FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Charles Taylor

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Is to spend his 50 year sentence for war crimes in a UK prison. Crimes committed in sierra Leone so why are we having to pay for his incarceration? Don't we have enough of our own criminals in overcrowded prisons!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Is to spend his 50 year sentence for war crimes in a UK prison. Crimes committed in sierra Leone so why are we having to pay for his incarceration? Don't we have enough of our own criminals in overcrowded prisons!"

we are not paying his incarceration... the UN are paying for it via the International courts of justice......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

Apparently due to Sierra Leone being a former British colony.

Rwanda and Sweden also indicated that they would be willing for him to serve his sentence in their countries.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Apparently due to Sierra Leone being a former British colony.

Rwanda and Sweden also indicated that they would be willing for him to serve his sentence in their countries."

just to again state.. he is serving it here... but the uk government are not the ones paying it....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently due to Sierra Leone being a former British colony.

Rwanda and Sweden also indicated that they would be willing for him to serve his sentence in their countries.

just to again state.. he is serving it here... but the uk government are not the ones paying it....

"

Can you please stop letting the facts get in the way of a good story

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"Apparently due to Sierra Leone being a former British colony.

Rwanda and Sweden also indicated that they would be willing for him to serve his sentence in their countries.

just to again state.. he is serving it here... but the uk government are not the ones paying it....

"

Not according to the Justice Minster:

In a statement to MPs today, Justice minister Mr Wright said: 'The United Kingdom’s offer to enforce any sentence imposed on former President Taylor by the SCSL was crucial to ensuring that he could be transferred to The Hague to stand trial for his crimes.

'The International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act was backed by all parties in 2007 knowing it could mean Taylor would serve his sentence in the UK with the taxpayer picking up the bill, he said.

'International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. 

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

*minister

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ollie_JCouple
over a year ago

London

It's not the 2007 act at all, all that does is verify some aspects of the ICC act 2001.

Unfortunate as much as Fabio makes sense.. This para for me says we pay...

(4)A prisoner subject to a warrant authorising his detention in England and Wales or Northern Ireland shall be treated for all purposes, subject to subsection (5) and Schedule 7, as if he were subject to a sentence of imprisonment imposed in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which he is to be detained.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"It's not the 2007 act at all, all that does is verify some aspects of the ICC act 2001.

Unfortunate as much as Fabio makes sense.. This para for me says we pay...

(4)A prisoner subject to a warrant authorising his detention in England and Wales or Northern Ireland shall be treated for all purposes, subject to subsection (5) and Schedule 7, as if he were subject to a sentence of imprisonment imposed in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which he is to be detained.

"

The quote was by the Justice minister....perhaps you should email him to point out his "mistake".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Jesus Christ!! Does it really matter who is paying for this animal to be incarcerated? This is a guy that used child soldiers to commit murder, terrorism and rape against other children and women. I for one am just glad that he has been caught and convicted!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Regardless of the bill, I'd rather he's detained somewhere where it's unlikely a bunch of guys with machetes, in a stolen Land Rover, pitch up at the gate and walk away with him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I know it's totally off subject and to be honest I don't really care the sytem in this country is fucked anyway so no point worrying about it ! But more importantly Hollie your arse is amazing lol and the fact your intelligent is even more apealling and that wasn't a pass at Hollie just a compliment

Hopefully that lightened up the none existant problem about tax payers money sorry mate just talking about it on fab won't sort it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ollie_JCouple
over a year ago

London

Cheers mate, my ass is fine as well

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Not according to the Justice Minster:

In a statement to MPs today, Justice minister Mr Wright said: 'The United Kingdom’s offer to enforce any sentence imposed on former President Taylor by the SCSL was crucial to ensuring that he could be transferred to The Hague to stand trial for his crimes.

'The International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act was backed by all parties in 2007 knowing it could mean Taylor would serve his sentence in the UK with the taxpayer picking up the bill, he said.

'International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. "
And Tory ministers never lie...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Cheers mate, my ass is fine as well"

Lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully that lightened up the none existant problem about tax payers money sorry mate just talking about it on fab won't sort it "

Am sure a quick tug will sort you out though eh?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hopefully that lightened up the none existant problem about tax payers money sorry mate just talking about it on fab won't sort it

Am sure a quick tug will sort you out though eh?"

Lol very good haha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And J there's not a pic of yours lol but I'm sure it's nice

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obbygggMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"Not according to the Justice Minster:

In a statement to MPs today, Justice minister Mr Wright said: 'The United Kingdom’s offer to enforce any sentence imposed on former President Taylor by the SCSL was crucial to ensuring that he could be transferred to The Hague to stand trial for his crimes.

