Freedom of Speech in UK

[Geoffw]

'When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street, and believe me, you name it, they protest against it, I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can. That's called freedom.'

Tony Blair, 7th April 2002
This week you might have read in the papers about Maya Anne Evans who received a criminal conviction just for standing outside Downing Street and reading out the names of the British soldiers killed in Iraq

[shazam100]

As I wrote elsewhere, this comes only a short time after the thuggish manhandling of a pensioner 'heckler' at the Labour 'conference' and his arrest under the terrorism legislation.

<Sigh> are this lot EVER gonna get anything right ?

[Gina]

words fail me

[Jedi2002]

Words fail me too. The politicans have turned this country into a police state. And the EU is trying to do the same thing with the EU. It's not far from a communist state!

[sparky21]

I believe she was at the Cenotaph, not Downing St. The 1Km exclusion includes Trafalger Sq. This is State censorship. I believe there was another protestor, reading the names of Iraqi dead, who had Police permission & was not arrested. Who is next? the newspaper stallholder at Westminster tube or the sandwich board man warning us 'the end of the World is nigh'

[Geoffw]

Muses of a life-long Labour supporter, who knows that increased security, in these troubled times, is wise and sensible. I didn’t really mind letting the airport security officer examine the soles of shoes when I recently flew out of Berlin, in fact I was reassured by it – but becoming a criminal for embarrassing a bunch of politicians (who some see as war criminals) is an appalling consequence of the crazy times Blair has led us into.

Blair’s Britain 2005

* Maya Evans, 25, convicted for reading out names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq at unauthorised protest.
* Douglas Barker, 72, threatened with jail for withholding part of his tax payment in protest at the Iraq conflict.
* Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a 37-year-old RAF medical officer, facing court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq

Since the introduction this April of new draconian laws that forbid spontaneous free speech within a one-kilometre radius of the House of Commons, many demonstrators have fallen foul of the legislation. Only three days ago Maya Evans, 25, was convicted of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after reading aloud the names of the 97 dead British soldiers next to the Cenotaph on Whitehall.

*Brian Haw 56 year old peace activitist.
“At first light Friday, while most of us were tucked up in a nice warm bed, Brian Haw (http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/) was dragged from his slumber by police officers and arrested. His crime was that his bed - or to be more precise his sleeping bag - is within shouting distance of the Prime Minister's bedroom.
http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/img/brian3.jpg
Mr Haw may be a dedicated peace activist and human rights award nominee to some but to the two constables standing over him, he was a criminal. "I'm not breaching the peace. I'm fighting for it," he said indignantly.

So on the eve of International Human Rights Day, the 56-year-old - who has spent the past four-and-a-half years encamped outside Parliament to highlight the plight of Iraqi children - became the latest anti-war activist to be arrested.”

P.S.

If you are looking to make a martyr of yourself, pop down to within a kilometre of Blair’s Downing Street bedroom window and start reading out the following, and see what happens.
Happy 2006

The list of British military casualties
1. Sergeant John Jones of died as a result of injuries sustained from a roadside bomb in Basra. 20 November 2005
2. Sergeant Christopher Hickey, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on Tuesday 18 October 2005.
3. Captain Ken Masters, discovered in his accommodation in Waterloo Lines, Basra on Saturday 15 October 2005.
4. Major Matthew Bacon, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on 11 September 2005.
5. Fusilier Donal Anthony Meade
6. Fusilier Stephen Robert Manning, killed in a roadside bombing near Az Zubayr, Basrah.province on 5 September 2005.
7. Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer
8. Private Leon Spicer
9. Private Phillip Hewett, killed in a roadside bombing in Al Amarah on 16 July 2005.
10. Signaller Paul William Didsbury, died in a shotgun accident in Basra on Wednesday 29.June 2005.
11. Lance Corporal Alan Brackenbury, killed in a bombing in Al Amarah on Sunday 29 May 2005.
12. Guardsman Anthony John Wakefield, killed in a roadside bombing in Al Amarah on Monday 2 May 2005.
13. Private Mark Dobson, found dead in his accommodation in Basra on Monday 28 March, 2005.
14. Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall
15. Flight Lieutenant David Stead
16. Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith
17. Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel
18. Master Engineer Gary Nicholson
19. Chief Technician Richard Brown
20. Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson
21. Sergeant Robert O'Connor
22. Corporal David Williams
23. Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones, killed in a helicopter crash near Baghdad on Sunday 30 January 2005.
24. Sergeant Paul Connolly, found dead in his accommodation in Basra on Sunday 26 December 2004.
25. Private Pita Tukutukuwaga, killed in a roadside bombing south of Baghdad on Monday 8 November 2004.
26. Sergeant Stuart Gray
27. Private Paul Lowe
28. Private Scott McArdle, killed in a suicide bombing at a check-point near Falluja on Thursday 4 November 2004.
29. Staff Sergeant Denise Michelle Rose, found dead in her accommodation in Basra on Sunday 31 October 2004.
30. Private Kevin McHale, killed in a road traffic accident in North Babil on Friday 29 October 2004.
31. Corporal Marc Taylor
32. Gunner David Lawrence, killed in an ambush south-west of Basra on Tuesday 28 September 2004.
33. Fusilier Stephen Jones, died in a road accident near al-Amarah on Friday 10 September 2004.
34. Lance Corporal Paul Thomas, killed during fighting in Basra on Tuesday 17 August 2004.
35. Private Marc Ferns, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on Thursday 12 August 2004.
36. Private Lee O’Callaghan, killed during fighting in Basra on Monday 9 August 2004.
37. Private Christopher Rayment, killed in an accident in al-Amarah on Wednesday 4 August 2004.
38. Flight Lieutenant Kristian Gover, killed in a helicopter accident in Basra on Monday 19 July 2004.
39. Fusilier Gordon Gentle, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on Monday 28 June 2004.
40. Corporal Richard Ivell, killed in a car accident in southern Iraq on Thursday 12 February 2004.
41. Sapper Robert Thomson, killed in an accident in Basra on Saturday 31 January 2004.
42. Rifleman Vincent Windsor, killed in a road traffic accident in al-Amarah on Wednesday 21 January 2004.
43. Lance Corporal Andrew Craw, killed in an incident near Basra on Wednesday 7 January 2004.
44. Major James Stenner
45. Sergeant Norman Patterson, killed in a road traffic accident in Baghdad on Thursday 1January 2004.
46. Private Ryan Thomas, killed in a road traffic accident in Basra on Thursday 6 November 2003.
47. Corporal Ian Plank, killed during fighting in Southern Iraq on Friday 31 October 2003.
48. Sergeant John Nightingale, killed in a firearms accident near Basrah on Tuesday 23 September 2003.
49. Fusilier Russell Beeston, killed during fighting in Ali As Sharqi, on Wednesday 27 August 2003.
50. Major Matthew Titchener
51. Company Sergeant Major Colin Wall
52. Corporal Dewi Pritchard, killed in an ambush in Basra on Saturday 23 August 2003.
53. Captain David Jones, killed in a bomb attack in Basra on Tuesday 14 August 2003.
54. Private Jason Smith, found dead in southern Iraq on Wednesday 13 August 2003.
55. Captain James Linton, collapsed and died in Southern Iraq on Friday 18 July 2003.
56. Sergeant Simon Hamilton-Jewell
57. Corporal Russell Aston
58. Corporal Paul Long
59. Corporal Simon Miller
60. Lance-Corporal Benjamin Hyde
61. Lance-Corporal Thomas Keys, killed in an ambush in al-Majar on Tuesday 24 June 2003.
62. Mr Leonard Harvey, a civilian member of the Defense Fire Service died in hospital in the UK on Thursday 22 May 2003, having fallen ill in the Gulf.
63. Corporal David Shepherd, die of natural causes in Kuwait on Monday 19 May 2003.
64. Gunner Duncan Pritchard, died in hospital of injuries sustained in a traffic accident in Iraq on Thursday 8 May 2003.
65. Private Andrew Kelly, died in an accident in Iraq on Tuesday 6 May 2003.
66. Lance Corporal James McCue, killed in an explosion in Southern Iraq on Wednesday 30 April 2003.
67. Fusilier Kelan Turrington
68. Lance Corporal Ian Malone
69. Piper Christopher Muzvuru, killed in action in Basra on Sunday 6 April 2003.
70. Lance Corporal Karl Shearer
71. Lieutenant Alexander Tweedie, killed in an road traffic accident on Tuesday 1 April 2003.
72. Staff Sergeant Chris Muir, killed in an explosion in Southern Iraq on Monday 31 March 2003.
73. Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, killed in a road traffic accident in Kuwait on Sunday 30 March 2003.
74. Marine Christopher Maddison, killed in action during fighting in Basra on Sunday 30 March 2003.
75. Major Steve Ballard, who died of natural causes on Sunday 30 March 2003.
76. Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, who died in a ‘friendly fire’ incident near Basra on Friday 28 March 2003.
77. Corporal Stephen Allbutt
78. Trooper David Clarke, killed in a ‘friendly fire’ near Basra on Tuesday 25 March 2003.
79. Lance Corporal Barry Stephen, killed in action near al-Zubayr on Monday 24 March 2003.
80. Sergeant Steven Roberts, killed in action near al-Zubayr on Monday 24 March 2003.
81. Sapper Luke Allsopp
82. Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, killed in an ambush in southern Iraq on Sunday 23 March 2003.
83. Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main
84. Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams, killed in a ‘friendly fire’ incident near the Kuwaiti border on 23 March 2003.
85. Lieutenant Philip Green
86. Lieutenant Antony King
87. Lieutenant Marc Lawrence
88. Lieutenant Philip West
89. Lieutenant James Williams
90. Lieutenant Andrew Wilson, killed in a helicopter crash over the northern Arabian Gulf on Saturday 22 March 2003.
91. Colour Sergeant John Cecil
92. Lance Bombardier Llywelyn Evans
93. Captain Philip Stuart Guy
94. Marine Sholto Hedenskog
95. Sergeant Les Hehir
96. Operator Mechanic Ian Seymour
97. Warrant Officer Mark Stratford
98. Major Jason Ward, killed in a helicopter crash south of the Kuwaiti border on Friday 21 March 2003.

