21 October 2011
He called himself 'the king of kings'. It reminds me of that scripture when another self-styled king of kings loftily stood before Him and proclaimed "I will be like the Most High. Indeed, I will ascend the very stars of heaven".
And then a brief report in another scripture several millennia later - "I saw satan fall from heaven to earth in a lightning flash". One goes goose-pimply at the realisation that the report of this is an eye-witness account. That character was given due notice that at the appointed time his end would come. Not good for him. A triumph for humankind.
And so to the 21st Century and the 21st day of October. A chilling reminder of summary justice.
As a former police officer, summary justice brings to mind the air-conditioned but slightly oppressive rooms of our magistrates courts - the modern seat of justice. None of us likes a literal example of summary justice. We grow uneasy when we read literal accounts in the history books. But in less tolerant regimes throwing off the yoke of despotism, of evil rule, that is what we get.
Let us not rejoice in the manner of a man's passing, even though we rightly rejoice in his regime's end. In retrospect I wrote rather niaively in August 2011:
Conversely, there should be no negotiation at all about bringing Gadaffi before the International Criminal Court. He must be tried for crimes against humanity, and I suspect he will receive a far fairer trial than any he would give to any who opposed him during his tyranny. But as with all despots, his days are numbered. For his own sake, I pray that when he is found, that the international media are also present, as well as observers, to safeguard him.
There must be no room for summary justice. An emerging democratic people must remember this, for in so doing, they will earn the respect and admiration of all peace loving people, and that in turn will lead to greater immediate aid being given to the Libyan People.
Alas, this did not play out and we, the human race, showed just how cruel and vengeful we are in the moment's heat.
Nevertheless, we must not look upon this terrifying spectacle through the ease and comfort of our western eyes where democracy is taken for granted and we put up with a sea of tents around St Paul's Cathedral, a bunch of malcontents, endeavouring to create an "arab spring" against capitalism here.
We must remember that the Libyan People have been ruled and subjected to brutal terror for 42 years. Most people can remember no other way of life.
In the Middle East there is a different, more literal and generally very cruel interpretation of what we proudly call the Rule of Law. And it is intolerant, literal and violent.
Ours used to be but, thankfully, our own democracy has slowly evolved. And this gives a glint of hope that in the Middle East too this will one day be the case; but many, many years, even several centuries must pass before that is fact being lived out. Regardless of our own views, theism or atheism, it is not a bad thing to live to one principle - "vengeance is Mine, says the LORD, I will repay."
In other words, whether one believes or not, don't take justice into your own hands. Leave that to Me. I guarantee in due time this person will be judged and I will deal with the matter accordingly.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
21 October 2011
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Monday, 10 October 2011
YESTERDAY THE OPTICIAN TOMORROW THE LAWYER
In the world of business there is a seismic shift brought about by the Legal Services Act that came into force last week.
The new alternative business structures (ABS) introduced by this Act will enable non-lawyers to own or part-own law firms. An inbuilt safeguard requires that these ABS must still employ lawyers to practise reserved and regulated activities. This is an important distinction, for it means that a non-lawyer who wishes to open a firm and provide, for example, conveyancing, litigation and probate services, still requires a solicitor to be employed to undertake this highly specialised work. Not to do so would be a disaster for consumers!
Remember the thousands of opticians up and down the country, on every high street? That was only a decade ago. Today, the result of deregulation is that we go to Boots, Vision Express or Specsavers for our glasses or to the local newsagent to buy non prescription glasses for £1.99. Certainly that's the cost here in Waterloo, Liverpool. Rather different from the £199 we used to pay. And can I see adequately? Yes. And if I break my glasses? No problem. I can simply buy a replacement pair for less than an Americano coffee in Cafe Nero.
When I did have prescription glasses and broke them, the hassle that followed in trying to repair them, to make an insurance claim that sidestepped the insurance company's many exceptions to valid cover, wore me down.
When the Legal Services Act received Royal Assent, the writing was on the wall. It was not nice to read. Many firms will go to the wall, some have already, and many sole practitioners will call it a day, or hastily regroup together. Some succeed, some fail.
But why this change?
The demand of the consumer is paramount. For too long consumers (all of us) have been at the mercy of various industries and commerce that seek to make money - no bad thing - but which is not then ploughed back into the business, and thereby the community, to indirectly benefit the consumer.
I always smile at business conventions and seminars at the size of the waist lines of the many and varied successful entrepreneurs gathered. It is a smile vaguely contemptuous.
I suspect there is quite a storm approaching. And the legal profession did itself no favours with its own last week when, in a onesided article by Russ Thorne in the Independent on Monday 3 October 2011, the reader could be forgiven for believing that the term 'lawyer' still only means barristers and solicitors. For over twenty years it has also officially referred to Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives.
And not to put too fine a point on it to those dinosaurs who insist that Fellows are clerks, look at the Judiciary and see the number of Fellows sitting now as Magistrates or who are being appointed to the bench as either district judges or high court judges. When I joined the legal profession in 1981 that was unimaginable.
Times are changing, and for the better. Whether traditionalists like it or not, the day of the Co-op Will and the Co-op conveyancing and similar legal services is upon us. And if it brings greater wealth and national prosperity to all of us, as well as easier access to legal services, then let us ring in the changes with vigour.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
The new alternative business structures (ABS) introduced by this Act will enable non-lawyers to own or part-own law firms. An inbuilt safeguard requires that these ABS must still employ lawyers to practise reserved and regulated activities. This is an important distinction, for it means that a non-lawyer who wishes to open a firm and provide, for example, conveyancing, litigation and probate services, still requires a solicitor to be employed to undertake this highly specialised work. Not to do so would be a disaster for consumers!
Remember the thousands of opticians up and down the country, on every high street? That was only a decade ago. Today, the result of deregulation is that we go to Boots, Vision Express or Specsavers for our glasses or to the local newsagent to buy non prescription glasses for £1.99. Certainly that's the cost here in Waterloo, Liverpool. Rather different from the £199 we used to pay. And can I see adequately? Yes. And if I break my glasses? No problem. I can simply buy a replacement pair for less than an Americano coffee in Cafe Nero.
When I did have prescription glasses and broke them, the hassle that followed in trying to repair them, to make an insurance claim that sidestepped the insurance company's many exceptions to valid cover, wore me down.
When the Legal Services Act received Royal Assent, the writing was on the wall. It was not nice to read. Many firms will go to the wall, some have already, and many sole practitioners will call it a day, or hastily regroup together. Some succeed, some fail.
But why this change?
The demand of the consumer is paramount. For too long consumers (all of us) have been at the mercy of various industries and commerce that seek to make money - no bad thing - but which is not then ploughed back into the business, and thereby the community, to indirectly benefit the consumer.
I always smile at business conventions and seminars at the size of the waist lines of the many and varied successful entrepreneurs gathered. It is a smile vaguely contemptuous.
I suspect there is quite a storm approaching. And the legal profession did itself no favours with its own last week when, in a onesided article by Russ Thorne in the Independent on Monday 3 October 2011, the reader could be forgiven for believing that the term 'lawyer' still only means barristers and solicitors. For over twenty years it has also officially referred to Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives.
And not to put too fine a point on it to those dinosaurs who insist that Fellows are clerks, look at the Judiciary and see the number of Fellows sitting now as Magistrates or who are being appointed to the bench as either district judges or high court judges. When I joined the legal profession in 1981 that was unimaginable.
Times are changing, and for the better. Whether traditionalists like it or not, the day of the Co-op Will and the Co-op conveyancing and similar legal services is upon us. And if it brings greater wealth and national prosperity to all of us, as well as easier access to legal services, then let us ring in the changes with vigour.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
RUGBY - OUR INTERNATIONAL DISGRACE
It is a very great shame that after all the hype, PR and financial investment poured into the England Rugby Team over the last few months, that our performance was nothing less than shameful.
And I do not hold the players to account. Individually we saw massive commitment and devotion. Sure, lessons are to be learned by each and every player. But that is the norm.
No. The fault is in the leadership, or more accurately, the lack of leadership.
Martin Johnson was a brilliant player and will always be remembered so. But as a manager it requires a different kind of leadership. He will always be respected as a former player and captain.
But the art of winning lies in perception, foresight, planning and ruthless implementation of individual and team spirit. It is time for Johnson to hand in the towel and with him his entire coaching team. Start afresh.
