I read this in yesterday’s paper and must share the idiocy. Hastings is right, and many Brits are outraged at the idea. But not apparently, the asinine judges who make dumb decisions. But then, after all. What can you expect from a place run by lunatics who let off criminals who assault ppl with the excuse that it wasn’t the gremlin who was responsible but the booze they drank. Why should anyone expect more from a place run by apologists and hand wringing leftists who are actively working to destroy this country. And trust me. They are.
If only the Queen would utter the words, “Who will rid us of these left wing nut cases,” surely some patriots would rise to the occasion and slay the red dragons.
At the rate things are progressing, maybe the things I didn’t think would happen as soon as in my lifetime, will.
And will ya get a load of those goofball names below. Jeesh. Bunch of letters strung together. Now who do you suppose convinced these life forms who normally grunt and swing thru trees, to launch a legal action?
Stupid fuckin guilty white folks and their leach like vampire lawyers.
I despair. I really do.
be sure and see the link for all of it and all the photos.
The folly of judges, vulture lawyers and a nation addicted to masochism
By MAX HASTINGS
At the High Court in London yesterday, the hearing began of a case in which three elderly Kenyans — Paulo Muoka Nzili, Wambuga Wa Nyingi and Jane Muthoni Mara — are suing the British Government for appalling injuries allegedly inflicted on them during the Mau Mau insurgency almost 60 years ago.
The British Government sought to argue at an earlier hearing that the defendants’ claim should be thrown out ‘given the length of time elapsed and the complex legal and constitutional questions the case raises’.
However, a judge rejected this appeal to common sense and decreed that the claim should go forward.
In the weeks ahead, we shall hear a banquet of evidence deeply unflattering to the British colonial regime, with evidence from academic witnesses and revelations from hitherto secret government files.
There is no danger that the lawyers who earn fat fees from all this will find the rich seam of taxpayers’ gold running out. There is much more where the Kenya case has come from.
Alleged atrocities are being resurrected from the Fifties Malayan Emergency (the 1948-60 conflict fought between UK, Commonwealth and other security forces against Communist insurgents in Malaya).
The Metropolitan Police has just established a task force of 30 officers to prepare prosecution cases against potential British Army murder suspects for Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972. Their inquiries are expected to last three or four years.
All this, to my mind, represents an exercise in state masochism to which no other society on Earth would subject itself. It is just the latest venture for the human rights and compassion industry, with almost unlimited scope for profitable expansion.
As a historian, I am under no delusions about the shortcomings of British behaviour during the uprising of the Mau Mau, who wanted to drive the white man from Kenya and to which I will return in a moment.
What seems extraordinary is that, after the lapse of many decades, we can subject ourselves at vast expense to legal flagellation by foreign claimants.
Who can imagine that any British plaintiff with similar grievances would have a cat’s chance of securing redress in any overseas jurisdiction?
British prisoners who suffered appallingly at Japanese hands during World War II, and, for that matter, Chinese women who were forced into sexual slavery, have whistled in the wind for a hearing in Japan for almost 70 years.
Martin McGuinness, a career killer for the IRA, shook the Queen’s hand the other week. He commanded the Derry Brigade. Who could suppose that if the dependants of victims of Irish terrorism sought to take McGuinness, Gerry Adams or their comrades before an Irish court, they would get past first base?
The Mau Mau insurgents were exceptionally brutal people who, mostly between 1952 and 1954, murdered some 2,500 of their own people and around 100 whites, terrorised villages and inflicted ghastly atrocities on those who refused to take their blood oath.
But when Kenya became independent in 1963, Mau Mau veterans became celebrated as freedom-fighters.
In rather the same fashion, the two Jewish terrorists who murdered the resident British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in November 1944, and were hanged for the crime the following year, were exhumed in 1975 at the insistent request of the state of Israel, and reinterred in the nation’s Hall of Heroes.
Much the same has happened to several old Irish nationalist killers. Although it may seem deeply repugnant that old terrorists should be raised to national heroic status, most of us can live with it as the way of the world.
But it is cringe-making to watch the spectacle of citizens of former colonies that have been independent for many decades turning up in London to exploit our feeble-minded justice system.
judges see things differently. I fear that the human rights bonanza has gone to their heads.
Such is their conceit that they believe they can divine truth across the fog of decades. Such is their contempt for real life that they care nothing about the colossal waste of taxpayers’ money over which they preside.
Look, for example, at Lord Savile, who squandered £200 million conducting his Bloody Sunday inquiry, and still cannot understand what the rest of us think he did wrong.
If the former Mau Mau plaintiffs win their case at the High Court and receive a truckload of cash, this will open the way for thousands more claimants from every corner of the old Empire.
Some enthusiasts say the opening of this case was a proud day for British justice, showing our determination to face up to our dirty colonial past, and our commitment to human rights.
To many of us, however, it merely highlights the folly of the judiciary and their inability to bring the smallest crumb of common sense to the lofty business of administering justice.
The Kenyan case is properly the business of historians, not of Britain’s legal vulture culture.