FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[zurich_allan]

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.

Would a racist and a homopphobe have been voted into power 3 times and stayed there for 12 years? I'm pretty sure there are a few homosexual and coloured voters out there. I'm not convinced they would have voted for her if she was that way inclined, but hey some folk are comparing her to Hitler it figures.

I imagine things have been taken out of context or twisted or just made up, as with the Belgrano example. But since I know the facts of the Belgrano but not anything about the supposed racism and homophobia, I decided to stick to the argument where I had the facts.

On the homosexuality thing she was actually an early backer of decriminalisation of male homosexuality.

And on South Africa: In October 1988 Thatcher said she would be unlikely to visit South Africa unless black nationalist leader Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and in March 1989 she stressed the need to release him in order for multi-party talks to take place, urging that the African National Congress's promise to suspend violence should be enough to permit his release, and that the 'renunciation of violence' should not be an absolute condition for negotiations for a settlement. At the end of March 1989, Thatcher's six-day, 10,000-mile tour through southern Africa—a follow-up to her 'look and learn' exercise in Kenya and Nigeria in 1988—did not include South Africa because Mandela had not yet been released.

These are the facts.

The facts are, that regardless of motivation (her actual moral stance is somewhat murky and contains much 'he said, she said' - and as such very much not facts), Thatcher was virtually the sole democratic leader around the globe that refused to impose or support sanctions against the South African administration at the time, and so directly allowed it to continue for many years longer than it should have. In other words, she was an active supporter of racism, whether those were her personal feelings or not.

[zurich_allan]

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.

Would a racist and a homopphobe have been voted into power 3 times and stayed there for 12 years? I'm pretty sure there are a few homosexual and coloured voters out there. I'm not convinced they would have voted for her if she was that way inclined, but hey some folk are comparing her to Hitler it figures.

You do realise that after Section 28 was enacted (i.e. the unquestionably homophobic legislation) - she didn't win another general election? Many have said that this was the start of her downfall with the public, and indeed she was unceremoniously ousted as Prime Minister only 18 months later....

[racechick]

. Likewise, she didn't need hindsight before murdering a third of the crew of the Belgrano, she had expert military and naval advice that she chose to ignore - she knew at the time it was murder but decided to carry on regardless.

Those things were wrong at the time and didn't need the benefit of hindsight.

Then there is the literal murder of over 300 members of crew and civilans onboard the Belgrano as it was sailing away from the exclusion zone during the Falklands war - when she ordered it destroyed in spite of expert advice not to do so.

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.
But I want to comment on your two statements above which I disagree with and believe you have the facts wrong.
Thatcher didnt decide against advice to attack the Belgrano, She and her war cabinet endorsed the attack on the advice of Admiral Sir Terence Lewin who had received information from British intelligence about a task force gathering south of the Falklands including an aircraft carrier in preparation for a huge attack. All ships had been ordered to join this task force by the Argentianian admiral...this is the message that was intercepted by British intelligence. the Belgrano was north of the islands and ordered south to join the task force. Though it appeared to be sailing away from the island it was in fact circling round to join the task force. In 2003 the captain of the Belgrano said in an interview that his ship was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack and his orders were to fire on any British ships in range.
The Belgrano was a warship containing Military people not civilians. There were only two civilians killed on that ship.
Calling Thatcher a murderer for that is a little rich. She was acting to protect British military and on their advice. After that the Argentinian navy withdrew and their airforce had to come from a land base not an aircraft carrier, so the airforce were also severely compromised.

Aggression and war are bad, but Britain were not the aggressors here. It's also a little know fact that Thatcher offered ceasefire terms until the first of June but Argentina refused.

Had Thatcher not agreed to her Admirals request, and agreed quickly and decisively, that ship would have joined the task force just south of the Falklands, and fired at will on any British ships in range and a whole lot more lives would have been lost. You can't dither in war situations.

Ok rant over.

EDIT: High five Ichabad. You beat me to it!

Yet I'm afraid you're both wrong.