We need leadership of Churchillian proportions. We have the players - outstanding - every one of them. But the business of management off the field and captaincy on the field is a team effort that requires very strong interpersonal relationship. It is not right that Tindall should leave Johnson to just get on with the job, and thereby, for Johnson, inadvertently creating an autocratic style of leadership that fails to take advice. And that is not Johnson's fault. That lies firmly at the door of Tindall and his colleagues who just presumed that a former captain could take them to glory.
And whose decision was it to take on the new team colour? If ever there was an affront to the "All Blacks" then surely, we affronted them and New Zealand. That was a very bad decision.
Martin Johnson opined that he has no massive regrets, nothing jumps out at him and says that may be we should have done things differently. Ummmm.
That is not what one wishes to hear of one's trainee officers at Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell. An inability, after defeat, to see where the mistakes were made and then to see how not to make the same mistakes again, is crucial on the battlefield. It is no less so on the sports field.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
And I do not hold the players to account. Individually we saw massive commitment and devotion. Sure, lessons are to be learned by each and every player. But that is the norm.
No. The fault is in the leadership, or more accurately, the lack of leadership.
Martin Johnson was a brilliant player and will always be remembered so. But as a manager it requires a different kind of leadership. He will always be respected as a former player and captain.
But the art of winning lies in perception, foresight, planning and ruthless implementation of individual and team spirit. It is time for Johnson to hand in the towel and with him his entire coaching team. Start afresh.
We need leadership of Churchillian proportions. We have the players - outstanding - every one of them. But the business of management off the field and captaincy on the field is a team effort that requires very strong interpersonal relationship. It is not right that Tindall should leave Johnson to just get on with the job, and thereby, for Johnson, inadvertently creating an autocratic style of leadership that fails to take advice. And that is not Johnson's fault. That lies firmly at the door of Tindall and his colleagues who just presumed that a former captain could take them to glory.
And whose decision was it to take on the new team colour? If ever there was an affront to the "All Blacks" then surely, we affronted them and New Zealand. That was a very bad decision.
Martin Johnson opined that he has no massive regrets, nothing jumps out at him and says that may be we should have done things differently. Ummmm.
That is not what one wishes to hear of one's trainee officers at Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell. An inability, after defeat, to see where the mistakes were made and then to see how not to make the same mistakes again, is crucial on the battlefield. It is no less so on the sports field.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
Saturday, 24 September 2011
ALIZEERA MOLLA-SOLTANI, 17, EXECUTED BY PUBLIC HANGING
This week the President of Iran made a great public show of bringing about the release of two Americans, Shane Bauer (29) and Josh Fattal (29) who have been held in single cell custody for the past 26 months, but not of course before securing bailment of $1 million (£644,000).
This was meant to coincide with the Iranian President's speech to the UN General Assembly where, as is his practice, he castigates the West and seeks to belittle all who oppose Iran, but usually singling out the USA and the UK.
For a few moments, one is left to consider the possibility that this people is perhaps trying to come to terms with living in the 21st Century - a task rendered almost impossible by its insistence that its religious creeds must be read and acted upon in exactly the manner in which they were written and laid down 1,500 years ago. To them this is the 'will of Allah' and they cannot comprehend that western civilisation sees this as utterly barbaric and repugnant, and most definitely an affront to the current Arab Spring.
Strong words?
Yes, but deliberately chosen.
In this same week we read the international reports of the public execution of a 17 year old boy, Alizeera Molla-Soltani, for the murder in July of Ruhollah Darlashi, an athlete and who, "The Times" of London reports in an article by Martin Fletcher on Thursday 22 September 2011 as "Iran's strongest man."
We read that Alizeera Molla-Soltani was hanged before dawn in front of a crowd of thousands, in the town of Karaj, a few miles from Tehran. Martin Fletcher writes that eye witnesses reported that this boy was crying aloud, calling for his mother and begging for forgiveness before being hoisted by a crane by means of a noose around his neck. As can be expected with this benighted country, some in the crowd cursed him, while others chanted Allahu akbar [God is greatest].
