House of Lords denies right of Britons to sue the Saudis

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by OldAdam, Jun 14, 2006.

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. Four British business men, who were tortured by the Saudis, following a series of bomb attacks in Riyadh, have had their right to sue the Saudi authorities denied by the House of Lords.

    According to the BBC News 24 reporter (interview timed at about 1105 this morning) the Law Lords ruling was due to the intervention of the British Government. Interviewing one of the men, she said,

    'And why do you think this happened, Ron?' ... camera pans to the face of the complainant but, before he can speak, the camera jerks back to the reporter and she says, suddenly,

    'Oh, I'm sorry, that's all for now...' :oops:

    ...And there is an instant cut to Nuremberg, where the English football team is arriving....

    But it isn't yet, the coach isn't even in sight and the reporter on scene isn't ready, because the cut was unscheduled.....

    Funny, isn't it? The British Government manages to intervene at all sorts of levels, even by proxy; in this case the BBC's Legal Advisor speaking through the reporter's ear-piece.

    Without the benefit of instant communications, what do you think his answer would have been?

    'Well, they don't want us to sue because it would annoy the Saudi Govenrment and b*gger up all those nice, lucrative little deals that make so many people so much money!'

    Definitely NOT what the British Government wants to hear in live TV...

    I trust the BBC's LA will get a little bonus for that display of rapid intervention. :roll:
  2. If I was them I'd be tempted to grab the nearest TV crew and go down to the Saudi ambassador's favourite pricey restaurant and ask him about his country's record on torture.
  3. The Government are afraid of rattling the Saudis cage in case it affects the supply of fuel. Bl00dy wrong IMHO but there you go. I think the European Courts are the best option for these poor s0ds now.
  4. maybe tony will lend the WMF as their council FOC... second thoughts... faak off ... i'll go with the public appointed lawyer
  5. I suppose it will upset the Saudi's and they will not buy our defence systems which amounts to billions of pounds.Its amazing how businesses control our lives in this pathetic country run by a pathetic government.
  6. It applies to any Government. It is one of the 'joys' of capitalism - money is king & sod everything/one else.
  7. Have British Muslims ever publically demostrated over the torture of British Christians by Muslim governments, or did I miss that!

    Will the British council of Muslims support these men in they claims against the Suadi's? ... If they haven't allready.

    I suppose they will have to try the European Courts next for Justice or will money allways come before Justice?

  8. This would of never have happened the other way round, 100 % pure political reasons of the Bliar regime.
  9. Not on your life "British" muslims are strictly ME ME ME I NEED COMPENSATION The comparison with these White Christians treatment by the Saudis with the publicity and sympathy to the two Muslims relaeased last Friday Compensation to follow of course could not be more will be interesting to see the conclusions ot the European Court who are usually so sympathetic and rewarding to the likes of the IRA Teerorists if they'll extend the same judgment to these men Frankly I doubt it.I feel sorry for them (The Christians abused by the Saudis that is)
  10. Interesting isn't it? We have a government that seems hell bent on human rights issues for immigrants, even allowing convicted rapists out into the community instead of ensuring their deportation back to their own country, yet cannot allow someone who's human rights were abused by a foriegn power to seek compensation. Don't suppose that it has much to do with the huge arms sales that country makes from the British government. Tornado, Warrior, Typhoon to name but a few. Or am I reading too much into it?
  11. Your subject tiltle is misleading.

    I think you'll find that the house of lords, as a point of law, established that the 4 Britons have no right in law to bring an action in this matter.

    That is entirely different from the 4 having that right and the lords say, no, you can't exercise it against the Saudis!

    Sloppy admin here, me thinks.

    That being said, why not go back to the scene of the crime and seek compo thru the saudi system, the same system that paid them sheds more dosh than here (and tax free too!)
  12. CNM, thanks for the clarification. I withdraw my remarks above. Stand by my comment about convicted rapists though.
  13. They werent aimed at you old bean, but the poster of the thread. It's a shame the Saudis can't get a finincial assfcuking in the courts here for this, but they can't, and neither can any other government, whether they buy British arms or not!

  14. Better not upset the Saudis at all, they are about the only large buyer of British hardware and engineering
    in the middle east and soon the World :eek:

    Besides if a nation thinks our hardware is the best and wants our equipment and expertice, they will listen to Britain opinions.
  15. Sorry, I confess that I may be guilty of a knee-jerk posting, being more focussed on the behaviour of the BBC News 24 team interviewing one of the appellants. However, instead I will refer you to m'learned colleague, Dr Stealth, on a parallel posting, with one of his quotes;

    Three Britons and a Canadian have been denied the right to sue officials from Saudi Arabia, who they claim tortured them in prison.
    A Law Lords ruling allowed an appeal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against a 2004 Court of Appeal decision for the men to be able to sue for damages.
    The four had been accused of taking part in a bombing campaign in Saudi Arabia six years ago.
    Saudi Arabia says its officials are protected by state immunity.

    That seems pretty clear to me. Whichever way you read it, anyone with a reasonable case will get b*gger-all out of the Saudis because of 'state immunity'.

    Sounds like a great idea; why don't we have a level playing field and apply the same rules to our own officials/armed forces. :roll: