A Politician Should Not Rule on the Legality of War 150

Tomorrow morning, Sir Michael Wood, former Foreign and Commonwealth Office Legal Adviser, gives evidence to the Chilcott Inquiry. To my mind, this is the most important evidence to be given so far. Michael’s then deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned over the war of aggression, will give evidence in the afternoon, I believe speaking in public for the first time since her resignation.

The Legal Adviser at the Foreign Office is a very grand person indeed. You should understand it is a full time position. The FCO has a big department, named Legal Advisers. It is staffed by the cream of public international lawyers. There are assistant and deputy legal advisers,serving in the FCO in London and sometimes being posted to large Embassies abroad. Then there is THE Legal Adviser, who is a very grand personage indeed, with a palatial office overlooking St James’ Park.

I have no doubt at all that both Wood and Wilmshurst will rebuke Starw’s appalling lie that UNSCR 1441 was considered sufficient to justify an invasion, at the time that it was adopted. Wilmshurst’s resignation letter made it perfectly plain that was not true.


But the question is, whether the Committee will manage to hide that truth by leading the lawyers away from it in their questioning. I have previously described their method as obscuring all the key points in a comfortable fog of chuminess. Expect every possible use of the lateral tangent, the chairman’s intervention and the friendly assumption.

I am very sorry that until now Sir Michael Wood has perhaps been best known to a wider public as the man that the FCO wheeled in to tell me that it was perfectly legal to obtain intelligence from torture, as long as somebody else did the torture.


As I explain in Murder in Samarkand I was shocked by this because I knew Michael and he is a nice man. Even though he made a point in the meeting of indicating moral disapproval of a policy of using torture, it seems to me there should be a limit to which a lawyer is prepared to advise what the government can get away with.

I am hoping that Michael will redeem himself in the eyes of decent people tomorrow, and I believe that he will.

One of the most important structural questions that the Chilcott Inquiry must ask, is this:

Why does the Attorney General have the power to overrule the Legal Adviser on a point of international law?

The answer is not that the Attorney General has a democratic mandate. Nobody has ever voted for Lord Goldsmith. His only qualification was that he was a buddy of Tony and Cherie Blair.

Here is a select list of some of Sir Michael Wood’s internationally accepted publications on international law:

“The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents”, 23 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1974)

“The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism”, 1 Yearbook of European Law (1981)

“The Legal Status of Berlin” (1987, with I. D. Hendry)

“Participation of Former Yugoslav States in the United Nations and in Multilateral Treaties”, 1 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1997)

“The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions”, 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1998)

“International Seabed Authority: the First Four Years”, 3 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1999)

“Northern and Western European Maritime Boundaries”, in: Colson/Smith, International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V (2005)

“Towards New Circumstances in which the Use of Force may be Authorized? The Cases of Humanitarian Intervention, Counter-terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction”, in: The Security Council and the Use of Force: Theory and Reality – A Need for Change? (eds. N. Blokker/N. Schrijver, 2005)

“The United Kingdom’s Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice”, in: Festskrift til Carl August Fleischer (eds. O Fauchald/H Jakhelln/A Syse, 2006)

“N?cessit? et l?gitime d?fense dans la lutte contre le terrorisme: quelle est la pertinence de l’affaire de la Caroline aujourd’hui?”, in: La n?cessit? en droit international Soci?t? fran?aise pour le droit international, Colloque de Grenoble, 2006

“The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and General International Law”, 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2007)

“The Selection of Candidates for International Judicial Office: Recent Practice”, in: Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (eds. T M Ndiaye/R Wolfrum, 2007)

Three lectures on “The UN Security Council and International Law” (2006), available on the website of the Lauterpacht Centre for Intenrational Law, University of Cambridge. An expanded version of these lectures will be published in due course by Cambridge University Press as a book within the Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures series

“The Law on the Use of Force: Current Challenges”, 11 Singapore Yearbook of International Law (2007)

“The Security Council and International Criminal Law”, 5 Romanian Journal of International Law/Revista Rom?na de Drept International (2007)

“The International Seabed Authority: Fifth to Twelfth Sessions (1999-2006)”, 11 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2007)

“The General Assembly and the International Law Commission: What Happens to the Commission’s Work and Why?”, in: I Buffard, J Crawford, A Pellet, S Wittich (eds.), International Law Between Universalism and Fragmentation. Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner (2008)

“The Principle of Non-Intervention” (with Maziar Jamnejad), 29 Leiden Journal of International Law (2009)

“Detention during International Military Operations: Article 103 of the Charter and the Al-Jedda case”, 47 Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre/The Military Law and the Law of War Review (2009)

Entries in R Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck “Encyclopedia of Public International Law” (online edition 2008), including:

Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) International Courts and Tribunals, Discontinuance of Cases Final Act International Seabed Authority Legal Advisers Macedonia Peace, Breach of State Practice Teachings of the Most Highly Qualified Publicists United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Applications for Review (Advisory Opinions) United Nations Charter, Enemy State Clauses United Nations Security Council Use of Force, Prohibition of Threat

Here is the complete list of all of Lord Goldsmith’s internationally accepted publications on international law


Which is why the Legal Adviser is paid more than the Attorney General.

So the government spends a very great deal of public money on employing a whole cadre of the best public international lawyers in the world, but takes its legal advice on matters of war and peace from a shifty barrister mate of Tony Blair.

The decision whether to go to war is a political question. But the legal advice should come from the most qualified source, not the source most likely to agree with the Prime Minister.

Even that commonsense observation is going to be much too radical for the stuffed Establishment shirts of the Chilcott Committee.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

150 thoughts on “A Politician Should Not Rule on the Legality of War

1 2 3 5
  • MJ

    “I am hoping that Michael will redeem himself in the eyes of decent people tomorrow, and I believe that he will”.

    If he is still in his post then I don’t fully share your confidence here. However, if he does start to rock the boat, it will be interesting to see if he receives much sterner cross-examination than did Powell.

  • mary

    How can I get it across that this Chilcot thing is just a liberal exercise in whitewashing…a diversion..a deflection..a veneer..an illusion of democracy. They even stop for polite cups of tea at prearranged times.

    Where is the justice for those killed, maimed, widowed, orphaned, made refugees? What do the millions of Iraqis that are left think of this? ‘These pink Britons have no laws. They lynched our president with victor’s justice and they try war criminals over tea. The sentence will be words on paper.’

    Perhaps so many of our establishment are guilty with Blair, they need to expunge their own guilt.

    ‘Military Families will join writers, musicians, Iraqi refugees, poets,

    human rights lawyers, comedians, well known actors, MPs and ordinary

    citizens in a day of protest, performance and politics outside the

    Iraq Inquiry on Friday 29 January, as Tony Blair faces his judgement

    day.’ Military Families Against The War website.

    What judgement day? What nonsense.

  • Craig


    “Again, I resent the assertion that because the AG was friendly with the Blairs that this in any way would influence his decision making. You obviously are awfully ignorant of the role of Senior Lawyers in making such a suggestion.”

    I think that the vasy majority of people would agree that it is not I who am ignorant, it is you who are naive.

    Yes, many who toadies to Blair in power are now prepared to give him a kicking out of power – that does not prove they did not toady in power.

    Your difficulty is that you take a typical conservative view that to state the status quo is to justify it.

    No rational person would argue that Sir Michael Wood did not have greater qualifications as an individual to judge the legality of the Iraq war. If you were commissioning an academic article on the subject, there would be several hundred other candidates after Wood you would consider before Goldsmith, if he crossed your mind at all.

    Of course I know the history and that the Attorney General is considered THE Law Officer and the authority on all points of law – even when that is self-evidently not true.

    All you do is outline the established nonsense I am railing against. Have you ever thought outside a box.

  • tony_opmoc

    Alternatively just read her final sentence

    “As the newspapers report today the only two people who have acted with dignity and conviction regardless of ones own personal views are Tony Blair and Robin Cook.”

    And then look at the dignity of Tony Blair’s results


    Is it O.K. if I throw up now all over Tony Blair’s dignity and conviction?


  • Jon

    I share MJ’s doubts that establishment types will be as forthright on the issue of illegality as they need to be. But, I appreciate that you’re in a better position to judge Craig – hope you are right.

    However I think Wilmshurst will bring some much-needed sanity back to the conversation. Were it the case that she could ask her own questions!

    But it is of interest that just two hours after this post appears, that a new poster quickly writes a substantial post disagreeing. Tut, I might turn into a (whisper it) conspiracy theorist at this rate!

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    ‘Murder in Samarkand’ is obviously an essential read.

    Elizabeth I believe from her past actions is forthright, decisive, incensed by the illegal invasion of Iraq that murdered the innocent, resulted in ethnic violence, torture and I firmly believe, fractured British honour and decency for the sake of a binding friendship. She alone will be the face of the British people at this inquiry and she will make a stand.

