Santerme

That terrible decision to sink the Belgrano and end the threat to our own ships, simply beastly. Luckily Conqueror did not sink the escorting destroyers, although she would have to have chased them down as they fled the scene. And the IRA As I recall, in the July, with only four dead hunger strikers Richard O'Rawe, the IRA spokesman in the Maze, and Brendan "Bik" McFarlane, its commanding officer in the jail, withdrew a demand that the British government treat IRA inmates as prisoners of war. As they were criminal scumbags, that was never going to happen anyway. The Govt responded in writing with a concession that the prisoners could wear their own clothes as long as they were approved by the prison authorities. O'Rawe and McFarlane agreed at the time that the British government's concessions were enough to end the strike but were told that the IRA council had rejected them. The then Ulster Secretary James Prior finally agreed a package of concessions with the Maze prisoners three days after the hunger strikes ended. Facts have a nasty way of getting in the way of perceived events.

Nicely put MM

Ah, no comrades in arms here, a wah is a wind up

This has to be a Wah!

Well Private Eye did have Blair and Cameron side by side on the front page under the caption 'World's Worst Face Transplant'.

Maurice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All this political talk and then I see our dear > Iron Lady is back in hospital following a fall. > Bless. What this country could use is another 5 > years of dear Thatcher to put us right. Get well > soon. Would be a bit of a dinosaur today, but effective in her day. Cameron, who we will undoubtedly get next is just Blair lite

blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > * caveat - this is a case in progress * > > * no ranting on the specifics of this case zone * > > Anyone typed the name of the person who has been > charged with child abuse into facebook ? > > I can see an increasing number of groups calling > for the person to be hung/killed etc. > > sample: > > "what a dirty distgusting women................ > > i have 3 kids and 1 on the way............what > filth.....she should have her throat cut and left > to drip dry............" > > > Case specifics aside, whatdoes the esteemed EDF > forum think about this huge site letting such > groups prosper ? Surely they should be calling for her to be hanged, not hung! FAcebook should just pull the plug on such groups.

Got the figure from here... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article1492397.ece But I guess Mr Segal may have vested interest in promoting the 60% figure. One of our group company's is a mid sized leasing operation, very few of the reissues to drivers get appealed. We do appeal all our 'own fleet' tickets, not sure of the success rate.

If you appeal the ticket the 14 day discount has to be preserved and if you do not get a reply within 56 days then the penalty becomes invalid, even if you have paid a clamp or towed away charge those must in law be refunded to you. The only defence I think your son could mount is that the bike had broken down, a ticket can be appealed in these circumstances as it is an exemption. 60% of tickets in London are incorrectly issued and should be appealed apparently.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lozzyloz my logic is not flawed. The bombing of > Hiroshima did achieve it's ultimate end, which was > the immediate surrender of Japan and an end to the > loss of American life. This was the objective of > the Americans. The Japanese may have surrendered > eventually but many thousands of American lives > would have been lost in the battles to take each > island in the march to take Tokyo. As appaling as > the loss of Japanese life was it was simply a > case, in the eyes of the Americans, as us or them. > And really this is what war boils down to. There > really are no rules of engagement and it's naive > to think otherwise, although I don't mean to > suggest that you are naive. I think you are > probably just a person with a very healthy moral > compass. "It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." - General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces Under President Truman "I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' " - General Dwight D. Eisenhower "Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children." - Admiral William D. Leahy Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff "I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb." - John McCloy "P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace." - President Harry S. Truman Diary Entry, July 18, 1945 "Some of my conclusions may invoke acorn and even ridicule. "For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945. "And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity." - Stewart L. Udall US Congressman and Author of "Myths of August" "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study "Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it. - J. Samuel Walker Chief Historian U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So where do you draw the line? Suspect terrorist > is tortured. Torturer goes too far and kills them. > Finds out later they were innocent. Lots of pain > no gain. Acceptable? In Iraq or AFG the net effect of this would have been to create 10 new terrorists and the certain death of another coalition soldier. Pretty effective in my view for the insurgents.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't torture used in the second world war to > great effect? I'd imagine many lives were saved on > the information garnered. It's not for the > squeamish, but perhaps a necessary evil......Even > Jack Bauer is prone to a bit of it. Torture is known to be ineffective and every real professional in the business knows this. Interrogators torture because they were unskilled, ignorant, sadistic, desirous to inflict harm on hated enemies or is plain lazy. Torture is the quickest and easiest way to create a tangible facsimile of results that resemble information, even though in reality they were of very low grade and highly undependable. Historically, people became torturers not because they have been proven to be effective in getting information, but just because they had the reputation of being tough, politically reliable, or volunteered. All that the Gestapo had done was to make people confess to whatever they have been accused of. A good counter point to the torture of Al-Qaida operatives would be http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151 by the interrogator who uncovered the information that led to the elimination of al Zarqawi. He did so completely through conventional means. He says in his book that in his experience, almost no useful intellegence had been gathered by torture. As for the British torturing in WW2, in fact the psychological effect on captured spies in Britain of knowing that their lack of cooperation would certainly end with hanging or the firing squad was threat enough to turn most of them into double agents for MI5 and proved highly effective in deception operations up to D Day. Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. In fact in the aftermath of the atomic bombs on Japan, a US airman was tortured in to revealing that the US possessed hundreds of further devices, which we know is absolutely not the case...a bit counter productive for the Japanese

