"British SAS members fearless against their enemy ...." Topic

but fearful of the leadership of their own country.

Video interview with former SAS officer Hamish de Bretton Gordon, OBE: link

Ongoing War Crime Investigations: Soldiers are frustrated by long-running probes into alleged unlawful killings in Afghanistan (2010–2013) and Syria. These have been labeled by some within the unit as "witch hunts". "Investigating" for 15 years puts a shadow guilt over these guys.

Northern Ireland Legacy: Scrutiny of historical cases from the Troubles, including the reopening of cases against elderly veterans, has deepened fears that soldiers will be "hounded" decades after their service.

Concerns Over "Lawfare": Critics argue that international human rights law has been "weaponized" against soldiers. Former military chiefs warned that current personnel now fear "not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them".

The Haddon-Cave Inquiry: An ongoing independent inquiry into special forces' conduct in Afghanistan has reportedly damaged morale and exacerbated retention issues.

Unfortunately, this situation, the decline of the British military, their cultural revolution, and what Tango Romeo (you'll figure it out) has been saying reminds me of this song which came out in 1984: YouTube link

Hey Brits out there, is there any truth to this? War Crimes are unacceptable but has this gone too far? Has the British leadership abandoned their own citizens?

I can be reached by PM only.

Wolfhag

Similar happening here in Australia…..

When your peers are the witnesses against your crimes it means they also think you crossed a line.

Tango Romeo is not someone I would listen to.

Yes wolf it seems it is true.

"Britain's elite Special Air Service (SAS) is experiencing a "significant" wave of resignations, with senior personnel quitting in large numbers over fears of being pursued by "witch hunts" from human rights lawyers regarding past combat actions.

According to reports in April 2026, the departures have affected at least two squadrons (D and G) of the 22 SAS regiment and are being described by insiders as a threat to national security.

Key Reasons for the Exodus:

"Lawfare" Fears: Soldiers fear being subjected to years of legal investigations, arrest, or prosecution under human rights law for split-second decisions made on the battlefield.

Investigation "Witch Hunts": Outrage over ongoing, high-profile investigations into SAS actions in Afghanistan, Syria, and Northern Ireland.

Betrayal of Trust: A feeling that the government and legal system have turned against troops, favoring "armed terrorists and murderers" over Special Forces operators, according to former SAS members.

Prosecution of Veterans: The treatment of elderly Northern Ireland veterans who have been pursued through the courts decades after their service has deeply impacted morale.

Impact on the Regiment:

Loss of Experience: Senior warrant officers, who are considered the backbone and most experienced operators in the regiment, are among those applying for premature voluntary release.

Morale Breakdown: Insiders have described morale within the regiment as "s---t" and noted "considerable disquiet" among personnel.
Operational Risk: Former commanders warn that the fear of prosecution will make soldiers hesitant in combat, potentially costing lives.

The resignations have raised concerns about the UK's ability to conduct sensitive global operations, with former military leaders describing the situation as a "betrayal" of soldiers who have "killed mass murderers".
The Telegraph"

——

Same thing that was happening here under Biden, but no one wanted to admit or here. Instead, we play ostrich.

But look at the latest ruling in the UK.

Keeping in mind as you read it, you can't smoke, but you can choose to have your life terminated. Isn't that what smoking is, your own choice to potentially eventually commit suicide? 🤪

——-

"In England and Wales, a different assisted dying bill was backed by MPs in November 2024, but the legislation has made slow progress in the House of Lords and supporters fear it may run out of time to become law.
In February, politicians in Jersey approved separate legislation giving terminally ill adults the right to end their life on the island.

The various proposals have generated huge controversy, with passionate arguments for and against the proposals."

"The UK has passed a landmark "generational smoking ban" known as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which makes it illegal for anyone born on or after January 1, 2009, to ever legally be sold tobacco. This legislation, which cleared its final parliamentary hurdles in April 2026, aims to create the first "smoke-free generation" by raising the legal smoking age by one year every year, indefinitely.
Al Jazeera

Key Provisions of the Law
Generational Sales Ban: It is now illegal for retailers to sell tobacco products to anyone who was 17 or younger as of April 2026. This means this age group—and all future generations—will never reach the legal age to purchase cigarettes in the UK.

Vaping Restrictions: The law introduces stricter controls on vapes, including a ban on selling them to under-18s and new powers for ministers to regulate flavors, packaging, and shop displays to make them less appealing to children.
Expanded Smoke-Free Zones: Smoking and vaping are now prohibited in several outdoor public spaces where children are often present, including:
Children's playgrounds.
Areas outside schools and hospitals.
Cars when children (under 18) are inside.

