Verdict on army guys killed.

[JustGav]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7514188.stm

 

 

Soldiers 'did not have right kit'

Lance Bombardiers Ross Clark and Liam McLaughlin

Ross Clark and Liam McLaughlin died in a rocket attack

 

Two British soldiers were wearing incorrect body armour when they were killed in Afghanistan last year, an inquest has heard.

 

Lance Bombardiers Ross Clark and Liam McLaughlin, who was from Scotland, died after the tower they were manning came under attack from Taleban militants.

 

The coroner recorded verdicts of unlawful killing.

 

"Those soldiers should not have been in the position they were without the appropriate equipment," he said.

 

L/Bmdr Ross Clark, 25, of South Africa, and L/Bmdr Liam "Paddy" McLaughlin, 21, of Dalbeattie, Dumfries and Galloway, died when militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at their tower in the Sangin area of Helmand province on 3 March.

 

They were both of the 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery.

 

 

We note the coroner's verdict of unlawful killing and wholeheartedly agree with his comments about the bravery and courage of these soldiers

MoD spokesperson

 

Army directives stated that all soldiers must wear the latest Osprey body armour and Mark 6 Alpha helmets in any combat situation.

 

The inquest at Oxford Coroner's Court heard that L/Bmdr McLaughlin was instead wearing enhanced combat body armour (ECBA) and a "Para" helmet, which was "forbidden when contact with the enemy is likely".

 

He died from severe head injuries caused by the grenade's close range explosion.

 

L/Bmdr Clark was wearing a mixture of body armour kit and the correct helmet. He died from fragment wounds to the chest.

 

Chain of command

 

Although an expert said the men would have died even if they had been wearing the right kit, Coroner Andrew Walker said: "What concerns me is the standing order was not followed.

 

"Those soldiers should not have been in the position they were without the appropriate equipment."

 

Major Martin Collins, a company commander, told the inquest that it had been their decision not to use the correct kit.

 

"They did not have it, not because they were not issued with it, but because they chose to deploy from Camp Bastion without it," he said.

 

But the coroner said it was not the fault of the soldiers but of "the Army's chain of command".

 

A MoD spokesperson said: "Our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families and friends of Lance Bombardier Ross Clark and Lance Bombardier Liam McLaughlin at this difficult time.

 

"We note the coroner's verdict of unlawful killing and wholeheartedly agree with his comments about the bravery and courage of these soldiers."

 

 

I'm highly confused, how can they blame the miltary 'chain of command' for the deaths, surely the close range grenade would have killed them regardless. However some HSSE rep has jumped in there. Maybe I've missed something.

[Pot]

"They did not have it, not because they were not issued with it, but because they chose to deploy from Camp Bastion without it,"

 

If the Army can show they have measures in place to ensure that the kit is freely available to their soldiers, and that they have reasonable checks to ensure that such kit is being used, then I would say that they have done everything that would be considered reasonably practicable... And that's what the HSE wants.

 

It could be said that because they're facing bullets and bombs instead of a trip or slip in an office that stricter measures should be put in place, but then it's also reasonable to say that soldiers are more obedient due to their level of discipline and training...

 

Obviously it's a bit different to me doing H&S for the office, but I'm just applying the same rules I use to save everyone's lives day in day out

[Mike_Mac]

Soldiers and others in the forces are always going to buy and use their own kit - even when what is provided is good enough.

 

This is because the commercial kit is sometimes better than good enough (mainly boots etc), because of personal choice and what you prefer (webbing, sleeping bags etc) and sometimes because it looks 'well Ally'.

 

With those two from 29 that were killed I will say this -

 

Firstly Osprey is a sweaty bastard to wear in the desert and most of the lads only wear it when going out on the ground - not necessarily when in a Sangar, which has a lot of force protection.

 

Secondly - the whole Para helmet thing has been going on for ages. Paras and others who have them use them in place of the combat helmet, which is heavier. This is despite the fact that Para helmets offer little ballistic protection and are designed to be worn during a drop, then discarded on landing and replaced with the combat helmet.

 

Standing Orders for states of dress and protection try to balance risk vs comfort and to claim that it is the hierarchy's responsibility to ensure that everyone is wearing the right kit at the right time at all times is a load of bollocks. If you see someone blatantly taking the piss then yes - you pick them up for it, but largely it is left down to personal choice with most things, as the lads are big and ugly enough to look out for themselves.

 

Deploying on Ops is an adult environment and the Taliban, funnily enough, do not follow H&S guidelines. Everything you do out there is a compromise between functionality and safety. You could cover a bloke in armour until he falls over, but there will always be something that can kill him. Therefore, to try and attach blame at all times in a shooting war is crap. The people conducting these holier than thou enquiries need to realise that sometimes it's down to fact that the other side play to win as well and there's fuck all you can do about it. In War people will die. All you can do is make sure it's as difficult as possible for the other side to do it easily.

