Guantanemo Bay Boys
TTH, Brakedwell,
I suspect that Feroz Abbasi may have been up to no good, since he was captured on the battlefield. That's enough for me to have little sympathy for him, though obviously you need proof BEFORE punishing him, and any punishment we mete out must be as civilised as that we'd mete out to any other criminal. Torture and capital punishment have no place in a civilised society, though I think that we go a bit too easy on terrorists (IRA or Al Qaeda alike).
"What prey tell do you think those so called British citizens were doing over there? Do you honestly believe they were tourists/aid workers? Come on. Are you really that naive." and "what were the "British" group doing in that part of the world - playing cricket?"
Over where? In what part of the world?
Begg had set up a school for blind children, and had taken his wife and children with him. He was arrested in Pakistan. Belmar was also taken in Pakistan. Whatever they were doing, they weren't taking up arms against us on the battlefield, and in any case, the kneejerk prejudice of racist bigots is not sufficient grounds for criminal sanction against these people. However convinced you are that these ragheads (as you'd doubtless label them) are guilty, there needs to be evidence that stands up in court.
"Are the lives of a few treacherous passport holders more important?"
Don't you have to prove such alleged treachery, or is Mr Blair's say so (do you remember: "Yeah yeah, the Iraqi's have WMD within 45 minutes readiness, there and ready to go") sufficient proof? And have you forgotten that "these people" are your "fellow countrymen".
Navaleye,
The difference is that there is mounting evidence of US torture of detainees, at Guantanamo, at Bagram, and in third countries (Egypt, Jordan, etc.). Since much of this is based on the testimony of prisoners, it naturally has a 'caution' rating attached, though there is also some independent evidence. Whereas no evidence as to what Mr Begg (for example) is supposed to have done has been released.
I suspect that Feroz Abbasi may have been up to no good, since he was captured on the battlefield. That's enough for me to have little sympathy for him, though obviously you need proof BEFORE punishing him, and any punishment we mete out must be as civilised as that we'd mete out to any other criminal. Torture and capital punishment have no place in a civilised society, though I think that we go a bit too easy on terrorists (IRA or Al Qaeda alike).
"What prey tell do you think those so called British citizens were doing over there? Do you honestly believe they were tourists/aid workers? Come on. Are you really that naive." and "what were the "British" group doing in that part of the world - playing cricket?"
Over where? In what part of the world?
Begg had set up a school for blind children, and had taken his wife and children with him. He was arrested in Pakistan. Belmar was also taken in Pakistan. Whatever they were doing, they weren't taking up arms against us on the battlefield, and in any case, the kneejerk prejudice of racist bigots is not sufficient grounds for criminal sanction against these people. However convinced you are that these ragheads (as you'd doubtless label them) are guilty, there needs to be evidence that stands up in court.
"Are the lives of a few treacherous passport holders more important?"
Don't you have to prove such alleged treachery, or is Mr Blair's say so (do you remember: "Yeah yeah, the Iraqi's have WMD within 45 minutes readiness, there and ready to go") sufficient proof? And have you forgotten that "these people" are your "fellow countrymen".
Navaleye,
The difference is that there is mounting evidence of US torture of detainees, at Guantanamo, at Bagram, and in third countries (Egypt, Jordan, etc.). Since much of this is based on the testimony of prisoners, it naturally has a 'caution' rating attached, though there is also some independent evidence. Whereas no evidence as to what Mr Begg (for example) is supposed to have done has been released.
Jackonicko
>the kneejerk prejudice of racist bigots is not sufficient grounds for criminal sanction against these people. <
These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians. The real racist bigots are the fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred and incite gullible young Muslims to take up arms against their fellow countrymen. Try saying that in public and you will be accused of racism by the PC brigade. Terrorism is a dirty business. Fighting it means that no holds are barred.
>the kneejerk prejudice of racist bigots is not sufficient grounds for criminal sanction against these people. <
These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians. The real racist bigots are the fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred and incite gullible young Muslims to take up arms against their fellow countrymen. Try saying that in public and you will be accused of racism by the PC brigade. Terrorism is a dirty business. Fighting it means that no holds are barred.
Braked,
"These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians."
