or MOD is guilty of negligence, as they do in civil cases.

I have done army time and was honoured to hold the Queen's commission.
I do believe that the troops went overseas with a standard of equipment that proved to be not fully fit for purpose. I also believe that they went with the best we had at the time.
The main problems are historical in that most services equipment was designed and purchased for a putative European war.i.e. with the USSR.
Who is to blame? I don't know but the question I asked was 'should it be possible to sue for negligence'
i don't think we should to be honest and I speak as the father of a Police sergeant who has had numerous injuries including a broken kneecap and fractured skull. Neither he nor I would even think of suing because his standard Police helmet wasn't up to a blow from a baseball bat

Or it could be both those things.

It could have been poor strategic planning, but it could equally well have been that the other side got ahead in the arms race for a time.

The MOD budget was cut by quite a lot, wasn't it?

Why were they not available - poor strategic planning at the top? I know some British troops had to buy their own equipment for the terrain, and some were given some by the US troops.

The article says the necessary vehicles won't be ready for months. Why is that? Is it because they haven't been made yet?

But that still doesn't mean the Mastifs and other well-protected vehicles were available as soon as they were needed.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2159039/Fears-of-more-Afghanistan-deaths-as-inadequate-vehicle-blamed-for-latest-fatalities.html

Good point, greatnan.

How much money has been squandered by the MOD on useless aircraft which could not be used? How many top brass have exited through the revolving door into well paid jobs with defence companies? I could look up the names and numbers in my past copies of Private Eye, but if people want to believe that the MOD is above suspicion, there is no point.

I certainly hope that the truth, wherever it lies, will out, but the story as told by DH does sound to me like the kind of "arms race" that has ever been the driver of invention during war – your opponents invent some new way of attacking and killing; you have to find some new way of protecting and retaliating. That's how war works.

I'm not defending war, by the way, but trying to look at the problem objectively.

DH, who knows more about these things than I do, says that until the war in Afghanistan, the Snatch Land Rovers had been perfectly adequate to moving troops around. When the IEDs began to be used the army started replacing the Snatches with a better armoured vehicles (Mastif and others). However, the army was already over budget when this need was identified and the Mastifs etc are extremely expensive (as you would expect), so they could hardly just order hundreds of them at once. The Snatches have now been replaced by better-protected vehicles.

If this is true, it looks as if the army adapted to new circumstances as soon as it was able to, given financial limitations and, presumably, having the things designed and made to cope with the new problems.

It will be interesting to follow the court case.

Biker the stories about the substandard equipment was relayed to me first hand by my youngest boy who did three tours of Iraq as a Field Paramedic,a job you would imagine had him equipped to carry out his job as best he could,but no 6 weeks into the beginning of the conflict and their supplies where still on their way to the troops,no night vision goggles, no sand goggles, substandard transport and not enough kit to go around I could go on and on,I am lucky that my boy came home but some of the other boys I knew didn't and I grieve for them to this day,if anything had happened to my boy because of insufficient or substandard equipment I can assure you I would haunt the powers that be not for compensation but for the truth to be told to all the families concerned.

Further to my previous question, if there wasn't enough money to buy the best of every kind of equipment needed by the army, is that the fault of the MOD or is it the fault of tax-payers?

Soldiers don't get the choice of which wars they have to fight. Unfortunately, that is done by politicians and often for dubious motives. My father always believed that the WW1 was fought mainly to fill the coffers of the arms manufacturers - and the poor bloody naïve men and women who volunteered, thinking they were being patriotic, were no more than pieces on a chess board.
I won't hazard a guess at the motives for the Iraq war.

Was spending on the Land Rovers (for instance) reduced because there wasn't enough money to buy the best, or for some other reason?

As I understand it, the landrovers were known to be susceptable to IEDs. The bottom of the landrover was relatively thin. I think I heard that by simply welding a thicker piece of metal onto the bottom of the landrover improved the chances of survival.

The soldiers serving in foreign wars DESERVE to be supplied with the very best equipment, if they are not then the MOD has been negligent.

I may not support the various conflicts - but I do support the soldiers.