h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This interesting piece emergedd on P M at 5.00pm yesterday ( BBCR4 )

<< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6468171.stm >>

Am I the only one who might see this as a reaction to the verdict of the Coroner in the case of CoH Matty Hull, and his somewhat forthright comments about the MoD, and our US 'Allies' especially.?

Is it an attempt to emasculate those prepared to vent their views fearlessly? Perhaps more to the point , could it be as a result of pressure from that Texan in the White House, whose men apparently can do no wrong or at least not be sen to do so?

Novo

Well, spreading responsibility for individual deaths across a whole load of coroners does rather *increase* the chances of finding particularly loose cannon.

Generally speaking, I'm not sure how much difference the verdict in the recent case actually makes to anyone other than the people who actually knew the victim.
Most people had probably made up their minds well beforehand, whether based on what they had heard of the particular case, or on their general view of the Iraq action and/or US armed forces.

If some cases *did* go to a coroner less likely to criticise the MoD, newspapers would still report the evidence and possibly cry 'cover-up'. In the end, the effect may be little different.

Hello Potholer,

I am a little disturbed at the sanguine way in which you approach the L/C Matty Hull case, although you use the term 'recent'

I was equally surprised by Blues Sharks similar restraint, so I have to accept that is I alone who have been angered by the initial action, which was anything but 'friendly fire', and as the verdict pointed out was virtually homicide.

My main concern in this case has been ( apart from the family) the obfuscation of the MoD and the intransigence of our alledged allies. If you think that diluting the now experieced coroners service in Oxfordshire will help uncover facts then I think you are well off course.

I accept that our service personnel will possibly sacrifice their lives in war ( regardless of the legality or otherwise) , but when their lives are taken as opposed to being given, then it is beholden on us , and in particular our government (Mod) to find out what happened , if only to prevent reoccurrence.

To deliberately set out to undermine an inquest, or to deny the existence of crucial evidence is tantamount to criminality in my book.

I tried to illustrate my anger to Blues with an analogy. I'll put one to you.Suppose the police turned up at your door and told you that a member of your family had been lost whilst caving, wouldn't you be distressed if they wouldn't say where, or how, or why, or if someone was at fault, and specifically if they said they had no details and could tell you nothing? - especially if you found out that all along they knew, and had the information you would have wanted.

Novo

Novo.
I think I'm just being realistic. I'm not talking about what *I* think of the case, just suggesting that changing the particular coroner arrangements likely may make little difference, and seems unlikely to be part of a sensible conspiracy.

Thinking back, though I can recall an incident years ago where two RAF pilots were killed by a missile defence system, I can't remember their names, and I guess few people (apart from those who knew them) could remember them either.
Off the top of *your* head, how many names of past victims can *you* remember?

Were there 'blue-on-blue' deaths going through inquests every month, they'd be less newsworthy, less attention would be paid, and likely few people would remember the names involved even a month later.
The main reasons people remember the name of Matty Hull at the moment are the recency of the inquest, and the amount of reporting due to the relative rarity of the case.
To the extent people who didn't know the soldier are concerned about the case, quite a lot of the anger is anger that was already felt about the war happening to be pointed in a particular direction. For many people, in a few months their anger will likely be focussed on something else.

Put it this way.
Most people are likely influenced by media reporting than by direct observation of a case in a coroner's court.
Given a case where it seems something did go badly wrong, it seems likely to be reported, depending on the particular slant of the newspaper.
A paper is perfectly able to cry 'cover-up' where it seems that information isn't being provided (whether that information is actually available of not).
None of that really seems hugely vulnerable to the location of an inquest.
Given that newspapers, like people, have probably made *their* minds up before an inquest starts, a coroner will be judged largely by how they seem to side with the newspaper. A verdict of unlawful killing is arguably no more newsworthy than a verdict of accident or misadventure which seems not to square with what people had already decided the verdict should have been. In the latter case, people will likely get about as righteously angry about the perceived cover-up as they would have got about having their own conclusions officially confirmed.

Novo,

Please don't patronise me or make guesses about what I feel about things.
You weren't talking about how distressing a particular case was. You were suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to obfuscate certain deaths by manipulating the coroner's court arrangements. I was just wondering how much difference the proposed changes would actually make.

You don't seem particularly interested in actually discussing the question you raised. Rather, you seem interested in getting holier-than-though about how much more you care.

I can't stop you doing that, but I can avoid being a spectator.

Whatever one's view of the death of L/Cpl Hull, I doubt there is a link in any way between the inquest finding in that case and the change of procedure - simply put there hasn't been enough time, even for a rudimentary knee jerk.

You'd also have to believe that the US government would need to stupid enough to risk being caught with their finger in the pie, which I don't for a moment think they have. They have acted throughout in accordance with their laws, and principles that were set out very clearly when they announced that the hague could stick the war crimes court up it's proverbial.

My guess would be that the coroners of Oxford are frankly a little over-worked, given that any violent death of a UK citizen (and I have to assume that includes the armed forces) has to have a coroners report, however cursory

Point taken Blues,

it's me being old and cynical I guess - looking for plots where they don't exist, though I remain apalled at the denials of facts that we find later, were known all the time.

I appreciate the point that the US has a specific attitude to this sort of incident, and that probably our MoD has no option but to toe the US line. But I cannot help feeling that with the Iraq war, as with Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition etc , we are as a country, complicit in behaviour which we ourselves wouldn't countenance.

Novo

Now that the initial question has been explored, as an aside I would note that all the furore over the US pilots has managed to conveniently obscure the real criminals who should have been in the dock - the MOD.

This incident arose because of a mistake that could easily have been avoided had the government installed BTID Identification beacons that would have given the US pilots verbal warnings when they approached them...a robotic voice known as "bitching betty" would have repeatedly declared "friendly forces" into the pilots ears had the government coughed up the money to install these simple yet life saving BTID devices on our hardware.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/btid.htm

These were promised after blue on blue incidents in the first gulf war...sixteen years ago.

My understanding of the piece on PM was that the move was caused by the requirement to resurface the runway(s) at Brize Norton meaning that there is no flying in at the base.

turvy

Morning SWL

Thanks for that. It refers to the main thrust of my thread on CoH Matty Hull, in which I often stated my feelings ref the MoD's attitude on this subject.

I am heartened to find that I am not the only one who is disgusted by the performance of the MoD in respect of 'kit', BTID beacons, (as you describe), and the obligations to personnel who lose their lives.

It seems that soldiers lives are still held cheap.

Novo

Oxfordshire, of course.