Originally posted by ASB
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: We shall fight them on the beaches....
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "We shall fight them on the beaches...."
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Bob Dalek View PostLeftie Student Union type, that's you.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostChurchill 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bob Dalek View PostChurchill'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.
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
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View PostAs 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostThat 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 I understand it those men could have given themselves up at any stage.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cyberman View PostKnowing 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.
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.Last edited by ASB; 1 October 2008, 15:47.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostGranted 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cyberman View PostThose 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Troll View PostI 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 !!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostMaybe 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cyberman View PostThey are not, but police murderers in this situation were obviously guilty and this outcome saved much time and expense.
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.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: