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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Tobers, Jun 17, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.
  2. Hiya Charley I couldnt be arsed reading your article care to give me the jist of it?
  3. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE 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
  4. 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 ?
  5. 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.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Looking for precedent, take human rights. Concept good, humane and enlightened. Act enshrined in law, not what the doctor ordered.

    • Like Like x 2
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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 ?
  10. 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.
  11. Lawyers should never be allowed between the nation and its troops... the bullets tend to go through them and on in to the crowd.
  12. Hmmm, both lawyers and the mob getting it...

    I'm waiting for the down-side.
  13. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Ever thought that maybe the troops needed lawyers to protect them from their nation?
  14. I think I just died a little inside... and a little bit of bile rose to my throat.

    We could always go to...
  15. Shakespear had it right," First lets kill the lawyers"