Mr Straw wishes us to take the US line on Iraq (no academic matter considering the potential loss of life and the cost) but will still not reveal the simple facts.
Perhaps he is completely justified. But this is the same man who, with the support of his colleagues, avoided a charge of speeding (at 103 mph, while on private business) on the supposed defence of escaping an unspecified peril.
|
But this is the same man who, with the support of his colleagues, avoided a charge of speeding (at 103 mph, while on private business) on the supposed defence of escaping an unspecified peril.
I think he's been smoking some of his son's cigarettes!
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
IIRC, it was Mr Straw's driver who was "over the top", not Mr Straw personally.
He may have been acting under orders, but one is entitled to disregard an instruction to break the law and would have had a perfect case for wrongful dismissal if he had refused and Straw had got rid of him.
|
IIRC, it was Mr Straw's driver who was "over the top", not Mr Straw personally. He may have been acting under orders, but one is entitled to disregard an instruction to break the law and would have had a perfect case for wrongful dismissal if he had refused and Straw had got rid of him.
DVD will have a view on this.
However my own tame rozzers at the time claimed that as Straw had a form of control over his driver he could be prosecuted for "using and causing".
Blatently that couldn't happen so it was all dropped.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
Now supposing it had been an HM or an HRH, and not a man of straw, what then?
Change is inevitable -- progress is optional.
|
|
AFAIK the reigning monarch can not break the law, they can do whatever they want. I suppose it must be one of the job perks...
|
...."excuse me, Ma'am, but permission to increase speed. We have some nasty looking chaps behind who are taking out our escort with SAM missiles..."
"Absolutely not! One can't risk get caught on one of these wretched cameras one's subjects have had erected! Think what the Sun would make of it. Permission denied."
Is the Monarch correct or not? Give your reasons supported by logical analysis. No conferring.
Change is inevitable -- progress is optional.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at least it shows that a speed over the slow limit was perfectly safe.
As to Saddam, the point is that we need to get in there to find out all the facts and put a stop to anything nasty going on before somebody under threat or attack makes a really robust response.
In intelligence you can't always reveal exactly what you know, for very good reasons.
(Never thought I'd be sticking up for Mr Straw!)
Tomo
|
Well, at least it shows that a speed over the slow limit was perfectly safe.
Yeah! The biggest lie of the 'Speed Kills' thoery is that there are vehicles (emergency vehicles in the course of their duties) who simply cannot speed because no fixed limit applies.
If speed kills these vehicles should be incapable of being involved in a fatal collision. Yet they do.
Methinks there are other factors.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
