Foreign Office seek to settle Mau Mau torture claims

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Pyianno, May 6, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The government should legislate so that there is a statute of limitations on claims against UK before a certain point in history - and then tell the courts to tell claimants to fcuk off.

    The alternative is literally limitless liability for every real or imagined grievance in history.
  2. Can we counter sue. my family lost a very peaceful relative in particularly gruesome circumstances to the Mau mau.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. There is such a Statute, called the Limitations Act 1980, and it grants to judges hearing a case a degree of discretion over whether to allow a claim that has been brought out of time.

    That issue was decided by the High Court, and the judgment can be read here:
  4. Very simple: pay up....

    ...1 GBP made available for the settlement for every 1 GBP stumped up by the Mau Mau terrorists: if they don't contribute then we pay nothing. Seems fair.

    On a less 'Daily Mail reader' note: while war is hell and not all situations are nice and black and white (forgive the pun), we are supposed to hold ourselves to the highest of standards. Where we fail then we should meet our legal and moral obligations.
  5. Well if they want to interview my Dad, or his alleged victims, they'll be needing a ****ing medium, which would be pretty bad Juju I shouldn't wonder!
  6. No payout, at all, effing ........................ (see thought police insert your own ethnic derogatary term)

    Nasty little ******* the Mau Mau, trying to raise money for them selves. Heard some real horror stories about what went on, like the elderly spinster raped and murdered and her blood was drunk.

    Its like giving the German familys of the SS compensation for shooting them.
    • Like Like x 1

  7. I think the time limit should simply be made absolute, probably at a point where x percentage of witnesses may be assumed to have died off or memories deemed to have become unreliable - say 30 years.

    I also think it should be binding on government that no government issue an apology or similar statement for the actions of a previous administration - particularly if it is a historical event preceding the current generation.
  8. I think the 'Mau Mau' part of the claim speaks to the emergency powers granted to the Colonial Governor and not, necessarily, to the active (or otherwise) participation in the rebellion by the claimants.

    Also, I do not recall our castrating and raping Nazi POWs. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

    If you read the judgment, there were several determinative factors which the Court considered sufficient to allow the trial to go ahead notwithstanding the passage of time. In particular, the significant tranch of documentary evidence of correspondence between the Colonial Administration and the War Office was rather suggestive.
  9. What happened during the Mau Mau Rebellion may be unacceptable by Today's standards but not so much by the standards of the day. In the UK we had both Capital and Corporal Punishment regularly used in the UK on our own subjects so it's use in Kenya, at that time, would be expected and considered acceptable. There has to come a point where we accept that injustices, by Today's standards, were done but that Today's generation are not responsible for the sins of their fathers. Reparitions should be confined to individuals who can be found to be responsible and to those victims who can prove criminal acts by named and identified members of the Colonial Powers and compensation or cri8minal charges sought against the individual who acted outside of the Law at that time.
  10. You do have a point otherwise the French would want redress for the Battle of Poitiers. But I don't know if that includes crimes against humanity if there are living survivors.

    BTW I like your signature. :)
  11. We were signatories to the European Convention then as we remain today, with its absolute prohibition of torture. That is legally material, as (in the opinion of the Court) were the other international treaties to which we were signatories.

    The points you make about the necessity of conducting a trial of fact was iterated by the Court, but for whatever reason HMG seeks to avoid a trial. My reading of their decision to settle is an admission of liability. They have already accepted that the Claimants were, in fact, tortured at the hands of the Colonial authorities. What was in dispute was a rather convoluted point of law (whether HMG was jointly or directly or indirectly responsible for that torture).
  12. Oh, the infinite care HMG takes over such exactitudes. Such integrity is to be commended.
  13. We should be at least mildly concerned as tax payers. One settlement will likely lead to the floodgates being opened. Claims are apparently being considered in Cyprus and Aden (Yemen) etc.
  14. The past is a foreign country;they do things differently there.