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has denounced this execution, in the words of the FCO Minister Mr Alistair Burt, as "inhumane' and 'abhorrent'. I would have said it was inhuman. Mr Burt commented that death by suspension strangulation was a punishment with no place in [this] modern world.
That, I think, is putting it mildly.
I meet Iranians here. They are pleased to be living in the UK. It is why they are living here. Others worryingly surmise that such methods should be adopted here. Thankfully, the one or two who say such things are too few to warrant serious consideration, though that does not stop me from giving them some good old-fashioned advice.
Let us be in no doubt that Iran remains a very serious threat to global peace, as too does Syria.
Whether or not this young man committed murder or was, as has been suggested by some, acting only in self-defence and happened to get the better of a popular public figure is irrelevant. Simply put, you do NOT execute people who have not even attained the age of 18. Neither do you use different calendars, in this case the lunar calendar, to overcome that problem. In short, you do not execute people.
A society that goes about justice in the barbaric manner that we have seen this week is unfit to occupy a place at the UN General Assembly. It is a pariah state. It is putting into effect methods of killing that the Nazis used; but of course its president denies that there ever was a Holocaust.
No. Any nation that allows itself to be ruled and dictated by religious leaders of whatever religion is a nation that is unfit for involvement in international affairs, international trade and international assistance.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
This was meant to coincide with the Iranian President's speech to the UN General Assembly where, as is his practice, he castigates the West and seeks to belittle all who oppose Iran, but usually singling out the USA and the UK.
For a few moments, one is left to consider the possibility that this people is perhaps trying to come to terms with living in the 21st Century - a task rendered almost impossible by its insistence that its religious creeds must be read and acted upon in exactly the manner in which they were written and laid down 1,500 years ago. To them this is the 'will of Allah' and they cannot comprehend that western civilisation sees this as utterly barbaric and repugnant, and most definitely an affront to the current Arab Spring.
Strong words?
Yes, but deliberately chosen.
In this same week we read the international reports of the public execution of a 17 year old boy, Alizeera Molla-Soltani, for the murder in July of Ruhollah Darlashi, an athlete and who, "The Times" of London reports in an article by Martin Fletcher on Thursday 22 September 2011 as "Iran's strongest man."
We read that Alizeera Molla-Soltani was hanged before dawn in front of a crowd of thousands, in the town of Karaj, a few miles from Tehran. Martin Fletcher writes that eye witnesses reported that this boy was crying aloud, calling for his mother and begging for forgiveness before being hoisted by a crane by means of a noose around his neck. As can be expected with this benighted country, some in the crowd cursed him, while others chanted Allahu akbar [God is greatest].
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has denounced this execution, in the words of the FCO Minister Mr Alistair Burt, as "inhumane' and 'abhorrent'. I would have said it was inhuman. Mr Burt commented that death by suspension strangulation was a punishment with no place in [this] modern world.
That, I think, is putting it mildly.
I meet Iranians here. They are pleased to be living in the UK. It is why they are living here. Others worryingly surmise that such methods should be adopted here. Thankfully, the one or two who say such things are too few to warrant serious consideration, though that does not stop me from giving them some good old-fashioned advice.
Let us be in no doubt that Iran remains a very serious threat to global peace, as too does Syria.
Whether or not this young man committed murder or was, as has been suggested by some, acting only in self-defence and happened to get the better of a popular public figure is irrelevant. Simply put, you do NOT execute people who have not even attained the age of 18. Neither do you use different calendars, in this case the lunar calendar, to overcome that problem. In short, you do not execute people.
A society that goes about justice in the barbaric manner that we have seen this week is unfit to occupy a place at the UN General Assembly. It is a pariah state. It is putting into effect methods of killing that the Nazis used; but of course its president denies that there ever was a Holocaust.
No. Any nation that allows itself to be ruled and dictated by religious leaders of whatever religion is a nation that is unfit for involvement in international affairs, international trade and international assistance.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
Friday, 23 September 2011
THE POPPY
Earlier this week, it was reported that The Royal British Legion was being forced to agree not to attend certain areas and main street shops because members of those particular communities found the concept of our national Poppy Appeal not in accord with their own stated beliefs and outlook on life.