[chrislane]

* Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a 37-year-old RAF medical officer, facing court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq

Not sure martyr applies here. As a serving officer he undertook to obey orders. The procedure is to comply then complain after. Disobedience merits a courts martial.

[Geoffw]

Not sure martyr applies here. As a serving officer he undertook to obey orders. The procedure is to comply then complain after. Disobedience merits a courts martial.

I'm sure he does not consider himself a "Martyr", Chris, and I no doubt he made his decision of conscience in the full knowledge it might come to a court marshall.

[Geoffw]

I'm sure he does not consider himself a "Martyr", Chris, and I no doubt he made his decision of conscience in the full knowledge it might come to a court marshall.
martial
martial
martial :confused:

[John]

The list of British military casualties
1. Sergeant John Jones of died as a result of injuries sustained from a roadside bomb in Basra. 20 November 2005
2. Sergeant Christopher Hickey, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on Tuesday 18 October 2005.
3. Captain Ken Masters, discovered in his accommodation in Waterloo Lines, Basra on Saturday 15 October 2005.
4. Major Matthew Bacon, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on 11 September 2005.
5. Fusilier Donal Anthony Meade
6. Fusilier Stephen Robert Manning, killed in a roadside bombing near Az Zubayr, Basrah.province on 5 September 2005.
7. Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer
8. Private Leon Spicer
9. Private Phillip Hewett, killed in a roadside bombing in Al Amarah on 16 July 2005.
10. Signaller Paul William Didsbury, died in a shotgun accident in Basra on Wednesday 29.June 2005.
11. Lance Corporal Alan Brackenbury, killed in a bombing in Al Amarah on Sunday 29 May 2005.
12. Guardsman Anthony John Wakefield, killed in a roadside bombing in Al Amarah on Monday 2 May 2005.
13. Private Mark Dobson, found dead in his accommodation in Basra on Monday 28 March, 2005.
14. Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall
15. Flight Lieutenant David Stead
16. Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith
17. Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel
18. Master Engineer Gary Nicholson
19. Chief Technician Richard Brown
20. Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson
21. Sergeant Robert O'Connor
22. Corporal David Williams
23. Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones, killed in a helicopter crash near Baghdad on Sunday 30 January 2005.
24. Sergeant Paul Connolly, found dead in his accommodation in Basra on Sunday 26 December 2004.
25. Private Pita Tukutukuwaga, killed in a roadside bombing south of Baghdad on Monday 8 November 2004.
26. Sergeant Stuart Gray
27. Private Paul Lowe
28. Private Scott McArdle, killed in a suicide bombing at a check-point near Falluja on Thursday 4 November 2004.
29. Staff Sergeant Denise Michelle Rose, found dead in her accommodation in Basra on Sunday 31 October 2004.
30. Private Kevin McHale, killed in a road traffic accident in North Babil on Friday 29 October 2004.
31. Corporal Marc Taylor
32. Gunner David Lawrence, killed in an ambush south-west of Basra on Tuesday 28 September 2004.
33. Fusilier Stephen Jones, died in a road accident near al-Amarah on Friday 10 September 2004.
34. Lance Corporal Paul Thomas, killed during fighting in Basra on Tuesday 17 August 2004.
35. Private Marc Ferns, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on Thursday 12 August 2004.
36. Private Lee O’Callaghan, killed during fighting in Basra on Monday 9 August 2004.
37. Private Christopher Rayment, killed in an accident in al-Amarah on Wednesday 4 August 2004.
38. Flight Lieutenant Kristian Gover, killed in a helicopter accident in Basra on Monday 19 July 2004.
39. Fusilier Gordon Gentle, killed in a roadside bombing in Basra on Monday 28 June 2004.
40. Corporal Richard Ivell, killed in a car accident in southern Iraq on Thursday 12 February 2004.
41. Sapper Robert Thomson, killed in an accident in Basra on Saturday 31 January 2004.
42. Rifleman Vincent Windsor, killed in a road traffic accident in al-Amarah on Wednesday 21 January 2004.
43. Lance Corporal Andrew Craw, killed in an incident near Basra on Wednesday 7 January 2004.
44. Major James Stenner
45. Sergeant Norman Patterson, killed in a road traffic accident in Baghdad on Thursday 1January 2004.
46. Private Ryan Thomas, killed in a road traffic accident in Basra on Thursday 6 November 2003.
47. Corporal Ian Plank, killed during fighting in Southern Iraq on Friday 31 October 2003.
48. Sergeant John Nightingale, killed in a firearms accident near Basrah on Tuesday 23 September 2003.
49. Fusilier Russell Beeston, killed during fighting in Ali As Sharqi, on Wednesday 27 August 2003.
50. Major Matthew Titchener
51. Company Sergeant Major Colin Wall
52. Corporal Dewi Pritchard, killed in an ambush in Basra on Saturday 23 August 2003.
53. Captain David Jones, killed in a bomb attack in Basra on Tuesday 14 August 2003.
54. Private Jason Smith, found dead in southern Iraq on Wednesday 13 August 2003.
55. Captain James Linton, collapsed and died in Southern Iraq on Friday 18 July 2003.
56. Sergeant Simon Hamilton-Jewell
57. Corporal Russell Aston
58. Corporal Paul Long
59. Corporal Simon Miller
60. Lance-Corporal Benjamin Hyde
61. Lance-Corporal Thomas Keys, killed in an ambush in al-Majar on Tuesday 24 June 2003.
62. Mr Leonard Harvey, a civilian member of the Defense Fire Service died in hospital in the UK on Thursday 22 May 2003, having fallen ill in the Gulf.
63. Corporal David Shepherd, die of natural causes in Kuwait on Monday 19 May 2003.
64. Gunner Duncan Pritchard, died in hospital of injuries sustained in a traffic accident in Iraq on Thursday 8 May 2003.
65. Private Andrew Kelly, died in an accident in Iraq on Tuesday 6 May 2003.
66. Lance Corporal James McCue, killed in an explosion in Southern Iraq on Wednesday 30 April 2003.
67. Fusilier Kelan Turrington
68. Lance Corporal Ian Malone
69. Piper Christopher Muzvuru, killed in action in Basra on Sunday 6 April 2003.
70. Lance Corporal Karl Shearer
71. Lieutenant Alexander Tweedie, killed in an road traffic accident on Tuesday 1 April 2003.
72. Staff Sergeant Chris Muir, killed in an explosion in Southern Iraq on Monday 31 March 2003.
73. Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, killed in a road traffic accident in Kuwait on Sunday 30 March 2003.
74. Marine Christopher Maddison, killed in action during fighting in Basra on Sunday 30 March 2003.
75. Major Steve Ballard, who died of natural causes on Sunday 30 March 2003.
76. Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, who died in a ‘friendly fire’ incident near Basra on Friday 28 March 2003.
77. Corporal Stephen Allbutt
78. Trooper David Clarke, killed in a ‘friendly fire’ near Basra on Tuesday 25 March 2003.
79. Lance Corporal Barry Stephen, killed in action near al-Zubayr on Monday 24 March 2003.
80. Sergeant Steven Roberts, killed in action near al-Zubayr on Monday 24 March 2003.
81. Sapper Luke Allsopp
82. Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, killed in an ambush in southern Iraq on Sunday 23 March 2003.
83. Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main
84. Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams, killed in a ‘friendly fire’ incident near the Kuwaiti border on 23 March 2003.
85. Lieutenant Philip Green
86. Lieutenant Antony King
87. Lieutenant Marc Lawrence
88. Lieutenant Philip West
89. Lieutenant James Williams
90. Lieutenant Andrew Wilson, killed in a helicopter crash over the northern Arabian Gulf on Saturday 22 March 2003.
91. Colour Sergeant John Cecil
92. Lance Bombardier Llywelyn Evans
93. Captain Philip Stuart Guy
94. Marine Sholto Hedenskog
95. Sergeant Les Hehir
96. Operator Mechanic Ian Seymour
97. Warrant Officer Mark Stratford
98. Major Jason Ward, killed in a helicopter crash south of the Kuwaiti border on Friday 21 March 2003.

