BY GEORGE SIMM DCM

I am the former Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) of the 22 Special Air Service (SAS). I was built for purpose, and that purpose was to ensure that the operating standards and morale of the SAS were the best they could be in all circumstances. The role of RSM is unique in the military and carries a huge responsibility to wield enormous power over a unit’s personnel effectively. The Commanding Officer (CO) connects the unit to the higher command, and the RSM connects the people who deliver combat power to the CO. Standards and accountability.

It is within that context that I am following the path of my successors in the SAS with interest in the developing legal narrative and also in the never-ending NI Legacy cases. The increasingly pious, tut-tutting antics of those who control this country, when faced with the effects of their political decisions—i.e., committing lethal force to their foreign policy adventures in the form of the SAS and the wider military—are notable.

^{The author (r) and Captain Stanković of the Parachute Regiment engaged in a critical liaison role on behalf of General Mike Rose, Commander Bosnia Theatre that produced the first meaningful ceasefire in the Bosnian tragedy in December 1994}

I am clear that when a politician states that they value ‘our armed forces and will protect their interests in all matters,’ they don’t actually mean it. What matters is what they do, not what they say; and what they do demonstrably contradicts that glib commitment.

By ignoring our published letter in The Times (below) that raised the issue of the impact of the ECHR on SAS operations and potentially its future, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has shown that it does not want any exposure of this issue, quite the opposite.

As such, it is reasonable to assume that the MoD wishes for the public to be kept in the dark about this threat to the Regiment – the following is a human perspective of the effect that 30 years of the Article 2 process has had on our soldiers and the indirect (until now) effect on our country. 

One of the reasons I decided it was time to break cover and write our letter to The Times was to shed light on what is happening to our soldiers — and by “our,” I mean those men and women who embody the key message within that well-known proverb: “We sleep safely at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”

^{Letter to the Times last week co-signed by the author}

No doubt I will get a flea in my ear for this breach of SAS omertà, but as I said, what option do we have if literally no one is exposing the truth of the dire state, the dog’s dinner of a mess, that we, the SAS (and our armed police) are in because of foreign control of our laws?

In exposing the effects of what is termed the Article 2 legal process, I want to draw attention to the disgraceful example of one of my “young lads,” RHM, with whom I served, firstly, on a day-to-day basis as his sergeant major, and later, during subsequent operations in Bosnia. There, he was part of a patrol commanded by one of our best young officers, who went on to become the 3-star Lieutenant General in command of The Allied Rapid Reaction Corps.

This patrol was sent into the teeth of a full-blown battle between the defending Bosniaks and the attacking Serb Manoeuvre Army in the role of “peacekeepers.” As this action was the first fight that the patrol commander had engaged in, the experienced senior Non-Commissioned Officer under his command, RHM, was a critical appointment, responsible for the moral and technical support to the patrol commander. Adding further risk to that deployment, the troop commander had an assassination contract issued against him by the Bosniaks, of which we had evidence in writing. The actions of this patrol prevented a major escalation, saving countless lives, and all while under heavy shellfire — the veritable “piggies in the middle,” as politicians lightly call it “peacekeeping.” No, me neither… and it was stressful and extremely dangerous for all concerned, including RHM.

RHM served with the SAS between 1987 and 2021, an extended period that dwarfs my own 25 years of continued service in the Regiment.

During RHM’s service, he developed what is medically recognised by our American counterparts as Operator Syndrome, which is defined as brain bleeds leading to military-related “mild Traumatic Brain Injury” (mTBI) caused by military service in all its forms. He is also a high-altitude, oxygen- and decompression-associated, freefall parachutist. The principal side effect of this syndrome is personality changes, predominantly manifesting as depression.

It is pertinent to note that our UK MoD medical services do not recognise Operator Syndrome. This ignorance is also a major contributory factor in his current predicament.