    Friendship is precious but as I have said before – true friendship means protecting those dear from harm, and that also includes advice and even admonishment when trust is a stake. Such was the case of the Iraq war, where an International agreement was crucial, a legal binding resolution before invasion, death and destruction of a sovereign country that future generations will read in Wiki history.

    A ‘Coalition of the willing’ was crude, weak and quite frankly unacceptable in this Global connected world of the 21st century and equates to a gang of thugs.

    No, to preserve our honour, protect our people and put us somewhere back on the path of decency, Blair must take responsibility and that means recognising publicly that he was wrong in committing his country to a ‘war’ that unlike the Falklands was based on lies and the pretence that a man gone bad could be removed by what can only be described as genocide, a massacre and the obliteration of a ancient established civilisation. Walk tall, stand firm Elizabeth.

  • MJ

    “It is like saying why should we have an Appeals Tribunal with Higher Court Judges when it is sufficient to accept the lower court decision”.

    No it isn’t. Judges at the RCJ are more experienced and knowledgeable in the field than the circuit judges whose judgments they are required to review.

  • mary

    Breaking News1:01pm UK, Monday January 25, 2010

    Tony Blair Secures Lucrative Hedge Fund Role

    Tony Blair is set to earn a small fortune in a new role as a paid speaker at one of London’s biggest hedge fund managers, Sky sources say.

    More follows…

    A true psychopath.

  • Jane18

    Thank you Craig. How silly of me to make what I considered reasonable comment on this blog. I thought that somehow you were involved in academia and welcomed alternate view points.

    Don’t worry – no more comment from me.

  • writerman


    That was an interesting post. Thank you.


    That was an interesting post. Thank you.

    I wonder. Is Tony Blair, and by exstention, his “gang”, guilty of breaking domestic or international law?

    I’ve always considered his role in the invasion of Iraq, as a totally shameful one, but was it unlawful, and in what sense?

    I’ve called him a lot of names, which I think were perfectly justified; a murderer, a war criminal, a traitor…

    But I’d still give him a trial, a fair trial, not like the one they gave Saddam Hussein. I don’t approve of ritual slaughter. I don’t approve of silencing such an important witness to history, who had a lot to say. Now, we’ll never know. I wouldn’t have executed the leading Nazis either. Interviews with Hitler would have been fascinating and important.

    The establishment seem to be wiping it all off on Blair. There’s something unpleasant about that, because almost everyone that’s been called so far were loyal servants and enablers when he was in power. He couldn’t have done it alone, could he? Surely one of the major problems is that our political system has evolved, and the process has only accelerated over the last thiry years, and has given the prime minister extraordinary levels of power. So that the modern pm seems closer to a monarch surrounded by self-seeking, corrupt, and “loyal” barrons, in an anti-democratic gang running the country like a Mafia family.

    We should have a system that that allows someone like Blair, with his dubious qualities, the capacity to drag the entire country to war almost on a whim, a promise, or an illusion. In a healthy and functioning democracy, individuals simply shouldn’t have so much power concentrated in their hands, especially when that power can have such disasterous consequences for millions of people, and can result in so much death, suffering, and material destruction.

    So Blair “succeeded” not just because he was a knave and a criminal, who was “sincerely” misguided and wrong on host of vitally important isssues, to get things wrong is a human characteristic after all, people do make mistakes. Blair “succeeded” because the rest of our democratic intitutions “failed” to put a rational break on him, hold him to scrutiny and account. It was a systemic breakdown as well. I suppose it’s relavant to mention that Blair won a vote in Parliament authorizing the use of force against Iraq, a supposedly “democratic” vote. Shouldn’t we put all of them on trial as well? Is that practical?

    Not that I think that Blair made an honest mistake, or a tragic blunder, or that he carefully weighed all the issues and evidence on the scales. I believe he knew exactly what he was doing and why. He was merely a vassal serving his lord and master and knew that he’d be handsomely rewarded for it in the future, which he has been.

    The central question is, did he break any UK domestice laws? Is it a crime to be wrong? Is it a crime to go to war? Is it a crime to twist the truth and lie in order to go to war? Isn’t lying what people like Blair just do? Is it actually a crime to mislead Parliament?

    There are people who argue that Blair and his henchmen didn’t actually break international law either, because there is no international law to break.

    What about the concept and convention of “sovereign immunity” surely this applies to Blair as well?

    Recently other world leaders have been put on trial for war crimes, I’m thinking about Yugoslavia and Rwanda. If it’s possible to prosecute them, why not Blair? How is Blair less guilty than them?