Enforcement & Penalties: Retailers who violate the ban face immediate financial penalties. In England and Wales, these include fixed penalty notices of £200.00 GBP for minor infractions, with potential court fines reaching up to £2,500.00 GBP"

As Wolfhag's original question alludes to, I think this is essentially a political debate, and as invariably happens in political debates a number of topics are getting conflated and spun.

The central issue here, I think, is the perceived betrayal of trust.

Northern Ireland was not Iraq or Afghanistan and I don't believe the two should be thought of in the same way. NI was always police-led Military Assistance to the Civil Power/Civil Authority, and it was always made very clear that service personnel had no different or special legal protections than any other UK citizen.

The issue with NI veterans I think is one of fairness and consistency. Do you investigate murder without fear or favour, to the ends of the Earth and for all time? Or to enable community healing and moving on, do you draw a line under the past? It's a hugely sensitive and complex question to which there is no ‘right' answer. What you can't do though is have one approach for Nationalist and Loyalist gunmen and a different approach for Servicemen & women, which is what it feels like the government is doing at the moment.

The prosecution of veterans long after the event is also a question of perception. We instinctively support ‘our boys', but should there be a different statute of limitations for crimes committed by Service personnel? When a cold case murder or rape is solved decades after the event and the now very old perpetrator is jailed, we hail it as a victory of justice. As a veteran myself, I have enormous empathy for anyone under investigation for events that happened 40 or 50 years, but I don't think I can justify the proposal that veterans should have special treatment under the law of the land.

Iraq & Afghanistan I think are different. 'Lawfare' is definitely a thing but I think that is probably an inevitable reflection of recent military operations – if my enemy claims the moral high ground and says they're operating in accordance with the law, I'm going to hire a battalion of lawyers to expose their mistakes. And whilst it took way too long, the shysters don't have it all their own way.

link

That said, I sense the story here is being driven more by right wing media commentators complaining about ‘lawfare' than the act itself. If the government were pandering to left media and activists baying for the blood ‘baby killer' soldiers I think they'd have more of a case, but I really don't get a sense of a national appetite for mass investigations, let alone witch hunts and show trials.

I'm also not particularly convinced by the argument that fear of prosecution will make soldiers hesitant in combat. That sounds to me like playing to a civilian audience. Likewise, "betrayal" of soldiers who have killed mass murderers" feels like media provocation. The UK (and Australia, topically) don't have the death penalty, so whether the guy is a mass murderer or not you don't get to execute him. Queue debate on death penalty by all means, but again Service men & women don't get to be different.

So, a rather long-winded way of saying, no I don't think there's an active policy or national mood to prosecute veterans. I do think, though, that there's a justifiable perception that politicians (of all shades) aren't grateful for our service and will quite happily throw us under the bus if it's politically expedient to do so.

It is simple. The world is going to #^*+.

Committing & even witnessing war crimes contributes to PTS.

" A significant relationship was observed between exposure to atrocities and the impact of PTSD on veterans' lives, as measured by the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Exposure to atrocities was also significantly correlated with current symptom severity. In contrast, combat exposure alone was not significantly associated with overall symptom severity. Both atrocity and combat exposure, however, were significantly related to reexperiencing symptoms.

The data suggest that the enduring effect and severity of PTSD symptoms on an individual are associated more with exposure to brutal human death and suffering than the threat of death associated with combat."

findings from: "Exposure to Atrocities and Severity of Chronic Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam Combat Veterans"

If you unleash the dogs of war… the blood of innocents is inevitable…

Armand

Similar happening here in Australia…..

It's been a bloody political football for too long, too, korsun. First raised by two jouralists/authors of dubious veracity, it's six years since the Brereton Report (I'll bet Brereton won't show up to march tomorrow) was first made public and there's been no charges laid until a week or so ago. Morrison first raised it as a distraction and deliberately gave the impression that the accusations were true and a major scandal was about to erupt. Various "journalists" (gossip-mongers) have been proven to have invented incidents or doctored video evidence, and no punitive action has been taken against them by the government, governing bodies nor their employers. The ABC (using taxpayers' money) even footed the legal bills and compensation which that lying JMacM had to pay for her slanderous story on N Pl 2CDO.

The accusations may or may not be true. But that remains to be tested in a legal court, not a civil suit, the gossip-mongering media or the extremely unhallowed halls of parliament- and is five years overdue.

One thing that should have been done immediately is the reversion of the DSC's that the Task Force and SF commanders got for their "Outstanding Leadership" during the OP. If their leadership was outstanding, how were the crimes, or even just rumours (if it's proven there were no, or fewer, crimes), allowed to take place? If the accusations are found to be false, or even mainly false, then they can have the DSC (aka Bums on the Right Seats Medal) back.