A top coroner has called on British military chiefs to stop giving retiring veterans ceremonial daggers after an ex-Army commando used one to kill his neighbours.
Because he couldn't possibly have used any other knife, like the dozens everyone has in their kitchen..?
Somerset senior coroner, Samantha Marsh...
*sighs*
Well, if you can't trust a former residential property solicitor to bring gravitas and common sense to a vital post like this, who can you trust?
...has written to Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and the Ministry of Defence and urged them to stop giving retiring troops weapons.
She wrote: 'The dagger was not a blunt replica, it was a fully functional weapon capable of causing significant harm, injury and sadly in the Chapples' case, death.
'Please reconsider the appropriateness of providing anyone leaving the British Army, regardless of rank or status, with what is (to all intents and purposes) a deadly weapon.
'Such presentation/gifting has essentially put a deadly weapon in the community (where I understand it sadly remains, having never been recovered as it was removed from the scene prior to police attendance) and I am not persuaded that this is appropriate.'
And who told you that assuring what gift it was appropriate for the Army to give retiring soldiers was part of your duty, Samantha?
She added that Mr Wallace and the MoD are under a duty to respond to her report - which was also sent to the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police - by April 25.
I hope they send the SAS to deliver it. To her front door, in the dead of night. Pinned to it with a ceremonial dagger...
I may be maligning Ms Marsh, but the nine-month gap between her predecessor retiring and her appointment ‘following an open competition’, during which time she was appointed as acting chief coroner, looks suspiciously like something I have met before.
ReplyDeleteA former Headmaster, whenever a plum job came up for internal promotion, would assign a member of staff to fill the post ‘while a recruitment strategy was worked out’. When the interviews finally took place, a term or so later, he would invariably give the job to his chosen nominee, on the grounds that a term of prior experience in the role outweighed anything the other candidates might have to offer.
The result was a cadre of yes-men in high places and school policy heavily influenced by groupthink, leading to some very odd management decisions. Anecdotal evidence suggests this sort of thing is far from uncommon in education today, so I should not be at all surprised to find it in other professions too.
I'd be surprised to find any profession unaffected by it, at this point...
DeleteA "coroner must be a solicitor or barrister with at least five years experience".
ReplyDeleteYes, well, boxes ticked, but you'd think that someone would (and I expect the framers of those qualifications did) suppose 'only' those with 'relevant experience' would be considered (not friends of those appointing them. And no, having a vagina doesn't trump those requirements).
I think somebody should enter her chambers (and home) and remove all the "dangerous weapons" they find there (i.e. anything sharper than a crayon, which would I'm afraid include ... her). 'this' is what you get when you parachute some woke, urban woman into a position purely because she's a ... (you know). Why do I think that, at the same time as she's spouting this drivel, she's also allowing 'cultural' machete and acid attacks to be certified as 'accidental' or 'self-inflicted'?
That's right, despite the common misconception that the person determining and certifying cause of death in suspicious circumstances 'may' just possibly have some knowledge and experience of such matters (maybe even have some medical qualifications too). It isn't even vaguely true, what 'is' required is to belong to the correct demographic, hold the correct political views, and be 'friendly' with those appointing them. 'Now' do you understand why so many suspicious coof deaths were certified as they were, and why certain demographics never seem to be held to account?
Now do magistrates and judges.
I'll be keeping an eye on the name. I doubt this is her only foray into areas that don't concern her.
Delete