Yes, perhaps. But if they had nothing to do with these murderous attacks (and there is no evidence to suggest that they did) then to imprison them without trial and to torture them makes us no better than those you condemn.
If I just happened to decide that I thought you were guilty of supporting a plot to assassinate Dubya, would the CIA be right to come and lock you up, without trial, and to break the tedium of your existence in a Cuban cage with a nice trip to the Yemen for some testicular electro convulsive therapy?
You need to prove that they have anything to do with "fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred" or that they are "gullible young Muslims to take up arms against their fellow countrymen."
You say that: "Terrorism is a dirty business. Fighting it means that no holds are barred." Actually, some holds - those that involve taking action against innocent people - are barred.
"These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians."
Yes, perhaps. But if they had nothing to do with these murderous attacks (and there is no evidence to suggest that they did) then to imprison them without trial and to torture them makes us no better than those you condemn.
If I just happened to decide that I thought you were guilty of supporting a plot to assassinate Dubya, would the CIA be right to come and lock you up, without trial, and to break the tedium of your existence in a Cuban cage with a nice trip to the Yemen for some testicular electro convulsive therapy?
You need to prove that they have anything to do with "fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred" or that they are "gullible young Muslims to take up arms against their fellow countrymen."
You say that: "Terrorism is a dirty business. Fighting it means that no holds are barred." Actually, some holds - those that involve taking action against innocent people - are barred.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who preach the sanctity of the Law and Human Rights and point to Magna Carta as the source of liberty in the Western World, have much history on their side, and hold (at the moment) the moral high ground. If, (God forbid), there were another terrorist outrage - this time in the UK and costing hundreds of thousands of lives - the legalists and civil libertarians would have molto eggonfacia.
If they were wise they would start shifting their stance a little. There were no WMD at Runnymede in the 13th Century, and international terrorism of the fanatical, suicidal kind, was not an issue when the Great and the Good drafted and signed the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is true to say that some of the uses to which that convention have been put in recent years were not envisaged by its progenitors, and it is long past high time that it were revised.
Regrettably, it seems that some of the rocks on which the British legal stystem is founded may cause it to founder unless they are blasted out of the way. Eg, the rules of evidence on electronic intercepts, and hearsay in terrorist-related cases. Jury trials may be impracticable in such cases; perhaps technically-qualified assessors should aid the judge - as in Courts Martial. And most trials based on evidence from sensitive intelligence sources will clearly have to be "in camera" with press and public excluded. And the standard of proof may have to be reduced from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "balance of probability".
Otherwise the system will remain loaded in favour of the terrorists and against the security of the people.
If they were wise they would start shifting their stance a little. There were no WMD at Runnymede in the 13th Century, and international terrorism of the fanatical, suicidal kind, was not an issue when the Great and the Good drafted and signed the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is true to say that some of the uses to which that convention have been put in recent years were not envisaged by its progenitors, and it is long past high time that it were revised.
Regrettably, it seems that some of the rocks on which the British legal stystem is founded may cause it to founder unless they are blasted out of the way. Eg, the rules of evidence on electronic intercepts, and hearsay in terrorist-related cases. Jury trials may be impracticable in such cases; perhaps technically-qualified assessors should aid the judge - as in Courts Martial. And most trials based on evidence from sensitive intelligence sources will clearly have to be "in camera" with press and public excluded. And the standard of proof may have to be reduced from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "balance of probability".
Otherwise the system will remain loaded in favour of the terrorists and against the security of the people.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Flatus and Brakedwell are spot on. The values on which our legal process works are used against by those that would do us harm. It has to evolve and adapt to meet the threat. If that upsets anyone so be it, I want my family protected. The people we are deling with have the same mindset that murdered Margaret Hassan and should be dealt with accordingly. The looney left apologists for them should remember that.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naval/Flatus/Braked,
I think you may have gotten yourselves confused on this issue.
Let me clear a few things up for you.
1) "But surely the camp staff are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as terrorist suspects. You can't have double standards."
Naval, it is you that is imposing the double standards. You are demanding different treatment for the camp staff than for those who have been interred there.
2)"These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians."
Braked, no they were not. There has been nothing released to link the Britons held at Gitmo with either the 911, Madrid or Bali attacks.
