Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

How far back for compen claims?

Recommended Posts

It appears that the tax-payer is to fund a £20million compen claim by relatives and survivors of the British fight against Mau Mau terrorists in Kenya, 50 years ago. So what next? A claim from relatives of the S/African Boers who suffered in British concentration camps?  A claim from the Zulus, or any of the natives of the ex-British Empire? Jus how far back does this nonsense go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can i put a claim in for my ancestor uuugh who got clubbed by a rival hunter whilst out hunting a mammoth? :mrgreen:

 

Didn't Tony Bliar already apologise for that? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 years for injury claims. However the courts can apply discretion under S33 of the Limitation Act 1980. I suspect the latter has arisen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farce, Obs, is the fight and struggle for freedom farce Obs????,

 

The Colonial government used castration as a weapon!!!!

 

Have you not been saying Germany should have paid war compensation on another thread, have you not just shot yourself in the foot with this one :wink:

 

Or are you saying its ok for the UK to receive money when we are wronged, but the UK is never wrong and so should never pay it out. Why not just face the fact that's things got ugly when we were trying to keep hold of our Empire, and things there done, that should not have been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can i put a claim in for my ancestor uuugh who got clubbed by a rival hunter whilst out hunting a mammoth? :mrgreen:

Only if you can produce reliable witness and the weapon that was used against them Sid!.

PM me if you need a witness, I have a mate in Toxteth who will swear on oath that he saw the whole thing and not only that he will also produce the weapon and the mammoth skin for a few quid., might be a bit smelly though as he said  it's been in his shed for about 15,000 years. :D :D :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before Kije, compensation goes to the victor, but only if the victor is in a position to enforce payment. Bleeding hearts like you, would have us paying through the nose in compen  for every so-called historical war crime -  history is just that, history - get over it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad for the Ruck family, could they not put a claim into Kenya????, but if we are counting mis-deeds I think the UK will still be out of pocket, The really sad thing is, Their were other rebelions and other supressions by our Colonial Cival servants. We could be opening the flood gates here. The last days of are Empire got very dirty is some places, with us trying to hang on to what was left of out Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is mentioning mis-deeds. If the Mau Mau can claim against the British for atrocities, what about the atrocities that took place by the Mau-Mau?

IMO, if you go into the kitchen, there is a possibility that you may get burned. Can the white farmers in Rhodesia(Zinbabwe) get compensation from Mugabe??

 As obs says, just how far back to you take these issues? This country is the pits the way it bends over backwards to appease these people.

I wonder how much compensation the IRA are going to pay out?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victorious? Errm, think you'll find that the Mau Mau were defeated and their Leader killed.  The withdrawal from Empire was a strategic post-war political decision by the British Gov, who simply could no longer afford to police and administer it, in the light of the devastation at home. As for "war crimes"; think you'll find that the Mau Mau were adept at torture and butchery, and mainly of their own black communities - a trait that's lingered on in Africa until the present day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the unrest, as you said it was getting very expensive, they did win as their aim was self rule, which they got. The British aim was to stay, we lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errm nope; the strategic decision to withdraw from Empire had already been made. The Mau Mau were defeated. Which left more moderate elements (like Kenyata) to reap the reward of withdrawal, and a peacefull transfer of powers.  The Mau Mau were no different from the IRA, they were terrorists, and rightly imo treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

obs, define a terrorist, in your words without using one of the informative web sites, and please, not the old 'chestnut' - someone who strikes terror into the population or opposition!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs the decision to with draw had not been made in Kenya, if it had we would have not bothered to repress it as brutally as we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kije,  the principle of withdrawal from all our colonies was well established by the post-war Atlee Gov, it was merely a matter of organising a transfer of powers, and timing for the various colonies; the timing of course didn't suit everyone of course, especially the various terrorist groups in those colonies. What you call "repression", was simply the maintainance of law and order, in the face of such violence. The withdrawal from Kenya, was in spite of Mau Mau activity, NOT because of it. Alg, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and it depends which side your on and who writes the history at the end of the day, But, any minority group that endevours to overthrow a status quo by violent means, I would deem to be a terrorists, certainly from the point of view of the existing regime. The idea that these groups had majority local support for their activity is nonsense; as with the IRA, they even killed their own countrymen. Only in India, with Gandi, was there a non-violent opposition to British rule, which eventually succeeded by non-violent means; similar to the velvet revolutions against the Soviet Empire in E/Europe .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Kenyans wanted to be independent of the UK Obs, By your definition the Mau Mau are not terrorists.

 

 

, But, any minority group that endevours to overthrow a status quo by violent means, I would deem to be a terrorists,.

 

I minority took up arms, the majority supported the course.

 

So not terrorists then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. and where's your evidence that a majority supported independence?  Certainly not the many villagers that where massacred by the Mau Mau. I doubt the majority even thought about it, too busy trying to make a living..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they voted for Kenyatta, and independence, If Kenyatta had lost the election things might have been different,  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...