A good day for the British Army, a bad day for human rights lawyers
deptfordbaker
Posts: 22,368 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Sky News App wrote:
The Defence Secretary has accused Iraqi prisoners of attempting to use the UK legal system to damage the reputation of Britain's armed forces.
Michael Fallon*lambasted them for making "false allegations" of abuse by British forces, which triggered a judge-led inquiry costing the British taxpayer £31m and put soldiers through six years of anxiety.
Mr Fallon made his comments after a major inquiry ruled allegations of torture and murder, made against British soldiers bythe former prisoners, were "wholly without foundation".
The Al Sweady Inquiry*found accusations of war crimes made in 2008 were "entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility".
Mr*Fallon said the claims had been a "shameful attempt to use our legal system to attack and falsely impugn our armed forces".
He said the lawyers who represented the Iraqi prisoners had made errors which had cost the taxpayer money and put the soldiers involved through years of uncertainty.
And he called for them to issue an "unequivocal apology to the soldiers whose reputations they attempted to traduce".
Sounds like the human rights industry have wasted lot's of tax payers money. Legal aid should be abolished for human rights cases. If the human rights lawyers are so confident, then they should pay the costs themselves and get it back if they win.
OK this was an inquiry not a court case, but I still think they should be made to contribute some of the costs and apologise to the soldiers, as the Minister demanded in parliament.
0
Comments
BBC, there is no such thing as the UK Army, nor are they UK or British Marines and we don't have a British Navy!!
DS Politics forum: getting to the issues that matter.
A civil case only has to be proved on the balance of probabilities. This is a matter of opinion, so even lawyers cannot be sure of the outcome.
I presume that, if you ever have need to enforce your rights, you would be quite against applying for legal aid.
Access to the courts is a must to hold others, including Government, to account. The tragedy if the last few years is that both Tory and Labour administrations have systematically reduced access to justice.
or... Answering the questions that nobody asked.
If there is any left. Unfortunately I am a British citizen, so probably at the back of the queue for human rights related legal aid. Abu Qatada cost the British tax payer half a million pounds in legal aid costs.
Human rights has become an industry driven by money and the political motivations of some human rights lawyers.
*Groans*
God how I hate this victim culture that is developing in this country.
Yet UK JUDGES are finding that Chris grayling keep breaking the law, and not just on human right cases. Humiliation for Grayling after his crackdown on legal aid for immigrants is branded 'unlawful' by judges
Court of Appeal says guidelines on public money are 'too restrictive'
'Very high threshold’ for legal aid when someone is facing deportation
Master of the Rolls upholds High Court decision that rules are 'unlawful'
MoJ must redraft guidelines and reassess funding for some immigrants
Are you saying that uk judges dont know what they are doing. And lets not forget the thousands of UK citizens who bring human right cases before UK courts every year, and win thier cases.
Come now Tim, you should know by now on here, if it's about job losses, it will never happen to them, or they are self employed. Pension losses, they have private wealth. Health cuts, pah, they have private insurance, paid from their private wealth. Which of course is invested risk free in a sock under the four poster. Disadvantage is for the weak, survival of the fittest and all that. ;-)
For an international market, British marines would be a good way of differentiating between members the Royal Marines and the US Marine Corp, especially if they were part of a multinational force.
British navy would also a good way of telling the Royal Navy from the French or US navies in a task force .
We may refer to our forces as The British Army, The Royal Air Force, The Royal Navy and The Royal Marines but it doesn't follow that every other country in the world does.
The British Army, The Royal Air Force, The Royal Navy and The Royal Marines because e pluribus
As for the French and US forces they know who those British forces are very well.
The British Army is only The British Army because they eliminated the Royal Army.
While the majority of the claims were baseless or exaggerated. It's worth pointing out that some were not. So a total waste of time and money it was not. That by no means proves it was value for money either.
But the only reason for this inquiry was the ineptness of the MoD and Military Police when they didn't investigate the original claim properly.
I understand the two firms are now being investigated to discover if they have broken professional standards over the way these allegations were handled.
Certainly the legal profession is not enhanced by them.
Hang the scum:p
...although it IS a bit hard to ignore that facts of a War of Indepedence, 240+ years of separate history, and the fact that the U.S.A. doesn't have a King...
Always wonder when these type of cases come about,why no one ever asks,just why does it cost this much.
The lawyers have nothing to say sorry for, they have not been found guilty of doing anything wrong yet.
This Fallon character is trying to get a cheap pop by 'drum beating for heroes'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11299537/Al-Sweady-inquiry-The-British-Army-deserves-a-full-apology-from-the-BBC.html
You've got to understand what 'news' is
British soldiers fighting isn't news - they do it nearly every day. They've done it for hundreds of years........it's not 'news'
British soldiers being accused of torture and murder is relatively rare.......certainly rare enough to be considered 'news'
These public interest lawyers must be praying for more military involvement, as they seem to make a very good living from it, the ambulance chasing maggots.
Criticising lawyers for chasing cases is like criticising milkmen for delivering milk. It's their job.