Reply to: We shall fight them on the beaches....

[Bob Dalek]

I think not you'll find. You're inferring that yourself.

I was merely pointing out that Churchill was quite prepared to order the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. His criteria for that was shortening the war by 1 year. This is somewhat different to "well it's just a bit like tear gas". I think the mortality rate of mustard gas is a few orders of magnitude higher.

There is a body of opinion that the only reason this didn't happen was because we couldn't make the chemical weapons quickly enough. He certainly moved from the idea of using chemical weapons in a retaliatory manner to using them in an offensive manner.

I think, given the times, it is likely this wouldn't have bothered many. It would probably have been viewed as a necessary evil.

Churchill was a brilliant wartime leader. He was quite prepared to make difficult decisions.

Leftie Student Union type, that's you.

[ASB]

Leftie Student Union type, that's you.

I think not you'll find. You're inferring that yourself.

I was merely pointing out that Churchill was quite prepared to order the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. His criteria for that was shortening the war by 1 year. This is somewhat different to "well it's just a bit like tear gas". I think the mortality rate of mustard gas is a few orders of magnitude higher.

There is a body of opinion that the only reason this didn't happen was because we couldn't make the chemical weapons quickly enough. He certainly moved from the idea of using chemical weapons in a retaliatory manner to using them in an offensive manner.

I think, given the times, it is likely this wouldn't have bothered many. It would probably have been viewed as a necessary evil.

Churchill was a brilliant wartime leader. He was quite prepared to make difficult decisions.

[Bob Dalek]

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, though he didn't get his own way. In Iraq in the '20s (I don't think it was used) he was advocating the use of poisionous gas to spread terror. Hardly equivalent to tear gas.

But non-lethal.

In WW2 he (and Roosevelt) said they would drop mustard gas bombs on German cities (though that was only going to be in revenge if the Germans gassed the red army). We did get as far as sending the bombs but apparently they got sunk in a raid on Bari.

And? F--k 'em: they started it and were busily exterminating millions.

He also wanted to launch an Anthrax attack on Germany and there may have bee a trial on an uninhabited Scottish island to test delivery.
Shame he didn't.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html

Leftie Student Union type, that's you.

[ASB]

Churchill's gassing thing: he advocated non-lethal gassing - akin to modern tear gas for hooligans, etc. Hardly the loveliest of his acts, but let's keep it in perspective.

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, though he didn't get his own way. In Iraq in the '20s (I don't think it was used) he was advocating the use of poisionous gas to spread terror. Hardly equivalent to tear gas.

In WW2 he (and Roosevelt) said they would drop mustard gas bombs on German cities (though that was only going to be in revenge if the Germans gassed the red army). We did get as far as sending the bombs but apparently they got sunk in a raid on Bari.

He also wanted to launch an Anthrax attack on Germany and there may have bee a trial on an uninhabited Scottish island to test delivery.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/gaswar.html

[Bob Dalek]

Churchill's gassing thing: he advocated non-lethal gassing - akin to modern tear gas for hooligans, etc. Hardly the loveliest of his acts, but let's keep it in perspective.

[Cyberman]

As senior officer on deck it is his duty first to ensure the safety of his own men. If he could not be sure of their safety he is duty bound to hold them back. Considering the fire power available to the gang inside the building he made the right decision.
As I understand it those men could have given themselves up at any stage.

The fire crew could also have ended up as hostages to enable the murderers' escape. On balance, Churchill made exactly the right decision.

[The Lone Gunman]

That is a perfectly reasonable observation. It is entirely possible he took the decision as the lesser of two evils. Of course we don't and can't know his motivation.

If he had said "see if you can rescue them" and the fire service had said "no chance, they might still be shooting" then I would have no problem. It is simply the fact that he ordered the fire service not to attempt any sort of rescue that I object to.

Of course that's not a view you can agree with - but that is of course you're right.

As senior officer on deck it is his duty first to ensure the safety of his own men. If he could not be sure of their safety he is duty bound to hold them back. Considering the fire power available to the gang inside the building he made the right decision.
As I understand it those men could have given themselves up at any stage.

[ASB]

Knowing that these guys had already committed murder, would you want to be responsible for a decision that led to members of the fire service then also being shot.

That is a perfectly reasonable observation. It is entirely possible he took the decision as the lesser of two evils. Of course we don't and can't know his motivation.

If he had said "see if you can rescue them" and the fire service had said "no chance, they might still be shooting" then I would have no problem. It is simply the fact that he ordered the fire service not to attempt any sort of rescue that I object to.

Of course that's not a view you can agree with - but that is of course your right.

[Cyberman]

Granted I don't have any real sympathy for the victims, but having the home secretary causing them to be burned alive was wrong.

Knowing that these guys had already committed murder, would you want to be responsible for a decision that led to members of the fire service then also being shot.

Perhaps Churchill actually made this decision on the basis of their safety, but our left-wing fiends prefer the more juicy interpretation, as ever.

[ASB]

Those guys had committed murder and no court case was necessary unless they avoided the fire. To then equate what I am saying with Jack Straw is perverse and illogical.

The constabulary (and effectively the home secretary at the time using his executive direction powers) is not (and was not then) a prosecuting authority. That is a function of the judiciary. It is down to the judge or jury to ascertain guilt (which looks certain in this case). It is down to the judge to set penalty (which would have been hanging in this case).

That was wrong then and is still wrong now. The fact they were obviously guilty doesn't make it ok. That is effectively also what Jack Straw as home secretary wanted to do - simply lock anybody up on the say so of the home secretary, no evidence, no review - even more sweeping powers than internment. It all stems from ignoring the judicial process.

Granted I don't have any real sympathy for the victims, but having the home secretary causing them to be burned alive was wrong.

[expat]

... no court case was necessary.

Oh well, that makes justice a lot more efficient.

[Cyberman]

I must say she's tidied herself up a little... as long as she doesn't smile!
Mutton dressed as lamb

Her lips look smaller from the side !!

[Cyberman]

Maybe they were guilty; since you regard process as irrelevant I can only assume you think Jack Straw was a great Home Secretary. After all he got to the point of wanting to lock people up just in case the might do something.

It is not for the upholders of the law to act as judge jury and (arguably in this case) excutioner. That is a different process.

Those guys had committed murder and no court case was necessary unless they avoided the fire. To then equate what I am saying with Jack Straw is perverse and illogical.

[Troll]

I must say she's tidied herself up a little... as long as she doesn't smile!
Mutton dressed as lamb

Although she testified as the barrister Cherie Booth rather than as Mrs. Blair, the most controversial prime minister’s wife in memory (not to mention the only one ever voted in a poll of the British people as the individual they would most like to see deported), it is clearly challenging for the Brits to remember which Cherie they’re dealing with at any given moment.

[ASB]

They are not, but police murderers in this situation were obviously guilty and this outcome saved much time and expense.

Maybe they were guilty; since you regard process as irrelevant I can only assume you think Jack Straw was a great Home Secretary. After all he got to the point of wanting to lock people up just in case the might do something.

It is not for the upholders of the law to act as judge jury and (arguably in this case) excutioner. That is a different process.