I hope Blair is fookin proud of himself that’s all i can say. What a waste of life and for what? The UK looks like the crusade fairing megalomaniacs of years ago once again to the very people we were supposed to be helping. This will be no quagmire? This will be no Vietnam? My árse!

[Gina]

Amen to that!!!

[shazam100]

I hesitate to say this, but the last time WE (i.e. the British) actually decided to fight for something, it was about the Falklands. Although the eventual loss of life by our armed forces was more than the current tally in Iraq, at least the troops KNEW what they were fighting for.
This is not in any way to belittle the contribution of those involved in Iraq, in the hope of bringing a democratic solution to an area which has NO CONCEPT of what that means.
It only serves to ensure that I despise the government which sent them there. :(

[martin]

Falklands = a desolate island populated mainly by SHEEP invaded by a tin pot dictator who as far as I know didnt massacre tens of thousands of his own people - sure Galtieri was no saint compared to a democratically elected leader but he CERTAINLY was NO Saddam Hussein.

Iraq = a country led by a despotic murderous regime for years headed by a psychopathic leader and his family. LOTS of oil sure (no doubt the MAIN reason for invading I admit - but if the end is the freedom of the Iraqi people then thats ok by me).

No comparison shaz mate. In fact if anything we were MORE justified in liberating Iraq than the Falklands IMO. That was an Election stunt by a failing maggie no more no less.

I'll freely admit that I now agree that we should have given Saddam more time to comply with the UN resolutions and we could have gone about things better - I dont think it was illegal though.

But we're in now and already BY AND LARGE Iraq is reaping the benefits - things again havent gone 100% perfectly and YES we may be in there some time sure - something I thought personally would happen and when it was siad "Iraq is no Vietnam" I'll be honest I did wince a bit.

But I still say we were right and I always will.

But a VERY bad analogy there shaz IMO.

[Geoffw]

.....................I dont think it was illegal though.
you a quite right, of course, nothing America does abroad is "illegal", that is the advantage of being a superpower!
But we're in now and already BY AND LARGE Iraq is reaping the benefits - things again havent gone 100% perfectly and YES we may be in there some time sure - something I thought personally would happen and when it was siad "Iraq is no Vietnam" I'll be honest I did wince a bit.
Wince!!!!! ...... time will tell, but I personally think it is an awful mess. I would have thought that the UK particularly, with its own checkered history of trying to run Iraq before the WW2 would have realised the mire we were stepping into supporting George Bush.

[Gina]

The Falklands is OUR terrritory - we were defending our people. Iraq posed no threat to us or the USA directly and removing a regime in another country is illegal under the United Nations!!

[martin]

The Falklands is OUR terrritory

Ahhhh now we get into the bit........who said it was......and HOW did it become OURS? It was another left over from our checkered imperial past.

A long and winding road that one Gina :) I personally dont think it was OURS and I think and thought that Argentina had a stronger claim on it than us both geographically and historically. It was only MIGHT that made it ours in the first place. Might isnt right.

It was a political pawn for maggie pure and simple. Getting Argentina out was a by product of that IMO.

Its old hat and I personally dont want to go down that road Gina with the greatest of respect - you have your opinion and I have mine :)

[shazam100]

Ahhhh now we get into the bit........who said it was......and HOW did it become OURS? It was another left over from our checkered imperial past.

A long and winding road that one Gina :) I personally dont think it was OURS and I think and thought that Argentina had a stronger claim on it than us both geographically and historically. It was only MIGHT that made it ours in the first place. Might isnt right.



Er, read the history of the Falklands a bit first Ski ...it had been 'occupied' by a number of different countries over a period of some hundreds of years, and eventually been abandoned by them all ...except GB. It was only when it was suggested that oil prospecting may be worthwhile, and that Galtieri wanting to deflect his problems at home decided to invade, that it became an issue.
I suppose you reckon then, that under his dictatorship, the fact that between 9000 and 30000 dissenters were 'disappeared' is nothing to do with him ? Torture and mass executions were both commonplace during his period at the helm....beginning to sound familiar ?

[martin]

We'll never agree so lets agree to disagree amicably :)

[Jedi2002]

And it hasn't done any good for our fuel prices! And not to mention the misery Iraq has brought to our Army families. The Falklands may be remote, but it's the principle that counts and supporting our own. It was a relative walk-over for our forces and a good excercise for them.

