Report comment

If military personnel are suspected of crimes that range up to murder is it not the remit of the ICC to investigate these rather than "ambulance chasing lawyers'. Since when have war crimes been the remit of the civil courts?

What exactly does 'historic' mean in terms of allegations? If these are civil damages claims should they not be subject to the usual limitation periods?

It would appear that once again political expediency is being placed above the rule of law. Any member of the British Armed Forces who commits crimes or is involved in an actionable tort should rightly be brought before the courts but not by 'special commissions' working on historic allegations. There are adequate legal provisions in place.

This is wide open to abuse not only by the "Ambulance Chasers' but by anyone who can string together an allegation of abuse out of nothing.

What is particularly galling here is the massive obstacles that are placed in front of our military personnel when they want to bring legal action for historic abuse.