> Legal or not, a country was worse off because of his direct and deliberate actions.

You're talking about the Chancellor of the Exchequer who decided it was rational to keep pouring money into the other side of the trade Soros was making, I hope.

"a country was worse off because of his direct and deliberate actions"

The country was worse off because its fiscal policy, determined via politics, amounted to a completely untenable long term position. An epic disaster was the only possible conclusion.

No, the country was worse off because of its government's decision to prop up the currency in an unsustainable way. Soros just happened to be the instrument by which the market finally clobbered England over the head. It could have been some other speculator or group of speculators, and it could have played out over a longer time period (possibly at even greater loss to the British public), but it would have happened sooner or later.