3)"If, (God forbid), there were another terrorist outrage - this time in the UK and costing hundreds of thousands of lives - the legalists and civil libertarians would have molto eggonfacia."
Flatus, those who will have to explain themselves will be those like Bush and Blair. Those who say that we need to sacrifice our laws and our freedoms to prevent further atrocities.
I ask you all this one question.Can none of you see the similarities between what is happening here and in the US with the changes that took place in Germany in the 1930's
Some imagined enemy that was both hell bent on and capable of destroying our way of life. Such an enemy is as much a fallacy now as it was then.
I will not disagree with you that there are those out there who wish to cause harm to us in the western democracies. However, that has always been the case.
We beat them by being better than them not worse.
Naval, as for lumping everyone that disagrees with you as "looney left apologists" for those who murdered Margaret Hassan. This does you a disservice. Furthermore it is immensely offensive. Just because I do not feel that US should not be allowed to imprison and torture anyone it feels like does not mean I am not filled with revulsion and disgust for those who carried out the brutal murder of Mrs Hassan ( or Ken Bigley or any of the others who have been taken before their time).
Cheers
BHR
I think you may have gotten yourselves confused on this issue.
Let me clear a few things up for you.
1) "But surely the camp staff are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as terrorist suspects. You can't have double standards."
Naval, it is you that is imposing the double standards. You are demanding different treatment for the camp staff than for those who have been interred there.
2)"These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians."
Braked, no they were not. There has been nothing released to link the Britons held at Gitmo with either the 911, Madrid or Bali attacks.
3)"If, (God forbid), there were another terrorist outrage - this time in the UK and costing hundreds of thousands of lives - the legalists and civil libertarians would have molto eggonfacia."
Flatus, those who will have to explain themselves will be those like Bush and Blair. Those who say that we need to sacrifice our laws and our freedoms to prevent further atrocities.
I ask you all this one question.Can none of you see the similarities between what is happening here and in the US with the changes that took place in Germany in the 1930's
Some imagined enemy that was both hell bent on and capable of destroying our way of life. Such an enemy is as much a fallacy now as it was then.
I will not disagree with you that there are those out there who wish to cause harm to us in the western democracies. However, that has always been the case.
We beat them by being better than them not worse.
Naval, as for lumping everyone that disagrees with you as "looney left apologists" for those who murdered Margaret Hassan. This does you a disservice. Furthermore it is immensely offensive. Just because I do not feel that US should not be allowed to imprison and torture anyone it feels like does not mean I am not filled with revulsion and disgust for those who carried out the brutal murder of Mrs Hassan ( or Ken Bigley or any of the others who have been taken before their time).
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ye Olde Pie Shoppe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Hicks Rules Billhicksrules! Nice to see the genius is not forgotten!
Thank you for stating
'I ask you all this one question.Can none of you see the similarities between what is happening here and in the US with the changes that took place in Germany in the 1930's'
I could not agree more. History cannot be repeated. No matter who does the repeating. If you are human you deserve human rights. If you are proven guilty you will be punished.
Thank you for stating
'I ask you all this one question.Can none of you see the similarities between what is happening here and in the US with the changes that took place in Germany in the 1930's'
I could not agree more. History cannot be repeated. No matter who does the repeating. If you are human you deserve human rights. If you are proven guilty you will be punished.
While the TV and papers are full of coverage of the anniversary of Auschwitz, it seems ironic that people are seriously advocating the suspension of the human rights of those they perceive to be a threat, based entirely on their religious and ethnic background.
All 4 have been released without having been charged......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4210815.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4210815.stm
billy boy...
How would you deal with the killers of Maggie and those who so brutallly hack the heads off of innocent people and video tape the horrific crime for broadcast to the world?
Invite them down to cooperate with the investigation?
Or track the garbage down and drop 2000 pound precision bombs on top of their noggins?
How would you deal with the killers of Maggie and those who so brutallly hack the heads off of innocent people and video tape the horrific crime for broadcast to the world?
Invite them down to cooperate with the investigation?
Or track the garbage down and drop 2000 pound precision bombs on top of their noggins?
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vigilante Justice League of America???
First I'd find the right people.
Now one way of doing that might well be to sweep through an area and grab everyone. But the key point is that in any such search you will undoubtedly get a mix of innocent-but-in-the-wrong-place, innocent-but-associated-with-the-bad-guys, abd them-wot-dunnit. You'll also probably miss a few of them-wot-dunnit, because the guilty, not being stupid, will have buggered off sharpish once the deed has been done.
You then process the people you have grabbed and separate the sheep from the goats in a timely manner, so you can concentrate your efforts on the ones most likely to have been them-wot-dunnit. Those you bring to public trial as an example for the others. Justice (not revenge) should be seen to work quickly and publicly.
Conversely, dropping a big
bomb on the "garbage" (assuming it isn't an arbitrary civilian house, Chinese embassy, Canadian Troop Exercise or the forces of a Coalition "partner" -- I recall various issues with target recognition) doesn't do much to further the cause. Especially when you claim that any innocent casualties are either not innocent or "collateral damage".
Now one way of doing that might well be to sweep through an area and grab everyone. But the key point is that in any such search you will undoubtedly get a mix of innocent-but-in-the-wrong-place, innocent-but-associated-with-the-bad-guys, abd them-wot-dunnit. You'll also probably miss a few of them-wot-dunnit, because the guilty, not being stupid, will have buggered off sharpish once the deed has been done.
You then process the people you have grabbed and separate the sheep from the goats in a timely manner, so you can concentrate your efforts on the ones most likely to have been them-wot-dunnit. Those you bring to public trial as an example for the others. Justice (not revenge) should be seen to work quickly and publicly.
Conversely, dropping a big
bomb on the "garbage" (assuming it isn't an arbitrary civilian house, Chinese embassy, Canadian Troop Exercise or the forces of a Coalition "partner" -- I recall various issues with target recognition) doesn't do much to further the cause. Especially when you claim that any innocent casualties are either not innocent or "collateral damage".
Darth,
I think the connotation of "track the garbage down" would mean those wot dunnit don't you agree. In order to "track" something one would have to have something to track....and thus after you follow the trail such as it is....and find hoof in dirt at the end of it....you have then found said "garbage". At that time....knowing where the hoof meets the dirt....you free their spirit and send them off to the Great Virgin Bonking in the sky.
I have no argument about ensuring only the garbage gets collected....that is as it should be. Done spot on target...no mercy, no quarter, no mistake, no statute of limitations and no drawn out trial.
Those we seek do not respect law, morality, ethics....and they shall not be converted by any argument....but with enough cordite on their turbaned heads....they will immediately understand the error of their ways. It will come to them in a flash. They will not hang around to hear the boom however!
I think the connotation of "track the garbage down" would mean those wot dunnit don't you agree. In order to "track" something one would have to have something to track....and thus after you follow the trail such as it is....and find hoof in dirt at the end of it....you have then found said "garbage". At that time....knowing where the hoof meets the dirt....you free their spirit and send them off to the Great Virgin Bonking in the sky.
I have no argument about ensuring only the garbage gets collected....that is as it should be. Done spot on target...no mercy, no quarter, no mistake, no statute of limitations and no drawn out trial.
Those we seek do not respect law, morality, ethics....and they shall not be converted by any argument....but with enough cordite on their turbaned heads....they will immediately understand the error of their ways. It will come to them in a flash. They will not hang around to hear the boom however!
"How would you deal with the killers of Maggie and those who so brutallly hack the heads off of innocent people and video tape the horrific crime for broadcast to the world?
Invite them down to cooperate with the investigation?"
Presumably your answer is simply to lock up and torture as many people as you can who fit broadly the same ethnic and religious profile, on the basis that: "Vey're all vuh fackin same, innit?"
Invite them down to cooperate with the investigation?"
Presumably your answer is simply to lock up and torture as many people as you can who fit broadly the same ethnic and religious profile, on the basis that: "Vey're all vuh fackin same, innit?"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a very young lad, I was given some advice (although I didn't appreciate it at the time)
A labourer is always worthy of his hire
Do to others as they would do to you
All is fair in love and war
Seemed to have got by on that
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle you own canoe!
A labourer is always worthy of his hire
Do to others as they would do to you
All is fair in love and war
Seemed to have got by on that
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle you own canoe!
Jacko....