No part of the British Isles, and certainly no part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, should be a 'no go area' for the Nations' Poppy Appeal. Whether we recognise it or not, we are fighting a vicious, lethal and ruthless war against terrorism. All of our Armed Forces are engaged in this war. We, at home, in the safety of these islands, have little comprehension of what active service means. Military families know only too well what this means. And they demonstrate every day a resolve and stoicism that is the embodiment of the British People. We are a peace-loving people, and with a remarkable ability to help less fortunate communities in far off lands, whether in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe, to build up their own democratic freedoms but that dovetail with their own, not our, culture. That last point is vitally important to understand, and indeed has been highlighted by the Prime Minister over the last two days, both in Mr Cameron's Inaugural Address to the United Nations General Assembly and also to the Canadian Parliament.
The National Poppy Appeal is one of the most important charity events of the year. And it always will take precedence whilst we remain a Nation at war (and I refer here to the Nation in the singular i.e. the United Kingdom); and when the Nation is at peace, the National Poppy Appeal moves back but one pace to second position, never further than that, because we remain indebted to our armed forces all our lives. And this indebtedness is reflected through the way in which we care, as a people, for those who have lost limbs or suffered other wounds which totally change their lives, but also for the families of the Fallen.
Silly people will poppy around with silly ideas. They will look at the situation in the heat of the moment, make a judgment and take a course of action that, if they had but paid a little attention to history, had been a little more investigative, a little more searching in their reasons for making that judgment, they would have come to a different conclusion.
In my last article I came down very heavily upon the Military in respect of the use of torture. I reported the shame I felt that I had held the Queen's Commission. As I carried on through the week it quickly became apparent that it was not right to apply that shame across the board, across all of our armed forces, because the criminal behaviour of a small group of soldiers did not accurately reflect our Services.
The National Poppy Appeal must be allowed to go unhindered. If you happen to be sympathetic with the causes of the Taliban, then bluntly, the UK is not the place where you should expect to live. If you are angered, and rightly so, by those few soldiers who participated in torture, then make your representations, but do not attack all the servicemen and women who collectively have guaranteed our freedom here since World War One.
If you are one of the politicians who has decided to support a poppy appeal no go area, then I respectfully ask that you re-examine the facts, keep your own thoughts to yourselves and apply the lessons of history.
And if you are still not sure, then get on the Internet, look at the programmes by the BBC, ITV, Channel 5, Channel 4 etc about the incredible bravery of those soldiers who have lost limbs. Be inspired by them. And let your children see them.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
No part of the British Isles, and certainly no part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, should be a 'no go area' for the Nations' Poppy Appeal. Whether we recognise it or not, we are fighting a vicious, lethal and ruthless war against terrorism. All of our Armed Forces are engaged in this war. We, at home, in the safety of these islands, have little comprehension of what active service means. Military families know only too well what this means. And they demonstrate every day a resolve and stoicism that is the embodiment of the British People. We are a peace-loving people, and with a remarkable ability to help less fortunate communities in far off lands, whether in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe, to build up their own democratic freedoms but that dovetail with their own, not our, culture. That last point is vitally important to understand, and indeed has been highlighted by the Prime Minister over the last two days, both in Mr Cameron's Inaugural Address to the United Nations General Assembly and also to the Canadian Parliament.
The National Poppy Appeal is one of the most important charity events of the year. And it always will take precedence whilst we remain a Nation at war (and I refer here to the Nation in the singular i.e. the United Kingdom); and when the Nation is at peace, the National Poppy Appeal moves back but one pace to second position, never further than that, because we remain indebted to our armed forces all our lives. And this indebtedness is reflected through the way in which we care, as a people, for those who have lost limbs or suffered other wounds which totally change their lives, but also for the families of the Fallen.
Silly people will poppy around with silly ideas. They will look at the situation in the heat of the moment, make a judgment and take a course of action that, if they had but paid a little attention to history, had been a little more investigative, a little more searching in their reasons for making that judgment, they would have come to a different conclusion.
In my last article I came down very heavily upon the Military in respect of the use of torture. I reported the shame I felt that I had held the Queen's Commission. As I carried on through the week it quickly became apparent that it was not right to apply that shame across the board, across all of our armed forces, because the criminal behaviour of a small group of soldiers did not accurately reflect our Services.
