At 92, Major-General Julian Thompson has lived through war and commanded men in combat. Yet the former Falklands commander has now suggested firing on boats carrying migrants across the English Channel. “I’d shoot them, sorry, but I would,” he said in an interview with journalist Steven Edginton.
Thompson subsequently told the Mail on Sunday that he meant shooting the vessels rather than their occupants. That clarification matters when reporting his words accurately. However, it hardly resolves the moral problem: firing at a boat carrying people plainly puts those people in danger.
Ninety-two years do not guarantee wisdom
We often associate old age with perspective, restraint, and an understanding of human vulnerability. Nevertheless, living for 92 years does not automatically produce those qualities. Experience can deepen compassion, but it can also coexist with prejudice and an alarming indifference to other people’s lives.
Thompson’s age does not invalidate his opinions. His proposal deserves condemnation because of what it would mean for the people aboard those boats. However, his long life and military experience make the absence of restraint especially troubling. Someone familiar with the destructive power of weapons should understand why proposing their use against occupied civilian vessels is so serious.
Neither age nor military distinction places anyone beyond moral scrutiny. We can recognize a person’s past service while rejecting what they advocate today.
The applause is profoundly sad
In my reading of the discussion beneath the Daily Mail article, many commenters appeared to agree with him. That was a profoundly sad part of the story. The proposal did not simply provoke horror; it also found an audience willing to welcome it.
A newspaper’s comment section cannot tell us what Britain as a whole believes. Nor can we assume every commenter is British. Nevertheless, the approval described there deserves attention on its own terms. Enthusiasm for firing at occupied boats reveals how easily hostility toward a category of people can eclipse concern for the individuals involved.
Readers can demand lower immigration, stronger borders, or faster decisions without applauding potentially lethal violence. Political frustration does not make every proposed response defensible.
What happened to the ideals?
Veterans are often honored as defenders of freedom, security, and the protection of others. If those are the human ideals we invoke when celebrating Thompson’s service, his proposal clashes directly with them. Protecting human dignity cannot depend entirely on which passport someone holds or which shore they are approaching.
We need not invent noble motives for every migrant to recognize that obligation. People aboard a boat may have very different histories, intentions, and claims to protection. None of that makes indiscriminate exposure to gunfire a reasonable substitute for examining their circumstances.
The contradiction extends to those applauding him. Celebrating a military past while abandoning concern for civilian life turns national pride into something morally hollow.
Borders do not require cruelty
The criticism has not come exclusively from supporters of immigration. Conservative politician Chris Philp condemned opening fire on migrant boats, while the Home Office warned against actions that endanger lives. Disagreement over migration policy does not require disagreement over this basic boundary.
A country can enforce its borders without treating compassion as weakness. At 92, Thompson has accumulated decades of experience. His remarks demonstrate why we should judge wisdom by the quality of someone’s reasoning and humanity, rather than the number of years they have lived.
