www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Give_the_Chago...return_home/?cOlEqbb

Most folk don't have much faith in petitions. Personally I'd rather offer support than sit on my hands and say nothing about this disgraceful episode in our history.

Hell yes.
This has pissed me off for a long time.

andyh wrote:
It is fucking shameful.

Kicked out of their homes so the Americans can have an airbase.

It's only recently that I'd found out the we poisoned all of their animals and left the islanders with the impression that they would be next if they didn't leave.

hugorune wrote:
So you've watched stealing a nation eh?
Painful isn't it?

They didn't just poison them, they burned them on a big pile right next to their village, so you can imagine what 'them next' would have inferred.
They also had no concept of how to live in the outside world. Stripped even of british passport.
The royal privy council themselves had to make this decision, parliament couldnt do it.

A noble cause indeed.but hugorune can you change the word we to the specific organisation or people who are responsible please.

We is lazy and incorrect.

andyh wrote:
Those are the fools that stand in a semi-circle in front of Liz waiting for her 'agree' or 'disagree'.

Nice to see an unelected head of state making such decisions.

I used the Chagossian example a couple of years ago to show just how morally corrupt all politicians are. Some left wing numpties were trying to convince me that once labour got into power again they would do something about it. When I showed them that the labour scum were prepared to ignore their plight when they were in office - going back 30 years! - I was accused of spreading dis-info.

I had an email from our old 'red' MP explaining to me that Diego Garcia was an important outpost in the war on terror. He tried to convince me that millions had been paid in compensation when I think it was in the region of £750 per person.

humanspirit wrote:
No, my post is responding to a fellow Brit.

Hence the 'we'.

From wikipedia:

'In the case of the Chagos Archipelago, in 2000, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that a local ordinance made by the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory exiling the islanders was unlawful, a decision which was accepted by the British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. That Order was legislation passed under authority given by the royal prerogative, not an exercise of the prerogative itself, and was overturned as being beyond the powers given. After this decision, the British government issued an Order in Council, a primary exercise of the royal prerogative, to achieve the same objective. This Order was also ruled unlawful by the High Court, a ruling upheld in the Court of Appeal. However on Wednesday, 22 October 2008, the government won its appeal in the House of Lords against the previous rulings. The House decided by a three-to-two majority that the Order in Council was a lawful exercise of authority.[15][16] In their speeches, the Law Lords admitted the government of the day was morally wrong to force out some 2,000 residents of the Chagos Archipelago, a British Crown colony, to make way for a US air base in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the majority could not find legal fault in the Order.'

In actuality the privy council merely 'advises' the crown on the 'royal prerogative'.

Ultimately the crown can dissolve parliament and declare martial law.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

'The full extent of the Sovereign's prerogatives has never been fully disclosed; however in 2004 the Government made public the following prerogatives in pursuance of trying to be more open and transparent:[citation needed]
To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind. See Lascelles Principles.
To appoint a Prime Minister of her [his] own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister, on the advice of outgoing Harold Macmillan.
To dismiss a Prime Minister and his or her Government on the Monarch's own authority. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV.
To summon and prorogue parliament
To command the Armed Forces
To dismiss and appoint Ministers
To commission officers in the Armed Forces
To appoint Queen's Counsel
To issue and withdraw passports
To create corporations via Charter
To appoint Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England
To grant honours
The power to grant Prerogative of Mercy
To refuse the Royal Assent, last exercised by Queen Anne when she withheld Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.
The power to declare War and Peace
The power to deploy the Armed Forces overseas
The power to ratify and make treaties
To refuse the "Queen's [King's] Consent", where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues—including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia—or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament. In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq.
These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional crisis (such as surrounded the People's Budget of 1909), or in wartime. They would also be very relevant in the event of a hung parliament.
For example, in the hung parliament in 1974, the serving Prime Minister Edward Heath attempted to remain in power but was unable to form a working majority. The Queen then asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of seats in the Commons but not an overall majority, to attempt to form a government. Subsequently Wilson asked that if the government were defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, the Queen would grant a dissolution, which she agreed to.[18]'

hugorune wrote:
But you were party to poisoning these people's animals?
I am interested how you took part in this poisoning,what method you used,did you fly out there?
Why would you poison their animals and then bring to peoples attention that you were party to poisoning their animals?

humanspirit wrote:
Let's try again shall we?

hugorune wrote:
I've bolded the words you need to read.

I'm British and i've never heard of The Chagos archipelago let alone poisoned anybody there.

I used to use such terms such as we,then i realised it was incorrect because innocent people were getting lumped together with criminals.

By the way we have to pay some bills at the end of the month so cough up

humanspirit wrote:
Its good to be accurate I suppose
In this instance we all know what hugo meant/intended.

I'm surprised I didn't pull him up on it, its usually me who nitpicky about such stuff :p

Anyways for those who don't know what the chagos islands are all about...

johnpilger.com/videos/stealing-a-nation

^Go watch it, its very enlightening.

Last words on the subject from me.

Specifics are all important unless it's just a rant which i have posted in the past.

Thanks by the way hugo for the topic and the links provided by you.

Sloppy grammar and animal slaughter tend to go hand in hand.

I'm surprised at you Hugo

I've signed.

Thanks for posting. I didn't know about this situation. Once gain, sickened, yet not surprised.

oioioi wrote:

I know, I'm worse than Hitler.

Gilly wrote:
I'm losing count of shameful episodes in our British history.

hugorune wrote:
Its a crying shame, really.

Of all the cluster-fuckery that's happening around the world this really, really rankles with me.

Not even for a micro second do I have any faith in an All Party Parliamentary Group.

where's that Hulk smiley gone.