[Geoffw]

Enjoy listening to Lord Falconer being 'taken apart' over this very issue by JH in this morning's "Today", go to 8.10 and and listen to the last two minutes of the interview.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wragg_20051213.ram

[Gina]

We'll never agree so lets agree to disagree amicably :)I'm happy to disagree amicably - do it all the time :lol I have my views (quite strong ones in some cases) and others have different views. No problem :)

Of course, my views are correct by definition :rofl :rofl

[martin]

Of course, my views are correct by definition

I agree :) mine are :rofl :)

[SpaceAgent]

Of course, my views are correct by definition :rofl :roflAbsolutely... until they disagree with my views ;)

[martin]

so thats three of us that are right :rofl

Ahhh the beauty of forum debate :rofl :)

[shazam100]

Enjoy listening to Lord Falconer being 'taken apart' over this very issue by JH in this morning's "Today", go to 8.10 and and listen to the last two minutes of the interview.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wragg_20051213.ram


Yet another loony law, every bit as un thought out as the drinking, instant fines, asbo's, tagging, foxhunting...you name it, Labour bungled it....and they're all set to give up the EU rebate without any impact on the criminally insane CAP.....I give up ! Welcome back Adolph, your kindred spirit is alive and well grinning greasily into the cameras at 10 Downing street.

Who was it said that those who failed to take a lesson from history were doomed to repeat it ?

[Jedi2002]

Make that four Ski & Shazam. Blair has always been a shoe licking and bum kissing patron of the US. All for what? I won't mention immigrants in this country, poverty and medical virii with no medical answers, will I?

[martin]

Welcome back Adolph, your kindred spirit is alive and well grinning greasily into the cameras at 10 Downing street.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Oh that made me laugh that did :rofl

[Jill]

Make that four Ski & Shazam. Blair has always been a shoe licking and bum kissing patron of the US. All for what? I won't mention immigrants in this country, poverty and medical virii with no medical answers, will I?
Errr ... Blair's relationship with Bush, much as I despair of Bush, is not the first time a British leader has performed those functions mentioned above upon a US leader. Maggie fawning all over Ronnie Reagan used to make me feel sick! We need a good working relationship with the US but I admit to not beign comfortable with the way Bush rules - IMHO he's what my mother used to call shifty ;)

Falklands = a desolate island populated mainly by SHEEP invaded by a tin pot dictator who as far as I know didnt massacre tens of thousands of his own people - sure Galtieri was no saint compared to a democratically elected leader but he CERTAINLY was NO Saddam Hussein.

Iraq = a country led by a despotic murderous regime for years headed by a psychopathic leader and his family. LOTS of oil sure (no doubt the MAIN reason for invading I admit - but if the end is the freedom of the Iraqi people then thats ok by me).

No comparison shaz mate. In fact if anything we were MORE justified in liberating Iraq than the Falklands IMO. That was an Election stunt by a failing maggie no more no less.

I'll freely admit that I now agree that we should have given Saddam more time to comply with the UN resolutions and we could have gone about things better - I dont think it was illegal though.

But we're in now and already BY AND LARGE Iraq is reaping the benefits - things again havent gone 100% perfectly and YES we may be in there some time sure - something I thought personally would happen and when it was siad "Iraq is no Vietnam" I'll be honest I did wince a bit.

But I still say we were right and I always will.

But a VERY bad analogy there shaz IMO.

What a refreshing post to read ski. I have never understood why the Faulklands conflict did not provoke the outcry that we currently have over Iraq. The Faulkland Islands IMHO are to Argentina what the Isle of Wight is to the UK. They're THIS close:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/LocationFalklandIslands.png

Now I'm sure that no matter what reason, we would not be happy if the Argentinians, at whatever time in history, decided they'd occupy the Isle of Wight. No wonder they were unhappy that some island the other side of the world claimed ownership of a small group of their islands. To instigate a war rather than a handover discussion over this remote outcrop was purely a vote-grabbing exercise. I won't go into the Belgrano affair in detail, but we were well out of order attacking a vessel that was outside the exclusion zone. Far worse to instigate a war for votes than to instigate a war to free a nation!

Back to Iraq.

* Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a 37-year-old RAF medical officer, facing court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq
I'm with chrislane on his reply - as a serving officer he knew he would have to make himself available in the event of a war. Indeed he should face a court martial if he refuses orders. The military survive on obeying commands and discipline in general. If a man were to disobey orders in the battlefield he may recklessly endanger the lives of the others who serve their country. We no longer have conscription so it has to be assumed that this man chose to join the army. He therefore has absolutely no excuse for failing to serve in Iraq. If he didn't want to be placed under that sort of pressure, he should not have joined the army.

Onto the current situation in Iraq. I do believe that some of the information given to Tony Blair immediately prior to the Iraq war should have been questioned, but I believe he felt he was acting in the best interests of all of us when he agreed to invade Iraq. Prior to this, Sadam Hussein had been refusing to allow Weapons Inspectors to satisfy themselves that Iraq did not pose a threat in relation to WMDs. At the end of the Gulf war, Sadam agreed to allow inspectors unfettered weapons inspections - when he kicked them out he broke this agreement. This certainly heightens the suspicions that he had something to hide.

This was what the weapons inspectors were trying to cope with:
He said that Iraq’s current behaviour revealed a strategic decision to delay, deceive and throw us off the trail, leading to a fracturing of the international community. The Iraqis still were not volunteering information, and when they were, it was partial and misleading, and stories changed whenever they were confronted. The Council’s membership carried a heavy responsibility to take hard decisions on tough issues, including the one it faced today. Last November, the Council had stepped up to its responsibility. It must not walk away now with Iraq, once again, marching down the merry path of weapons of mass destruction, threatening the region and the world. Members must not forget the horrors going on in Iraq. Now was the time for it to send a clear message to Saddam Hussein that it had not been taken in by his transparent tactics.

Nobody wanted war, he said, but it was clear that the limited process and slight substantive changes in Iraq had come from the presence of a large military force, from nations willing to put their military men and women in harm’s way. The unified political will of the Council, and the willingness to use force if it came to that, would ensure that the disarmament of Iraq was achieved. Now was the time for the Council to say that the clock had not been stopped by Saddam Hussein’s stratagems and machinations. The resolution put forward for Council action was appropriate, and it should be brought before it in the very near future. The consequences of Saddam Hussein’s continued refusal to disarm would be very, very real.

This quote was taken from the UN Weapons Inspectors report here:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

This was never going to be an easy call. Sadam was being downright obstructive. Were we to say "well all right then, we won't bother to inspect you any more, you seem like a trustworthy chap"? I hardly think so. Without cooperation from Iraq to allow the inspections he had previously agreed to, suspicions were bound to be raised. There had to be consequences or we may as well not have weapons inspectors at all. I think most would agree that would be very foolhardy.

So the war happened. Many disagree with how it came about but I feel it was inevitable given Sadam's secretive uncooperative regime. Like everyone else, my heart sunk at the first invasion. No-one wants war, there are no real winners, everyone loses in one way or another. However, now that it's happened ski quite rightly pointed out the good that is taking place in Iraq. We can't imagine what it must have been like to live under Sadam's dictatorship. Now these same people are voting for their own futures. The vast majority are relieved to have been released from such tyranny and can now look forward to a future that's much brighter than they could have imagined. Yet the media continue to report on the minority that continue to cause trouble in Iraq. It's out of balance - these people are in a minority - they don't want change - but the majority do. We don't hear much about people who's lives are changing so much for the better. The majority of newsworthy items are about attacks. It will take time for some people to understand the concept of having choice at last and I very much hope that they will see great improvements in their way of life in the future.

