terrorists get more human rights than armed forces

  bigpeta 09:48 02 Jul 10
Locked

the recent ruling by the supreme court has effectively given our forces personnel less human rights than the terrorists they are fighting to beat.
What kind of crazy country are we living in???

Who was it that appealed the original ruling in favour of the fighters?
The overpaid desk jockeys in their whitehall air conditioned offices.

  john bunyan 10:20 02 Jul 10

Rubbish. This applies only to battlefield situations. Can you imagine having 'elf and saftey officers in the front line? Have you served in the armed services?

  johndrew 10:34 02 Jul 10

I agree with john bunyan. This case is a typical "test" of the law.

The Health & Safety legislation has caused more problems than enough with people being restricted in doing their jobs in a sensible manner. Not so long ago it was emergency crews being unable to rescue an individual from water as they didn`t have the correct life vests. When will such silliness stop. Perhaps when firemen are prevented from approaching fires because they may be burned or paramedics/nurses/doctors from treating people because they may catch something.

  Kevscar1 12:40 02 Jul 10

Why the surprise, criminals have had more rights than their victims for a long time

  bigpeta 13:50 02 Jul 10

battlefields yes i agree but the death that caused the case was in barracks.
and what about landrovers without the protective shields that could save lives.

  morddwyd 17:40 02 Jul 10

"Health & Safety legislation has caused more problems than enough"

It is not the H&S legislation which in most cases is well thought out and sensibly based.

It is the stupid local authority and minor officials interpretation which causes the problems.

The same H&S legislation which we use is also applicable to the rest of the EU, who seem to manage without the stupid restrictions we seem to find.

  BT 17:45 02 Jul 10

You're quite right.
I thought the chap on BBC Breakfast summed it up in that the problems were caused by petty jobsworths 'Gold Plating' otherwise sensible rules.

  morddwyd 20:00 02 Jul 10

"Can you imagine having 'elf and saftey officers in the front line? Have you served in the armed services?"

I was a (uniformed) Health & Safety Officer in the armed forces.

I served in Aden, the Gulf, Libya, Kenya, Ulster and the Falklands among sundry other places.

Active theatre dangers are one thing, but try doing a risk assessment on troops being put in a CS filled chamber and then being ordered to take their respirators off!

NO bullying or initiation, but normal training!

  john bunyan 22:21 02 Jul 10

", but try doing a risk assessment on troops being put in a CS filled chamber and then being ordered to take their respirators off!

NO bullying or initiation, but normal training!"

Been there done that. You have to train realistically - Of course there has to be rules and safety is paramount, but training has to be realistic, too.

  Kevscar1 06:22 03 Jul 10

I did my police riot traing at Royal Marine Commando Barracks at Eastney with Marines playing the rioters. They were set up to throw everything at us including molotov cocktails. Only rule was they had to throw them at the ground in front of us.
Don't see H&S allowing that nowadays

  morddwyd 07:13 03 Jul 10

"Don't see H&S allowing that nowadays"

Of course it would be allowed.

It's a perfectly acceptable training risk, and the consequences of not doing it are likely to be far more injurious.

It simply needs an adequate risk assessment, and suitable additional procedures in place.

If I may say so yours is the typical modern reaction to any risk, ban it, instead of reducing it to an acceptable level.

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

Sniper Elite 4 review: Headshotting Nazis has never felt so good

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

The Best Design, Illustration, Animation and VFX Awards of 2017

WWDC 2017 dates: How to get WWDC 2017 tickets, when is WWDC 2017 and more details announced