Foreign Office seek to settle Mau Mau torture claims

#1
#2
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.
 
#3
Can we counter sue. my family lost a very peaceful relative in particularly gruesome circumstances to the Mau mau.
 
#4
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.
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: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/mutua-fco-judgment-05102012.pdf
 
#5
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.
 
#6
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!
 
D

Davetheclown

Guest
#7
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.
 
#8
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: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/mutua-fco-judgment-05102012.pdf

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.
 
#9
Its like giving the German familys of the SS compensation for shooting them.
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.

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.
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.
 
#10
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.
 
#11
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: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/mutua-fco-judgment-05102012.pdf
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. :)
 
#12
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.
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).
 
#13
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).
Oh, the infinite care HMG takes over such exactitudes. Such integrity is to be commended.
 
#14
Oh, the infinite care HMG takes over such exactitudes. Such integrity is to be commended.
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.
 
#16
On a wholly facetious note, perhaps someone from HMT ought to quietly explain to the judiciary that the more the claims that they grant, then the less money that there will be for judicial pensions... There would, I suspect, be some furious backpeddling at the bench...
 
#17
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.
Typical, we the people end up paying for asinine decisions of former (or present) governments. I think anyone in government now should have their pay deducted to pay towards any claims. Yeah, I can well imagine the reaction to that idea. :)
 
#19
Typical, we the people end up paying for asinine decisions of former (or present) governments. I think anyone in government now should have their pay deducted to pay towards any claims. Yeah, I can well imagine the reaction to that idea. :)
So, let me get this right - the courts decide that a previous administration acted unlawfully and subsequently members of the present 'government' (do you mean the legislature i.e. parliament; or the executive i.e. MPs holding ministerial appointments and/or the civil service?) face a personal forfeiture. Why? What does it achieve?
 
#20
Next- the Potato Famine and the Highland Clearances!
No, next the whore you shagged for 30 shillings in Nanyuki will be accusing you of rape.
 

Latest Threads

Top