The elite soldiers who once safeguarded Britain now find themselves accused of crimes they were ordered to commit. The SAS, a unit renowned for its bravery and effectiveness, is under scrutiny—not from foreign adversaries but from legal systems seemingly intent on prosecuting them for sanctioned operations.  

 

In a rare and dramatic move, the SAS Association, a charity supporting former and serving members, has urged its veterans to step out of the shadows and reveal their Special Forces backgrounds to lobby MPs. Their message is clear: comrades are being “hounded for doing their duty” in places like Northern Ireland. The frustration has reached a boiling point, with former soldiers feeling betrayed by a government they believed would stand by them. They argue that repeated legal actions are exacerbating a recruitment crisis that is already severe.  

 

The association has provided a template letter for its members to send to parliamentarians, in which veterans express feeling “badly let down by successive governments.” It points to what they see as one-sided legal actions, stating: “UK Special Forces veterans feel they alone face criminal investigation and risk prosecution for doing what they were trained, authorised, and expected to do as part of a successful counterterrorist campaign.” The letter further warns: “It is not lost on those currently serving, or those who may wish to serve, that the ingenuity and courage they display today could see them accused of crimes decades in the future.”  

 

The current crisis stems in part from a recent ruling by a coroner regarding SAS operations in Northern Ireland in 1992. The coroner concluded that SAS troops had used excessive force in killing four IRA terrorists who had just fired 50 rounds into a police station with a Russian heavy machine gun.

 

The SAS team ambushed the terrorists as they dismantled the weapon, fearing their hidden positions were about to be exposed. While many would consider this a justifiable action in a combat zone, the coroner ruled otherwise, a decision welcomed by the families of the dead IRA members. Now, the findings have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, raising the possibility that these veterans may be charged with murder more than 30 years after the event.  

 

The controversy does not end with Northern Ireland. Hundreds of SAS veterans are now caught in ongoing investigations related to the Troubles, which are re-examining killings by both the IRA and British forces. The Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan has also heard accusations of unlawful SAS killings, while allegations of war crimes in Syria could lead to the prosecution of several Special Forces personnel.  

 

A growing sentiment among the SAS community is that they are under siege. In rare public remarks, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, a former SAS commander, voiced concerns last year, stating: “For the first time in my experience, the ­serving generation today don’t believe their chain of command can guarantee they won’t face a lifetime of hounding.” He warned that this climate was damaging morale and military effectiveness.  

 

George Simm, an SAS veteran who served as Regimental Sergeant Major from 1992 to 1994 and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, is deeply frustrated by the legal quagmire. He and other veterans argue that service personnel should be granted immunity from prosecution for actions carried out in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, as is the case in other allied nations like the United States. “No one can be immune from investigation – it is part of the job – and we are not asking for that. It is unreasonable. What we demand is fairness and clarity – right now there is neither,” says Simm.  

 

The issue is further complicated by lawyers bringing human rights claims against British troops, a practice that some veterans believe is being exploited. Simm specifically criticizes figures like Phil Shiner, a former left-wing lawyer who was disbarred and sentenced for making false allegations of abuse against British soldiers in Iraq. Shiner, once celebrated by civil rights groups, was found to have illegally profited from taxpayer funds while pursuing these cases. “Without clarity of the legal framework these troops will be operating within, the British public should prepare for more instances of ambulance-chasing, human-rights zealots like Phil Shiner assuming their ‘international duty’ of ensuring that no enemy of this country will die on their watch – under any circumstances,” Simm says.  

 

The SAS is one of the most respected military units in the world, demanding the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and loyalty. Selection is notoriously tough, with only around 10 percent of candidates passing the grueling process. However, the constant scrutiny and legal actions are now deterring recruits. In response, the SAS has taken unprecedented steps to attract new candidates, including allowing an SAS warrant officer to give an interview urging soldiers to consider joining the force—a move that would have been unthinkable in the past.  

 

One veteran describes the impact this legal uncertainty is having on recruitment: “Would you want to join an organisation which trains you to do something no one else can do, which requires you to risk your life in the service of your country, then 10, 20, 30 years later puts you in the dock and attempts to pin a murder charge on you?”  

 

The issue at the heart of the controversy is the apparent disconnect between the SAS’s mission and how their actions are later judged. A former SAS officer explains: “What we are seeing now is basically the people who pulled the trigger on covert operations being thrown to the wolves. Why aren’t the senior officers, government officials and ministers of state who signed off these operations also in the dock?” He adds: “They demand sacrifice and ingenuity at the tactical level and then seem surprised when they get that. In Iraq and Afghanistan ‘kill or capture’ was the actual mission statement, yet everyone seems surprised when people die.”  