As ski implied - there's no quick fix in these circumstances. The current elections go some way to working towards an end to occupation but even so it'll be some time yet before troops are withdrawn from Iraq.

[martin]

Excellent post Jill :) And not just becaue I agree with every word.....I'd say the same if I didnt. A lot of time and effort went into it :)

You got the Falklands sussed IMO.

No matter which way you cut it without the war Maggie would have been OUT OUT OUT or at the very least with a drastically reduced majority at the next erection..SORRY ELECTION (;) Hague Shaz...Hague.....:lol )

Maggie fawning all over Ronnie Reagan used to make me feel sick!

I detest Bush as much as te next man (woman) the guy is a pr1ck. As was Reagan......but compared to Bush Reagan was an intellectual gymnast and Maggie was so far up where the sun dont shine it was untrue.

Also while we're at it..........the suject of relationships with despots.......compare Tony Blairs treatment of Saddam with Thatchers treatment and opinion towarrds Pinochet.......

Speaks volumes.

[onomatopoeia]

Falklands = a desolate island populated mainly by SHEEP invaded by a tin pot dictator who as far as I know didnt massacre tens of thousands of his own people - sure Galtieri was no saint compared to a democratically elected leader but he CERTAINLY was NO Saddam Hussein.


So there weren't hundreds of "disappeared" people in Argentina that had spoken out against the military dictatorship duing the Galtieri regime as we were led to believe by various news organisations at the time?

However the treatment of his own people by the dictator is an irrelevance in this case. The Falkland islanders are under the protection of the British Government, what should have been done other than what was? They took something by force, if they were not prepared to hand it back unconditionally there was no room to negotiate. You don't negotiate with a bully, you give them the opportunity to apologise and withdraw, if they refuse you insist. They refused, we insisted.

If the Falkland islanders expressed an overwhelming majority wish to become part of Argentinia I do not see the British Governemnt preventing them. The lesson was learned in India. Like other European countries that were expansionist in the middle ages and later we have legacies of empire that remain to be dealt with. We cannot simply abdicate responsibility and abandon them - well I suppose we could but it would be a reprehensible act. Turning the clock back hundreds of years against the wishes of the current residents is not the solution, it will simply be repeating the mistakes of empire building in the first place by once again imposing an unwelcome new ruler on them.

Iraq is a far more difficult question - I would have found the war much easier to accept if the stated aim was regime change right from the start. This is where I think Michael Moore missed so badly in Farenheit 9/11 - he was spot on in drawing attention to the money trail and the incompetence of the US government, but his attempts to portray Iraq as a happy country with no internal strife left a bad taste in the mouth when we all know about the way Saddam treated sections of his own population.

[martin]

Ok I accept that Galtieri has blood on his hands. TBF I did say he was "no angel" - and I still put it that compared to Saddam he was a pussycat. He was no threat to the stability of the region of South america, Sadddam clearly was to the middle east.

So yes I concede that my words there could've been chosen more wisely :) By and large though I still stand by what I said.

I would have found the war much easier to accept if the stated aim was regime change right from the start.

I totally agree with you there Ono. :) A fatal mistake by TB and Bush.

But we're in now - so its academic IMO.

More importantly is that over the last few days MILLIONS of Iraqis braved potential bombs to VOTE in a FREE election.

That one fact IMO justifies the war, however wrongly we went about getting into it.

As far as our colonial past is concerned - I for one never said we should:

abdicate responsibility and abandon... anyone

But I DO think that ALL imperial assets should be returned in a phased way - ALL - including Gibralter etc etc.....but thats just my opinion. As valid as anyones :)

[Nick]

The Faulkland Islands IMHO are to Argentina what the Isle of Wight is to the UK. They're THIS close

I think Hitler used similar reasoning when trying annex most of Europe, hell it's right next door, must belong to me.

[martin]

Wrong analogy Nick mate :).

Jill is saying the proximity of the Falklands to Argentina means they have a stronger claim on them to BEGIN with. NOT that it gives them the right to INVADE them aggressively as they did.

Britain had no right to just claim the islands as theirs expecially as they are not exactly in our back yard. Its THAT action that should IMO be compared with Hitler's attitude to Europe in WW2. The "might is right" diplomacy otherwise known in the 19th and early 20th centuries as "gun boat" diplomacies. And WE were the past masters at it.

[Jill]

I think Hitler used similar reasoning when trying annex most of Europe, hell it's right next door, must belong to me.
That's completely different Nick. Ski was right when he said I meant they should have been Argentina's from the outset - of course it does not justify an invasion. But I also said that I felt negotiations should have taken place with a view to the Faulklands being returned to the Argentinians.

I also agree with what ski said concerning the return of imperial assets in a phased way. If that had happened with the Faulklands, the islanders would have been given plenty of notice so they would have time to work out what they wanted to do and to return to the UK if they wished to do so.

[Nick]

How far should we go back when we are considering giving land back to the original occupiers? Argentina should be given back to the native Indians and therefore the Falklands don't belong to the more recent Spanish occupiers?

For one reason or another we have the Falklands. If Argentina would like them back then they should negotiate for them or wait for us to give them back.

[martin]

Good point nick - and something that I've thought about in respect of imperialism.

To my way of thinking I'm talking about purely gains form the imperial era. EVERY country has a "homeland" yeah? Well IMO EVERYTHING other than that homeland should be ceded back in a phased way to the indiginoius people.

So if Argentina for instance held territories say OTHER than Argentina itself then that applies too.

So your scenario wouldnt (again) be a valid one. :)

[Nick]

So your scenario wouldnt (again) be a valid one
It wouldn't using your scenario no.
The indigenous people of these homelands no longer have a say. Should we kick all the Spanish descendants out? Or maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Should we hand government over to the true indigenous people?

Of course not (the USA would have a fit for a start) The homeland of most Americans and Australians is the UK. We have simply annexed these countries and then the local population of invaders has declared itself independent after a time.

I don't see this as much different from the Falklands, the only difference is that the local population of invaders doesn't want independence (yet). Why does this make a difference to you in deciding who owns them?

[onomatopoeia]

The difference is that in the USA and Australia the former owners / native population from pre imperial times is now a resident minority with no political power, wheras for the Falklands and Gibraltar the former owners from pre-imperial times are independent countries and so seen by some as having more right to these territories than a conquered native population.

No I don't see why the argument for the Falklands being handed to Argentina is any more valid than the argument for the USA being handed to the American Indians, other than in terms of the number of people displaced which is different by five orders of magnitude - that does not make it an argument of principle but one of convenience.

[Jill]

I'm ashamed of what whites have done ... displaced aborigines from Australia, Indians from America, blacks from South Africa ... and somehow because we've got used to it, it's all OK is it? No it is not. Some here have the audacity to complain about immigrants into this country. How hypocritical when we've barged in and displaced so many other natives from their lands!

Perhaps we should be reminded of what we did:
In 1770, Captain James Cook took possession of the east coast of Australia and named it New South Wales in the name of Great Britain. British colonisation of Australia, which began in 1788, was catastrophic for many indigenous Australians. This was true regardless of the good intentions or otherwise of colonial governors and settlers. The most immediate consequence of British settlement was a wave of European epidemic diseases such as chickenpox, smallpox, influenza and measles, which spread in advance of the frontier of settlement. The worst-hit communities were the ones with the greatest population densities, where disease could spread more readily. In the arid centre of the continent, where small communities were spread over a vast area, the population decline was less marked.