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would you torture a captured suicide bomber if the > information received from him prevented a bomb > going off and thus saving possibly hundreds of > lives? The CIA IG's report declared that there is no evidence that criminal tactics stopped "any credible threats" and it is known that lawful forms have often worked faster and more reliably against high-level al Qaeda detainees, sometimes within an hour or a little longer.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sean you're right, I can't provide you with any > examples of societies that have benefited from > torture or capital punishment. I'm not armed with > such stats on a daily basis. I'm sure if I was I > could probably put some sort of spin on them to > suggest that torture of criminals and enemies of > the state and capital punishment do indeed create > a better society. I'd imagine for one thing > Britain in the 50s had less of a drug and crime > problem then it does now, and capital punishment > was still in force then. You can make statstical cases that capital punishment deters crime, since Erlich in 1975 there have been dozens of studies which show that on average 8 murders are deterred for every execution that takes place. However, it is the moral argument which is my objection to it. As for torture, it is repellent in all forms and provides highly dubious information at best.

Not wishing to pour cold water on the claims but I think we'll find it all comes out in the wash. They're probably feeling flushed with success

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey I'm out of breath reading this lot. > > As YOU were ( did you like the YOU.....ohh its > like a knuckle sandwich....dofff) > > > *OO* > > > *takes to his day bed* I think it was Issac Newton who said Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.

http://www.textsfromlastnight.com/ New fave

Probably more than I trusted the ISF

Funnily enough I agree with you on the PC part. We have allowed respect for authority to disappear and that is a direct result of Blair and the emergence of the nanny state. In my day in DKH, Mr Mabey used to have precision aim with the board rubber and had a hairbrush which he used to chalk your name on in reverse before paddling you with it. I have to say I think I was only once a victim of this, I was just more careful about being caught in the future. Discipline at my boarding school was more intense with the sixth form prefects being able to give detention for walking on their path, too much?? I still have my essay on the sex life of a blade of grass, but lost the one on the inside of a table tennis ball. PC is pure crap, we have a consensus. Execution not so much.

I work on the principle of taking people at face value, whilst retaining a tiny piece of healthy scepticism. Over many years it has been fine. I have been disappointed a very few times. Currently I have 24 people who work directly for me and the only ones I don't trust fully are the half a dozen who have expense accounts. That is a bit uber cynical of me!!

We're trying to get public spaces to greenery here!!

Wow! It was just getting interesting. Oh well!

daizie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but with DNA now, miscarriages of justice are > happening less . Less isn't good enough

The idea that Saudi has a robust judical system is laughable. Therefore, those killed are extrajudical murders for the most part.

daizie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > santerme, are you reading enid blyton? I rather enjoyed her stories as a child, why do you ask?