AT times of national and international crisis, the response of our leaders - and of our would-be leaders - comes under inevitable and important scrutiny.

The crisis in Syria, which led to air strikes by the USA, UK and France last weekend, has put our political leaders' convictions into sharp focus, as debate rages about what is "the right thing to do" in the wake of the atrocities being carried out by Syrian president Assad against his own people.

Prime minister Theresa May has been praised in parliament this week by politicians of both major parties; her decision to authorise strikes against Assad's chemical weapons facilities being largely regarded as necessary and proportionate. I say "largely" because Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has taken a very different view of the crisis - a view at odds with many of his party's MPs. It appears to be one which would have the Western powers stand by and allow Assad to continue gassing children while a "diplomatic" solution to the crisis is sought.

Over the past few days, Mr Corbyn has criticised Mrs May for ordering the strikes and has demanded that any further action be sanctioned by parliament - a somewhat novel approach from someone who, throughout his long career as an MP, has shown such consistent disdain for the parliamentary process. Mr Corbyn's own MPs have rounded upon him for his position on the Syria crisis.

It is no surprise that he is vehemently opposed to military action by Western forces; that, after all, is his stock in trade: opposition to any intervention by the West while turning a blind eye to the bellicose behaviour of countries such as Russia. His demands for "incontrovertible proof" of Assad's murderous campaign against his own people through the use of chemical weapons is at best disingenuous. Beyond reasonable doubt should surely be good enough for Mr Corbyn - as it is for our own criminal justice system - especially given that calls for a UN investigation into Assad's chemical warfare are doomed to failure, thanks to Russia's ability to veto.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that President Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, just as it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Salisbury nerve gas attack was perpetrated by Russia on British soil. A concerted Western military response to Assad's actions was necessary and proportionate. The use of chemical weapons has been illegal since shortly after the First World War, and their ownership has been banned for more than two decades.

That regimes such as Assad's has them is a blatant contravention of international law; and a contravention which the Western powers simply could not and cannot allow to go unpunished. For what would the message be if the world stood by and watched a nation gas its own people, doing nothing to stop it in the naive hope that a diplomatic solution could be found? Mr Corbyn must surely know that such a scenario is beyond unlikely. And yet he persists in peddling the myth that barbarians such as Assad can be cajoled by discussion into calling a halt to murderous attacks against their own people.

Former foreign secretary William Hague has suggested this week that Mr Corbyn is "consciously unwilling to defend the Western world and its norms of behaviour", a theory which, on the basis of Mr Corbyn's recent performances both in parliament and during press interviews, carries much credibility. The fact that so many of his own MPs so vociferously oppose his views speaks volumes about Mr Corbyn's suitability to lead the opposition party and to harbour ambitions to lead the country.

There has been much talk recently - in terms of the Brexit negotiatons - about red lines. Mr Corbyn's stance on the Syria crisis, which has seen president Assad use illegal chemical weapons against his own people, must lead many observers to conclude that when it comes to atrocities such as those, his own red lines are very faint indeed.

SERIOUS news reached me this week: the nation is in the grip of a scampi shortage. Pub diners are facing a hike in prices of the classic bar snack, scampi and chips, due to a drop in scampi tail landings in UK waters - slumping by a predicted 40 per cent this year.

I'm not exactly sure what Whitby Seafoods mean by "scampi tail landings" - how does one land just a tail? - but I do know that it's bad news for bar snack consumers such as myself. For scampi and chips is surely the uber bar meal dish: a timeless gastronomic treat, best served in a basket.

As a regular food reviewer for this very organ, I get to sample far more than my fair share of pub fare; and it is only for the sake of diversity from our readers' point of view that I resist ordering scampi every time I see it on a menu.

While other, more serious, gourmands may turn up their noses at such plebeian grub, I have a real weakness for those breadcrumb-coated little orbs of deliciousness. If a price hike is indeed on the way, scampi could well become the caviar of the pub grub world. I for one will keep hoping that those scampi tail landings - whatever they may be - rally quickly.

I HAD to smile at reports this week that trainee barristers at the BPP University in London have been told they will be penalised if they turn up to mock court sessions with their bra straps on show, their skirts too short or if they are wearing "kinky boots".

Male students who turn up for these moots wearing colourful socks will also be penalised - lest the university be accused of some form of gender bias - while the most serious infringements include one's mobile phone going off mid-moot, and having one's hands in one's pockets while addressing the judge.

I have assessed my fair share of student law moots; and I realise now how over-lenient I was with my students. Most would turn up to the sessions as scruffily dressed as the next student, often chewing gum and - on one occasion - nursing a hangover so severe they had to bolt out of the seminar room midway through their presentation in order to be sick.

The BPP university's stricter guidelines are indicative of the prescriptive nature of the legal profession, a leading woman lawyer said this week. And they're right I suppose. But there is plenty of time for these young people to learn how to dress and behave appropriately within a working environment. In the meantime, I think the university should let its students do what students traditionally do - ie roll out of bed five minutes before their lectures and turn up looking as though they've been dragged through a hedge backwards.