The second consequence of British settlement was appropriation of land and water resources. The settlers took the view that the indigenous Australians were nomads who could be driven off land wanted for farming or grazing and who would be just as happy somewhere else. In fact the loss of traditional lands, food sources and water resources was usually fatal, particularly to communities already weakened by disease. Proximity to settlers also brought venereal disease, which greatly reduced indigenous fertility and birthrates, and alcohol, to which indigenous Australians had no tolerance. Substance abuse has remained a chronic problem for indigenous communities ever since. The combination of disease, loss of land and direct violence reduced the Aboriginal population by an estimated 90% between 1788 and 1900.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigine#Impact_of_European_settlement

And that's just Australia.

Then there was South Africa:
1913 - Land Act introduced to prevent blacks, except those living in Cape Province, from buying land outside reserves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1069402.stm

I'm not going any further with this post because the arrogance and egotism of whites really winds me up :mad:

[shazam100]

However you feel about the 'whites' I think you ought to remember that the 'blacks' for example, actually were just as, or more culpable in the 'slave trade'. Personally, I'm getting fed up to the teeth with those who simply want to bang on about the days of Empire, without understanding that it was one of the most benign empires throughout history.
Try and think back to those post war years when large parts of the Empire were given back their independence...then think of say, France who had a minor war with Algeria about the same thing !

Apart from India, which is steaming ahead these days, look at the rest of 'our' repatriated lands in Africa, what a sorry, criminal, lunatic, genocidal lot of dictators now rule there.....so are they REALLY better off without us ? ?

We still have Gibraltar, because those who live there want to remain part of Britain (God knows why these days but...) in the same way as the Falklanders do. Should they ever wish to become part of their Spanish 'neighbours', as Nick says, they only need to VOTE...you know..VOTE...something that comes with DEMOCRACY ?

So please, DON'T apologise on my behalf anyone, for the actions of our forbears, I happen to think they did a fairly good job, rather like the Greeks and Romans in passing along the virtues of democracy...with all it's flaws ! :) :)

[Nick]

It's nothing to do with skin colour

[Jill]

Apart from India, which is steaming ahead these days, look at the rest of 'our' repatriated lands in Africa, what a sorry, criminal, lunatic, genocidal lot of dictators now rule there.....so are they REALLY better off without us ? ?

I believe they would have been considerably better off if we hadn't interfered and destroyed their societies in the first place! To question whether they're better off without us is, IMHO, sheer arrogance.

However you feel about the 'whites' I think you ought to remember that the 'blacks' for example, actually were just as, or more culpable in the 'slave trade'.

Er, run that one by me again? :eek: We round them up, chain them up and transport them in ships back here to live a life of slavery and they hold some blame? We ripped them out of their natural environment for our own purposes, depriving them of their families. Then we shackle them together and treat them worse than we'd treat animals. Hmmmm. Well I'm ashamed of what we did. It would be interesting to hear why you believe as you do :confused:

[Gina]

The black tribes in Africa used to round up slaves and sell them to other tribes and some to the Arabs - then the whites came and bought them instead. The "goods" were already there for purchase. So, whilst I abhor the slave trade, in this instance I thing Shaz has a point :(

[martin]

I believe they would have been considerably better off if we hadn't interfered and destroyed their societies in the first place!

Hear Hear :)

I've had my say on this :) I detect circle and conversations coming up.....

tara - gotta see how Bleak houses finishes up!

[Steve]

So please, DON'T apologise on my behalf anyone, for the actions of our forbears, I happen to think they did a fairly good job, rather like the Greeks and Romans in passing along the virtues of democracy...with all it's flaws ! :) :)

What did the Romans ever do for us?

[martin]

Sanitation? :lol

[Steve]

Sanitation

SPLITTER!

OK, roads but what else did the Romans ever do for us?

[martin]

errr you can walk the streets in safety :lol

My personal fav quote...........when stan wants to be called loretta and wants babies..reg says.........."but you cant have a baby stan.....hows it gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?" :rofl :rofl

[shazam100]

What did the Romans ever do for us?


Probably more to the point to ask what DIDN'T they do for us I'd have thought. :lol

I do wish some bleeding hearts on here would read a bit of real history before decrying what it was that 'we' didn't do for others. India for example was riven by feudal 'princes' and every bit as tribal as some African countries...ask any REAL Indian how they view the 'british Empire' and then have another think about slagging it off !!

[martin]

yes........well.......after that Sense of humour bypass.........

Irrigation..........they gave us that reg :p

[shazam100]

yes........well.......after that Sense of humour bypass.........

Irrigation..........they gave us that reg :p


Er, this IS the Pub Politics forum matey :)

[Geoffw]

Gosh this thread has wandered a bit from what i started;)
Probably more to the point to ask what DIDN'T they do for us I'd have thought. :lol

I do wish some bleeding hearts on here would read a bit of real history before decrying what it was that 'we' didn't do for others. India for example was riven by feudal 'princes' and every bit as tribal as some African countries...ask any REAL Indian how they view the 'british Empire' and then have another think about slagging it off !!
Anyone would think the 'British Empire' was in some way different to all the other empires that have inflicted themselves on the planet over the centuries. So Britain took 'civilisation' to the world - what a arrogant world view - and what an ungrateful lot they are to have wanted to kick us out!
OK, roads but what else did the Romans ever do for us?
Good to hear from you, Steve, how's the mother-to-be coming along? Back to the argument in hand - Slavery - they taught us all about that, as has already been mentioned here!

[martin]

Er, this IS the Pub Politics forum matey

Er, I am only widiculing you shazzy.....I shall welease...........woderick :p :lol

Ok Ok......mass--debate away :lol ........me I'll just get rat arrassed :lol :)

[shazam100]

Gosh this thread has wandered a bit from what i started;)

Anyone would think the 'British Empire' was in some way different to all the other empires that have inflicted themselves on the planet over the centuries. So Britain took 'civilisation' to the world - what a arrogant world view - and what an ungrateful lot they are to have wanted to kick us out!



The British Empire merely followed on from it's predecessors. However much you disagree, it's a simple fact that they ALL brought knowledge, skills, and to some extent democracy with them. Even a cursory look at history (and how I wish some of the more ignorant here would ! ) shows that 'our' empire left similar sorts of legacies to the Romans.
I don't feel like apologising for this, even for the seamier bits, and to thoughtlessly yack on about handing back bits of land to God knows who and how far back is patent nonsense imo. The world is what it is, evolving, and we have to learn to live with it.
Much as I sympathise with native American Indians and Aborigines, the fact is that their 'civilisation' had ceased to develop and been superceded by others...if man is not adaptable, he will become extinct, so will moribund societies. It's called life !

I'd like to take a poll amongst those African countries we 'freed' to see if we would be welcome back to run them again...I have a fairly shrewd idea that the answer would be affirmative in the majority of cases.

[Jill]

Much as I sympathise with native American Indians and Aborigines, the fact is that their 'civilisation' had ceased to develop and been superceded by others...if man is not adaptable, he will become extinct, so will moribund societies. It's called life !

What makes you believe such native societies would become extinct? In some circumstances we did that to them - read the article quoted earlier on how we brought disease to these people!

In this country when an animal/bird is on the verge of extinction, steps are taken to protect and encourage the creature to prevent it becoming extinct. We didn't even offer that courtesty to these people.