 

This officer points to a fundamental “displacement between decision-makers and the delivery end.” He believes that politicians and military leaders must fully comprehend the implications of sending soldiers into conflict zones. “Leaders that truly take time to understand their decisions to go to war or join coalitions would understand what they are asking people to do. That often means killing people, especially for the special forces, and this was the case in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to tell people to carry out those operations, then the government must make sure they are properly protected months and years down the road – otherwise you’ll end up with no one wanting to do it.”  

 

For veterans like Simm, the anger and sense of betrayal run deep. “The frustration and embitterment they feel at their treatment will need to be addressed if they are to be persuaded to cooperate with future reviews and investigations,” he says. “Veterans have lost trust.”

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-11

 

 

" that SAS troops had used excessive force in killing four IRA terrorists who had just fired 50 rounds into a police station with a Russian heavy machine gun."

 

How can anyone use excessive force to kill a terrorist? Isn't that the whole point?

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

A former SAS officer explains: “What we are seeing now is basically the people who pulled the trigger on covert operations being thrown to the wolves.

 

Absolutely correct, organisations like the SAS are essential for the protection of the country, it is time the tree huggers wake up & smell the roses as every other country in the world has similar forces

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

The elite soldiers who once safeguarded Britain now find themselves accused of crimes they were ordered to commit. The SAS, a unit renowned for its bravery and effectiveness, is under scrutiny—not from foreign adversaries but from legal systems seemingly intent on prosecuting them for sanctioned operations.  

 

In a rare and dramatic move, the SAS Association, a charity supporting former and serving members, has urged its veterans to step out of the shadows and reveal their Special Forces backgrounds to lobby MPs. Their message is clear: comrades are being “hounded for doing their duty” in places like Northern Ireland. The frustration has reached a boiling point, with former soldiers feeling betrayed by a government they believed would stand by them. They argue that repeated legal actions are exacerbating a recruitment crisis that is already severe.  

 

 

The association has provided a template letter for its members to send to parliamentarians, in which veterans express feeling “badly let down by successive governments.” It points to what they see as one-sided legal actions, stating: “UK Special Forces veterans feel they alone face criminal investigation and risk prosecution for doing what they were trained, authorised, and expected to do as part of a successful counterterrorist campaign.” The letter further warns: “It is not lost on those currently serving, or those who may wish to serve, that the ingenuity and courage they display today could see them accused of crimes decades in the future.”  

 

The current crisis stems in part from a recent ruling by a coroner regarding SAS operations in Northern Ireland in 1992. The coroner concluded that SAS troops had used excessive force in killing four IRA terrorists who had just fired 50 rounds into a police station with a Russian heavy machine gun.

 

The SAS team ambushed the terrorists as they dismantled the weapon, fearing their hidden positions were about to be exposed. While many would consider this a justifiable action in a combat zone, the coroner ruled otherwise, a decision welcomed by the families of the dead IRA members. Now, the findings have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, raising the possibility that these veterans may be charged with murder more than 30 years after the event.  

 

The controversy does not end with Northern Ireland. Hundreds of SAS veterans are now caught in ongoing investigations related to the Troubles, which are re-examining killings by both the IRA and British forces. The Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan has also heard accusations of unlawful SAS killings, while allegations of war crimes in Syria could lead to the prosecution of several Special Forces personnel.  

 

A growing sentiment among the SAS community is that they are under siege. In rare public remarks, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, a former SAS commander, voiced concerns last year, stating: “For the first time in my experience, the ­serving generation today don’t believe their chain of command can guarantee they won’t face a lifetime of hounding.” He warned that this climate was damaging morale and military effectiveness.  

 

George Simm, an SAS veteran who served as Regimental Sergeant Major from 1992 to 1994 and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, is deeply frustrated by the legal quagmire. He and other veterans argue that service personnel should be granted immunity from prosecution for actions carried out in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, as is the case in other allied nations like the United States. “No one can be immune from investigation – it is part of the job – and we are not asking for that. It is unreasonable. What we demand is fairness and clarity – right now there is neither,” says Simm.  

 

The issue is further complicated by lawyers bringing human rights claims against British troops, a practice that some veterans believe is being exploited. Simm specifically criticizes figures like Phil Shiner, a former left-wing lawyer who was disbarred and sentenced for making false allegations of abuse against British soldiers in Iraq. Shiner, once celebrated by civil rights groups, was found to have illegally profited from taxpayer funds while pursuing these cases. “Without clarity of the legal framework these troops will be operating within, the British public should prepare for more instances of ambulance-chasing, human-rights zealots like Phil Shiner assuming their ‘international duty’ of ensuring that no enemy of this country will die on their watch – under any circumstances,” Simm says.  

