Britain on its knees, with a human rights noose round its neck

Worried

It's simple, we've been bought. I was on Regent's Street the other day, and after visiting the amazing very untacky Apple store, came across what I assume is fairly new, the Ferrari store. Probably the most tacky overpriced embarrassing establishment I have ever visited other than a specific art gallery in Carmel, California.

Anyway, each and every tacky overpriced Ferrari branded fluffy toy, keyring, remote control toy Farrari etc had a price tag attached.

The writing was in Arabic and English, only.

Period.

I rest my case.

expatriate

The first civilian trial of a Jihadi terrorist in the USA has just produced a shocking verdict: acquittal on all but 1 of several hundred charges. The undisputed guilt of the person being tried made no difference. In order to protect intelligence sources, a major witness could not be called. Perversions of human rights law are alive and well and producing mayhem all over the Western world, not only in the U.K. When will this nonsense stop? How long will the populace endure this?
The jihadi murderers in Britain will be awarded sums larger than many working people earn during a lifetime. Working people's taxes will have to pay for all this. What a travesty of justice! The British people should call for the resignation of David Cameron and the immediate deportation of all terrorist suspects to their countries of origin together with their family members no matter what the country of origin. Withdraw from EU human rights laws.....if not legally feasible then quit the EU altogether. Enough is enough is enough!

Roy

Further proof of the puerile and witless doings of the present government in the face of a simple decision that millions would be only too free to tell the minister what to do. It is disgusting and shameful.

Frank P

Is Melanie right in each of the above assertions? Yes.

d1carter

Insanity...

ScotlandForever

Torture is torture and should be shunned by the west. Water boarding is torture - those three cases should never have been permitted. Even now Barry should close Guantanamo & denounce the act of torture.

Guantanamo was a colossal mistake by the US. Most recently the show trial of Omar Kadr demonstrated what a worthless exercise it was. Such misbehaviour does nothing improve the West's security; indeed it undermines it by eroding our clear moral superiority.

The west needs to demonstrate its willingness to defend itself by attacking and killing the bad guys. It needs to demonstrate the superiority of its institutions by refusing to give in to expediency such as torture or denying POW rights to captured enemy on specious legalist grounds. Lastly it needs to stop wasting its money, soldiers and energy occupying and remodelling corrupt societies such as Iraq and Afganistan.

You are so right when you fault Britain in this case. Britain's refusal to defend itself & to put limits on daft HR rules, is undermining our morale and the quality of life for our ciitzens. I would far sooner see Britain spend ten times as much to defend this action - one doubts how the scruff would have had the funds to make the action, unless of course we were paying for their briefs.

jarwill101

There is nothing more lethal than a white neoliberal. They, their policies, & their obsession with the 'human rights' of everybody, bar the British people, are gutting us from the inside. They have created a socially-engineered, seething quagmire in the UK.
An inverted madhouse which they, of course, float high above on the clouds of moral superiority: up there where the cultural Marxist air is 100% hallucinogenic.

Robbo

It's called 'dhimmitude'. I prefer to call it 'treason'.

Austin Barry

The image isn't quite right.

We're on our knees in an orange jumpsuit, but that's not a human rights noose at our neck, rather it's the slicing arc of an Islamic scimiter terrifying our leaders into paying the jizya - and pretending that it's for any reason other than their sheer abject cowardice.

Simon

jarwill101

Couldn't agree more

Ray

As the French discovered in Algeria, even leaving aside its moral aspects, torture is both wrong and counter-productive.

1) Suspects will often babble anything in their desperation to relieve the extreme agony of the torture session. Therefore, from having little, if any intelligence to go on the authorities can suddenly find themselves deluged in it; some of it true, some of it not. But how to tell one from the other?

2) Whatever mental and physical scars tortured suspects are left with, torture also has a habit of psychologically scarring those who administer the torture as well. Notwithstanding the sheer numbers involved, one no less pressing reason why Himmler expedited into service the use of gas chambers to liquidate the Nazis' racial foes (as well as press-ganged concentration camp prisoners to undertake the distasteful business of actually retrieving and disposing of the bodies) was the dawning realisation that even hardened SS thugs have mental breaking points.

