£25m Down the Drain just to appease the Wrist Wringing Left

mr_goo

http://news.sky.com/story/1393405/british-soldier-torture-claims-lies-inquiry

Our soldiers get sent into an illegal war by a self serving Leftie (Tony Blair). Then get vilified and tried for alleged breaches of the Geneva Convention. I reckon that absolute shiite Blair should be the one footing the legal bill for this.

pliptrot

To call Tony Blair a leftie is to take a considerable leave from reality. How you can put a political spin on this - rather than just highlighting the idiocy and the obscenity of the whole issue, is impertinent in the way only UKIP can normally achieve.

mr_goo

pliptrot wrote:

To call Tony Blair a leftie is to take a considerable leave from reality. How you can put a political spin on this - rather than just highlighting the idiocy and the obscenity of the whole issue, is impertinent in the way only UKIP can normally achieve.

What? Speak (write) English coherently. Then I might give you a worthy response.

RDW

Mr Goo wrote:

pliptrot wrote:

To call Tony Blair a leftie is to take a considerable leave from reality. How you can put a political spin on this - rather than just highlighting the idiocy and the obscenity of the whole issue, is impertinent in the way only UKIP can normally achieve.

What? Speak (write) English coherently. Then I might give you a worthy response.

Did you mean to say 'then you might be worthy of a response'?

DeVlaeminck

Agree that it's a bit rich to blame the left for that war - whether Blair is/was a "lefty" I didn't see many on the right opposing it. What I find hard to understand is how an enquiry can cost £31million!

I would quite like to see the breakdown of costs so we whose snouts were in the trough and to what extent - just how much have some people made out of this enquiry.

MisterMuncher

Almost certainly the legal teams have made out like bandits, on both sides. That being said, surely such enquiries are absolutely necessary in the event of such accusations? The verdict on this case is largely irrelevant to whether an enquiry was needed or not, like it was in, say, the Savile enquiry.

Ben6899

Mr Goo wrote:

http://news.sky.com/story/1393405/british-soldier-torture-claims-lies-inquiry

Our soldiers get sent into an illegal war by a self serving Leftie (Tony Blair). Then get vilified and tried for alleged breaches of the Geneva Convention. I reckon that absolute shiite Blair should be the one footing the legal bill for this.

I see what you did there.

orraloon

MisterMuncher wrote:

surely such enquiries are absolutely necessary in the event of such accusations?

So some bunch of toerags make up some crxp and instead of telling them to do one, the Brit Gummint spend £30m of our money on a quest that was only going to end up one way, i.e. Get lost toerags.

Or have I missed out on some subtlety?

finchy

orraloon wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

surely such enquiries are absolutely necessary in the event of such accusations?

So some bunch of toerags make up some crxp and instead of telling them to do one, the Brit Gummint spend £30m of our money on a quest that was only going to end up one way, i.e. Get lost toerags.

Or have I missed out on some subtlety?

Some of the charges were upheld. The most serious ones weren't. Our country has invaded and occupied another sovereign country. The government has a duty to investigate any accusations of serious wrongdoing by the soldiers. The amount of money paid out to lawyers is another matter entirely...

Frank the tank

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Agree that it's a bit rich to blame the left for that war - whether Blair is/was a "lefty" I didn't see many on the right opposing it. What I find hard to understand is how an enquiry can cost £31million!

I would quite like to see the breakdown of costs so we whose snouts were in the trough and to what extent - just how much have some people made out of this enquiry.

We have too many bloody inquiries in this country that cost too much.

However in the interest of political mud slinging I would bet a good percentage of the £30m was legal fees. I assume that most of those involved in the legal profession are probably of "the right".

As for Blair, about as much of a leftie as Norman Tebbit is.

slowmart

The solicitors in question are under investigation as they allegedly sat on documents for six years which would have bought the enquiry to an end.

Noses and trough come to mind. I can't believe it took this long to establish no wrong doing though if the allegations are true and suppression of evidence is proven it will be interesting to see what sanction is levied.

Personally I'd dress these low life solicitor scum in military kit and drop them off behind ISIS lines. I wonder if fine points of legal argument will find much traction?

MisterMuncher

orraloon wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

surely such enquiries are absolutely necessary in the event of such accusations?

So some bunch of toerags make up some crxp and instead of telling them to do one, the Brit Gummint spend £30m of our money on a quest that was only going to end up one way, i.e. Get lost toerags.

Or have I missed out on some subtlety?

Hindsight is a marvelous thing.

Manc33

I used to work with a guy that was in Fallujah in March 2003 in the initial thing and when he came back home, he said he realized he was sent there on a lie and that he will never trust a politician ever again. I could have told him that before he went off risking his life to line the pockets of a bunch of geopoliticians/warmongers.

They come home, get made into policemen, then sent out to deal with us "civilians". All I can say is I hope they spend a few years re-adjusting before they do that.

rick_chasey

There's a lot of data to go through ad it probably takes big teams of people a number of years. Interviews, research, etc etc.