The National Poppy Appeal must be allowed to go unhindered. If you happen to be sympathetic with the causes of the Taliban, then bluntly, the UK is not the place where you should expect to live. If you are angered, and rightly so, by those few soldiers who participated in torture, then make your representations, but do not attack all the servicemen and women who collectively have guaranteed our freedom here since World War One.
If you are one of the politicians who has decided to support a poppy appeal no go area, then I respectfully ask that you re-examine the facts, keep your own thoughts to yourselves and apply the lessons of history.
And if you are still not sure, then get on the Internet, look at the programmes by the BBC, ITV, Channel 5, Channel 4 etc about the incredible bravery of those soldiers who have lost limbs. Be inspired by them. And let your children see them.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
Thursday, 8 September 2011
MILITARY SERVICE - TORTURE!
Followers will be well aware of my unstinting pride in our Armed Forces. In my forthcoming book, "Meanderings", out this month, one of the anchor points is the opening piece - "Helmand".
In my last dispatch I wrote of the difficulties our troops face as they try to return to Civvy Street, especially when that comes about through defence cuts and forced redundancy.
I held the Queen's Commission, and my military service is one of the most prized parts of my life. This morning's judgment in the Iraq Inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa and conditions and treatment of those who were held in captivity with him, is an indictment upon our Armed Forces.
I grew up in the long shadow of the Second World War where, as each year unfolded, more evidence of horrendous atrocities by evil regimes around the world (the Axis Powers) was released and leaving us all feeling that we had been absolutely right in fighting that war and being uncompromising in making it clear that surrender was without negotiation. It was unconditional surrrender of those powers on all fronts and in both military and civil life, or otherwise face annihilation. I well recall reading Field Marshal Montgomery's uncompromising response to the Germans when they attempted to negotiate terms.
70 years on I now read and see first hand evidence of atrocities inflicted upon hooded and hand-cuffed prisoners by young soldiers, those set to guard their captors and charged to keep them in safe custody.
It is simply unacceptable, and youthful age is no excuse. These soldiers must be brought to justice. But it does not stop there. It is clear that there has been a major breakdown in service discipline by the Officers and NCOs who have an absolute duty to ensure the safety of those held in safe custody.
It is totally unacceptable to use physical force to exact information.
These officers and NCOs too must be brought to justice. Let them feel the full weight of the law, not the protective law of the Courts Martial, but the full weight of the civil law, the awareness that the population is taking matters to the highest degree - bringing these people to trial before the Crown Court.
Today, I am thoroughly ashamed that I held the Queen's Commission and that I have been granted a courtesy rank in retirement.
It is now for Parliament and High Command to take action.
There is one comforting thought. In our democracy, the military, regardless of rank and status, answer directly to Her Majesty the Queen, through Parliament. It is Parliament that has the final say in constitutional and military matters.
The Chiefs of Staff of all three Services must now take the most robust action to restore the Nations' confidence in our Armed Forces, send a message to those on the front line to maintain the highest democratic standards, and to understand that most important legal principle of our judicial system, the anchor point if you will, of which we were reminded by the Late Lord Denning 30 years ago when he quoted Thomas Fuller's ruling in 1733:
"Be you ever so high, the law is always above you."
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
In my last dispatch I wrote of the difficulties our troops face as they try to return to Civvy Street, especially when that comes about through defence cuts and forced redundancy.
I held the Queen's Commission, and my military service is one of the most prized parts of my life. This morning's judgment in the Iraq Inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa and conditions and treatment of those who were held in captivity with him, is an indictment upon our Armed Forces.
I grew up in the long shadow of the Second World War where, as each year unfolded, more evidence of horrendous atrocities by evil regimes around the world (the Axis Powers) was released and leaving us all feeling that we had been absolutely right in fighting that war and being uncompromising in making it clear that surrender was without negotiation. It was unconditional surrrender of those powers on all fronts and in both military and civil life, or otherwise face annihilation. I well recall reading Field Marshal Montgomery's uncompromising response to the Germans when they attempted to negotiate terms.
70 years on I now read and see first hand evidence of atrocities inflicted upon hooded and hand-cuffed prisoners by young soldiers, those set to guard their captors and charged to keep them in safe custody.