We took their land and forced them into reservations. How on earth can this be described as some sort of a caring act - a helpful step - escapes me. If we were so wonderful to these native people, we would not have gone the route of slavery. No-one is ever going to convince me that Custer's last stand was for the benefit of the natives. So all this stuff about how helpful the whites were is a smoke screen for what was really going on. The whites took over these countries and claimed them as part of the empire. Yet the same people here that seem to feel that was OK are the very ones decrying the war in Iraq! At least the momentum of the Iraq war is for the benefit of the Iraqi people, to bring them the right to govern themselves after the terrible leadership of Sadam. It's their interests that are being defended rather than some self-centred acquisition of someone else's land.

[martin]

ignorant thoughtlessly yack on

Steady on old chap - hold onto yer bugger grips :lol :lol

[shazam100]

Steady on old chap - hold onto yer bugger grips :lol :lol

Got no use for 'em these days....just the old 'Hobby Horse' :lol

[shazam100]

What makes you believe such native societies would become extinct? In some circumstances we did that to them - read the article quoted earlier on how we brought disease to these people!

In this country when an animal/bird is on the verge of extinction, steps are taken to protect and encourage the creature to prevent it becoming extinct. We didn't even offer that courtesty to these people.

We took their land and forced them into reservations. How on earth can this be described as some sort of a caring act - a helpful step - escapes me. If we were so wonderful to these native people, we would not have gone the route of slavery. No-one is ever going to convince me that Custer's last stand was for the benefit of the natives. So all this stuff about how helpful the whites were is a smoke screen for what was really going on. The whites took over these countries and claimed them as part of the empire. Yet the same people here that seem to feel that was OK are the very ones decrying the war in Iraq! At least the momentum of the Iraq war is for the benefit of the Iraqi people, to bring them the right to govern themselves after the terrible leadership of Sadam. It's their interests that are being defended rather than some self-centred acquisition of someone else's land.

I don't remember stating that this sort of thing was a 'caring act'...it was one of Empire building' pure and simple. But, if you must place the blame on the 'white man' where does it stop ? What about the likes of Mugabe and the rest of the bloodthirsty genocidal megalomaniacs in Africa and other 3 rd world countries ? Are they more 'civilised' than us because we've left them to their own devices ? Is there any sign of an evolutionary process going on anywhere there ? Were cannibals in South America more civilised ?
I'm puzzled by these contradictions.

[Geoffw]

I don't remember stating that this sort of thing was a 'caring act'...it was one of Empire building' pure and simple. But, if you must place the blame on the 'white man' where does it stop ?
This might be worth a read, shaz!
http://www.net4nowtforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=242631&postcount=37

[Jill]

I don't remember stating that this sort of thing was a 'caring act'...it was one of Empire building' pure and simple. But, if you must place the blame on the 'white man' where does it stop ? What about the likes of Mugabe and the rest of the bloodthirsty genocidal megalomaniacs in Africa and other 3 rd world countries ? Are they more 'civilised' than us because we've left them to their own devices ? Is there any sign of an evolutionary process going on anywhere there ? Were cannibals in South America more civilised ?
I'm puzzled by these contradictions.
I'm not implying that all other nations have got it right - my comments were directly related to the British taking over other countries and declaring "it's mine" that's all. The objective is not necessarily for these countries to become "civilised" by our interpretation of the word - they are who they are and the cultural diversity of different nations is important. If South America was inhabited by cannibals, so be it. We just make sure we don't take our holidays in South America! ;)

Although I'm not in favour of one nation marching into another's and declaring "it's mine", I do favour intervention in situations where a leader is ruling with fear. Iraq is the easiest situation to quote really - Sadam and his henchmen had a grip of fear over his people - they were completely unable to rid themselves of him without help from outside. But that doesn't mean we arrive and declare "it's mine" and we haven't in Iraq. What's happening now with free elections gives the rights back to the indigenous people. That's how it should be. Then we leave and they get on with running their own country.

You spoke of Mugabe and his regime. Look back at history. After the war when there was little work here, the British government offered Rhodesian land for sale at knockdown prices. Those that chose to move there made their payments to the British government. Turn the tables - if Rhodesians had been able to come here, buy land and pay the Rhodesian government for it, would we find that acceptable? I can't stand Mugabe - he's a truly nasty piece of work - but clawing back land because he doesn't believe they have rightful ownership to it wouldn't be happening if the British government hadn't sold and pocketed the money for the land in the first place. I'm saying we cannot be blameless because this situation was at least, in part, created by us.

[shazam100]

The British Empire gave India a system of governance and the notion of democracy. It attempted to do the same with those African countries it controlled.....the outcomes ? Well, take a look at the thrusting hard-working Indian nation, then compare it with the utter corruption and lack of initiatives in Africa.
Sorry, I just don't buy this 'we're all guilty' crap....these peoples have had plenty of time to determine their independence, but what a stark contrast to those even poorer Asian countries who by their own efforts and NO HANDOUTS have roared into life in the last 50 years or so.

The tragedy of Africa and other 'beggarly' nations is the dependence on never ending foreign aid because of the tyranny of their 'rulers'..our 'fault' here is to simply keep shovelling OUR money into the maw of these corrupt nations and seeing it disappear into Swiss banks !!

[shazam100]

This might be worth a read, shaz!
http://www.net4nowtforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=242631&postcount=37


Yeah, I saw your post t'other day Geoff, and have marked this book down for a read when I get the opportunity...thanks :)

[martin]

The British Empire gave India a system of governance and the notion of democracy

True true........but as Jill pointed out shaz her point is that

I'm not in favour of one nation marching into another's and declaring "it's mine" which WAS and IS Imperialism.

Couldnt have put it better mesen.

Hitler made the trains run on time and attained 100% employment - thats partly only because he exterminated those he didnt want to have jobs which kind of left more jobs for the taking - theres two sides to every coin.

Take your precious Imperial India:

Heads - An efficient administration
Tails - Run SOLEY for the benefit of the white masters by mostly the indian civil servants

Heads - Law and Order and security
Tails - AMRITSAR MASSACRE and many other atrocities.

No ONE ASKED Britain to hold dominion over the sub continent they just marched in and stayed until 1947.

Thats just India. Theres Malaya - similar story......Africa......Jill made moot points about how the land was dished out to the white settlers after the war.......Mugabes a tyrant sure.......but one that lacks class........the British Empire were tyrants in their own way....but in a far more "British" way.....more subtle........underhand.........hidden........they made sure the cosh only hit where the marks wouldnt be seen.....

Long story....dogs chasing tails.......you're not listening to a word Jill says shaz......and shes making very valid points........come to think about it shaz you wouldve made a very GOOD member of the very Raj you hold so highly.....:)

[shazam100]

True true........but as Jill pointed out shaz her point is that

which WAS and IS Imperialism.

Couldnt have put it better mesen.

Hitler made the trains run on time and attained 100% employment - thats partly only because he exterminated those he didnt want to have jobs which kind of left more jobs for the taking - theres two sides to every coin.

Take your precious Imperial India:

Heads - An efficient administration
Tails - Run SOLEY for the benefit of the white masters by mostly the indian civil servants

Heads - Law and Order and security
Tails - AMRITSAR MASSACRE and many other atrocities.

No ONE ASKED Britain to hold dominion over the sub continent they just marched in and stayed until 1947.

Thats just India. Theres Malaya - similar story......Africa......Jill made moot points about how the land was dished out to the white settlers after the war.......Mugabes a tyrant sure.......but one that lacks class........the British Empire were tyrants in their own way....but in a far more "British" way.....more subtle........underhand.........hidden........they made sure the cosh only hit where the marks wouldnt be seen.....

