Apologies guys..on the 1st post, I should have put.... "for starters".

---

10 years on

Hijacker now employed by BA

Hijackers win right to stay in UK

Hijackers live life of luxury

I'll say this again though...if I now try that...all I'll get is a healthy dose of lead poisioning...I wonder why?

Having read the above I'm not sure the UK gov't is guilty of the hypocrisy you allege. It seems to me that HMG did not willingly grant benefits and the like in this specific case, it was ordered to do so by the courts. HMG was also thwarted by the courts in its attempt to expel the individuals on their release from prison (following the court's finding of a miscarriage of justice). If one accepts that the "rule of law" is a fundamental of good governance then it follows that HMG respecting the decisions of the courts is probably a good thing.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Having read the above I'm not sure the UK gov't is guilty of the hypocrisy you allege. It seems to me that HMG did not willingly grant benefits and the like in this specific case, it was ordered to do so by the courts. HMG was also thwarted by the courts in its attempt to expel the individuals on their release from prison (following the court's finding of a miscarriage of justice). If one accepts that the "rule of law" is a fundamental of good governance then it follows that HMG respecting the decisions of the courts is probably a good thing.

Allege? Are you saying that the principal here is unfounded? I'm not alleging anything. It is a well documented fact that many ayslum seekers & even illegal immigrants are on the benefits system.

OK Rule of Law is fundamental but then by you accepting that fact, then you will also have to accept the fundalmental fact of common sense. This man fought for his country & injured to such an extent that any where but a ground floor residence is unacceptable.

What I gather from your post is that not only are you a US citizen but that you would apply the same fundamental rule of law if you were in a position to do so, but ignore the plight of injured service personnel that guarantees you the right of freedom of speech?

I don't think they would be very happy with you in a position of such power!

---

So it comes back to the thread title "Why Fight?"

Are you assuming that everyone who would fight is doing so like a mercenary for cash?

---

Nope. Just stating "Why Fight" Is it because you're that dumb & just want to keep a trigger pulled? or you really do want to protect your country? or unemployment is too high & I can earn in the forces? etc etc etc.

However, regardless of whatever one of the above is chosen....an entry has been made into the armed forces & regardless of what nation or how strong the armed forces are...in combat...people die, people get injured...

The Generals/Admirals/Air Chief Marshalls give the orders which are filtered down the chain of command....

However, they get their orders from the politicians & as such.. there should be a "care of duty" towards those service personnel.

Whether or not they are "alleged" hijackers, ayslum seekers, illegal immigrants/legal citizens being given handouts/benefits....once the politicians have given the orders for combat to commence..THEN injured & maimed service personnel MUST be given priority over others...as at the end of the day, they were injured/maimed so that we can vent our rage or voice our opinions either verbally or on forums such as this one. Freedom & by that virtue freedom of speech...does not come free...it is paid for, but not neccessarily by us.

---

snip

It seems to me that HMG did not willingly grant benefits and the like in this specific case, it was ordered to do so by the courts.

Addendeum.....

Long before the courts got involved, they were being housed in hotels at over £2000 per week....THAT is not a benefit?

---

snip

It seems to me that HMG did not willingly grant benefits and the like in this specific case, it was ordered to do so by the courts.

Addendeum.....

Long before the courts got involved, they were being housed in hotels at over £2000 per week....THAT is not a benefit?

The Telegraph article quoted here states:

The bill for the hijack includes £2.5 million for the four-day police operation, £135,000 for the SAS marksmen, £18,000 for the £200-a-night rooms and food for the hijack victims in an airport hotel, £100,000 for hotel costs during the initial two-month inquiry, £300,000 for the initial immigration inquiry into asylum applications, £30 million for two Old Bailey trials, including 27 barristers and seven translators, £1 million for appeals against conviction, £120,000 for housing, benefits and education for the nine hijackers and £2.5 million for asylum appeals.

The victims were housed in "£200-a-night rooms" not the hijackers, it's unclear when the housing costs for the nine hijackers were amassed.

What I gather from your post is that not only are you a US citizen but that you would apply the same fundamental rule of law if you were in a position to do so, but ignore the plight of injured service personnel that guarantees you the right of freedom of speech?

My personal circumstances regarding nationality are a matter of record on these fora, I am a dual national, UK and US, having naturalized a little under 4 years ago. As part of the naturalization I swore an oath that "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic", for me, at least, it is not only service personnel that guarantee the various right I enjoy, I have a duty to do so myself.

Where have I said anything about the plight of injured service personnel that would lead you to reach such a conclusion? Is it not conceivable that I may support the rule of law and the provision of adequate support for injured service personnel? To suggest that one can hold only one of the two positions seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

Allege? Are you saying that the principal here is unfounded? I'm not alleging anything.