'The International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act was backed by all parties in 2007 knowing it could mean Taylor would serve his sentence in the UK with the taxpayer picking up the bill, he said.

'International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. And Tory ministers never lie...

"
All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?"
WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obbygggMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""
"Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?"
Fact is GW2 was GW finishing daddies business and like it or not no matter who was in power we would have gone to war when the US called. The one real truth that came out of Blairs mouth was we have to pay the "Blood price" to keep the US on our side. And before you get upset ask any of our service personnel what the Yanks call us, if they are honest with you they will tell you we are called "the borrowers".

There has only been 1 post WW2 PM who has successfully kept us out of Americas wars, his name was Harold Wilson and the war was Vietnam!

As I said the WMD affair was not good, it would have been better if Blair had said "he is an odious dictator and our major ally and benefactor requires use to help remove him". But Blair was cowardly in not telling the British people the truth.

That lie is not the same as the government instructing a British company to supply super gun parts to Iraq and then having them intercepted and prosecuting the directors in order to cover up their involvement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obbygggMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?Fact is GW2 was GW finishing daddies business and like it or not no matter who was in power we would have gone to war when the US called. The one real truth that came out of Blairs mouth was we have to pay the "Blood price" to keep the US on our side. And before you get upset ask any of our service personnel what the Yanks call us, if they are honest with you they will tell you we are called "the borrowers".

There has only been 1 post WW2 PM who has successfully kept us out of Americas wars, his name was Harold Wilson and the war was Vietnam!

As I said the WMD affair was not good, it would have been better if Blair had said "he is an odious dictator and our major ally and benefactor requires use to help remove him". But Blair was cowardly in not telling the British people the truth.

That lie is not the same as the government instructing a British company to supply super gun parts to Iraq and then having them intercepted and prosecuting the directors in order to cover up their involvement. "
And which lie caused the most deaths? That's how I rate them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"And which lie caused the most deaths? That's how I rate them. "

You miss the point. The WMD lie cost no lives, those lives were forfeit when GW decided to remove Sadam by force (a mistake that is being repeated in slow motion across the Middle East at the moment).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And which lie caused the most deaths? That's how I rate them.

You miss the point. The WMD lie cost no lives, those lives were forfeit when GW decided to remove Sadam by force (a mistake that is being repeated in slow motion across the Middle East at the moment). "

Semantics, Blair lied, we went, many died.

Without the direct threat implied by Blair's lies things might just have been different but we will never know that will we.

How many lives were lost because of Blair's lies and the implications on tactics that may have caused?

Much bigger picture here folks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?"

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?"

Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?"
Funnily enough we know that he (Sadam) had chemical weapons in 88 (used by chemical Ali against the Kurds), but never used in the Iranians in the Iraq Iran war which was an 8 year bloodbath. In fact the only use of chemical warfare that I know of since WW1 has been by the USA in vietnam where dioxin was added to to the defoliant agent orange and used widely, all other chemical attacks that I know of have been by governments against their own people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?

Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused. "

Eh?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?

Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused.

Eh?"

Which bit don't you get?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Back to actual topic of post for a moment yes the uk are paying for the incarceration of charles taylor as result of being part of the international war crimes convention via by being part of this by paying our subs as such we will not be receiving direct funding for keeping him. Sweden and others offered to keep him too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?

Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused.

Eh?

Which bit don't you get?"

This bit


" Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?

Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused.

Eh?

Which bit don't you get?

This bit

Because of the lie we will never know the answer to that. As there were none we will never know what damage he might of caused. "

You asked

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?

Anywhere between 1 and 7 Billion, depending on the type of WMD and the delivery method.

But as Blair lied about the very existence of supposed WMD its a bit of a moot question don't you think

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obbygggMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?"
But we went to war and slaughtered thousands of people on a lie.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"And Tory ministers never lie...

All ministers lie no matter what party they are from.Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anyone?WMD was not good but was about justifying foreign policy. Not quite the same as the Tories lying to a court in order to jail British citizens in order to cover up their part in the Iraq supergun affair...

Or were they just being inventive with the "actualita""Was not good"? Blimey that's an understatement isn't it? And how many people got slaughtered because of that lie?

And how many more would have died if there had been WMD and we'd done nothing about it?But we went to war and slaughtered thousands of people on a lie."
No!

We went to war because GW demanded it. The WMD lie was a sap to those who needed an excuse to salve their consciences. And why? Because they believe that we should all be freethinking pacifist liberals...

God Taylor should be put to death for his crimes!

But no...

He gets to live out his life in a nice warm clean cell with food supplied 3/4 times a day and his health and security guaranteed! Bet that if Hitler and the Nazis committed their crimes today their human rights (and right to life) would be more important than the right of justice for the 6 million Jews they killed!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top