Lord Hermer Is Tough on Troops, But Silent on Rights

Lord Hermer KC skips crucial human rights debate while veterans face decades of legal battles

Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General, was conspicuously absent from crucial debates about Britain's human rights obligations, which begs the quesion: where is his enthusiasm now compared to when he pursued cases against our brave veterans?

In a revealing House of Lords debate marking 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights, Lord Hermer was nowhere to be seen. This from the same office that has shown remarkable zeal in using human rights legislation to target British troops who served our nation with distinction.

Conservative peer Lord Balfe put it bluntly: "Where on earth is our attorney general? We never see him." Indeed, while our top law officer finds time to pursue cases against our military personnel, he couldn't spare a moment for this crucial three-hour debate attended by nearly 30 peers, including two former Supreme Court presidents.

The Attorney General's office claims he's "working tirelessly to advise the government," yet his public appearances have been remarkably scarce. His absence speaks volumes about priorities — happy to weaponise human rights laws against our forces, but missing in action when it comes to defending Britain's interests in crucial debates.

Meanwhile, as Lord Murray of Blidworth pointed out during the debate, human rights laws have been stretched beyond recognition, with Article 8 being used to override our immigration controls — something the original drafters would have rejected outright.

The contrast couldn't be clearer: the Attorney General's office shows boundless energy when it comes to pursuing our veterans — who do not run and hide when called to do their duty. But when it comes to defending Britain's interests against expansionist interpretations of human rights law? Silent as the grave.

It's time for straight answers: why is our Attorney General more interested in using human rights laws against our own troops than in participating in crucial debates about their proper use and limits?

The British public deserves better than an Attorney General who seems to pick and choose when to engage with human rights issues based on whether our servicemen and women are in the crosshairs.