Sorry, perhaps I misread:

What I find a hypocritical fact of our governments is service personnel return after suffering massive injuries in a conflict which that very same government ordered them to go & treat them like that, & yet at the same time terrorists can hijack a plane, land in the UK & get given a home, $$$$$$ & everything else that benefits entails.

though it certainly seems like your alleging that the government freely gave the hijackers a home and benefits, allegations that the links you provided did not appear to me to substantiate.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

OK, agreed. I like many others were probably captured by the style of media reporting at the time. However, as your homing in an actual link that did not provide precise & exacting information that you seem to require, please explain this....

Another Telegrah Report

That certainly does equate to £2000 per week

---

OK, agreed. I like many others were probably captured by the style of media reporting at the time. However, as your homing in an actual link that did not provide precise & exacting information that you seem to require, please explain this....

Another Telegrah Report

That certainly does equate to £2000 per week

Indeed it does, though it's not to a hijacker/terrorist/whatever. As I recall that article was one of several last year to make the case that the housing benefit system was broken, there was another in the Daily Mail, which after much reading put things into perspective:

In total, 16 families are living in million-pound-plus London properties funded by the Local Housing Allowance.
[...]
'Only a very small minority of people receive such high rates of housing benefit. The average payment is £81 a week.'

Of course, the housing benefit cap that the Telegraph an Mail were campaigning for last year would also apply to injured service personnel, still, I'm sure you'd agree it's a price worth paying to ensure that a handful of families don't get to live in posh folks homes at the tax payers expense.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Sorry I can't agree. Once politicians give the order that military forces have to enter combat & some return too maimed to continue serving in the forces, they receive a medical discharge. Once that happens, they & their families have to give up their miltary homes (which is understandable as they will be required for other fit serving personnel).

Once that happens, it should be the case under the "Care of duty" I mentioned earlier, that they be rehoused asap...can't be done? Really? With many reports as the one already posted, they seem to be readily available for ayslum seekers.

so regardless of any other political statements made by interested parties, mainly government & local authorities, it shows that it can be done...

..the problem is that for the last several decades, & a public fact, the Labour Party detests the military forces of the country they were supposed to be governing....

....& unfortunately to make matters even worse for the armed forces of the UK, our current coalition government in their Defence Review are continuing with further cuts, yet at the same time,militatily speaking, opened up a 3rd combat front(Libya) for our stretched forces.....

..that tells me a hell of a lot regarding the mindset of the assholes in power....

Even Wotton Bassett forced them to "Get in on the Act" as if it was all their own idea.....

So, as an individual, Why Fight? As should you do so, & receive injuries, you'll just get thrown aside like a used rag....

---

No one is saying that they are fools. It has to be lumped together due to recent political statements.

We have our armed forces fighting on 3 fronts, while at the same time, having their numbers cut. Also, they are being denied the proper equipment to enable them to fight with minimum losses.

Now for the crunch...it is intended to have the "Professional" manpower reduced to its barest minimum & have the Territorial Army(UK equivalent to US National Guard) increased to cover political military aims/options.

With the equipment situation as it is, that will be plain suicide for them...just imagine, ill equipped citizens sent off to war...how long before "Wotton Bassett" becomes an every day occurence?

...it'll happen sooner or later....

---

I totally agree with all your points. However, you forget I'm an ex-serviceman & quite proud of my time served. I have nothing bad to say about our armed forces. However with all the cuts being made & the state of the country at this time....

..I can actually see the time when your last sentence will actually occur...can you see any of the rioters volunteer for the forces in an attempt to improve their lives?

All I can see is the people at the top making soundbites while cutting back essential services while at the same time....have their snouts in the trough!

To answer your question personally....YES, if I was 20/30 years younger & living right now...the politicans & the forces would get the "bird" from me.

---

Very recently, I happened to come across a Channel 4 documentary that I seen as distressing for the people concerned, but on reflection, seen it as a very highly contensious issue...

...when local & national politicians do things like that with no regard whatsoever for the people of their country is despicable.....

The title of the documentary....

"Ground Zero Mosque" The points raised were very interesting to hear, but ignored.

---

Sorry I can't agree.

So the rules of housing benefit, even if they result in a handful of families receiving benefits that cover the cost of renting very expensive properties, should not be changed?

Once that happens, it should be the case under the "Care of duty" I mentioned earlier, that they be rehoused asap...can't be done? Really? With many reports as the one already posted, they seem to be readily available for ayslum seekers.

so regardless of any other political statements made by interested parties, mainly government & local authorities, it shows that it can be done...

"seem readily available" from a few stories in the newspapers, one of which admits that it's not representative? Do you have the stats that show asylum seekers are given priority over injured service personnel for social housing?

