The egregious lawyer Phil Shiner was struck off for dishonesty and malpractice earlier this month following the full extent of his behaviour, encouraging false claims against British soldiers who had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, being confirmed.
This would be the same man who was made lawyer of the year by The Law Society in 2007 and who was lauded by The Guardian and The Independent for his ambulance chasing style campaign to prosecute British soldiers based on testimony from witnesses whose evidence, in some cases, was pretty much impossible to corroborate and also had a financial vested interest in extracting money from the British taxpayer, i.e. you and me. It was actually the much maligned Daily Mail, not generally regarded (perhaps unfairly) as a campaigning newspaper, that had perhaps done the most to expose Shiner. One wonders whether, if the Leveson arrangements were to be fully implemented, such a campaign could be run in the future.
To be fair to The Guardian, it maintained its principled stance even after Shiner's exposure, writing (Guardian view on Phil Shiner - bad man, vital job*) that, while he betrayed the standards of his profession and besmirched the integrity of Britain’s armed forces, he also brought justice to victims, and he threw light on grave flaws in the way soldiers were trained and led in the haste to go to war in 2003. Its editorial went on to say an absurd number of cases were brought, many of them improperly, it is also true that more than 300 of them did result in compensation payments and others led to service disciplinary hearings . (Hmm. Were they all sound, I wonder?) Politicians now queue to denounce “spurious” and “vexatious” lawyers, but fighting this kind of abuse is not spurious or vexatious, they go on, it is a matter of justice. It is also a simple question of prevention. Stopping the abuse would silence the lawyers. The government would rather just silence the lawyers. One might say they want to Shiner light (sorry) on human rights abuses.
Nevertheless, the Government now seems set to drop most of the actions left outstanding against our soldiers. Stand by for more hand wringing on that from the metropolitan elites who were so keen to see British troops in the dock.
Now I'm not defending criminal behaviour of any kind at any time, even under the appalling conditions and extreme pressure some of our forces would have served under. But we live in an era when derring do is fortunately mainly limited to the sports field not the battlefield. Our heroes get Olympic golds and MBEs, rather than VCs. But while most of us have little understanding of what it actually takes to be an elite sportsman, yet we still comment at will ("how could he miss that?"), it seems that there are people all too ready to pass judgement on the conduct of our troops, on the basis of say so from dubious witnesses, egged on by lawyers who also have a vested interest. Why would that be?
I have a feeling that it's because they failed to nail Tony Blair for taking us into the Iraq war. They wanted to see the former British Prime Minister arraigned and, if they can't have that, then a bunch of poor innocent squaddies will just have to do, even if it unjustly ruins many lives. These people, like the Bolsheviks, feel that sort of thing is necessary collateral damage and the end (Britain never fighting in any kind of war ever again whatever the circumstances) justifies the means.
Shiner is an odious creep. But the lobby that shouted him on without regard for the harm it was doing to ordinary, innocent British soldiers make me feel equally sick.
*https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/the-guardian-view-on-phil-shiner-bad-man-vital-job
No comments:
Post a Comment