  • mary

    @writemam How’s this list for starters?



    To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d?Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.


    We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-

    1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146

    The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.

    2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3

    A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

    We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.

    We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.

    The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:

    1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.

    2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.

    3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens? rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.

    4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.

    5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.

    6: Supporting an ally that employs ?waterboarding? and other tortures.

    7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.

    8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.

    9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.

    10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.

    11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on ?shake and bake? missions.

    12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004

    13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004

    14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.

    Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon

  • Craig


    You are extremely welcome to comment. Your comment was well expressed and cogent. I am sorry if you did not realise that the style of comments here is often robust. Abosultely no offence is intended, and almost any view is welcome. I expect other commenters will join in on your side of the argument.

    Comments can be a mixed bag but most of them do actually make intellectually cogent points, in whatever style. Actually so far this is a remarkably polite thread.

    I must confess I feel you are somewhat precious if you feel it is OK to call me “ignorant”, then complain if I respond by calling you naive!

    Anyway, you are very welcome so do stick around 🙂

  • logos

    Jane18: “I therefore dispute your assertion that because the FCO lawyers earned more money that their legal opinion should carry more weight.”

    You should line up your target more carefully. The point was that the FCO lawyers are the highest experts in the field, whereas AGs are political appointments (as you admit). Expertise has to be paid for; the salary is cited as secondary evidence only.

    Jane18: “It is like saying why should we have an Appeals Tribunal with Higher Court Judges when it is sufficient to accept the lower court decision. A seriously flawed argument.”

    Nope, it’s like saying why should we allow a political appointee to overrule the judgement of a top legal adviser who has considerably more expertise in the subject. And your argument in favour of that is … missing.

    Are you aware of how the AG position is actually regarded amongst the law fraternity? In his book ‘The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest’, John Edwards, founder of the Centre of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, argued that there have been “distinct whiffs of political pressure being exerted”. Also see Prof. Gary Slapper’s article in the Times (April 25, 2007): “You may not be prejudiced, my Lord, but you look it: Why the role of Attorney-General is an anachronism.” Hardly a touchstone of legal impartiality, then.

    You’re clearly intelligent, Jane, and it’s interesting to hear arguments for the establishment position. Just don’t expect them to be accepted uncritically.

  • Jon

    Slightly off-topic, but related to Blair’s forthcoming appearance. Has anyone read the front page of the Daily Mail today, which reports on the projected security bill for Friday?

    “Thousands of anti-war protesters are expected to form a gauntlet of hate for the former Prime Minister on Friday as he attempts to justify Britain’s involvement in the controversial conflict.”

    I know the Mail doesn’t like Blair, but “gauntlet of hate” sounds more like the racist excrement they’d reserve for Muslim radicals, not the mix of races and classes that one would expect to be in attendance on Friday. Or am I reading this the wrong way?

  • glenn

    Craig writes:


    One of the most important structural questions that the Chilcott Inquiry must ask, is this:

    Why does the Attorney General have the power to overrule the Legal Adviser on a point of international law?


    The real answer is, of course, because the AG gave the desired response. But it will be interesting to see what excuse is spun. Clare Short apparently looked at the single sheet, checked to see if there was anything on the back (there wasn’t) and asked – surprised – “Is this it?” It strikes me that an opinion substituted for legal argument, and it would be a fascinating principle of British law if this became a precedent.

    For instance, I could ask an unqualified legal person if it’s OK to break into my neighbour’s house and take his stuff. This legal representative says sure, he thinks that’s ok. I then go ahead with the burglary. Could anyone be held legally accountable my theft, should the AG, Blair et al get away with all they have done, thus setting just such a precedent?

  • Craig


    There is a huge gap between the Mail’s readrship and its commentators. The comments on ther ecent David Kelly story are fascinating.

    My little bit of it will indeed be a gauntlet of hate.

    Glenn, I agree but be careful of the word “Opinion” which in this legal context means a formal reasoned view after reviewing the law and arguments. What Goldsmith’s one page was not was an “Opinion” in the sense applicable to this case.

  • technioclour

    So are the BNP leadership ‘anti-Blair’ and ‘anti-war’. Larry and angrysoba have consistently, if sometimes rudely, make the valid point here that the activities of our government have engendered mistrust, anger, suspicion and even paranoia in the electorate. This, however, is then being fed back to them by the even crazier extreme right-wing, disguised as ‘information’.

