Tuesday 19 May 2009

Lawyers at War

Hats off to the judges, who, by extending 'Human Rights' portection to troops in action, have handed 'our boys' a devastating new weapon against the Taliban. Picture the scene...

A dugout somewhere in Helmand province. A British platoon under fire.
Enter Sergeant.
Sergeant: It's not good, Sir. We're surrounded on all sides. I don't know how long we can hold out.
CO: That's bad... [A mortar shell lands nearby, a fine shower of debris falls]
Sergeant: What shall we do, Sir?
CO: Well I, er... [Shells ricochet off wall] Wait a minute! I've had a thought.
Sergeant: Sir?
CO: We're in a desperate situation here - as I see it, there's only one thing we can do -
Sergeant: You mean?
CO: Yes, Sergeant [sets jaw firmly, reflection of nearby explosion glints in
eye] These chaps are clearly infringing out human rights here, what with all this shelling us and so on.
Sergeant: They certainly are, Sir.
CO: Tell them...
Sergeant: Sir?
CO: Tell them [dramatic pause, punctuated by small arms fire] they'll be hearing from our lawyers!


  1. Nige, did you get my sneakily placed comment emailed to you?

  2. Comment? What comment? No - have I been guilty of unsonscious plagiarism? Wouldn't surprise me in this community of like minds...

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Ah right you are - that's a relief...

  5. Beaten you to it, old son:

  6. Missing the point somewhat. You should be welcoming this decision. It means our troops can have recourse to human rights law in their battle for sufficient armor, ammunitions and equipment.

    Denying the army this weapon in their futile efforts to go to war with proper equipment is shameful and insulting the judge's decision to refuse to do so is disgraceful.

    Let's not for get that this is what the case was about.