British accents in Afghanistan?

#1
I'm not surprised to hear this. With the way this government lets all and sundry into this country without checks, no wonder extremists are able to come and preach what they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read somewhere that Treason is the only offence that still carries the death penalty.

British subjects going overseas to kill British service personnel in my opinion are committing treason. How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safegaurding their rights?
 
#2
rampant54 said:
I'm not surprised to hear this. With the way this government lets all and sundry into this country without checks, no wonder extremists are able to come and preach what they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read somewhere that Treason is the only offence that still carries the death penalty.
British subjects going overseas to kill British service personnel in my opinion are committing treason. How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safegaurding their rights?
You are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Final_abolition
 
#3
ok, heres one thats bugged me for ages. What was the legal term for raping and pillaging coastal towns? I remember hearing it was brigadidge (sic) but sadly daddy google provides no answers.
 
#4
I don't think Treason does still carry the death penalty.

The British State does not permit anyone to "...come and preach..[violence against British forces]...". That would be a criminal offence and if you can prove that anyone has been doing this, report them (or better get it into the press to stir the CPS into action).

In terms of the broader philosophical point you raise, ie: "How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safeguarding their rights?" This goes to the heart of the concept of a social contract and I suspect I agree with the point you are impliedly making.

There are significant problems with proving that someone has, in fact, intentionally travelled abroad for the purpose of fighting against British (or indeed other coalition) forces.

Interestingly, if they aren't uniformed combatants, should the Geneva Convention apply or should any that are found be handed over to JSIO (or 3 Para Mortars) unrecorded?
 
#7
arby said:
ok, heres one thats bugged me for ages. What was the legal term for raping and pillaging coastal towns? I remember hearing it was brigadidge (sic) but sadly daddy google provides no answers.
What's Danish for "cash and carry"?
 
#8
John_Jorrocks said:
I don't think Treason does still carry the death penalty.

The British State does not permit anyone to "...come and preach..[violence against British forces]...". That would be a criminal offence and if you can prove that anyone has been doing this, report them (or better get it into the press to stir the CPS into action).

In terms of the broader philosophical point you raise, ie: "How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safeguarding their rights?" This goes to the heart of the concept of a social contract and I suspect I agree with the point you are impliedly making.

There are significant problems with proving that someone has, in fact, intentionally travelled abroad for the purpose of fighting against British (or indeed other coalition) forces.

Interestingly, if they aren't uniformed combatants, should the Geneva Convention apply or should any that are found be handed over to JSIO (or 3 Para Mortars) unrecorded?
They should be named as "hostis humani generis" = "enemies of the human race and should be fair game for anyone.

Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race." From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction—meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them. The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable
 
#9
rampant54 said:
I'm not surprised to hear this. With the way this government lets all and sundry into this country without checks, no wonder extremists are able to come and preach what they do.
Mate they are FROM this country, not imports. Only comedians born outside of Brum would try and fake our accent!
 
#10
Steven said:
John_Jorrocks said:
I don't think Treason does still carry the death penalty.

The British State does not permit anyone to "...come and preach..[violence against British forces]...". That would be a criminal offence and if you can prove that anyone has been doing this, report them (or better get it into the press to stir the CPS into action).

In terms of the broader philosophical point you raise, ie: "How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safeguarding their rights?" This goes to the heart of the concept of a social contract and I suspect I agree with the point you are impliedly making.

There are significant problems with proving that someone has, in fact, intentionally travelled abroad for the purpose of fighting against British (or indeed other coalition) forces.

Interestingly, if they aren't uniformed combatants, should the Geneva Convention apply or should any that are found be handed over to JSIO (or 3 Para Mortars) unrecorded?
They should be named as "hostis humani generis" = "enemies of the human race and should be fair game for anyone.

Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race." From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction—meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them. The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable
Not a bad idea at all IMO provided that I get to decide who goes on the list.

There is a certain irony in that concept coming from Cicero who was himself proscribed (and indeed subsequently killed) wasn't he?

Am I being dense? Is that the point you were making, ie: that such designations are subject to abuse?
 
#11
John_Jorrocks said:
Steven said:
John_Jorrocks said:
I don't think Treason does still carry the death penalty.