How do you arrive at ethnicity and religion being the only criteria used? Can you state with precision the exact circumstances these four came into American hands? If those are the criteria used for detemining whether we snatch people from their homes....how come we have not scooped up millions and placed them into concentration camps in this country?
Does it strike you as odd....the very same government you accuse of such gross behaviour is the same government that investigates any kind of assault on those same kinds of people as being "Hate Crimes" which carry severe penalites?
Is it racial profiling for us to look for Arab/ Middle Eastern men from the ages of 17-42 as being potential hijackers?
Why are we body searching 70 year old white women and 5 year old blonde headed blue eyed children.....if the vast preponderance of hijackers that have attacked us in the past umpteen years have been Arab/Middle Eastern men in that age range?
We see the results of the Liberal dumbing down of our society in the amount of attacks that we have had in the past.
You and I have argued this before....if you and I stand in the park and I slap you in the face over and over a over....at what point do you reach up and grab my arm and stop me from striking you again? At some time you will...even the Liberal awakes to this at some point.
What is different here....they bomb us...they cut people's heads off....and it ain't Scandanavians doing it.
How do you arrive at ethnicity and religion being the only criteria used? Can you state with precision the exact circumstances these four came into American hands? If those are the criteria used for detemining whether we snatch people from their homes....how come we have not scooped up millions and placed them into concentration camps in this country?
Does it strike you as odd....the very same government you accuse of such gross behaviour is the same government that investigates any kind of assault on those same kinds of people as being "Hate Crimes" which carry severe penalites?
Is it racial profiling for us to look for Arab/ Middle Eastern men from the ages of 17-42 as being potential hijackers?
Why are we body searching 70 year old white women and 5 year old blonde headed blue eyed children.....if the vast preponderance of hijackers that have attacked us in the past umpteen years have been Arab/Middle Eastern men in that age range?
We see the results of the Liberal dumbing down of our society in the amount of attacks that we have had in the past.
You and I have argued this before....if you and I stand in the park and I slap you in the face over and over a over....at what point do you reach up and grab my arm and stop me from striking you again? At some time you will...even the Liberal awakes to this at some point.
What is different here....they bomb us...they cut people's heads off....and it ain't Scandanavians doing it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
Why only two choices?
Why also do those two choices have to be at the extremes of the spectrum?
It is that kind of "you are either with us or against us" limited thinking that is the biggest problem here. On both sides of the equation.
It is fundamentalism on both sides that is causing such grief for the normal people in the middle.
Murderous fundamentalists blow up WTC, Pentagon, Madrid trains, Bali nightclub etc.
The response is that murderous fundamentalists on the opposing side bomb, shoot, maim, torture their way through two soveriegn countries and counting.
This is not a conflict about who is right and who is wrong. It is turning into the same old story. Kill all those who either look, think or talk different to you.
Cheers
BHR
P.S. Sasless, If the 911 attacks were funded by Saudi money, carried out by Saudi nationals and ordered by a member of a wealthy and influential Saudi family, why has Afghanistan and Iraq been the targets?
Why only two choices?
Why also do those two choices have to be at the extremes of the spectrum?
It is that kind of "you are either with us or against us" limited thinking that is the biggest problem here. On both sides of the equation.
It is fundamentalism on both sides that is causing such grief for the normal people in the middle.
Murderous fundamentalists blow up WTC, Pentagon, Madrid trains, Bali nightclub etc.
The response is that murderous fundamentalists on the opposing side bomb, shoot, maim, torture their way through two soveriegn countries and counting.
This is not a conflict about who is right and who is wrong. It is turning into the same old story. Kill all those who either look, think or talk different to you.
Cheers
BHR
P.S. Sasless, If the 911 attacks were funded by Saudi money, carried out by Saudi nationals and ordered by a member of a wealthy and influential Saudi family, why has Afghanistan and Iraq been the targets?
"Is it racial profiling for us to look for Arab/ Middle Eastern men from the ages of 17-42 as being potential hijackers?"
Yes, it's racial profiling. And I'm all for it in that context. Look at them far more closely at airports than you'd look at anyone else. Give their bags extra scrutiny.
And I'm all for arresting people and questioning them.
What I'm against is keeping people detained without trial and without legal representation for extended periods, and with no evidence (beyond that extracted by torture). And I'm against torture.
And we have to see and recognise that it's a tiny minority of extremist Moslems who are guilty of even supporting Al Qaeda's war against the West, and that we cannot declare war on the whole of Moslem society because of them, any more than we'd have been right to imprison any catholic on the basis that most IRA members happened to be mackerel slappers too, or to imprison religious nutcases just because that description applied to McVeigh and Koresh. You and those on your side of the argument keep referring to the freed detainees as 'the enemy' and yet there is no proof that they are. Your suspicion of them, your miustrust of Muslims, does not make it true.
Some Jews in Germany in the 1920s probably had profiteered during the war. Some had probably been among the political groups that caused the collapse on the home front (thereby 'stabbing the brave soldiers in the back') just as Hitler claimed. A handful of people. But their actions were used to justify discrimination, imprisonment without trial, torture and eventually genocide.
If they're PoWs then extend them the protection of the Geneva convention and hold them for the duration, and then prosecute them for war crimes if you have the evidence.
If they're criminals then prosecute them and punish them.
But if they're not PoWs and you can't build a criminal case against them, then
you have to let them go.
We're supposed to be a civilised society. The ends don't justify the means.
Yes, it's racial profiling. And I'm all for it in that context. Look at them far more closely at airports than you'd look at anyone else. Give their bags extra scrutiny.
And I'm all for arresting people and questioning them.
What I'm against is keeping people detained without trial and without legal representation for extended periods, and with no evidence (beyond that extracted by torture). And I'm against torture.
And we have to see and recognise that it's a tiny minority of extremist Moslems who are guilty of even supporting Al Qaeda's war against the West, and that we cannot declare war on the whole of Moslem society because of them, any more than we'd have been right to imprison any catholic on the basis that most IRA members happened to be mackerel slappers too, or to imprison religious nutcases just because that description applied to McVeigh and Koresh. You and those on your side of the argument keep referring to the freed detainees as 'the enemy' and yet there is no proof that they are. Your suspicion of them, your miustrust of Muslims, does not make it true.
Some Jews in Germany in the 1920s probably had profiteered during the war. Some had probably been among the political groups that caused the collapse on the home front (thereby 'stabbing the brave soldiers in the back') just as Hitler claimed. A handful of people. But their actions were used to justify discrimination, imprisonment without trial, torture and eventually genocide.
If they're PoWs then extend them the protection of the Geneva convention and hold them for the duration, and then prosecute them for war crimes if you have the evidence.
If they're criminals then prosecute them and punish them.
But if they're not PoWs and you can't build a criminal case against them, then
you have to let them go.
We're supposed to be a civilised society. The ends don't justify the means.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Quote
"Yes, it's racial profiling. And I'm all for it in that context. Look at them far more closely at airports than you'd look at anyone else. Give their bags extra scrutiny. And I'm all for arresting people and questioning them. "
Enoch Powell was right - despite what you say - had we heeded his advice, we would probably not be in the situation we are in now.
Moreover, had he become Prime Minister, this country would have become Great again
Youngest General ever in the Army, spoke about 12 languages, fluent in 5 - translated Homer - never done before - MP for most of his life - made an honest statement (Rivers of blood speech) which has now proved correct and he was banished to the wilderness (Northern Ireland)
I think his Brummy accent let him down
As Jacko suggests, a good day out if you are bored
Walk around a London airport and try to spot the terrorist
You will not be spoilt for choice
Quote
"Yes, it's racial profiling. And I'm all for it in that context. Look at them far more closely at airports than you'd look at anyone else. Give their bags extra scrutiny. And I'm all for arresting people and questioning them. "
Enoch Powell was right - despite what you say - had we heeded his advice, we would probably not be in the situation we are in now.
Moreover, had he become Prime Minister, this country would have become Great again
Youngest General ever in the Army, spoke about 12 languages, fluent in 5 - translated Homer - never done before - MP for most of his life - made an honest statement (Rivers of blood speech) which has now proved correct and he was banished to the wilderness (Northern Ireland)
I think his Brummy accent let him down
As Jacko suggests, a good day out if you are bored
Walk around a London airport and try to spot the terrorist
You will not be spoilt for choice