There was no provision under international law for the UK to implement a total exclusion zone. Thatcher and her advisers made up a fictitious law to suit their own ends. And it's there that every other piece of information you have both provided becomes completely irelevant from that point on.

In short - the UK had no legal right to create or declare a total exclusion zone, and the Belgrano was literally breaking no law by being where it was.

As such I'm afriad - again - you're both wrong - it was unquesionably not an act of war, but murder.

As a government of a soverign nation you can make certain laws to suit your ends, but you cannot unilaterally make up international law, which was what they effectively tried to do.

Don't forget - this is part of my job - I lecture international law for a living...

It was an act of war, and the captain of the Belgrano has said it was. The Argentian fleet were threatening/ agreessing/ attacking, whatever you wish to call it.
Britain didnt make up a law, they acted through the United Nations under article 51 which is the right of a nation to defend itself. They also said the 200 mile exclusion zone was without prejudice to any other action required by Britain to defend itself and its military.

Are you saying it would have been ok for Britain to do nothing and allow Argentina to attack British ships and residents of the Falklands?
Which facts of those stated above by myself and Ichabod Are not true?

[zurich_allan]

. Likewise, she didn't need hindsight before murdering a third of the crew of the Belgrano, she had expert military and naval advice that she chose to ignore - she knew at the time it was murder but decided to carry on regardless.

Those things were wrong at the time and didn't need the benefit of hindsight.

Then there is the literal murder of over 300 members of crew and civilans onboard the Belgrano as it was sailing away from the exclusion zone during the Falklands war - when she ordered it destroyed in spite of expert advice not to do so.

I'm not aware that Thatcher was a racist and homophobic, if thats correct, and I'm not saying it is, then that's something I abhor.
But I want to comment on your two statements above which I disagree with and believe you have the facts wrong.
Thatcher didnt decide against advice to attack the Belgrano, She and her war cabinet endorsed the attack on the advice of Admiral Sir Terence Lewin who had received information from British intelligence about a task force gathering south of the Falklands including an aircraft carrier in preparation for a huge attack. All ships had been ordered to join this task force by the Argentianian admiral...this is the message that was intercepted by British intelligence. the Belgrano was north of the islands and ordered south to join the task force. Though it appeared to be sailing away from the island it was in fact circling round to join the task force. In 2003 the captain of the Belgrano said in an interview that his ship was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack and his orders were to fire on any British ships in range.
The Belgrano was a warship containing Military people not civilians. There were only two civilians killed on that ship.
Calling Thatcher a murderer for that is a little rich. She was acting to protect British military and on their advice. After that the Argentinian navy withdrew and their airforce had to come from a land base not an aircraft carrier, so the airforce were also severely compromised.

Aggression and war are bad, but Britain were not the aggressors here. It's also a little know fact that Thatcher offered ceasefire terms until the first of June but Argentina refused.

Had Thatcher not agreed to her Admirals request, and agreed quickly and decisively, that ship would have joined the task force just south of the Falklands, and fired at will on any British ships in range and a whole lot more lives would have been lost. You can't dither in war situations.

Ok rant over.

EDIT: High five Ichabad. You beat me to it!

Yet I'm afraid you're both wrong.

There was no provision under international law for the UK to implement a total exclusion zone. Thatcher and her advisers made up a fictitious law to suit their own ends. And it's there that every other piece of information you have both provided becomes completely irelevant from that point on.

In short - the UK had no legal right to create or declare a total exclusion zone, and the Belgrano was literally breaking no law by being where it was.

As such I'm afriad - again - you're both wrong - it was unquesionably not an act of war, but murder.

As a government of a soverign nation you can make certain laws to suit your ends, but you cannot unilaterally make up international law, which was what they effectively tried to do.

Don't forget - this is part of my job - I lecture international law for a living...

It was an act of war, and the captain of the Belgrano has said it was. The Argentian fleet were threatening/ agreessing/ attacking, whatever you wish to call it.
Britain didnt make up a law, they acted through the United Nations under article 51 which is the right of a nation to defend itself. They also said the 200 mile exclusion zone was without prejudice to any other action required by Britain to defend itself and its military.