It is simply unacceptable, and youthful age is no excuse. These soldiers must be brought to justice. But it does not stop there. It is clear that there has been a major breakdown in service discipline by the Officers and NCOs who have an absolute duty to ensure the safety of those held in safe custody.
It is totally unacceptable to use physical force to exact information.
These officers and NCOs too must be brought to justice. Let them feel the full weight of the law, not the protective law of the Courts Martial, but the full weight of the civil law, the awareness that the population is taking matters to the highest degree - bringing these people to trial before the Crown Court.
Today, I am thoroughly ashamed that I held the Queen's Commission and that I have been granted a courtesy rank in retirement.
It is now for Parliament and High Command to take action.
There is one comforting thought. In our democracy, the military, regardless of rank and status, answer directly to Her Majesty the Queen, through Parliament. It is Parliament that has the final say in constitutional and military matters.
The Chiefs of Staff of all three Services must now take the most robust action to restore the Nations' confidence in our Armed Forces, send a message to those on the front line to maintain the highest democratic standards, and to understand that most important legal principle of our judicial system, the anchor point if you will, of which we were reminded by the Late Lord Denning 30 years ago when he quoted Thomas Fuller's ruling in 1733:
"Be you ever so high, the law is always above you."
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
Friday, 2 September 2011
MILITARY SERVICE - AND CIVVY STREET!
This week has seen the deaths of two more soldiers in Afghanistan.
This week has seen the Union Flag lowered for the last time over the soon to be Royal Town of Wootton Bassett and handed to Royal Air Force Brize Norton which has once again become fully operational and will receive the repatriation of the Fallen.
This week has also seen yet another tranche of defence cuts with 2,000 RAF and Army personnel losing their jobs and, bluntly, their careers. All of us I think understand that the defence deficit inherited from the last Administration is unsustainable. It has to be dealt with and that means reducing our armed forces to the smallest it has been in living history.
Wars and insurrections will continue, and the UK will be expected to make its full contribution to helping the trouble spots of the world to be returned to peace, good order and, above all, freedom. Some of those trouble spots have not experienced the freedoms we enjoy, in several hundred years. So it will be tough, and the brunt will be taken by the dedicated men and women of all our Armed Forces on Sea, Land and Air.
It is widely presumed that because our forces are so highly trained, then the defence cuts will not really greatly impinge upon them. They will return to civilian life and be immediately welcomed with open arms by employers desperate to take on people with such high levels of dedication, motivation, discipline and expertise.
Sadly that is not the case.
Leaving the Services, especially when it was not even envisaged, comes as a huge shock to the system and it often brings with it the break up of the family unit, broken marriages, broken homes and single parent children who suddenly wonder why it is that the protection they naturally felt when 'dad was in the army' has suddenly stopped, and why 'I can only see dad now every other weekend', and 'I only know that when dad lost his job in the air force, he and mum stopped talking and instead started fighting.'
I do not exaggerate.
I remember too in the legal profession 12 years ago being taken aside by a bumptious partner to be told that my method of management was upsetting the department. He explained in a very pious, priestly way that "here we are all one happy family and we like to work together." This solicitor was well into political correctness - big time! I understood but argued that I am working with my department. We were a team. But I didn't suffer fools gladly, especially secretaries who were taking their employers for a ride.
What made me laugh was that the very principles he told me to not apply, he applied himself.
Civvy Street is naturally suspicious of people who have served in the armed forces. It is now 66 years since the end of the Second World War, and as a Nation we are no longer used to military service. As a civil population we have had 66 years of peace within these islands, excepting of course the Troubles in Northern Ireland and most recently the Riots in England.
I do not like listening to a report, last evening on the main BBC news, that an RAF officer, having learned yesterday that he was being made redundant, had to be taken from his office because he was in a state of shock and could not be left alone, for fear that he might try and harm himself.
In the same week we demand that our armed forces give exemplary duty on the battlefield. Reader, they are!
We must help them to acclimatise to Civvy Street again. And it's tough.
In Civvy Street the camaderie and team spirit of the company, platoon, squadron, deck or ship's company is frankly non-existent.
In Civvy Street it is more like the scrap on the international trading floors of self-seeking investment bankers and traders who think only of number one.