    It’s a truism that the polar extremes of right and left actually meet. What worries me is that I don’t view this board as ‘extreme’ but yet one can see the neo-Nazi anti-semites posting any amount of stuff on Kelly, and 9/11, together with whispering ‘they’re coming to get you, don’t trust the government, don’t trust anyone’ fear posts, together with ‘it’s the Jews/Muslims what done it’ fear posts, and therefore being greeted with some tolerance here.

    If anyone has forgotten the Daily Mail’s history, I suggest they look it up. Of course the readership will not be as extreme. But of course they are affected by the continual campaign of fear, hatred, self-righteousness and fury being run by it.

    If the centre falls apart, who will that benefit, I wonder. Just to remind everyone: 149 MP’s voted against the invasion of Iraq, 139 of them Labour.

    Back (right on) topic: I too hope this enquiry officially establishes the truth behind this invasion. Or rather, invasions – is anyone discussing Afghanistan? Or was that OK?

    Finally, Craig, I’d like to ask: what do you think we would have lost by refusing to support the US in this? Answers I got at the time ranged from being penalised by trade embargoes to losing Trident (and therefore Security Council status). It would be interesting to hear your view.

  • Abe Rene

    Leaked conversion from the Ministry for Public Integrity:

    Minister: Two matters are before us. First: we need to establish the case for war. We need a lawyer who will tell us that we are right in going to war.

    Junior minister: Minister, the legal advisor told me this morning (in confidence, of course) that the war was illegal. And if we shop around the advisors till we find the ‘right’ one, it may well leak out. So what do we do?

    Minister: Ah, you haven’t been here long. We appoint a lawyer to be a minister as well. He is called the Attorney General. That way, he can be presented as a legal professional, and also follow the party line.

    Junior: Brilliant, Sir!

    Minister: But here’s something more difficult, the second matter. A company (which supports thousands of jobs) has broken the law. The AG has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Indeed, he and we have declared it publicly. So how is the AG to help us save the company?

    Junior: I’m stumped, Sir. It looks as though the prosecution will have to go ahead.

    Minister: Not so fast. Here is the AG, Mr. Anthony Spynne. Spynney old chap, tell Junior here how we get out of this knotty problem.

    AG: The key, young man, is Balance. You see, we balance the rule of law with the Public Interest. And the Public Interest is – ?

    Junior: – Whatever we say it is! I say Sir, that is brilliant. Sirs, you are truly geniuses!

    Minister: Now, now, no need to get carried away. Besides, we have a little job for you. Some bellyaching bloggers are putting it about that the AG must be a bad professional lawyer. Now, how would you deal with that?

    Junior: Well Sir, I would say that lawyers could make a killing in the city, so they must be motivated by public service. Um, er, that is to say, the best ones, who turn down the highest salaries.

    AG: Not bad, young man, but you are suffering from scruples. No need to mention that they are the best. That would hint at the large number of lawyers who don’t earn so much, or are even unemployed. And we don’t want people picking that up. So just stick to your first sentence.

    Minister: All right, young man. Hop to it. You’ll be a good member of the front benches some day!

    Junior: Yes Sir, right away!

  • technicolour

    On reflection, I take that back about anti-semites being tolerated; they are in fact now being ignored, which is much the best policy. I don’t mean to attack either Craig or posters here either; this board has been fascinating recently.

  • glenn

    tech: You’re not calling me an anti-semite neo-Nazi, I trust? It appears you’re painting with a rather broad brush, if you don’t mind my saying.

  • MJ


    People are suspicious of the various official accounts on 911, Kelly etc because they detect serious discrepancies between these accounts and the available evidence, and because the authorities often fail to have proper investigations and enquiries.

    It’s nothing to do with being right wing. This is just a diversionary smear introduced by the angrylarrys to try and dissuade people from looking at evidence objectively and airing their often legitimate doubts and misgivings.

  • ingo

    Thanks for this great threat and thank you jane 18 for making such a good case to split the decision making.

    Would you not say that Clare Short should equally be part of the line up of principled politicians, next to Blair and Cook, in newspapers or eslewhere.

    Should Hans Blix and the Dutch PM be called to give evidence?, could Hutton be asked to appear and give a resumee of his main points and subsequent reasoning for the secrecy he applied at such late stage?

  • ingo

    do I wish for an editor at times, should have read ‘thread’ off course, claim the prize for most hasty typos.

  • MJ

    I find it particularly annoying when I notice my typos just after clicking the ‘post’ button. In my last post I somehow managed to miss out the first two letters of technicolour’s name. Sorry technicolour.

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.