 

The SAS is one of the most respected military units in the world, demanding the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and loyalty. Selection is notoriously tough, with only around 10 percent of candidates passing the grueling process. However, the constant scrutiny and legal actions are now deterring recruits. In response, the SAS has taken unprecedented steps to attract new candidates, including allowing an SAS warrant officer to give an interview urging soldiers to consider joining the force—a move that would have been unthinkable in the past.  

 

One veteran describes the impact this legal uncertainty is having on recruitment: “Would you want to join an organisation which trains you to do something no one else can do, which requires you to risk your life in the service of your country, then 10, 20, 30 years later puts you in the dock and attempts to pin a murder charge on you?”  

 

The issue at the heart of the controversy is the apparent disconnect between the SAS’s mission and how their actions are later judged. A former SAS officer explains: “What we are seeing now is basically the people who pulled the trigger on covert operations being thrown to the wolves. Why aren’t the senior officers, government officials and ministers of state who signed off these operations also in the dock?” He adds: “They demand sacrifice and ingenuity at the tactical level and then seem surprised when they get that. In Iraq and Afghanistan ‘kill or capture’ was the actual mission statement, yet everyone seems surprised when people die.”  

 

This officer points to a fundamental “displacement between decision-makers and the delivery end.” He believes that politicians and military leaders must fully comprehend the implications of sending soldiers into conflict zones. “Leaders that truly take time to understand their decisions to go to war or join coalitions would understand what they are asking people to do. That often means killing people, especially for the special forces, and this was the case in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to tell people to carry out those operations, then the government must make sure they are properly protected months and years down the road – otherwise you’ll end up with no one wanting to do it.”  

 

For veterans like Simm, the anger and sense of betrayal run deep. “The frustration and embitterment they feel at their treatment will need to be addressed if they are to be persuaded to cooperate with future reviews and investigations,” he says. “Veterans have lost trust.”

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-11

 

 

BS. War crime were committed by soldiers. Face justice. You deserve it❗

A good recruiting policy. 'If we order you to shoot a terrorist, don't come running to us if you get charged with abusing human rights. Even if you got your leg blown off during the action. Herr Starmer's army needs you.'

That fact our elite forces may be prosecuted for following orders is a travesty. 

Our servicemen should be honoured for protecting us not hounded by woke lawyers with an anti British agenda. 

Reads like they murdered 4 civilians, suspected of a crime, without due process.  Unless they were pointing a weapon at them, or in danger, did they have the right to kill the 4 civilians.   What were their 'rules of engagement'.

 

While shooing at the building, did they actually kill or harm anyone ?   Were the 4 that were killed, even involved with shooting up the building ?

 

Does seem excessive force was used, along with, the SAS were not in danger or being shot at.

 

... "The British soldiers fired approximately 570 rounds. Although the soldiers had claimed that the IRA team had opened fire the coroner, who is also a High Court judge, ruled that this claim was “demonstrably untrue”. In his record of the evidence it is stated that one soldier, Soldier H, suffered a facial injury caused by a bullet from a ricochet from a round fired by another soldier. " ... 

 

Report of the incident:

https://nationalsecuritynews.com/2025/02/one-law-for-them-are-the-sas-victims-of-a-witch-hunt-brigadier-retd-phil-mcevoy-obe-a-former-head-of-operational-law-in-the-british-army-gives-his-view/

Moreover the UK is worried it doesn't have enough troops to fight Russia should Russia invade Europe. Recruits will need a contract that states they won't be prosecuted for killing a Russian. 

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The elite soldiers who once safeguarded Britain now find themselves accused of crimes they were ordered to commit.

The ‘only following orders’ defense.

 

Where have heard that before?

 

 

3 hours ago, jippytum said:

That fact our elite forces may be prosecuted for following orders is a travesty. 

Our servicemen should be honoured for protecting us not hounded by woke lawyers with an anti British agenda. 

Where do you draw the line? 

 

Also, we can be sure that enemy combatants will be tried for war crimes, but not our guys?

An off topic post has been removed

4 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

BS. War crime were committed by soldiers. Face justice. You deserve it❗

What an ignorant statement, as is  your usual diatribe of posts!!

And they wonder why they can't reach their recruitment targets for the military.😄

 

If you're lucky enough to not be prosecuted for your service you'll be on the streets while social housing is given to immigrants.

 

Or maybe arrested for a joke about LGBT.

 

https://www.hrla.org.au/uk_man_arrested_for_social_media_meme

 

If you are, don't expect a helpful pre-sentencing report if you're indigenous to the UK. It's "not necessary". 

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences-overarching-guideline/

 

What a time to be alive 😄.

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ‘only following orders’ defense.