In the armed forces you are taught not to think of number one but of everyone of whom you have now become an inextricable part. You think of everyone else around you. Then and only then do you think of yourself. And if you are an officer then you darned well set the highest example and lead from the front, never asking those within your command to do that which you wouldn’t hesitate to do yourself.
And we see that constantly in the reports and dispatches from the front line; from the reports written by the officers, NCOs, colleagues and friends following the death of a colleague in their Unit.
We are a great Nation and a great people. But let us not forget the demands we make of our armed forces, nor mistreat them when they try to return to civvy street. For in civvy street we are a very poor substitute for how a community should live, work and play together, something that our armed forces know and value only too well.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
http://ianbradleymarshall.com/Military.aspx
This week has seen the Union Flag lowered for the last time over the soon to be Royal Town of Wootton Bassett and handed to Royal Air Force Brize Norton which has once again become fully operational and will receive the repatriation of the Fallen.
This week has also seen yet another tranche of defence cuts with 2,000 RAF and Army personnel losing their jobs and, bluntly, their careers. All of us I think understand that the defence deficit inherited from the last Administration is unsustainable. It has to be dealt with and that means reducing our armed forces to the smallest it has been in living history.
Wars and insurrections will continue, and the UK will be expected to make its full contribution to helping the trouble spots of the world to be returned to peace, good order and, above all, freedom. Some of those trouble spots have not experienced the freedoms we enjoy, in several hundred years. So it will be tough, and the brunt will be taken by the dedicated men and women of all our Armed Forces on Sea, Land and Air.
It is widely presumed that because our forces are so highly trained, then the defence cuts will not really greatly impinge upon them. They will return to civilian life and be immediately welcomed with open arms by employers desperate to take on people with such high levels of dedication, motivation, discipline and expertise.
Sadly that is not the case.
Leaving the Services, especially when it was not even envisaged, comes as a huge shock to the system and it often brings with it the break up of the family unit, broken marriages, broken homes and single parent children who suddenly wonder why it is that the protection they naturally felt when 'dad was in the army' has suddenly stopped, and why 'I can only see dad now every other weekend', and 'I only know that when dad lost his job in the air force, he and mum stopped talking and instead started fighting.'
I do not exaggerate.
I remember too in the legal profession 12 years ago being taken aside by a bumptious partner to be told that my method of management was upsetting the department. He explained in a very pious, priestly way that "here we are all one happy family and we like to work together." This solicitor was well into political correctness - big time! I understood but argued that I am working with my department. We were a team. But I didn't suffer fools gladly, especially secretaries who were taking their employers for a ride.
What made me laugh was that the very principles he told me to not apply, he applied himself.
Civvy Street is naturally suspicious of people who have served in the armed forces. It is now 66 years since the end of the Second World War, and as a Nation we are no longer used to military service. As a civil population we have had 66 years of peace within these islands, excepting of course the Troubles in Northern Ireland and most recently the Riots in England.
I do not like listening to a report, last evening on the main BBC news, that an RAF officer, having learned yesterday that he was being made redundant, had to be taken from his office because he was in a state of shock and could not be left alone, for fear that he might try and harm himself.
In the same week we demand that our armed forces give exemplary duty on the battlefield. Reader, they are!
We must help them to acclimatise to Civvy Street again. And it's tough.
In Civvy Street the camaderie and team spirit of the company, platoon, squadron, deck or ship's company is frankly non-existent.
In Civvy Street it is more like the scrap on the international trading floors of self-seeking investment bankers and traders who think only of number one.
In the armed forces you are taught not to think of number one but of everyone of whom you have now become an inextricable part. You think of everyone else around you. Then and only then do you think of yourself. And if you are an officer then you darned well set the highest example and lead from the front, never asking those within your command to do that which you wouldn’t hesitate to do yourself.
And we see that constantly in the reports and dispatches from the front line; from the reports written by the officers, NCOs, colleagues and friends following the death of a colleague in their Unit.
We are a great Nation and a great people. But let us not forget the demands we make of our armed forces, nor mistreat them when they try to return to civvy street. For in civvy street we are a very poor substitute for how a community should live, work and play together, something that our armed forces know and value only too well.
Ian Bradley Marshall
LIVERPOOL
http://ianbradleymarshall.com/Military.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
