Whats the bleeding point of that?

http://tinyurl.com/36fk9fg
Tragic , but why the expense of a Coroners Inquest into the
death of a soldier in a war zone? Completely pointless AFAICS.
Steve

 

Pointless but a coroner MUST investigate any unnatural death.
Changing the law would be fraught with other problems.

 

He must have been busy from 1914-18 and 39-45.
What happened to the law then?

 

I'd say you are naturally going to die if you get blown up.

 

Might the change have happened around the time that the army started
bringing bodies home for burial rather than burying people where they
died?

 

From reading By Tank Into Normandy it would seem padres and priests
recorded many of the causes of death for official records.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

I think I've read that one. Does the author drive or command a Honey
(feedlines R us).

 

It's this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304
366404/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277303676&sr=1-1

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

That's a very good point. Why do they transport lumps of dead meat half way
round the world. Pretty stupid.

 

1805? Nope, don't think it happened from then.

 

One would hope that the Coroners Inquest would recommend that the Jackal
vehicles were made a little more robustly.

Not that they will.

 

The trouble is that we spend so much training them that it's seen as a
waste of money. Of course if the rate of attrition were increased enough
then there wouldn't be time to spend so much money, but I doubt that
suggestion would really fly.

 

It just seems a bit like racing the TT in t-shirt and trainers (The
Brititsh Army) and having full top of the range MJK motorcycle racing
leathers [1] (The US Army) .


[1] As used in an unsuccessful attack of a suspected Taliban post on the
Isle of Man.

 

Good lord we agree!

Look at those recent archives of Boer War II. 25000 Brit casualties. I'm
sure one of the reasons Afghanistan has progressed so slowly and to so
little effect is a reluctance to get stuck right in for fear of casualties.
In which case save a fuckload of money and disband 75% of the armed forces.

Perhaps a commitment of active front line service should be not being
married/kids. It's very rarely the soldiers you hear complaining.

 

Strange, I can't imagine what.

It's just as in the header.

 

Nope. SPAM and CHIPS isn't all that hard to figure

Though I've used it a while I gotta say I get almost no spam through this
account. Spammers on usenet aint what they used to be....

 

Hog wrote:

Perhaps that's because it's actively discouraged, whereas a
wife/husband or a soldier's/airman's/sailor's/marine's parents can
bitch all they like with no fear of any disciplinary action. Matey
might be pulled in by his Senior NCO for a quiet word asking him to
tell his gobby slag of a missus to shut her trap, but that's about it.

 

Point of order. It's a soldiers job to shoot and blow up the enemy,
whilst not being shot and blown up.

I think you've been looking at the job description for suicide bomber.

 

Exactly the same. It all comes down to who's best at it.

 

You're wildly wrong about that. It didn't work for the Russians, for
example.