3) However many terrorists may be successfully apprehended as a result of information derived through torture, their numbers are invariably more than swelled by new recruits swept up in the general outrage such tactics occasion amongst what may have been a previously passive population.

4) Likewise, the international outrage that torture occasions often results in a catastrophic loss of moral authority on the part of the nation doing the torturing. Thanks in part to the policy of torture tacitly approved by General Jacques Massu, the French resoundingly won the infamous Battle of Algiers in 1957. However, the revelations that surfaced thereafter ultimately would doom the cause of Algerie Francaise, both in France and overseas.

Nicholas

I think water-boarding is undoubtedly "torture" in the strict sense of the word. However, I'd rather be water-boarded as a terrorist suspect than have my head slowly sawn off with a sharp knife for being of the wrong race and religion and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

tiki

Dumb & Dumber.....the West is paying for it's own down fall. What those 'Human Rights idiots and all those Liberal Lefties don't get is, that when their
'services are no longer needed, the'll be disposed of, as the rest of the West.

Todmorton

Perhaps this article on ConservativeHome http://bit.ly/cuNtAF goes some way towards explaining our attitude towards Islamic terrorism.

If you can't beat them.......

phil

It looks like I took up the wrong profession ,being a jihadi seems to pay a better rate than I earned -we are now living with Alice, in wonderland .Get rid of the HR ,WE ARE A MORAL ENOUGH NATION TO BEHAVE IN A PROPER WAY WITHOUT THIS LEGISLATION .We never hear of anything good coming out of it ,only the stories of how we as a people are being abused .I believe we should just say no to the law ,refuse to pay anything and see what the other side can do about it ,it might just bring this nonsense to a head .

steve

If water boarding isn't torture then why was it used so rarely by the Bush administration? Why did the US after World War 2 prosecute Japanese soldiers for using water boarding on Americans? You're not even accurate in saying that water boarding was done at Guantanamo. Try doing a little more research. Ask Christopher Hitchens, who has been water boarded, whether he thinks it is torture. If you think torture is a legitimate tool to be used by states then have the courage to say so but don't try to pretend it is not torture.

Derek Pasquill

Jizya.

AF

Melanie so right,
but after our collective outrage comes our frustration,what on earth can be done to convince our political masters to alter course and listen to the people,
and there's little choice no matter who you vote for,what can we do to save this country.l truely weep for my grandchildrens future in this beloved country

Simon

Some years ago the BBC ran an interesting series called "Wars of Empire" which looked at four of the campaigns fought by the British during the last years of Empire from 1945 to the 1960s. One episode dealt with the insurgency the British faced in Palestine in the immediate aftermath. Whether the insurgents were terrorists or freedom fighters is a matter of opinion but they were unquestionably ruthless quite prepared to take hostages and kill them if neccesary. Two incidents stand out - the bombing of the King David hotel which killed nearly one hundred people and the murder of two British sergeants abducted and held hostage against the lives of two insuregents sentenced to death by the British authorities. Incidentally the bodies of the two soldiers, left hanging from a tree, were booby trapped so when British troops tried to recover the corpses a bomb was set off.
My point is this - would the British Army have been justified in using torture to either find the captured sergeants or to prevent the hotel bombing? Miss Philips appears to defend the use of torture or at the very least to be ambivalent about it. Tbis is an interesting contrast to her position in 2003 when she described torture as an unqualified evil.
Waterboarding was used by German interrogators in World War Two. After the war Allied war crimes investigators considered this practice to have been torture and to have constituted a breach of the laws of war. Does Miss Philips believe them to have been wrong in this opinion? Waterboarding is either torture or it is not. Moreover if waterboarding is justified when used today in the "war on terror" would it have been justified if used by British troops against Jewish insurgents in Palestine in 1946? What limits would Miss Philips place on the interrogation of suspects? In some states interrogators have threatened or indeed actually harmed innocent family members in order to extract information from suspects. Would Miss Philips find this aceptable as "the lesser evil". Incidentally I believe Miss Philips could do worse than consult her own paper and read the excellent column by Sir Max Hastings, published in the Daliy Mail on November 17th. His conclusion that the torture of terrorist suspects has done nothing to help the west and indeed has been counterproductive surely deserves respect. In particular he makes the point that Nazi Germany, which used torture as a matter of routine, was far less successful in terms of intelligence gathering than the allies.

Fabio P.Barbieri

What scares me is how many people are willing to defend torture and still consider themselves civilized. And yes, Melanie, that includes you. Any definition of torture that excludes waterboarding (and other charming practices such as sleep deprivation FOR UP TO A WEEK - you try it!) is damned sophistry of the most shysterish kind. These trials collapsed because no justice system worth the name should be built on criminal practices such as torture. End of argument.

Peter Smeaton

Never in the history of the British Nation has so much been thrown away by so few.

Andy Gill

The alleged torture was not carried out in Britain, nor was it carried out by British government representatives.

Leaving aside Gitmo, what about Pakistan and Morocco who supposedly carried out the torture.

Are human rights lawyers chasing these governments for compensation? Not bloody likely, they know their clients would be exposed.

Harold

Britain will not survive as a liberal democracy if it is not allowed to waterboard kidnapped suspects. A liberal democracy.

"We" must also curb free speech for those we disagree with or find offensive.

And waterboarding isn't torture (I am not clear what does then count as torture).

To repeat faithfully and with apparent fervour the excuses of power soon shreds credibility.

To exonerate kidnap, torture, and killing in the name of the rule of law...

phil

Simon
November 18th, 2010 10:47am The question of the use of torture is one about which we all have differing views ,I suspect if your "sisters" life could be saved by torturing her kidnapper ,you may have a very different opinion ,what I must take up is your relaying of history ,which although partly factual is so one sided as to be almost an extract from a David Irving "novel"-
------------------------
The events you described did take place ,but certainly not in the way you wrote .May I suggest you take another look at sites with a different description of what really happened ,because what perhaps you may prefer to believe is very far from the truth.The whole period of the mandate was a tragedy for all involved ,many on the Jewish side were survivors of the Holocaust ,some hot headed no doubt and most saw the Holocaust happening again if the remnants of the Jewish people were not allowed access to the only place that offered them a chance to start again .Watch the film Exodus and you may get a flavour of what was going on in a very different time to now
-------------------------
The loss of life in the King David Hotel was not planned ,history has shown it was an accident and warnings were ignored even though the "terrorists" certainly intended to blow up the hotel but not to injure anyone ,The case of the sergeants and the prisoners did deserve more than you wrote ,and was far more complicated than the way you put it ,nevertheless it was a tragedy of enormous proportion .I mourn the loss of life of all the people involved .

MikeW

Guantanamo was a huge mistake, if you're going to whisk away "suspects" into a camp, detain them without trial for years while torturing them then it's far better to do it in secret.

I bet mel hasn't been waterboarded despite pontificating about it and brushing it off as a mere jape.

Perhaps Mel would reconsider her position on torture and detention without trial for years on end if it were israeli suspects.

Rose

This is a vintage post, Mel.

Fantastic.

I wish this had been in the Mail. They used Max Hastings instead. Oh, well. At least you're in there today on Dave's hagiography entourage.

Back to the point. As ever, we have seen Shami Chakrabarti treated with disgraceful deference by the MSM all this week about this issue.

Just because she is a self-styled 'expert' on human rights, it doesn't mean she doesn't have an agenda of her own.

Finally, I learn from the Biased BBC website that Shami was put up against someone normal this week to debate.

Normally broadcasters stage things for her by giving her an opponent who chats for a bit only for the chair to wait for the moment to inteject and say 'yes, and you also believe the earth is flat' - and Shami is made to look like the sane one.

Isn't the MSM clever like that!

That said, although the BBC did let someone normal near Shami, they made sure it was only on the obscurity of radio:

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/10/times-changing.html

Did anyone hear it?

john

This will only cease when the British citizen recognizes he/she is being played for a patsy and the British public takes matters into their own hands and throws the suckers who pretend that they are our betters and governors are thrown out on their necks. The Social Contract is being broken, trust between the governed and the government is at an all time low. You can fool some of the people etc...etc...We are very close to a Revolution. Those who think their Revolution is close at hand and the Gates of Paradise are about to open will find instead that the Gates of Hell will let loose all manner of Monsters. They will live to regret it.

Neil Craig

The BBC simply, yet agasin disply their hypocrisy in the massive coverage they have given to this "torture" of 3 terrorists.

By that standard if they were in any way honest they would have given gundreds of thousands of times nore coverage to the dissection of 1300 innocent people, while still alive by NATO commanded "police" in Kosovo to sell their body organs to western hospitals. If the BBC were as much as 0.001% honest they would have given equal coverage. Obviously they do not remotely approach that level of integrity. I assume that our courts & the European fraud do not accept that human rights rules apply to Serbs under our government's "protection". Not the first european regime to hold such views.

DougS

I wonder how they'll spend their windfall millions?

We'll probably be paying for some of our fellow citizens to be blown to bits

phil

MikeW
November 18th, 2010 12:53pm
"""Perhaps Mel would reconsider her position on torture and detention without trial for years on end if it were israeli suspects."""
----
Can you think of even one who has given this country cause for concern in the context of what you have written -I doubt if you are ever scared by the sight of an Israeli,a Rabbi or a Jewish guy with a beard ,or do I mistake your sense of humour ?

Dean

Melanie Philips is right again, but what does she want us to do about it? Does she endorse UKIP? the tories? EDL? BNP? (Sorry, joking there)
What use is description without prescription?

Raymond Douglas

And we are suffering cuts for our mad rulers to hand over our cash like this ? Mad , mad, mad.

William MacDougall

Britain got into this position by being complicit in torture, and the failure to defend itself is a clear admission of guilt. Of course it should pay compensation to its victims... Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that any lives were saved by the abuse, and a lot of anecdotal evidence that the abuse has helped recruit terrorists and thus increased terrorism.

Another John.

Simon: It has been stated that the interrogations in question have saved many lives as a result of terrorists plans to blow us up in various places having been intercepted. Paying proven terrorista enormous sums however can only encourage such people to continue their activities with apparent impunity.

Simon

Phil's response to my earlier post was interesting. He describes the loss of life in the king david hotel as an accident. This is an extraordinary comment. Menachem Begin and his colleagues did not "accidentally" plant the bombs in the hotel. They did so quite deliberately and in so doing they, at the very least, placed the lives of the people within the hotel in grave danger.Phil goes on to claim that "history has shown" that warnings were ignored. He must realise that this is a highly contested point with some sources maintaining that the warnings were either sent too late to be acted upon in time or sent to people who were not in a position to immediately ordder an evacuation. In any event is it seriously suggested that those who planted the bombs bear no responsibility for the subsuquent loss of life - which included seventeen Palestinian Jews by the way.
I'm reminded of a bombing carried out by the Provisional IRA back in the 1980s. The loss of civilian life was severe and there was a significant public backlash against the Republicans. In an attempt to repair the politicL damage Sinn Fein spokesmen claimed that warnings had been sent but the authorities had failed to act in time. Does Phil believe that this absolves them from any moral responsibility for the subsuquent loss of life.
As for the case of Sergeant Paice and Sergeant Martin I'm not quite sure what Phil means when he talks of the situation being complicated. The wo men were abducted and held by elements of the Jewish underground. They were hostages held against the lives of Haviv, Weiss and Hakar. When the latter were executed by the British authorities Paice and Martin were hanged by their captors and their bodies booby-trapped. It is noticebale that Phil does not answer the question that I posed in my post. Does he think the British army would have been justified in using torture to save the two sergeants and to prevent the bombing of the King David hotel?
As far as the use of torture is concerned we have the same old argument "What if it was your sister/child/wife etc whose life was at stake. There are I think a number of responses to this. First, torture is unlawful. It is prohibited both by domestic law, certainly in western democracies and indeed under the US constitution, and in international law. Does Phil believe that we should withdraw from the UN Convention that outlaws torture? Moreover if Melanie Philips believes waterboarding is not a form of torture she should perhaps discuss this point with the writer Christopher Hitchens who underwent the procedure as a volunteer, endured it for five seconds, and unequivocally declared it to be a form of torture. Does Phil believe that the law should be changed and the US constitution amended to allow torture and if so in what circumstances?
There is in any case much wisdom in my view in the old saying that "hard cases make bad law". The formal outlawing of torture by the western democracies at least represnts, I think, an important step on the way to a more civilised society. To reverse that process and embrace what is a loathsome practice would be an appallingly retrograde step. In any case the old argument "how would you feel if...." is completely circular. At least two people who lost relatives on 7/7 have come out in support of former President Bush's position on torture - or "enhanced interrogation techniques" which sounds like weasel words to me. Their feelings are understandable but it would also be understandable for, say, an Afghan who lost his family in a NATO air strike to want to seek revenge by becoming a suicide bomber. It would not however make him right.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Dean: to some extent, a fair point. But: before you can even start trying to find solutions you've got to fully accept that there is a problem. We're nowhere near that point yet as a society.

And solutions are elusive because much of the multiculti moral relativist human rights quagmire we're stuck in is part of a deliberate one-way poison pill strategy by the society hating element of the left - this orchestrated by a relatively small number of real evil bastards, and made possible by an army of useful idiots.

In a sad kind of way, you've got to admire their effeciency. But their methods and the fact that they've got nothing remotely palatable to replace our lost society or place in the world with are rather less than admirable.

John Steadman

And almost as disturbing as this cowardly and spineless outrage Melanie Phillips describes, is the near absence of any significant protest.

Daibhidh

I thank God that I have no continuing city in this rationally unhinged world.

phil

Simon
November 18th, 2010 3:58pm Do you not see it as rather ignorant to address others using my name ?,I did address you directly !! You appear to be one of those who looks the other way when talking,not someone who inspires trust,
---
Of course those who planned the mission and planted the bomb were responsible ,your bigoted response suggests any reasonable person would think otherwise .
--
Like others before you who wish to cause trouble you bring up the question of the sergeants as if the Jewish people wished to be involved in such an atrocity -I will merely quote from the times -"-The Board of Deputies of British Jews voiced Anglo-Jewry's 'detestation and horror at the appalling crime committed against innocent British soldiers' and the Anglo-Jewish Association branded the Irgun action as 'a barbarous act of a kind peculiarly repugnant to civilised man.' Similar criticism poured in from all sections of Anglo-Jewry, including the Association of Jewish Ex-Service Men and Women who condemned outright the murder by terrorists of the two Army sergeants" ----That is enough on this terrible subject Simon .now keep your anti -Semitic remarks to yourself ,but if you have to speak again you may like to address what I said earlier that from 1940-1945 only 75000 Jews were allowed to enter the mandate ,whilst six million were being slaughtered in Europe with the encouragement of the grand mufti in the bunker with hitler ,can you possibly understand what drove the "terrorists" to lose control -a control the real Jewish authorities never lost .Your cover is blown Simon .
------
Finally I WILL PROVIDE YOUR OWN WORDS on the dilemma I posed to you and which the readers will note you have dodged ---As far as the use of torture is concerned we have the same old argument "What if it was your sister/child/wife etc whose life was at stake. There are I think a number of responses to this. First, torture is unlawful. It is prohibited both by domestic law, certainly in western democracies and indeed under the US constitution, and in international law.--" I commend your ability with cut and paste but I will ask again Simon what would you have done ?

Dagobert

Why is torture, subjecting a person to pain for a limited period of time, morally reprehensible but the killing and maiming for life of women and children by bombs acceptable?

PF

I support torture.

Anyone that seeks to harm this country and murder its people should be tortured if that will save lives.

Torture may not always reveal life-saving information but sometimes it does. If it saves one person, then it is worth torturing whole battalions of the enemy.

I support torture to the extent that it does work because, unlike some, I put real suffering before fashionable self-righteousness and the factitious narcissism of “moral purity”.

To those who think we shouldn’t torture because otherwise we become no better than our enemies, I say, you do not believe in the West and have sold out already.

davvers

As a nation we are steadily becoming more multicultural/ liberal and generally weak that any respect for us as a major power will be virtually gone within a generation and we will finally be ruled by our multicultural politically correct police with all dissenters having been sent to corrective centres ( where I hope they will not have water boarding)

CyN

Melanie, you draw parallels with the UK's jailing of Germans POWs without trail during WWII and how that couldn't happen in today's human-rights-sodden world. But there is an important difference you did not highlight. There is no question that the UK had the right to lock enemy combatants up and that they were then protected by the Geneva Convention. In the case of Guantanamo Bay, however, the Bush administration explicitly refused to accept that the detainees were covered by the convention.

As for torture, one of the strongest arguments against it is that intelligence gained through torture is inheritantly unreliable. One only has to look at the recent case of the Chinese man (last year I think) who had admitted under torture that he had murdered his wife and was only spared the death penalty and freed when his wife came forward and admitted that she had in fact run away from her husband. If you torture a person, they will eventual tell you what they think you want to hear in order to make you stop. I have never been subjected to or witnessed waterboarding and so have no clue whether it is "real" torture or lies in some coersive grey area. But I do know that torture is wrong and anything approaching it must be viewed with deep suspicion.

And having said all that, I think this multi-million payout stinks.

Celato

Phil:

The trouble with the sister/child/wife scenario is that it asks a desperate person to make a decision which could come to haunt them.

Suppose, for example, that you agree to let a torturer apply electric shocks to a suspect's testicles on the basis of an assurance that this will reveal the whereabouts of your loved one. It later transpires that the suspect didn't have a clue about the kidnap - he's just an innocent bloke with a wife/child/sister.

OK, so a terrible mistake was made - but it all came down to you (or Simon, or me) giving the go-ahead when we weren't in any position (and in no fit mental state) to know all the facts.

That's one reason why civilised countries don't allow situations like this to happen.

Another weakness of the scenario is this:

My idea of what is an 'acceptable' level of torture may well be to inflict unbearable pain. You might think an hour or two of waterboarding is the limit, while Simon starts to go queasy at the thought of a kidney punch.

Does that make us all equally right/wrong morally?

If none of this makes sense, try looking at it this way:

How would you feel if my child was kidnapped and someone wrongly accused YOU of being part of the plot? As you stand there in your cell, the prison guard turns to me and says,'Just give me the go-ahead, and I'll tear his toenails out.'

I give the thumbs-up.

Are you honestly going to tell me, 'Yeah, fair enough, I fully understand'...?

C.Geec

Harold:

Harold:

“To exonerate kidnap, torture, and killing in the name of the rule of law...”

You are among those who consistently exonerate kidnap, torture, and killing in the name of resistance to occupation. But thank you for the ellipsis in place of your unspeakable self-righteousness.

For a state to capture, detain, interrogate and execute an enemy is the rule of law. The issue before us is what specific state actions in self-defense should be legal, where to draw the line. The “torture-is-torture” crowd are question-begging nincompoops. Line drawing is not possible with liberal absolutists, who must, by their own fetishizing logic, conclude that humans being humans, rights being rights and torture being torture, war is illegal, criminal detention in prison is illegal and all state violence - not to mention the state itself - should be banned.

As Melanie Phillips said, with a minor change: so does liberal society disappear up its own fundamentalism.

Graeme Thompson

We're at war, all Cameron had to do to halt a trial was invoke national security, why didn't he do it?

Melanie, we need a new political formation in this country if we're going to survive,and you are the one to lead it.

An 'Independent Democratic Party' could draw conservative support from across the democratic spectrum, left, right and centre.

Graeme Thompson

Simon
November 18th, 2010 10:47am

Simon, I agree with you 100%, waterboarding is torture. I disagree with you 100%, torture works. Just ask Christopher Hitchens, he changed his mind about waterboarding not being tortured, and said within seconds he would have told anyone anything they wanted to know to make it stop. Simon, torture works.

I once heard an expert interviewed on Radio 4 about torture. He said that in WWII a British torture centre was brought to Winston Churchill's attention. The information it got was so critical that he let it continue.

Winning the War on Terror is so critical we must use torture.

phil

Celato
November 18th, 2010 10:28pm My main purpose was not the discussion on torture ,much of what you say shows the dilemma that we all face and I do not know the answer .My purpose was to show what a cynical ruse Simon used to send his message ,and not for the first time if memory serves me right .He twisted the truth on a most heart rending subject for his own ends .My main thoughts are that we are a fantastic nation and one who can sort out our problems without the HR issue that only seems to work on behalf of criminals whilst exposing we innocents to problem after problem .Simon exploits any nook and cranny he can find ,cuts and pastes from sites that suit his purpose and then engages us on torture -I wonder whether he really cares ,or is it just another ruse to stir up trouble ?You may notice he did not reply

phil

I think I should have said earlier that when discussing torture ,I am against it ,if it is to extract a confession ,but if it is used to find out the targets for an attack that will kill thousands ,that may be another matter .A confession can be denied and be useless ,the site of an attack may be a lie but if it is true is invaluable ,if it is not true ????.I am sure also that I am not the only one who wonders what sort of person is being held by the security services ,it surely is not the man on the Clapham omnibus,nor a family going to a barmitzvah in Afghanistan!!

Harold

C.Geec
November 18th, 2010 11:06pm
And still you attempt to rile. Quite how it gives you your "purpose" in life I do not know.

pterodactyl

Re ‘We are very close to a revolution’
The treacherous politicians handing £30 over to our enemies to make them millionaires know that the consequences of acts of treachery such as this will not cause a revolution - it will hardly even cost them any votes at the next election.

phil

C.Geec
November 18th, 2010 11:06pm How can you expect to knock any sense into harold who is determined it should not happen -he is from the same school as simon except that harold comes back to face the music ,simon appears to have disappeared up his ,well as you say :)

Pantsonfire

Yes Mel, how can waterboarding be torture if snowboarding is a sport?

lucien

the jihadist handbook is clear.If you are caught after plotting or committing an atrocity against the imperialist infidel, the first thing you do is shout TORTURE at your useful human rights lawyer. HE will then contact the western liberal press who will soon transform you from a reviled murderer into a freedom fighter and the killing and maiming will be forgotten. Authors will write books to praise and defend you and they will be sold at fashionable bookstores in islington etc to the socialists de salon.
ever since jacques verges turned Djamila Bouhired a woman who murdered 50+ children in an Algerian milk bar, into a heroine of the french liberal left , it has been so.
In the end all charges will be dropped and you will be rewarded with fame and money.

Eugene

Absolutely true. Spengler comes to mind as Britain's slowly turning into a caliphate.

tommy

You dont hear of victims of torture suing for compensation in islamic countries. where Torture is widely practised it is acceptable in those countries the reason being that mohammed used it regularly both as punishment and to procure information.and anything that mohammed did is OK
after all he is the best example for mankind to follow.

pterodactyl

AF says: "what on earth can be done to convince our political masters to alter course and listen to the people, and there's little choice no matter who you vote for.”

- We have full representative democracy and at the last election the people spoke and they said 'Con/Lab/Lib'. I cannot understand why you say 'there's little choice no matter who you vote for' as there were other parties to choose, it is just that the voters spurned them.

Expatriate says: "When will this nonsense stop? How long will the populace endure this?"
- they will have to endure it until they are prepared to change their voting habits (unlikely as they are voting on envy and spite so why would that change?) Of course, once we no longer have democracy, this option will be withdrawn, but it was still available at the last election and it will still be available at the next.

John says: "We are very close to a Revolution"
I do not think so. The voters know full well what our politicians stand for (crime, EU, high immigration) and although they disagree with them, they have not yet been moved to the stage of disagreement where more than about 5-10% will vote for other parties that do not stand for these things.

J D Bryan

This seems part and parcel of the Hard Lefts' war against the west.

The Saltire

Scotland Forever - Waterboarding is not torture! It's a bit harsh and uncomnfortable, but they're OK later. No lasting effects.

Until very recently, waterboarding was part of the the tests that some young college pledges had to undergo during pledge week to get into the fraternity of their choice.

It's no big deal. And certainly not worth getting international knickers in a twist about.

Waterboarding shows you what wimps the islamics are. Frat boys were up and out on a date a few hours after undergoing the waterboarding test.

The Saltire

I'll give you that being forced to listen to Paul Abdul at top volume for 14 hours at a time could fairly be classified as torture.

Being forced to wear women's panties on your head no. Waterboarding, no. Being brushed against the leg by a member of the canine patrol, no.

Far from being hardy and bold, the sons of the prophet are wimps.

Nice stuff

Let me get this right. MP would reject all human rights conventions, and believes(almost?) anything including torture can be okay.

Oh yes, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moral degenerate.

Nice stuff.

nelson

Simple Simon says.....Miss Philips appears to defend the use of torture or at the very least to be ambivalent about it.

Great moral stance SS but I doubt ur attitude would be the same if it were ur loved that could be saved

American Wisdom

Ok. Now let some enterprising Brits sue the pants off of these militants for a myriad of ills committed against their nation. The government should confiscate the money for services rendered in defense of the kingdom against the defendant's treason.