Are you saying it would have been ok for Britain to do nothing and allow Argentina to attack British ships and residents of the Falklands?
Which facts of those stated above by myself and Ichabod Are not true?

Ah, but you see this is where it gets murky and you have to really be an expert to fully understand all of this, because you have to be able to understand the legal underpinnings.

Article 51 is a general provision, however it does not supersede all other laws. Laws cannot be looked at in isolation and a nation cannot decide that it's own interpretation of a law take precedent over other established international laws and conventions. Hypothetically should the French declare war on us, could we just say 'We of the UK claim all water up to your coastline and movement off the coast of France by the French or anyone else will result in them being blown to kingdom come!'? Of course we couldn't. And it's the same here. The UK had no legal right to declare a total exclusion zone, and so there is no legal basis for any subsequent action using that as the justification. And even so - the Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone, even if it were valid. By that logic - using the example I gave about France - could we just launch artilary onto French Mainland and say 'ah well, it was just a bit further than we said, so what's the difference?'?! Of course not, because that would be patently ridiculous.

Beyond that, giving even less legal strength to the argument of the British government at the time, there was never actually a legally declared war at all, so it's not even technically accurate to refer to it as the Falklands 'war' -a conflict, yes, but a war, no. And if there is no legally declared war - how can any killing under these, already spurious circumstances possibly be declared an act of 'war'?

And regarding the captain of the Belgrano - you're right - his opinion was that the attack wasn't a crime. But again, he's not a lawyer, he can speak for the facts, but not for the law. Remember in a solemn criminal trial you have lay representation (the jury) and legal counsel (the lawyers and judge). The judge directs the jury on the law and the jury are only allowed to consider the facts once the judge has examined and directed them on the law. The facts cannot even be considered in a court if the legal underpinning does not allow it.

In this case - the legal basis is not present for the action the UK took as I've outlined, and therefore the facts beyond that become irelevant.

And on that note - I'm off to bed otherwise I'll likely not make it up to go to my work in the morning...

[racechick]

Well it's a good job margaret Thatcher was running the show and not a lawyer or we' d likely have had a lot more deaths on both sides.

[zurich_allan]

Well it's a good job margaret Thatcher was running the show and not a lawyer or we' d likely have had a lot more deaths on both sides.

No - everyone say's things like 'she was the prime minister who had bal*s' etc. If she had bal*s she would / should have declared war from the outset. The lack of doing that automatically makes any action - and rightly so - thereafter highly questionable.

You're turning this into an attack on the law and lawyers (not a surprise, that's the easy option a lot of people go for, usually deeply ignorant people), but the laws regarding wars, conflict, engagement etc. are all in place in order to protect the civilised world from itself, to prevent any loose cannon from just attacking all and sundry.

The law also recognises that there is a major difference between the preparation to carry out an act and the carrying out of an act itself. The law recognises that tactics can change, that people and nations can push their luck for posturing or to indicate a threat (a bark rather than a bite, even though the bite may or may not follow), or to try to assert dominance yet not follow through when it comes down to it. At its simplest point - the law recognises that people can think about or prepare to carry out a crime and yet not actually follow through with that crime.

The law recognises this - sadly the UK decided not to. There does indeed come a point where the threat moves from preparation to perpetration, and moves from becoming a threat to becoming reality - the Belgrano in the position it was in at the time was absolutely not at that point when they were attacked.

[1Lemon]

Well it's a good job margaret Thatcher was running the show and not a lawyer or we' d likely have had a lot more deaths on both sides.

No - everyone say's things like 'she was the prime minister who had bal*s' etc. If she had bal*s she would / should have declared war from the outset. The lack of doing that automatically makes any action - and rightly so - thereafter highly questionable.