 

Where have heard that before?

 

 

 

That's the message the article wants to convey, but those are not the facts of the case.

Your interpretation is unfair and relies on a biased presentation of events. 

 

Wars are nasty and the IRA neither respected humanitarian principles, nor the Geneva Conventions. The event from which these charges emanate was a reasonable use of force and must be considered from the perspective of the SAS personnel taking out a demonstrable threat to both their safety and that of the  surrounding public.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

And they wonder why they can't reach their recruitment targets for the military.😄

 

If you're lucky enough to not be prosecuted for your service you'll be on the streets while social housing is given to immigrants.

 

Or maybe arrested for a joke about LGBT.

 

https://www.hrla.org.au/uk_man_arrested_for_social_media_meme

 

If you are, don't expect a helpful pre-sentencing report if you're indigenous to the UK. It's "not necessary". 

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences-overarching-guideline/

 

What a time to be alive 😄.

 

Congratulations, you managed to vomit your both your LGBT and your immigrant fixations into a topic that isn’t about either.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Congratulations, you managed to vomit your both your LGBT and your immigrant fixations into a topic that isn’t about either.

 

 

 

 

 

"vomit your both your LGBT" 

 

Despite your terrible use of English, it seems you are trying to make some point about my post being off topic. Allow me to clarify.

 

It's about veterans. Veterans that are homeless after service. Veterans that are arrested for LGBT jokes after service.

 

I do hope that clarifies things for you. 

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

That's the message the article wants to convey, but those are not the facts of the case.

Your interpretation is unfair and relies on a biased presentation of events. 

 

Wars are nasty and the IRA neither respected humanitarian principles, nor the Geneva Conventions. The event from which these charges emanate was a reasonable use of force and must be considered from the perspective of the SAS personnel taking out a demonstrable threat to both their safety and that of the  surrounding public.

It's questionable whether or not the IRA were involved in a war, in the true meaning of it.

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

"vomit your both your LGBT" 

 

Despite your terrible use of English, it seems you are trying to make some point about my post being off topic. Allow me to clarify.

 

It's about veterans. Veterans that are homeless after service. Veterans that are arrested for LGBT jokes after service.

 

I do hope that clarifies things for you. 

It’s about some ‘veterans’ facing criminal prosecution.

 

It’s not about your issues with LBGT and immigrants.

Give yourself a nudge, you’re stuck in a groove.

 

5 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

the IRA neither respected humanitarian principles, nor the Geneva Conventions

 

Do you think the SAS respected those conventions ?

1 minute ago, johng said:

 

Do you think the SAS respected those conventions ?

Go ask them, I am sure they will be happy to tell you...................🤭

8 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Do you think the SAS respected those conventions ?

You'e quoted a comment that wasn't mine.

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Go ask them, I am sure they will be happy to tell you...................🤭

 

Doubt they would seeing as they are "SAS"   not willing to talk much just smash things up.

 

6 hours ago, jippytum said:

That fact our elite forces may be prosecuted for following orders is a travesty. 

Our servicemen should be honoured for protecting us not hounded by woke lawyers with an anti British agenda. 

Yeah, commiting war crimes and then honoured???🤢

Just now, johng said:

 

Doubt they would seeing as they are "SAS"   not willing to talk much just smash things up.

 

As I thought, you are just anti UK special forces, just trying to have a pop at anything.

 

Oh, and where do you come from........?   😁

2 minutes ago, Andrew65 said:

You'e quoted a comment that wasn't mine.

Sorry if that was the case  maybe there is some "background editing" going on ?

who did I quote ?

4 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Yeah, commiting war crimes and then honoured???🤢

I don’t think there is any suggestion of ‘war crimes’, rather unlawful use of lethal force/unlawful killing.

 

There was no declaration of war and civil law was in force at the time of the killings.

 

 

These guys did what they are trained and expected to do. A medal would be more fitting. Put on trial? Could only be a decision of a deranged mind.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t think there is any suggestion of ‘war crimes’, rather unlawful use of lethal force/unlawful killing.

 

There was no declaration of war and civil law was in force at the time of the killings.

 

 

That's true, but the IRA always thought of it and spoke of it as a war.

9 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Yeah, commiting war crimes and then honoured???🤢

War crimes? Are you on a controlled substance because it seems as if you are. 

Just now, Andrew65 said:

That's true, but the IRA always thought of it and spoke of it as a war.

Well yes they did, but it was the British Government that was governing Northern Ireland, they never repeated their earlier mistake of enacting martial law and there was no declaration of war.

 

The province was under civil law at the time of the killings.

 

There is no credible claim of ‘war crimes’ but likewise there is no recourse to any defense under military/martial law.