Forgive my ignorance on the matter, and apologies for starting yet another CGS thread, but I am afraid this might be lost in the noise otherwise. A number of current and former politicians, as well as political journalists have condemned CGS' speech for being 'unconstitutional'. This raises the question in my mind - how so? I am aware of the prohibition on members of the armed forces speaking with journalists without first gaining permission, however: (a) this is an internal regulatory matter for the armed forces and has nothing watsoever to do with our 'constitution' (b) CGS had ministerial aproval for his interview. I understand and support the primacy of parliament in so far as the decision making process which dictates our deployments and funding etc etc. Furthermore I appreciate that the monopoly of force enjoyed by the armed forced necessitates such political primacy in any democracy. I do not understand, however, how CGS remarks, which were not as I see it politically partisan but merely reflected his professional opinion of the state of play with various deployments and the army, can be considered unconstitutional. How are CGS' remarks unconstitutional? Where is it written that CGS may not, in an authorised interview, give his opinion? If it is part of our (in)famous unwritten constitution, what precedent is being invoked?* I will lay my cards on the table - I am a libertarian and the last thing I would like to see is a politicised armed forces, but democracies are not immune from abusing compliant armed forces to commit great ills, as evidenced by the acquiescence of the Whermacht. The parralel is rather obtuse (though I note I am not the first to make it) but good democracy cannot flourish in a society where the plebiscite has no access to accurate information on the consequences of parliament's (not just this goverment's) decisions. Pay_Mistri [hr] *I mean really, which exact precedent, and how does it relate to this case? Not just 'well we can't have another Cromwell'. Was it an act of parliament or perhaps a decision by the law lords? How does our constitution work anyway?