The incremental effects of stress caused by RHM’s service are significantly compounded by the fact that he has been embroiled in what is now called the Article 2 (of the European Convention on Human Rights — ECHR) legal process, which has been employed to “investigate” the actions of soldiers engaged on duty in Northern Ireland… for 33 years. Paradoxically, Article 2 investigations are not used to scrutinise the actions of the terrorists. This is due to the structure of the Treaty — it only impacts what are termed “state actors.” This partial application is hardly a fair mechanism to apply to an investigative process that has resulted in the deaths of terrorists in the act of attempting to kill innocent people. In any event, RHM received a release letter from the lawyers in 2005. However, due directly to the constant reinterpretations of the Article 2 process, another inquiry drew him back into the repurposed investigation, and this has continued since he was first released from investigation 19 years ago.

In addition to its clear bias in favour of terrorist murderers, Article 2 Inquiries overrule the traditional process of law, which has the effect of ensuring that whatever the national political process attempts by way of ending the “forever war,” there is always another form of inquiry that ensures the grievance industrial complex continues. The next inquiry is currently being formed in the form of The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). It is yet another, I suggest, naïve, attempt to “discover the truth” about why a terrorist was killed while trying to murder members of the public. I believe that the answer is obvious, and there is no need to spend excessive amounts of time and money on it while causing further damage to all involved in order to “discover” that the truth is about individual choices. Importantly, those choices are not the responsibility of the state. The state’s responsibility is to those it is bound to protect. And unfortunately for our terrorist adversaries, this is where the SAS enters the fray.

The current political position regarding the Northern Ireland Legacy process was passed into law in November 2023 in the form of the Northern Ireland Legacy Act. However, the new Labour government has elected to suspend the application of this new law that attempted to end all inquiries related to Northern Ireland on May 1st, 2024. As a result of the government’s actions, the entire legal situation is now unclear; everything is on hold, pending a “review.” This places RHM and his colleagues in another legal void that does nothing to alleviate the extraordinary levels of stress they have experienced for 33 years (and counting).

The central contradiction of this mass political prostration to the altar of Article 2 human rights is that it is, of course, lopsided. It only applies when politicians want it to; it is, by any definition, partial and therefore legally unfair. But that doesn’t deter a now well-established human rights brigade that milks the process for every penny of legal aid funding they can obtain.

RHM’s human rights — yes, soldiers have human rights too — have been abused under Article 6 (Right to a fair trial), Article 7 (No punishment without law), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination), and Article 17 (Prohibition of abuse of rights). All of RHM’s rights have been superseded by an irrational political need to appease the rights of terrorist murderers.

The dreadful impact on RHM’s post-service private life and his relationship with his wife has been considerable. This undue stress, which has continued for 35 years, is a disgrace — it is a process that shames us all. It is little wonder that the main body of politics does not want the public to understand this situation. It is an embarrassing mess.

Notwithstanding the obvious systemic bias within the Article 2 process, isolating soldiers in what is a purely political process overlooks an obvious issue: whether soldiers alone are responsible for the conduct of operations against terrorists. Any responsible government, looking to protect its subjects and its soldiers, would choose to fully comply with the original 2006 Coroner’s closure order and accept that if a terrorist dies in the course of committing a crime, then they alone are responsible for their deaths.

However, when the government blindly proceeds to comply with the political process in which RHM is now engaged (along with others), it must ensure that the following individuals also join RHM and his team in the witness box answering charges of killing terrorists: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, The Permanent Under Secretary for the Northern Ireland Office, The Chief Constable of the RUC, The Head of Special Branch, The General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, and The General Officer Commanding 3 Brigade, representing the command and control function over SAS operations. If full disclosure is demanded by the Article 2 process and accountability for our actions is required, then it is only fair that those responsible for ordering RHM into action should also explain their part, rather than leaving the burden created by the politically inspired Article 2 process to be borne by a soldier who obeyed orders in a complex and personally dangerous situation, which undoubtedly saved the future lives of innocents. That doesn’t make any sense. And it is ethically and morally reprehensible.

This is the issue that depresses our soldiers to varying degrees — from the resignedly irritated to the despairingly “What do we expect?” Everyone in the chain of command — political and military — while eager for what we do for this country, vanishes when it comes to accepting their part. They choose instead to sacrifice us on the altar of some foreign-inspired, utopian dream that worships universal human rights above all things, regardless of the cost.

