"not as if they are walking down Watford High Street"

#1
Top officers warn MPs over prosecutions

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 10, 2006
The Guardian

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, who is to be the new chief of defence staff, told a committee of MPs yesterday that he strongly opposed a civilian heading a new tri-service prosecuting authority proposed in the armed forces bill. He said it was essential that actions taken in the heat of battle were judged in context.

The army chief, General Sir Mike Jackson, said there would be a "lack of credibility" if a civilian lawyer were given the post, and Lord Boyce, former chief of defence staff, warned MPs of a "feeling of risk averseness" affecting the armed forces.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1706746,00.html

It only makes sense that they would not put a civilian in charge of the tri-service prosecuting authority.
This is also worth a read:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/10/narmy10.xml
 
#3
They probally will put a civilian in charge though. My bets on the most obnoxious,PC, lefty they can scrape off the bottom of the barrel. This is an oppotunity not to be missed in appeasing the anti war brigade !!!

LT.
 
#4
Radical_Dreamer said:
Top officers warn MPs over prosecutions


The army chief, General Sir Mike Jackson, said there would be a "lack of credibility" if a civilian lawyer were given the post.
GOOD! The last thing we want is a credible, competent two star, prosecuting us. Much better to have some idiot lawyer the racks up a number of unsuccessful, expensive cases before the whole thing is embarassingly shelved. And we come out of it smelling of roses.


Or am I missing something important?
 
#5
If you read my previous posts on this subject you will see that I have always defended the right of the army to operate, unhindered by risk aversion and ambulance-chasers, on operations. I've also voiced my sympathy with the poor old SIB, caught as they are between a rock and a hard place.

Nonetheless, I agree with this:

One of the main changes to military law will be the withdrawal of a commanding officer's historic powers to dismiss investigation into serious allegations such as murder.
For a Lt. Col. to be able to exercise some sort of mystical perogative over an allegation of murder, in a war zone, is nonsensical in the 21st Century. It is a conflict of interests that jars with natural justice and the spirit of almost every piece of legislation that exists with reference to criminal law.

If the army were properly supported with robust ROEs and political will then this perogative would be unnecessary anyway.

The Human Rights Act and the ICC are the issue here; we need to derogate from both vis a vis the British Army on operations.

Veg.
 
#6
Abu Hamzas lawyer is not busy at the moment, anyway, what is wrong with Watford on a Saturday night, thousands of drunks, a handful of cops, typical night out. A drink or 10 in 'The Moon under' will make you realize the average age is just over 14.
 
#7
bobos said:
hat is wrong with Watford on a Saturday night, thousands of drunks, a handful of cops, typical night out.
Thinking the same. Perhaps Sir Jock had a bad experience? :? In any case, he got his point across.
 

Similar threads

Top