In gov't, anything that isn't measured in billions just isn't really worth getting fussed about.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Agree that it's a bit rich to blame the left for that war - whether Blair is/was a "lefty" I didn't see many on the right opposing it. What I find hard to understand is how an enquiry can cost £31million!

I would quite like to see the breakdown of costs so we whose snouts were in the trough and to what extent - just how much have some people made out of this enquiry.

We have too many bloody inquiries in this country that cost too much.

However in the interest of political mud slinging I would bet a good percentage of the £30m was legal fees. I assume that most of those involved in the legal profession are probably of "the right".

As for Blair, about as much of a leftie as Norman Tebbit is.

He's to the left of me, Frank.

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Agree that it's a bit rich to blame the left for that war - whether Blair is/was a "lefty" I didn't see many on the right opposing it. What I find hard to understand is how an enquiry can cost £31million!

I would quite like to see the breakdown of costs so we whose snouts were in the trough and to what extent - just how much have some people made out of this enquiry.

We have too many bloody inquiries in this country that cost too much.

However in the interest of political mud slinging I would bet a good percentage of the £30m was legal fees. I assume that most of those involved in the legal profession are probably of "the right".

As for Blair, about as much of a leftie as Norman Tebbit is.

He's to the left of me, Frank.

Hasn't he got anything better to do?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's a lot of data to go through ad it probably takes big teams of people a number of years. Interviews, research, etc etc.

In gov't, anything that isn't measured in billions going to their coffers just isn't really worth getting fussed about.

FTFY

slowmart

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Agree that it's a bit rich to blame the left for that war - whether Blair is/was a "lefty" I didn't see many on the right opposing it. What I find hard to understand is how an enquiry can cost £31million!

I would quite like to see the breakdown of costs so we whose snouts were in the trough and to what extent - just how much have some people made out of this enquiry.

We have too many bloody inquiries in this country that cost too much.

However in the interest of political mud slinging I would bet a good percentage of the £30m was legal fees. I assume that most of those involved in the legal profession are probably of "the right".

As for Blair, about as much of a leftie as Norman Tebbit is.

He's to the left of me, Frank.

I remember Thatcher being asked what she would like as a legacy and in her words

"Two political parties in the UK, both right of centre".

Given the state of the labour party then and today its another legacy we are living with.

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

I remember Thatcher being asked what she would like as a legacy and in her words

"Two political parties in the UK, both right of centre".

Given the state of the labour party then and today its another legacy we are living with.

Ooooooo!!!!!
How to cut Labour to the quick, tell them that they are fulfilling Maggie's wishes.
Not that you are wrong, mind you.

tangled_metal

There was an earlier enquiry into mistreatment of Iraqis by British soldiers that did find cases to answer for. IIRC some soldiers got jailed for it.

The thing is our armed forces take immense pride in their professionalism. They guard it with pride. They are not like a lot of other armed forces, one of the best partly due to culture and partly training. A series of complaints came in not just one or two but a lot and all related to the battle of Danny boy. To not investigate in a very public way just allows our enemies to lump our armed services alongside the likes of US army/ marine corps or other even worse armies. The MOD and the army wanted the full public enquiry. They knew the claims were false and were determined to fight the claims. To say it shouldn't have happened is wrong. It is highly coloured by hindsight and the final bill. If it had been only a couple of million it would have been no big issue. It seems the real issue is not the enquiry but the cost. That is in no small part down to the lawyers for the Iraqis. They knew the worst.claims were unfounded back in July last year but they only withdrew their claims in March this year. In the intervening time the large numbers of soldiers testimonies were heard at great expense. If the lawyers had done the right thing once they'd seen evidence that proved the torture and murder hadn't happened those soldiers wouldn't have been needed. The enquiry would have ended more cheaply last year.

Can I ask you what price is trust in our armed forces worth? They're respected and trusted probably more than any other army. That probably had strategic advantages in deployment. Plus it's something when UK investigates openly charges against our armies but others don't, even USA won't do that.

mr_goo

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Agree that it's a bit rich to blame the left for that war - whether Blair is/was a "lefty" I didn't see many on the right opposing it. What I find hard to understand is how an enquiry can cost £31million!

I would quite like to see the breakdown of costs so we whose snouts were in the trough and to what extent - just how much have some people made out of this enquiry.

I think it was quite correct to politicise this topic.
Public Interest Lawyers - Head Solicitor = Phil Shiner, who is honorary vice president of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. Plus he has a history of fighting Human Rights Cases in the European Courts.
Leigh Day & Co - Whilst no socialist background, they have built their business fighting human rights claims against the UK government and UK corporations on behalf of foreigners. They particularly crow about the number of claims they have successfully made against the MoD on behalf of Iraqis. And quite blatantly claim on their website that UK soldiers tortured their clients.

MisterMuncher

If they have successfully made these claims, proving them in a court of law, then why wouldn't they be able to state British soldiers have tortured their clients?

