State immunity act

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Rheged, Jun 15, 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. The Law Lords ruling yesterday: "The House of Lords ruled unanimously that four men who say they suffered serious physical and mental abuse in Saudi jails cannot sue those responsible because foreign officials are protected by the State Immunity Act".

    Is this a case of double standards by our Government again. Allegedly Tommy Atkins kicks a Basra chav in the nuts for rioting or a spot of ali babba. Allegedly Tommy Atkins rapes the entire female population of Kenya, Allegedly Tommy Atkins kicks, butt strokes, urinates on, stamps then cable ties and chucks a suspected terrorist in the back of a snatch vehicle, then the judical system swings into action, assault, torture, rape, crimes against humanity and human rights violations. So what do we do, fly the accusers into the UK, pay them, give them leagal aid, feed them, take their side and condem our troops before the full facts are known.

    The question is then are we not state officals and therefore covered under the said act.
  2. Good point, well put, but the point you fail to grasp is this:

    The UK legal system does not allow one to bring ANY type of legal actions against the government of ANY foreign state (not just those that buy British arms!) in UK courts.

    That is TOTALLY different from the UK legal system bringing actions against its own citizens whilst in the service of the state whilst on foreign soil in UK courts!!!

    This bandwagon was done to death yesterday - move on!
  3. ...when 'Tommy Atkins' has as much money and oil as the Saudi's....
  4. Bo11ox!
  5. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Interestingly, these rules seem not to have been applied to the 'British' individuals who were held at Guantanamo Bay, whose solicitors are currently busy sueing the US and various officials.
  6. Couldn't the 4 men bring a suit (civil?) against the individual torturers either by name if known, or against persons unknown working in the location they were held? Then you're not attacking the State or its servants carring out their official functions...
    ...or am I being incredibly naïve?
  7. We'll deal with your specialised subject later...
    You may be too young to remember the 'Death of a Princess' storm in 1980.
    ''When "Death of a Princess" was first broadcast in Great Britain in April 1980, the Saudi government's reaction to the film touched off a diplomatic firestorm that reportedly included threats to impose sanctions on British business interests in Saudi Arabia and to break formal ties with the United Kingdom. Amid the furor, the British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was sent home.'' ( )

    Britains reaction was to lick ARRSE and grovel - Saudi Arabia was too important then and little has changed.
  8. Quite so, remind us which gov is doing that, is it the same bunch of fcuk wits that tried to invade Cuba etc through the back door (ow er misses!).....