This article alleges that the UK Border Force maintains internment camps for asylum seekers, the management of which that has resulted in serious harm and deaths of detainees with no legal protection.
It cites it involves the toleration of rape by other detainees and by staff, beatings, illegalities and other human rights contravention, together with other problems of attitude and procedures by under-trained and poorly managed staff…
So, what is your position on the article and what do you wish to debate?
The question is, what do they know about the US police and the Detention Blacksites they run?
I would have put money on there being few US responses of outright denial and ignorance of the facts of the case, as the post does not challenge the image of US liberal democratic ideals.
It raises serious problems if lawyers are finding that people are detained, beaten, raped and then held incommunicado which is proven quite clearly in the various articles on the matter.
But of course it does not matter if legal rights are overridden so long as the right wing is happy.
This is obviously true, because the Independent is a great newspaper.
I find it difficult to watch Channel 4 tomorrow night, as the article urges me to.
Owned by a Russian Oil oligarch unlike the Guardian which is run by a charitable trust. Politically in UK they are the two most similar broadsheets. They operate on the same journalistic principles and under the same regulation.
It will be on the 4OD website.
Well, so much for humor.
Since you brought the subject up. A Charitable trust with millions of pounds sitting in off shore tax havens.
Is that illegal?
I’d assume not, because if it were, somebody probably would have done something about it by now.
See what I did there?
I posted a press article critical of a US state authority and 26 of the 29 responses on the first page were either defensive responses for the behaviour or criticisms of the original article.
I then post a press article critical of a UK state authority and totally absent are real criticisms of the article or its contents.
Where are the legions of people making ad nominee attacks and challenging the validity of the OP and follow ups. Why are the usual subjects missing in this thread and so present in the other?
I wonder why that is.
Surely it couldn’t be a nationalistic and xenophobic defensiveness about perceived outsiders questioning political holy cows.
But do discuss it fully as it is a stain on the liberal principles that the UK claims to represent.
Chip in and criticise the UK as it deserves it because I will not make snarky xenophobic comments about foreigners who raise realistic questions about my governments’ failure to act legally and humanely.
That is true patriotism - the willingness to question wrongs that you find in your own country.
Actually, what you are seeing is people treating both threads as joke threads.
I wonder why that is.
So the debate is about how much better Pjen’s moral principles are when compared to a bunch of Americans?
No, but hugely hypocritical considering it’s The Guardian. A television evangelist preacher caught having gay sex with a rent boy is no more hypocritical than The Guardian.
By the way, the reaction to the OP surely would have been different if the headline involved phrases like “Guantanamo-on-Great Ouse” or “gulag with fish and chips” to describe the facility.
Another flippant comment coming from me im afraid. Your a fundamentalist Scots Nat. Your condemnation of the British government as an act of patriotism on your part runs hollow with me. Are you being patriotic to the Scottish state with your op? Or the British state?
Having just done some research and looking at the accounts, I will ask you to cite for the Scott Trust having “millions of pounds sitting in offshore tax havens.”