"Lawyers should never come between a nation and its troops"

Coalition plans to bring the Military Covenant into law must be strenuously resisted, writes Charles Moore.
Today is Waterloo Day. The Duke of Wellington, who, in 1815, led his troops to the most famous victory in British military history, is supposed to have described British soldiers as "the scum of the earth".
Nearly 200 years later, we are much politer. Although our culture is far less attuned to military virtues, praise is heaped upon our soldiery. The word "hero" appears in the popular press, in relation to the Armed Forces, every day. Woe betide the politician who shows disrespect for "our boys".
Lawyers should never come between a nation and its troops - Telegraph

I for one agree. Especially around the unintended consequences part and the part about both parties going to the letter of the law.


Book Reviewer
basically that if it becomes law then its a contract and will get messed about, misread and abused..... when you start stressing set things rather than a spirit of common decency and respect type of thing
It says matters Like
If a Serviceman is not performing his side of the contract 100%, then a Lawyer could argue against a Servicemans petition.
Not wearing full protective issue equipment when wounded. This was qoated as an example.

Why no GI type bill ?
Moore's arguments against 'special treatment for soldiers' would have more force of govts had proved themselves trustworthy in the past, in giving troops fair treatment. Requiring families to live in rat-holes combined with questionable care for the wounded, were the two big issues behind this. The 'care of the injured' dynamic was kicked off by Press stories of troops being verbally abused by shouty beardmen in hospital and I think at a swimming pool.

If you pick the bones out of the story his two specific examples are of the danger that, firstly, officers may develop a blame-dodging culture akin to the civil service and local government, afraid to make a decision for fear of contravening someone's employment rights to personal protection, and secondly, of generating public resentment of troops by allowing them to dodge to the front of the housing queue.
Looking for precedent, take human rights. Concept good, humane and enlightened. Act enshrined in law, not what the doctor ordered.

I have just finished reading 'The Rule of Law' by Tom Bingham, formerly the Senior Judge in UK.
It is very simply written mainly for the likes of me who only had the basic state education and never got involved in Legal Matters, other then the old military phrase of
Wheel the Guilt B'stard in Sgt Major.
Bingham is adamant that the Law, as is laid down and interpreted by Judges is Paramount.
The Law must be made by Parliament and it's the SAME Law for ALL, top of the tree to the bottom of the pile.
The book has a strong left wing interest for he does say that the Invasion of Iraq was wrong and explains why in basic legal terms.
At times I did wonder where he was going, but last Chpt or so, he suggests that Ruling administration in both UK and US has become to powerful, with the built in safguards of democracy being over ridden.
One of his other comments is that UK is 'Overegulated' and that of all countries in Europe the one which had perhaps the strictest of enforced regimes, The Nazis and the Stasi is now the freest state for it's Population.

Lord Bingham was arguably the greatest judge in GB since Lord Denning. Both were able to speak in the simplest of ways, yet both had intellects enough to make the directors of MENSA tear their hair out.

In this country, Parliament, acting in the name of the Sovereign, MAKES the law, and judges interpret and administer it.

Simple? No! Why not?

Because there is a another body of law makers, largely unelected, unaccountable, faceless and grossly corrupt and self seeking. This is the European Soviet Union. This undemocratic gang of thieves, mainly hiding in anonymity and behind 'Treaties' that we, the British, had no say in approving, spews out laws - I use the verb spew deliberately - at a rate that would embarrass the finest machine gun. Each one meticulously observed in this country and each one picked and chosen or ignored by other nations.

Apart from the fact that the disgusting Labour administration allowed the population of this nation to be so watered done by a travesty of an immigration system, I cannot comprehend why the public have not risen and demanded the end to the corrupting and rotten influence of Brussels on our lives.

Blair's successor Cameron, seems to be just as adept at spinning, twisting and turning and licking the collective arses of all and sundry in Europe.
I think that Politicians should by law have to enlist 2 members of their family, in HM Forces when ever there is a war that they send HM Forces too.

Would that liar Blair have been quite so ready to invade Iraq had his son been liable for call up ?
Whether or not one welcomes the amended provisions in the Armed Forces Bill for an annual Military Covenant Report, I don't see anything in it to justify the superficially attractive claims in Mr Moore's article. I really do doubt whether he has been following the issue at all since David Cameron's original pledge aboard Ark Royal in June 2010.
Lawyers should never be allowed between the nation and its troops... the bullets tend to go through them and on in to the crowd.
Lawyers should never be allowed between the nation and its troops... the bullets tend to go through them and on in to the crowd.
Hmmm, both lawyers and the mob getting it...

I'm waiting for the down-side.
Shakespear had it right," First lets kill the lawyers"
This is what happens when a nation decides to create too many lawyers. Chances are lawyers outnumber teeth arm soldiers in this land, trained and paid for by the taxpayer. A serious cull is required, especially of left wing ******* trying to destroy Blighty from the inside.

If lawyers were shot at a lot, would people grow to love them?
Hasn't worked for rats. Maybe if we chased them with hounds?
We're obviously using the wrong weapons. No one ever shot at rats with a Dhuska.
(Standing by for the "I've shot loads of rats with it type stories))
Actually, that's a line from one of his least likeable characters, a drunken, bullshitting, walty old dullard who dies a pitiable death, surrounded by bawds, thieves and combat-dodgers.
Are you sure? I thought he was killed by the Sherrif of Kent, after going on the run. Jack Cade was a revolutionairy, who was aghast at the corrupt state of Henry VI government/reign. He led a Kentish revolution, looking to reform the then society.

Similar threads

New Posts