I think I understand what you mean by "Care of duty", though I suspect you mean the legal obligation under tort law referred to as a "duty of care".

..the problem is that for the last several decades, & a public fact, the Labour Party detests the military forces of the country they were supposed to be governing....

This would be the same Labour Party that extracted the British Armed Forces from their longest ever deployment? Interesting. Or perhaps it's the same Labour Party that provided homes and health care for service personnel at the end of the Second World War much like the Conservative Party did not at the end of the First World War? Do you think the situation of Private Alex Stringer would be better or worse if Labour had not won the 1945 election? Like the "hypocritical fact", I'm sure you have the links that document this "public fact", please share them.

So, as an individual, Why Fight? As should you do so, & receive injuries, you'll just get thrown aside like a used rag....

Are you sure the fate of all injured service personnel is as dire as the one referenced in the OP? Don't get me wrong, one such case is one too many, though I suspect that the Mail is engaged in sensationalism, much like it was last year over the predominantly fake Housing Benefit "scandal".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No not the same Labour Party, that doesn't exist anymore...it's now "New Labour" & they have publicily made it known they dislike the armed forces...for clarification, I suggest you research Gordon Brown while as Chancellor & as PM.

As a holder of dual nationality, do you think this is a useful idea for the UK....

4 year limit to welfare

As for providing stats, I don't think that the local authorities will publish those as it would certainly cause an uproar...but I do have personal experience of this..

Several Agency drivers that worked with us at Excel Logistics & Ryders were recent (at the time)Army discharges (invalided out) & on their return to the city of their birth, could not secure accomodation. I called a close friend whose wife was a local councillor & she enquired on they're behalf. We got told by her that she was told that 25% of the housing stock was being held for the influx of immigrants......

...all 4 ex-servicemen, who were proud of their service & had nothing bad to say against the forces, actually stated to the regular drivers at a staff meeting, What the hell did we serve for?

I quite agree with you regarding the Mail, as already been stated, it seems that is becoming more tabloid in its output. However, no comment on the previous Telegraph report? Or is that sensationalism?

When one hears more & more service personnel make statements like the ones told to us...it makes one wonder.....

The UK is no longer able to afford maintaing the forces as they should be.....yet they have all this money to pay out in excessive benefits? They don't have the housing for the likes of Private Stringer? Come on...pull the other one..it's got bells on.

---

This would be the same Labour Party that extracted the British Armed Forces from their longest ever deployment? Interesting. Or perhaps it's the same Labour Party that provided homes and health care for service personnel at the end of the Second World War much like the Conservative Party did not at the end of the First World War? Do you think the situation of Private Alex Stringer would be better or worse if Labour had not won the 1945 election? Like the "hypocritical fact", I'm sure you have the links that document this "public fact", please share them.

For what I'm able to find on this housing issue, in 1918 the Labour party thought that council house building should be carried out on the basis of general need. The Conservative government felt that council house building should only be carried out to that level that helped fill the gap created by the shortage of construction because of the war. It also felt that the commercial sector would make up the rest. Logical I suppose but for one thing...the slump came along so scuppered this idea.

After the second world war both leading parties had council house building as a major post war policy. They formed a cross party committee to decide on the best way forwards on this issue. The labour party then headed this building programme
well in to the 1950's. When the Conservative party gained power again later in the 1950's they then switched over to making slum clearance and rebuild the main priority. The reason why both major political parties had council house building a main feature of their policies after the second world war was because the UK lost 4 million homes due to war damage. Neither party had any choice in this issue, for they both would have to build homes who ever gained power.

This just came to mind...& I'd love to find out who actually said it...US or UK, Politician or Military Officer...

To Keep the Peace, One must prepare for War


Bit difficult though with all these cutbacks, politicians with their asses on the "Gravy Train"

Also what does come to mind as well as that if society keeps heading the way it is, we'll end up like...

Fritz Lang's 1926 film "Metropolis"

I think we gonna need quite a few Maria's.

---

To Keep the Peace, One must prepare for War

Si vis pacem, para bellum...it's a Latin adage...

To Keep the Peace, One must prepare for War

Si vis pacem, para bellum...it's a Latin adage...

Thanks MJ. Most of my info comes from school education & knowledge gained over the years, so I keep forgetting further reserach via the net.

---

To Keep the Peace, One must prepare for War

Si vis pacem, para bellum...it's a Latin adage...

Thanks MJ. Most of my info comes from school education & knowledge gained over the years, so I keep forgetting further reserach via the net.

Oh yes, what would we do if we did not have "it"...wished I could have learnt Latin when I was at school. I've several books on this subject but have not made the time to study them.