You're turning this into an attack on the law and lawyers (not a surprise, that's the easy option a lot of people go for, usually deeply ignorant people), but the laws regarding wars, conflict, engagement etc. are all in place in order to protect the civilised world from itself, to prevent any loose cannon from just attacking all and sundry.

The law also recognises that there is a major difference between the preparation to carry out an act and the carrying out of an act itself. The law recognises that tactics can change, that people and nations can push their luck for posturing or to indicate a threat (a bark rather than a bite, even though the bite may or may not follow), or to try to assert dominance yet not follow through when it comes down to it. At its simplest point - the law recognises that people can think about or prepare to carry out a crime and yet not actually follow through with that crime.

The law recognises this - sadly the UK decided not to. There does indeed come a point where the threat moves from preparation to perpetration, and moves from becoming a threat to becoming reality - the Belgrano in the position it was in at the time was absolutely not at that point when they were attacked.

in this prefect world where all countries always follow all laws all the time, Argentina would never have invaded a small almost defenseless Island.

Also the exclusion zone was primarily to stop foreign ships accidently wondering into the war and being attacked by confusion on both sides.

[racechick]

You're turning this into an attack on the law and lawyers (not a surprise, that's the easy option a lot of people go for, usually deeply ignorant people)


The law recognises this - sadly the UK decided not to. There does indeed come a point where the threat moves from preparation to perpetration, and moves from becoming a threat to becoming reality - the Belgrano in the position it was in at the time was absolutely not at that point when they were attacked.

Without wanting to sound arrogant, I wouldn't say I'm a deeply ignorant person.

I'm not turning it into an attack on the law and lawyers. you brought in the law in a very long post. I just replied briefly to it.

The Begrano was under instructions to sail south and join a task force and to fire on any British ships it saw. I'd say that's a pretty big threat!

[LewEngBridewell]

Bring on the revolution.

[zurich_allan]

You're turning this into an attack on the law and lawyers (not a surprise, that's the easy option a lot of people go for, usually deeply ignorant people)


The law recognises this - sadly the UK decided not to. There does indeed come a point where the threat moves from preparation to perpetration, and moves from becoming a threat to becoming reality - the Belgrano in the position it was in at the time was absolutely not at that point when they were attacked.

Without wanting to sound arrogant, I wouldn't say I'm a deeply ignorant person.

I'm not turning it into an attack on the law and lawyers. you brought in the law in a very long post. I just replied briefly to it.

The Begrano was under instructions to sail south and join a task force and to fire on any British ships it saw. I'd say that's a pretty big threat!

You didn't sound arrogant in the least. I was trying to be careful about how I worded that by being general - the point I was trying to make is that time and time again in the past I have seen so many people in so many contexts criticising the law in an area, when they don't actually either fully know, appreciate or understand that law.

I don't necessarily blame people for it, so much as try to explain in terms that they can relate to i.e.

If this were a thread about a complex surgical procedure - say on a person's kidneys. You can't just put a plan in place to look after the medical needs of that patient's kidneys. You'd likely be able to appreciate that an operation on that would require taking account of also their respiratory needs, their circulatory system, the knock-on effects to any other major organs, their painkilling needs, protection agains infection etc. And all of this is linked to that one area being operated on. If you ignore the rest, the knock-on effect of just operating would be catastrophic. If that patient had cancer you could justify acting quickly, but not blundering in resulting in the death of that patient. If a medical doctor were to explain that sort of procedure to you, no matter how urgent the procedure, people would likely respect their position as it's a concrete scenario that they can relate to.

The law is pretty much like that. You can't look at laws, or indeed actions in this type of case in isolation without considering the areas, responsibilities and other laws that are linked and cannot be separated. Various domestic and international laws, both civil and criminal are interrelated, and have to be given due consideration prior to blundering in otherwise it causes massive complications (in the same way that blundering into a surgical procedure would result in complications to a patient) and knock-on effects to other laws. A lawyers job in that area, and responsibility is to dissect and interpret those laws and act accordingly, in the same way that a medical doctor has the responsibility to analyse and take account of the knock-on effects to their patient of surgery on a specific area, that go beyond just that affected area. Yet sadly, in our 'know-all' society, people think they can understand the laws in these areas in a quick google search over somebody who has studied, researched etc. those areas for many years. It's quite insane if you think about it for people to believe that, but because law is highly theoretical and not quite so directly practical as medicine, people often don't see that they two actually aren't that different.