Tell that to the 3,085 innocent civilians whose human rights were extinguished by the same murderous clique that the ECHR is now attempting to protect. Tell that to the population of this country who pay their taxes and expect to be safeguarded from various murder gangs that refuse to accept our democratic culture and use violence to achieve their political aims through indiscriminate killing; indeed, the more indiscriminate, the better, for that is true terrorism.

^{The authors of the letter in Norway}

---

Looking to the future, it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that events similar to those in Israel could occur here in the UK to a greater or lesser degree. The same mental illness that inspired the depravity on October 7th, 2023, is already prevalent in areas of this country. Evidence of this is reported regularly in the media, yet there is no action from the government. This lack of action encourages the continued flouting of the laws of this country and creates a dangerous launchpad for worse behaviour as numbers swell.

Our police force is now apparently a service — like at a local garage or Tesco— just another job, and has proven to be a tool of whatever political fad happens to be en vogue. Criminals are now defined according to a hidden matrix that contradicts their duty to police without fear or favour. Watching them perform at any reported demonstration or investigation is frankly embarrassing. Our armed police might as well carry catapults, but, of course, as this produces potential for projectile damage, clearly catapults will not be allowed.

Given the way the Article 2 process is now used to neuter national security, specifically in relation to what RHM and his fellow members of the SAS provide by way of protection from this hardening threat, I ask: who is going to fight for our people when the enemy threat escalates to October 7th levels of violence? Is it inconceivable? Am I being extreme in my assessment of future potential threats?

I pose this question because I am clear that the effects upon the SAS from the efforts of the enemy “behind us” will ensure that, regardless of the outcome, the real winner will be their “tablets of stone” — the unfair human rights convention that seems to protect only the enemy in front of us, the terrorists, in its increasingly “modern” interpretations.

This is the world the SAS traditionally enters into freely. To the general public we may seem odd accepting this threat, as it appears old-fashioned, but we operate under a higher purpose — a purpose defined as protecting the UK public’s freedoms and safety. It is this belief in a higher purpose that compelled us to write to the MoD, requesting a suspension of all legal activities pending a review of the efficacy of the ECHR on counter-terrorist operations. We know what is happening, and we know that the MoD knows, but who is going to fix this epically bad situation?

Cue tumbleweed — “and some fell on stony ground…” Perhaps the MoD was working from home when our letter arrived.

To be clear, we do not ask for a legal waiver to behave illegally or indiscriminately — I strongly refute any allegations of being some sort of Einsatzgruppe. We are professionals that produce a broad swathe of mostly problem solving products on behalf of UK Inc that are never reported publicly. Our corporate Key Performance Indicator is a gift for fixing problems that others cannot. We therefore have no desire to compromise our hard-earned reputation by stooping to the levels of depravity that our terrorist enemies employ, murdering (and raping) women and children for whatever obscure cause they purportedly represent, even though that is exactly what our detractors would have the country believe. To balance this sort of accusation I point to the simple example of too many major corporations nationally and internationally that have enjoyed the positive effects of having ex SAS as part of their operations, including the UK’s principle broadcasting corporation.

All we ask for is a fair and rational legal framework to operate within; and for us, that logically means being judged using UK laws, managed and controlled by our own elected Parliament. We especially ask that in the course of any post-operation legal process, our opponents are also held to account — that would be a refreshing change.

Being all-consuming in the religious cult of the ECHR, this obsession causes a blindness to fairness and common sense in our pearl-clutching, mostly socialist, pacifist political elite. This lobby has consistently failed to resolve what is, in every sense, a political problem caused by adopting the ECHR into our domestic statute of law in 1998. The consequences of this ideological worship are being borne by the military, which is dragged into political courts and regularly abused for being incapable of explaining what are essentially the actions of politicians. They begin the fight and control it during its conduct, but you wouldn’t know it from observing the legal process.

It is truly Kafkaesque; yet it continues.

