Lifelong Legal Harassment – A Price Worth paying?  

Of course, the emperor had no clothes. Interestingly, it took a child outside the emperor’s court to state the obvious. The obsequiousness that allowed this fool to parade around in the nude stemmed from an unhealthy focus on patronage, self-delusion, and ambition, which overshadowed reality.

As the Regimental Sergeant Major in the UK’s Special Air Service (SAS) from 1992 to 1994, one of my roles was to highlight ‘occasional nudity’ and ground lofty ideas that could have serious consequences for our soldiers and those we vowed to protect. My fellow sergeant majors and I were a source of hard-earned experience, representing the pastoral interests of our unit, which better officers learned to utilise.

However, at the UK government level, the focus remains on ambition at the expense of reality, a situation that is entering a Kafkaesque phase and could prove detrimental to the UK’s defence against terrorism. This also extends to our armed police and SO19. I can only speak from my experiences, which reflect the Regiment’s domestic and global roles. You have read many stories, most of which are true—though some are works of fiction by soldiers seeking fame. The reality is even more exciting and satisfying—not in a hubristic manner, but in a way that reflects professional achievement and continuous learning.

The current Regiment is a hybrid of David Stirling’s 1941 Originals, the uniquely innovative Special Operations Executive, and a dash of the adventurous spirit of figures like Francis Drake and Thomas Cochrane. I often explain that the qualities that make us ‘special’ are not confined to a few individuals but are inherent in most British people. All it takes is the right circumstances to bring these traits to the fore. In the SAS, we are granted that unique opportunity—a privilege we take seriously on behalf of our country’s citizens.

Thus, we do not require assistance from the so-called progressives who infiltrate government and its institutions. One might think understanding a process adds value; yet this has not been the case. External influences have seeped in to the extent that our own government appears to lack understanding or control over our fate, despite claims from its ministers. In reality, a young person joining the special forces faces the real risk of lifelong legal harassment, a direct consequence of government actions.

The SAS has been an ‘equal employer’ long before the notion of diversity became pervasive—not for ideological reasons, but because it was essential and stemmed from our selection process and ‘best tool for the job’ philosophy. My SAS colleagues come from all parts of the UK, Ireland, and the Commonwealth, including women, who embody the bravery and intelligence of those extraordinary ladies who served in the Special Operations Executive during WWII. How diverse do we want it to be? There is no hint of political correctness—everyone earns their place and strives to be better than their peers.

We are rarely beaten in the field, yet we have always contended with a bureaucracy plagued by obscure ideologies and factionalism. Now, we face suffocation under the legal framework of the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA)—a weaponised version of the 1948 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR was established, primarily by British judges, to elevate European countries to the standards of the UK’s 1689 Bill of Rights, aimed at protecting citizens from an overbearing state.

The 1998 HRA serves as the active legal embodiment of these treaty rights. However, as the only country to adopt the ECHR into its laws, UK politicians inadvertently created a duplicate legal process. We now have two sets of human rights laws: one functioning well before 1998, and the other, post-1998, exalted by activists. Critically, the latter is controlled by ECHR judges in Strasbourg, not our own legislature. This European authority is evident in frequent reports of serious criminals being allowed to remain in the UK, often overriding the will of our elected government. It was also illustrated when the Supreme Court, birthed by the ECHR/HRA, overruled the sitting prime minister on parliamentary matters. How is it that a court can hold supremacy over the elected legislature? Who holds the Supreme Court accountable?

The central issue with employing the HRA as a legal basis for operations against terrorists is its inherent bias favouring terrorists. By design, the HRA can only assess state actions, not those of our adversaries, who are given immunity. This explains why soldiers face scrutiny in political courts while terrorists who have targeted civilians for decades are not held accountable.

We enter the fight willingly. Most civilians view us as peculiar—perhaps they’re right. However, we are motivated by the higher purpose of protecting families and the vulnerable. Unless one has experienced it, one cannot comprehend the profound satisfaction of saving a life. It is an addictive feeling. The government invests heavily in our training, ensuring we are prepared for any scenario. We are the Swiss Army knife of security solutions—a necessity, as we lack the mass of our American counterparts. We have all sworn an oath of loyalty to The Crown, which ultimately means our people. However, we did not enlist to defend lawyers, especially those beyond the reach of our democratic process, living comfortably in Strasbourg. In a society facing an increased threat from domestic-based terror, I suggest that the last thing the country needs is doubt in the minds of the SAS and SO19. In those situations, the last thing the SAS needs are doubts caused by the direct threat to soldiers and police who face years of legal harassment for doing their duty protecting our people.

The virtuous circle of our citizens electing a government that then sends us into combat—accountable to those same voters through laws they control—has been disrupted. By being subjected to the ECHR/HRA legal framework, we exist in a hybrid process outside of democratic accountability. This framework possesses the power to impose its own legal interpretations on soldiers (and armed police) via its ‘outer office’ of the HRA. It’s a deception: the HRA may appear to be UK law, but the uncomfortable truth is that its process is governed by foreign judges, beyond the reach of British politicians.

To be clear, we are ready to be held accountable by whatever processes the government deems necessary. However, it would be much preferred if those judging us were British.

George Simm DCM is a former Regimental Sergeant Major of the SAS

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: