Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Fred

And a few other Labour MPs, plus Nick Clegg.

Diane Abbot sent her son to City of London Public School near St Pauls.

Tony Benn went to Westminster

15 per cent of Labour MPs went to private schools. This compares to just seven per cent of people in the country at large.

I like what Churhill said about De Gaulle: -

" He was the perfect gentleman - He never upset anyone by accident"

Let's see how fred will twist his reply or ignore it by changing the subject by replying with another question.

Why not.

What is wrong with those schools?


Perhaps, it is just the problems with some of the products they turn out.

Some schools just seem to have too many Friday afternoons.

Shouldn't you boys be in bed by now, or have you been given Cameron's latest brilliant ideas for escaping responsibility.

Perhaps your preps are to cost out the implementation of the latest reforms.

Risible!

I can see why he is going to China. I hope they keep him there.

By the way, is he going to Kowtow all the way to the restaurant.

David Noakes sounds like a diligent intelligent researcher and I am grateful to him for drawing to our attention the machinations of the Evil Empire.

"Some schools just seem to have too many Friday afternoons."

What is he talking about ?



"he was an ardent Europhile. As was Churchill."

History was not Fred's best subject at school

.

I know that , but why would anybody other then Fred apply it to school's ?

.

"Fred is being economical with his language"

Blimey. There's a first!

I know and expect many people who read this will disagree.

The UK at least on the surface have stated that they are totally against torture.
Whilst some tortures should not be accepted, I feel that under certain circumstances some tortures (I will not be mealy mouthed and call it methods) should be both allowed and used.
Water boarding, deprivation of light/dark and sleep, white noise and certain drugs should be used.
As long as there is evidence that the subjects of these interrogation methods are terrorists and mean harm then I would condone them.
We are not dealing with Boy Scouts here, we are dealing with people who want to commit as much harm, death and distress to as many people as possible. If some degree of torture will save lives, then so be it. Terrorists loose many of their human rights by there actions or intended actions.

I remember a film of years ago (Can't remember the name of the film).
A family were on an aircraft when it was found that a terrorist who was also on board, had secreted a bomb that was fitted with a timer. The usual followed with a search of the aircraft. This search failed to find the bomb. A passenger, I think he was a member of the armed forces, who as traveling with his wife and daughter, persuaded the captain that he should be allowed to 'Question' the terrorist. He obviously would not talk. This soldier then produced a pocket knife (obviously well before all the new security issues) and threatened to push it into the terrorists eye. As he still refused to talk, the soldier pushed the knife into the terrorists eyeball. When the same threat was made to do the same to the other eye, the terrorists became fully co-operative. the bomb was found, defused and several hundred lives were saved.
Was the actions of the soldier justified, Not in law, but morally, YES.
If you had been that soldier traveling with your family, what would you have done.

We expect the security forces to protect us and play hell when things go wrong, and yet we expect them to interrogate terrorists with kid gloves, putting them under very low levels of stress.
Talk to most people and privately they would condone certain tortures, but publicly they are worried about being condemned as being evil.
Just wait until the next mass murder in either the UK or the USA. There will be the usual screams of 'What went wrong', 'why didn't the security services act on information they knew about'.

Two wrongs obviously don't make a right, but it may save lives.

Terrorists have far too many human rights, and the Human Rights Act must be an even more valuable weapon to them, than both the bullet and bomb.

No doubt someone will post that, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. Well to me that won't wash. If someone wants to kill me or my family they are terrorist, full stop.

Torture for tortures sake is wrong, but if it saves lives, surely sometimes it must be justified.

I am also not advocating any actions directed at any particular, race or creed. A terrorist of any nationality is a terrorist.

I hope this post is not looked at as being against the rules of the bulletin boards, as only this morning George Bush publicly defended some tortures. No doubt if the subject was discussed openly the results would surprise many people.

.

He spend's most of his time being economical with the truth and the only picture he is drawing is of his surreal and twisted view of other people's posted view's , and if that is your Idea of fun then you must have a very warped sense of humour .

Greek,

==============

"No doubt someone will post that, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'. Well to me that won't wash. If someone wants to kill me or my family they are terrorist, full stop."
=====================


Perhaps, why many American and British soldiers were tortured for information in Iraq and Afghanistan and then later killed.

I have to admit I think in some situations, probaly, I would transgress what I think should be universal standards. That is I might use "brute" force.

However, it is "said" the reliability of information gained by "torture" is in general unreliable.


Another problem, is the assumption those being tortured are guilty without "trial" and "sentence".

I would hate for my children to be taken off the street by the police, and assumed to be guilty because of association or by the presumption of the arresting officers.

I think with all its limitations I do not like those lines being crossed.


Go back to the Japanese treatment of British, American (as well as other countries) prisoners of war .


In their culture those actions were justified.

I hope we don't descend to that level again.

It is easy to get use to using violence and be desensitised to make it common practice.

I agree with most of what Fred say's in his post , but in the case of a bomb about to kill 100's quick physical torture I would agree with but in other case's non physical interrogation is more effective.

Fred,

Will break my own rule and reply to your post.

1 Soldiers in war don't usually have a choice, they have to 'fight' for their country. Terrorists have a choice.

2 In no way did I advocate taking people off the street without substantial evidence against them. Our security forces know who most of them are.

3 Information obtained by torture obviously can be unreliable, but such information often leads to evidence.

4 The torture of our forces in Afghanistan/Iraq is of course wrong, the same as torture against their troops. Soldiers of most countries are just that soldiers. It is very rarely that a country is totally akin to terrorism, even countries such as North Korea or our next present danger Iran.

I am not saying that torture is right. But only that sometimes to do right is to leave yourself at the mercy of those that do wrong. Justification sometimes has to play a main role.

As to brute force. Where does brute force become torture. It is a fine line, I think you will agree.

If your response to the above is argued as per relevant points I will have no problem coming back to you, but if as usual you reply in terms that do not relate, then I won't.

Regards Greek.

AlDs,

I don't think anybody is a lost cause.

Therefore I suggest you review Churchill's biographies and thoughts on Europe following the end of WW2.

Those thoughts may surprise you.

In many ways his views on the British Empire appalled me, but I have to remember that he was a man of his past and "period". In that context although outdated his views were not abnormal.

One of the problems Churchill had with Roosevelt and Americans, was his attitudes and ideas for the future of "The Empire", however he was in favour of a more integrated Europe and not a Francophobe.

==================


N,

Thanks again. I am glad somebody is alert at the back of the class.

8-)

Isn't it better when they play the ball and not the man don't you think.

Shut up Stan you Idiot , lol.

So he trusted the French ? or did he want an integrated Europe what out them . If he were alive today his view on Europe would be the same has Thatcher.