new series (Jan '07) -- bad start

I'm afraid this new series is off to a pretty bad start. In the first 'War Crimes' story, where the army is an important part of the plot, how could they get it so wrong? First, we have the Major General played by Adam James. In his court testimony, it was revealed that he was an 18-year-old private soldier in the Falklands campaign. That would make him about 42 now. Is it possible to rise from private to general in 24 years? Even if the answer is yes, why couldn't they at least have found an actor who _looks_ 42? On Adam James' website, it says he can play characters 26-30! He was completely unbelievable. And don't general officers get haircuts?!? (Actually, in that regard he wasn't quite as bad as the other officer who testified, the army psychiatrist, who had a right shaggy mop!) Furthermore, for someone -- as we were told -- who was a big hero in the Falklands and again in the First Gulf War; and who rose from the bottom to being a general at a very young age, this chap didn't have many campaign ribbons -- less than two rows, in fact. And the top, incomplete row, was aligned with the inboard edge of the bottom row, rather than centred. (It would be interesting if someone who knows about such things could report what those ribbons actually were. I wouldn't be surprised if they just cobbled together any old thing -- like a WWII Victory medal or something!)

Another thing I found completely implausible was the suicide bomber who stepped in front of Old Joe's car. Why didn't he wait a few seconds more and detonate himself _after_ the old boy had reached him? (The answer is obvious, of course: because that would have been the end of Old Joe for this programme.)

The 'strength' of the drama is always going to suffer when the storyline has such ridiculous anomalies -- or are people watching simply to see how many new birds Judge John can shag each week?