The mantra “If you desire peace, then prepare for war…” has been hijacked by the pacifist lobby that is not being straight with the public. There is a new extended version that ends with “but only so long as it complies with Article 2 of the ECHR.” In other words, either by design or mistake, those lawyers in government and in the human rights sector of the legal profession have conspired to degrade the nation’s ability to defend itself against terrorists. This represents a true victory for those socialists who believe the nation-state is an aberration. My instinct tells me that by understanding this, I suggest, it takes us some way toward comprehending why the Human Rights Act was first introduced in 1998. I have no evidence for that sceptical statement, but one only has to study its dreadful impact to question why our Prime Minister thought it was necessary to implement the Act and then to understand who benefits from its effects.

You really cannot make this up. RHM and his comrades, who have been abused by our apparently world-renowned legal process for decades, deserve a campaign medal for standing steady in the face of such abuse instead of the prospect of years more of this witch hunt. But they stand alone, while the architects of the conflict live comfortably into their dotage.

Is it any wonder that all this disreputable behaviour by the government is now finally trickling down into the “dressing room” and the players are just not happy? How can they be? The real dynamic of service life is, in a very real sense, a love affair with the idea of what we do and did; and a love for our fellow soldiers who share our motivation and instinct to protect the weak and vulnerable. It creates an extraordinarily powerful bond, the impact of which is seen throughout history — winning against the odds, etc.

But when the love affair ends, we are left to ask, “What is the point?” When our dedication and sacrifices seem to be met with disdain or, worse, exploitation, it shakes the very foundation of our commitment. Soldiers who once charged bravely into conflict may begin to question the legitimacy of their purpose, the rationale behind their operations, and the accountability of those in charge.

The irony is that the soldiers who embody the spirit of protection and bravery find themselves ensnared in a political web that prioritises rhetoric over reality. While we fight to uphold a democratic society, our own frameworks seem to erode, leaving us vulnerable not only to external threats but to internal injustices as well.

The disconnect between the political narrative surrounding our military operations and the lived experiences of soldiers like RHM is stark. The bureaucratic machinery and legal intricacies involved in the Article 2 process appear detached from the realities faced by those on the front lines. Each additional inquiry, each further reinterpretation of laws and regulations, adds layers of stress and uncertainty for soldiers already grappling with the aftermath of their service.

As the government navigates the murky waters of public opinion, they seem to fail to grasp that the real heroes are those who have stood unwaveringly in the face of danger, who have borne the burdens of their choices with dignity, and who now struggle against a system that seems more inclined to persecute than protect them. Soldiers like RHM deserve more than a system that offers condemnation. They deserve honour, recognition, and a legal framework that enables them to operate effectively and ethically.

It is essential that we advocate for an environment where soldiers are not left feeling like scapegoats for political agendas. We must demand accountability from those in power, ensuring that they are held to the same standards they impose on our servicemen and women. This is not just a matter of legal fairness; it is about preserving the integrity and morale of our armed forces, which form the backbone of our nation’s security.

In seeking to safeguard the nation, we must also safeguard those who are tasked with defending it. We must strive to create a system that respects both the rights of individuals and the obligations of the state. The well-being of our soldiers should not be sacrificed to appease political interests or to satisfy the whims of a flawed legal framework.

Going forward, we must engage in an open dialogue about the implications of such legal processes on national security and military effectiveness. It is time to address the uncomfortable truths about how our current systems can undermine the very purpose they are meant to serve.

So, as we look to the future, let us champion those who have served with honour and integrity. Let us strive to rectify a system that has become convoluted and unjust. Those who protect our liberties must not find themselves abandoned by the very society they defend. The time for change is now, and it requires the collective will of the public, the politicians, and the military to ensure that our soldiers are treated with the respect, dignity, and justice they rightly deserve.

In conclusion, the call to action is clear: we must work towards creating a legal and political environment that truly acknowledges and values the sacrifices of our armed forces, ensuring that their bravery is met with honour and that their future is protected from the scourge of bureaucratic folly. Only then can we ensure that those who stand ready to defend us can do so without fear of unjust repercussions, knowing that their sacrifices are recognised and valued in equal measure.