Aside from the legal costs, which are representative of the work done by both sides, I don't understand your issue here. If someone has been wronged by the UK government, or a UK Corporation, why shouldn't they be entitled to seek legal recourse, regardless of Nationality?

In the interests of full disclosure, I will state I have a dog in this fight. I have had family murdered by British soldiers.

mr_goo

MisterMuncher wrote:

If they have successfully made these claims, proving them in a court of law, then why wouldn't they be able to state British soldiers have tortured their clients?

Aside from the legal costs, which are representative of the work done by both sides, I don't understand your issue here. If someone has been wronged by the UK government, or a UK Corporation, why shouldn't they be entitled to seek legal recourse, regardless of Nationality?

In the interests of full disclosure, I will state I have a dog in this fight. I have had family murdered by British soldiers.

Sorry to hear that one of your family has died as a consequence of British soldiers. May I ask this? Were they killed whilst in combat? or were they killed whilst incarcerated?

MisterMuncher

Neither. They (Plural is deliberate) did not "die as a consequence of British Soldiers". They were deliberately murdered in their home by serving soldiers acting in concert with Terrorists. It isn't relevant, I was simply stating a fact to indicate that my position may not be entirely in keeping with yours, for what I would consider a perfectly good reason.

I note you haven't answered the question asked. If someone has been wronged by the UK government, or a UK Corporation, why shouldn't they be entitled to seek legal recourse, regardless of Nationality?

mr_goo

MisterMuncher wrote:

Neither. They (Plural is deliberate) did not "die as a consequence of British Soldiers". They were deliberately murdered in their home by serving soldiers acting in concert with Terrorists. It isn't relevant, I was simply stating a fact to indicate that my position may not be entirely in keeping with yours, for what I would consider a perfectly good reason.

I note you haven't answered the question asked. If someone has been wronged by the UK government, or a UK Corporation, why shouldn't they be entitled to seek legal recourse, regardless of Nationality?

I don't disagree with your question. The problem I have is with the law firms involved in this case, seem to have a reputation for seeking claimants involved in the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.

MisterMuncher

Well, if that's where the abuses are happening, and they are happening to some extent, it's hardly a surprise they would look there. Not much point in seeking cases in Tunbridge Wells.

orraloon

MisterMuncher wrote:

Well, if that's where the abuses are happening, and they are happening to some extent

But they were /are not surely?

Iraq - war zone; Afghanistan - war zone; bad things happen. But unless one considers that in the immediate aftermath of a killing spree it is 'abuse' to shout at or slap or refuse to fetch hot pizza for someone who just a short while before was trying his hardest to kill you, there was / is no abuse.

As the very expensive inquiry showed.

However, my issue is with the propensity of our Gubmint and state sector to waste huge amounts of our money in knee-jerk 'inquiries'. Rather than grow a pair, seems de rigeur to evade responsibility for taking a decison by setting up yet another 'inquiry'. E.g. Why have an independent inquiry into the air traffic control system failure last week.....? What's the point? System failed, get if fixed, don't do it again and move on.

MisterMuncher

That they weren't happening to the extent alleged in this case does not mean they aren't or weren't happening. That other cases have went the other way would indicate that it is or was happening to some extent. It's all very well to make the fog of war argument as well, but the legal reality is that soldiers are bound to certain standards of behaviour. I've no doubt there have also been spurious cases brought for nonsensical reasons. The same thing happens domestically, see the ubiquitous stories of burglars making assault charges (which our gallant press falls over itself to report on in the initial stages, but rarely, if ever, follows up on the resulting cases and the verdict usually being "Catch yerself on, son") .The claims still require investigation, though. It's one of the prices of civilization, and condemning it with the benefit of hindsight just seems silly.

As far as the cost/benefit of enquiry goes, I'm with you to some degree, but also see the need for thorough investigation. It's all very well to implement a fix, but I'd prefer that when sensible, the circumstances are fully examined to ensure the fix will definitely work and is tackling all of the problem.

Of course, I'd also like to see a cap on the legal expenses that can be charged in these cases, but that's a function of the free market, innit?

florerider

a simple planning application inquiry can cost the applicant half a million or more, the defence similarly, so I'm not at all surprised at £25 million for something as serious as this.

if you were an accused soldier, would you have wanted your defence weakened by a cap?

MisterMuncher

I wouldn't want anyone to go short on representation, be they soldier or civilian, foreign or domestic. It's certainly a tricky issue, but surely as much blame lies with private sector profiteering as state profligacy here. There's no simple solution, but some kind of cap based on complexity seems reasonable as a starting point.

slowmart

Put em all on a standard living wage and see how many thoroughly golden hearted solicitors and barristers move into another area as a specialism.

One question in this particular case is if the solicitors in question sat on evidence which would have bought the enquiry to a conclusion six years earlier

Public enquiries have their purpose but it's a hard sell when you run up these sort of costs and I fully appreciate that the scum we know as the press are quite likely to go for headlines rather than facts. On another note I believe the solicitors in question charged the public purse £6 million for bringing the case? Which is the greatest crime that actually occurred. Ironic or what.