The British State does not permit anyone to "...come and preach..[violence against British forces]...". That would be a criminal offence and if you can prove that anyone has been doing this, report them (or better get it into the press to stir the CPS into action).

In terms of the broader philosophical point you raise, ie: "How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safeguarding their rights?" This goes to the heart of the concept of a social contract and I suspect I agree with the point you are impliedly making.

There are significant problems with proving that someone has, in fact, intentionally travelled abroad for the purpose of fighting against British (or indeed other coalition) forces.

Interestingly, if they aren't uniformed combatants, should the Geneva Convention apply or should any that are found be handed over to JSIO (or 3 Para Mortars) unrecorded?
They should be named as "hostis humani generis" = "enemies of the human race and should be fair game for anyone.

Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race." From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction—meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them. The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable
Not a bad idea at all IMO provided that I get to decide who goes on the list.

There is a certain irony in that concept coming from Cicero who was himself proscribed (and indeed subsequently killed) wasn't he?

Am I being dense? Is that the point you were making, ie: that such designations are subject to abuse?
Yes and no. The problem with the "he's a bad person lets kill him" idea is it all depends on where you stand.

Mr Drake and friends for instance - hostis humani generis or English hero?
 
#12
How many 'Taliban' have we (UK forces only) actually captured? Presumably we hand them over to the ANA at the earliest opportunity, so any that are allegedly from Brum would just keep their gobs shut and go with their mates to whatever fate awaits.
 
#13
Steven said:
Yes and no. The problem with the "he's a bad person lets kill him" idea is it all depends on where you stand.

Mr Drake and friends for instance - hostis humani generis or English hero?
Or, perhaps, Lord Thomas Cochrane. A heroic figure of the South American struggles for independence according to the Chileans, a damned pirate who deserved to swing according to the Spanish.
 
#14
The question is do our"countrymen" still receive benefits while in the service of the enemy?.

Shooting is too good by far for these filth.
 
#15
On our tour on Herrick 4, I was speaking to an RMP and some other 'obvoius line of work' Operator's, they informed us of detained Brits they were questioning. Slot the lot of em, if they want to fight for Afghaniistan, let them live there life and deport them!
 
#16
blobmeister said:
On our tour on Herrick 4, I was speaking to an RMP and some other 'obvoius line of work' Operator's, they informed us of detained Brits they were questioning. Slot the lot of em, if they want to fight for Afghaniistan, let them live there life and deport them!
Thankfully they have done that to themselves. We just need to identify them on capture flag them up and get a grip of our borders!
 
#17
Death penalty is not abolished. In time of war or threat of war death penalty can still be used. As AQ declared holy war on us and we are in a "War on terror" I see no reason why the death penalty can't be used.

Also IIRC, Assassination of the Monarch has only one penalty...Beheading, I was visiting some legal place in Lincolns Inn where it was pointed out. I did ask why it wasn't death by beheading, to which the answer was "how many people survive beheading?" :oops: he also pointed out that it wasn't barred by the EU and still stood.
 
#18
Brigandage.......Bantiry


does it therefore follows that Bottom Brigandage is the Crime of being an Arrse Bandit??

:)
 
#19
rampant54 said:
I'm not surprised to hear this. With the way this government lets all and sundry into this country without checks, no wonder extremists are able to come and preach what they do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read somewhere that Treason is the only offence that still carries the death penalty.

British subjects going overseas to kill British service personnel in my opinion are committing treason. How can they live here with all the benefits and kill the very people who are charged with safegaurding their rights?
'British' Muslims have been going to Iraq and Afghanistan for years - so what's new?
 
#20
WhiteHorse said:
Death penalty is not abolished. In time of war or threat of war death penalty can still be used. As AQ declared holy war on us and we are in a "War on terror" I see no reason why the death penalty can't be used.

Also IIRC, Assassination of the Monarch has only one penalty...Beheading, I was visiting some legal place in Lincolns Inn where it was pointed out. I did ask why it wasn't death by beheading, to which the answer was "how many people survive beheading?" :oops: he also pointed out that it wasn't barred by the EU and still stood.
To quote myself

You are wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._abolition
The UK later (10 October 2003; effective from 1 February 2004[6]) acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances,[
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top