[SupraAyf]

 

Deploying on Ops is an adult environment and the Taliban, funnily enough, do not follow H&S guidelines. Everything you do out there is a compromise between functionality and safety. You could cover a bloke in armour until he falls over, but there will always be something that can kill him. Therefore, to try and attach blame at all times in a shooting war is crap. The people conducting these holier than thou enquiries need to realise that sometimes it's down to fact that the other side play to win as well and there's $#@! all you can do about it. In War people will die. All you can do is make sure it's as difficult as possible for the other side to do it easily.

 

Couldn't agree more.

[Pot]

Standing Orders for states of dress and protection try to balance risk vs comfort and to claim that it is the hierarchy's responsibility to ensure that everyone is wearing the right kit at the right time at all times is a load of bollocks. If you see someone blatantly taking the piss then yes - you pick them up for it, but largely it is left down to personal choice with most things, as the lads are big and ugly enough to look out for themselves.

 

You're exactly right

[JustGav]

In summary, yes I fully agree. I was just 'annoyed' I suppose that they blamed 'The chain of command', because of the fact that as you say even covered in a silly amount of personal armour a RPG is still going to make a mess and while it is sad, it is just a causality of war rather than a HSE violation.

[Snooze]

But if we didn't have all these regulations and procedures that need to be defined, proved and then referred to during such incidents, then what would all the lawyers do? They'd be out on the streets, begging for a living.

 

Please, don't make any rash statements until you've fully considered the plight of all the poor, unfortunate lawyers.......

 

It's highly important that we don't continue to waste money on things like hospital care and personal equipment for our soldiers when that funding could so eaily be redirected towards replacing a 2-year-old X5 with a brand-new one on a lawyer's drive somewhere.

[ivan]

But if we didn't have all these regulations and procedures that need to be defined, proved and then referred to during such incidents, then what would all the lawyers do? They'd be out on the streets, begging for a living.

 

Please, don't make any rash statements until you've fully considered the plight of all the poor, unfortunate lawyers.......

They're the next leeches against the wall - once all the Estate Agents are gone.

[Mike_Mac]

In summary, yes I fully agree. I was just 'annoyed' I suppose that they blamed 'The chain of command', because of the fact that as you say even covered in a silly amount of personal armour a RPG is still going to make a mess and while it is sad, it is just a causality of war rather than a HSE violation.

 

I totally agree with you. It'll get to the point when commanders on the ground (who have enough on their plate) are more concerned about conducting a Risk Assessment rather than planning the conduct of an Op.

[Mike_Mac]

Please, don't make any rash statements until you've fully considered the plight of all the poor, unfortunate lawyers.......

They're the next leeches against the wall - once all the Estate Agents are gone.

Then Politicians (don't mind which party - I can't tell the difference anymore!)

[AndyT]

Soldiers and others in the forces are always going to buy and use their own kit - even when what is provided is good enough.

 

This is because the commercial kit is sometimes better than good enough (mainly boots etc), because of personal choice and what you prefer (webbing, sleeping bags etc) and sometimes because it looks 'well Ally'.

 

With those two from 29 that were killed I will say this -

 

Firstly Osprey is a sweaty bastard to wear in the desert and most of the lads only wear it when going out on the ground - not necessarily when in a Sangar, which has a lot of force protection.

 

Secondly - the whole Para helmet thing has been going on for ages. Paras and others who have them use them in place of the combat helmet, which is heavier. This is despite the fact that Para helmets offer little ballistic protection and are designed to be worn during a drop, then discarded on landing and replaced with the combat helmet.

 

Standing Orders for states of dress and protection try to balance risk vs comfort and to claim that it is the hierarchy's responsibility to ensure that everyone is wearing the right kit at the right time at all times is a load of bollocks. If you see someone blatantly taking the piss then yes - you pick them up for it, but largely it is left down to personal choice with most things, as the lads are big and ugly enough to look out for themselves.

 

Deploying on Ops is an adult environment and the Taliban, funnily enough, do not follow H&S guidelines. Everything you do out there is a compromise between functionality and safety. You could cover a bloke in armour until he falls over, but there will always be something that can kill him. Therefore, to try and attach blame at all times in a shooting war is crap. The people conducting these holier than thou enquiries need to realise that sometimes it's down to fact that the other side play to win as well and there's fuck all you can do about it. In War people will die. All you can do is make sure it's as difficult as possible for the other side to do it easily.

 

Excellent. HSE is making jobs so hard to do legally that all we're going to be able to do is sit on our butts for fear of getting sued or locked up.