Do I find it mildly insulting that people not familiar with or qualified in an area that I began studying in 1998, and have worked in since 2007 think that they could know or understand various areas of law better than me? Yes. Do I think that's unreasonable? No. The same way that I'm sure a medical doctor would roll their eyes if they went on a forum and a lay person tried to tell them they were wrong about an aspect of a medical procedure, and they would have every right to do so.

[racechick]

I fully accept that you know more about law than I can ever dream of knowing. The thing is, I I think the Belgrano incident wasn't only about law. It was about security of the nation and Britain worked through the UN.Anyway, I'm out of this debate now. On this one we'll have to disagree.

[zurich_allan]

I fully accept that you know more about law than I can ever dream of knowing. The thing is, I I think the Belgrano incident wasn't only about law. It was about security of the nation and Britain worked through the UN.Anyway, I'm out of this debate now. On this one we'll have to disagree.

No no, don't get me wrong - you're quite right of course, there are so many actions in that period that the morals themselves could be debatable and allow for different perspectives - indeed as is obvious from the past couple of pages here, people do hold different perspectives on those morals. However the problem is just that killing somebody is a physical action. One could kill somebody the same way, but how it is termed is a purely legal concept. The labels murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, justifiable homicide, self defence, and even the term war itself are legal terms with legal definitions. Literally the same physical action (actus reus) could be carried out, but the circumstances are what then puts the legal label on it. Moral and lawful don't always correlate. And the problems with the legality, and thus the label that can be applied are what I mentioned earlier in the thread. The legal term 'war' cannot be applied to a scenario where a war was not declared (opinion either way does not matter), and so it has to be one of the other labels that are applied. Likewise, there are legal reasons, that I could explain if anyone wants me to, however I'll not in this thread to avoid information overload, why the term self defence cannot be applied. Under the circumstances, the only real applicable term is murder. Though as you say, I can see that I'm not really persuading you...

Genuinely though, I think that everyone who has posted in this thread would benefit from, and likely enjoy (as they are taking an active interest in this issue) some classes in the areas of public international law, international criminal law and general criminal law / criminology. I've been arguing for years in fact that law should be taught at school level given that even children (over the age of 8 in Scotland and 10 in England) could have criminal liability attributed to them (12 for prosecution in Scotland though as the ages of liability and prosecution differ).

[andrew]

I'm not even bother trying to have a discussion over this 'cos the facts just don't seem to matter. All that matters is the typical Scottish chip on the shoulder attitude towards someone who was probably one of the greatest political figures this country has ever seen. Done.

[zurich_allan]

I'm not even bother trying to have a discussion over this 'cos the facts just don't seem to matter. All that matters is the typical Scottish chip on the shoulder attitude towards someone who was probably one of the greatest political figures this country has ever seen. Done.

I can roll my eyes too - see -

I've stated quite a few facts, but what I've also brought to the table is a discussion of the legal status as it relates to those facts, and also rather than discuss only the facts, tried to put them into the wider context that they have to be viewed within, rather than in isolation. I also explained that context in quite a bit of depth - so to say it is a 'typical Scottish chip on the shoulder attitude' is disingenuous to the extreme.

I don't do typical biased views - as I've said many many times before, when I'm involved in either teaching or researching a subject I start from a completely neutral standpoint and draw conclusions based on hard evidence from both sides and how accepted theory relates to that evidence before falling down on one side or other. I don't agree with any political party or their policies 100% as I won't be led like a sheep, however some I agree with more than others.

[Hammer278]

Damnit I was enjoying the great read between rc and zurich since I know next to nothing on the subject...and you guys quit already??