The Frogs and the fools who hate them

At the head of the Courts is the Ministry for Justice, ruled by a politician .

Now we also know you are a coward.

France employed 98 divisions (all but 28 of them reserve or fortress formations) and 2,500 tanks against German forces consisting of 43 divisions (32 of them reserves) and no tanks. They advanced until they met the then thin and undermanned Siegfried Line. The French army would easily have been able to penetrate the mere screen of German forces present had they continued with the offensive

There were 117 French divisions in total, of which 104 divisions (including 11 in reserve) were for the defence of the north. The British Army contributed 13 divisions, three of which had not been organized when the campaign began. Some 22 Belgian, 10 Dutch and two Polish divisions[78] were also a part of the Allied order of battle. British artillery strength amounted to 1,280 guns. Belgium fielded 1,338 and the Dutch, 656. France had 10,700 pieces. This made a total of around 14,000 artillery pieces,[58] 45 percent more than the Germans. The French army was also more motorised than its opponent, which still relied heavily on horses.[76] Although the Belgians, British and Dutch had barely any armour, the French had a powerful force of 3,254 tanks.[79] The force was both larger and of higher quality than Germany's, as shown by its tactical victory in the Battle of Hannut, the largest tank battle of the campaign

The German forces in the West in May and June deployed some 2,439 tanks and 7,378 artillery guns, including matériel reserves committed.[59] In 1939–40, 45 percent of the army was at least 40 years old, and 50 percent of all the soldiers had just a few weeks' training.[60] Contrary to what the Blitzkrieg legend suggests, the German Army was far from fully motorised; just 10 percent of their army was motorised in 1940 and could muster only 120,000 vehicles, compared to the 300,000 of the French Army. The British had the most enviable contingent of motorised forces.[60] Most of the German logistical tail consisted of horse-drawn vehicles.[61]

Only 50 percent of the German divisions available in 1940 were combat ready,[60] often being more poorly equipped than their equivalents in the British and French Armies, or even as well as the German Army of 1914.[62] In the spring of 1940, the German army was semi-modern. A small number of the best-equipped and "elite divisions were offset by many second and third rate divisions".

If that mysterious ad of yours says something about the Frenchmen who conceived it, what does it says about the British guys who printed it?

From your reference if I am correct, (you didn't accredit it ) .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_France

The Minister of Justice is also the head of public prosecution, though this is controversial since it is seen to represent a conflict of interest in cases such as political corruption against politicians.

The two careers are completely distinct. I never heard of a policeman becoming judge in a second life, or vice versa.

The soldier who revolted against their officer in 1917 were heros, rebelling against criminally incompetent officers.

You might have missed the point...

I haven't seen the ad. Have you? Do you know what it says? No, never.

But my question was in fact about the Economist staff. What does their publishing of this ad says about the British people, ya think? Certainly, if this supposed add says something about the French people, it also says something about the British people, right?

If I remember correctly, both Olivier and I have kindly noted that the French (and German, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, Austrian etc etc) legal system isn't "common law".

Like in France, here in Germany (and in dozens of other countries) the minister of justice does what the name says.

That is not very helpful . Different countries have different responsibilities for Minister for Justice .