Long story....dogs chasing tails.......you're not listening to a word Jill says shaz......and shes making very valid points........come to think about it shaz you wouldve made a very GOOD member of the very Raj you hold so highly.....:)


Er, no one asked the Romans to come here either fella....but are we bleating about it ? I don't think so !!!

Just in case you miss the point....It's because they EDUCATED us !! point taken ? or are you totally impervious to logic (and history) ?

[martin]

or are you totally impervious to logic

What you mean of course to paraphrase

or are you totally impervious to agreeing with the great shaz?

Well yes I am thanks very much :)

That ok with you matey? :)

To take this back to Roman times is IMO farcical. Back then things were a little different - by the 17th/18/19th centuries I think enough philosophers and thinkers had put it forward that you cant just stroll into other countries in a vainglorious bid to expand an empire matey.........now it is WELL And TRUELY frowned upon in polite society :lol :lol

So perhaps YOU are the one incapable of logical thinking - just a little thought to pass thru one ear and STRAIGHT out the other (try just thinking about it :))

No ones right here - its just opinions - try taking others on board and being less supercilious.

Others are imbued with just enough intelligence as you so obviously are mate :)

Be polite in short :)

But Dogs chasing tails again.......tata :)

[Jill]

The British Empire gave India a system of governance and the notion of democracy.

That's your opinion and of course you are entitled to it. I have always had a great deal of respect for Mahatma Ghandi and IMHO he played a far bigger part in making India what it is today than the British did. A truly great man, he stood up to the British and helped India regain their dignity.

There's an article about Ghandi here if anyone is interested:
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pst_gandhi.html

It attempted to do the same with those African countries it controlled.....the outcomes ? Well, take a look at the thrusting hard-working Indian nation, then compare it with the utter corruption and lack of initiatives in Africa.

Yes, controlled being the operative word. That's what it was all about - control. What on earth gave us the right to control another nation? When Hitler tried this during the war, it was very wrong wasn't it? Being British does not mean we are always right - stiff upper lip is all very well, but to set out with the intention of controlling another nation is wrong. It's also utterly arrogant. Please consider what I'm saying here - Hitler sought control for his own purposes - the British sought control for their own purposes too. It took Ghandi to save the Indian nation from the British. The British expected the Indian people to be subservient to them - pankha wallahs, dhobi wallahs, char wallahs - the British lived in luxury at the expense of the native Indian people. Can you truly say that you feel the Indian people were being helped to a brighter future by being relegated to servants of the British?

[martin]

Well said Jill :)

You are so right about Ghandi - and others who HAVE made India what it it today.......ok ok the INRFASTRUCTURE was there sure - the MECHANICS - the legal system, Civil Service etc etc........sure that was there in 1947 to - no doubt about it - give an independnt India a leg up on the road to becoming the democracy it is today........

But that was a MACHINE - and just like any other MACHINE it needs constant attention, oiling, the odd kick.......and MOST IMPORTANTLY a few ADJUSTMENTS and UPGRADES.

THIS process cONTINUED after 1947 Shaz.........and this supercilious attitude of white people like yourself that EVEN today India is SOLEY what it is because of the greatness of the British.

Thats utter rubbish mate TBF (and with the greatest of respect).

The indian sub continent was a far more cultured part of the world when the British were freezing their nuts off and dying like flies from disease in the middle ages.........and WITHOUT the (as you deem it SAVING BLESSED BRITISH..er.......for want of a better word........help) they WOULD have done just fine thank you.

The WHOLE ethos of the post industrial revolution empire building thing was that BRITISH IS BEST WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT - and its no coincidence that it is in this time that words like "wog" were brought into the English language..........words that are STILL bandied about whenever supercilious whites utter the phrase.....

"where would those Wogs be without us.............."

Get real - get into the 21st GLOBAL SOCIETY shaz...........the BRITISH EMPIRE is DEAD - has been for a long time........

Just take the WTO meeting last week.........the emerging third world nations were threatening to pull out and set up on their own.......purely because they dont NEED the west as much as they did........and they get a little SICK of being constantly reminded about how GREATFUL THEY SHOULD BE to the West (espeically Britain)........get used to the fact that in the future a LOT of the worlds wealth will shift a little to the EAST matey........it is already...keep an eye on China....(or Chinkies........slant-eyes......more British terms for their.......er...........subjects.......)

[Jill]

The reference to the expression "wog" is very appropriate ski. My father told me it was short for "Western Oriental Gentleman" - didn't take long for it's abbreviation to be used as an insult did it? The original expression epitomises the chasm between the British and the Indian people.

Shaz, you keep ignoring the questions I have and many of the points I've made - of course you're entitled to do that, but rather than debating with you on these things I find myself reading your monologues. Yes of course I read them, but I'd rather debate with you instead :)

There was one point that I was going to refer to (but forgot because my head is a bit full of xmas preparation at the moment!) and that is this comment by ski:

Also while we're at it..........the suject of relationships with despots.......compare Tony Blairs treatment of Saddam with Thatchers treatment and opinion towarrds Pinochet.......

Speaks volumes.

Now for me that just about sums it up. I was absolutely horrified at Thatcher's treatment of Pinochet and in my opinion it showed how lacking she is in principles. How come Maggie did not view Pinochet as the criminal he is when he came here? Because he gave her a hand in the ruddy Faulklands war of course! :rolleyes:

Please try to find the time to read this page - I think it says a great deal about the self-centred devious motives of the Tory party.

http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/comment/apolbrit.htm

[Nick]

I think it says a great deal about the self-centred devious motives of the Tory party.
I don't think it's specific to any one party.
Chinese leader (whose name escapes me) got a nice warm welcome here despite a terrible human rights record, why?
Because China is a big (and going to be huge) player in the global economy and we want to keep on the right side of them. Pinciples are only apllied when there's nothing in it for the goverment (which ever one it is)

[Geoffw]

I don't think it's specific to any one party.
......... Pinciples are only apllied when there's nothing in it for the goverment (which ever one it is)
True, Nick, and they spend all their time lecturing us, and using words like "principles" and "freedom" to justify knocking about smaller or weaker nations.

[Jill]

I don't know a lot about China, Nick, you will know a lot more of course having been there. In order to learn, can you give an overview for me of what you mean?

[Nick]

An overview (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html) is that they have a terrible human rights record and yet the world still wants to trade with them. If they weren't a huge force to be reckoned with we wouldn't trade with them on principle, because they are we ignore our principles ('we' being the government)

[martin]

Your right about China nick unfortunately. Everyones falling over themselves to get trade deals with China. But the British and US goverments APPEAR to be linking them with improvements in human rights......how much of it is lipservice I dont know...........but a good point.....its all govts Jill :(

Of course the tories were past masters at it........

[onomatopoeia]

I don't think it's specific to any one party.

Absolutely. Trying to get at one party by its history of dealing with countries with poor human rights records gets you nowhere as both parties have things to be ashamed of here.

[shazam100]

Absolutely. Trying to get at one party by its history of dealing with countries with poor human rights records gets you nowhere as both parties have things to be ashamed of here.


Quite...it's called 'politics' or sometimes (mistakenly imv) 'diplomacy'.

However, there has always been a valid argument for 'dealing' with these totalitarian regimes as a way of (eventually) hoping to change their attitudes by influence. The fall of the Berlin wall seemed to be one such 'change'.

[shazam100]

I came across this article today, which quite neatly encapsulates many of my own views on the subject and aired in this forum :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/22/do2202.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_22122005