Human rights

[Aaldtimer]

It seems that our troops don't have any!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scotland/south_scotland/10450556.stm :confused

[_Ju_]

It seems that you don't read the article or even the first paragraph.

[macbreeza]

I totally agree with this ruling........how can troops have human rights outside UK it's impossible to enforce something like that. I could go on and on about why it to me is a bit ridiculous this was ever brought to court in the first place but I wont as I am sure most people agree. The soldier in question's family obviously were upset and this is why this progressed to where it is but common sense has come through.

Soldiers are soldiers to fight in battle in unknown conditions and environments it's their job and what they signed up for to fight in wars!

It has reminded me of an article I read about a police man who wouldnt jump into a river to save someone and 2 passers by did it instead.

What next......fire fighters not going into blazing buildings because they might get hot?????

[The Drunken Duck]

I totally agree with this ruling........how can troops have human rights outside UK it's impossible to enforce something like that. I could go on and on about why it to me is a bit ridiculous this was ever brought to court in the first place but I wont as I am sure most people agree. The soldier in question's family obviously were upset and this is why this progressed to where it is but common sense has come through.

Soldiers are soldiers to fight in battle in unknown conditions and environments it's their job and what they signed up for to fight in wars!

It has reminded me of an article I read about a police man who wouldnt jump into a river to save someone and 2 passers by did it instead.

What next......fire fighters not going into blazing buildings because they might get hot?????

The soldier in question in this action died of heatstroke, that should have been covered by Health and Safety legislation, it was nothing really to do with Human Rights legislation. As far as actions in engaging the enemy then I agree it makes perfect sense as its a pretty unique and dangerous situation. But we now have a situation where certain laws dont apply to certain British citizens but those same citizens can be prosecuted under them. The phrase can of worms leaps to mind.

There are blurry areas where it just doesnt make sense however. For instance an Iraqi can bring a soldier to book for breaking Human Rights laws, but the opposite does not apply, so the six RMP's beaten to death with their own weapons in 2003 by an Iraqi mob didnt have their Human Rights violated (because they are not entitled to any) but if those same soldiers had lived long enough to shoot one of the Iraqi's attacking them they may well have been proescuted under laws that they are accountable to, but not protected by.

Is that last scenario fair ?? .. I dont think so personally.

[Anfield]

I totally agree with this ruling........how can troops have human rights outside UK it's impossible to enforce something like that. I could go on and on about why it to me is a bit ridiculous this was ever brought to court in the first place but I wont as I am sure most people agree. The soldier in question's family obviously were upset and this is why this progressed to where it is but common sense has come through.
Whilst I agree that it is impossible to enforce the Convention of Human Rights for people on a battlefield, is it not inconceivable that the UK owes it's armed forces a "Duty of Care" in ensuring that they receive the best support that is available for a given situation?


What next......fire fighters not going into blazing buildings because they might get hot?????

There was high profile case a few months ago where a chief fire officer refused to send a crew to rescue a person who fell down a mine shaft, because they had not been trained in using the safety equipment which they had on their appliance (story here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/fire-chief-defends-rescue-failures-1.1017112))