One big problem with enquiries into old events is confidentiality. People (including foreign governments) have supplied information on condition that it will be kept strictly confidential. Conversations have taken place on the promise that confidentiality will be respected. The Secret Intelligence Service obtains material from agents whose lives depend on their confidences being kept. Can an enquiry renege on all that, break the promises, and breach confidentiality unilaterally? Well it could, but the consequences of reneging would be immensely damaging to the UK's standing and reputation, not to mention the lives of spies and agents. So chairmen and staff of enquiries like Chilcot go to great lengths to persuade those persons and nations involved to consent to waive confidentiality. This is difficult and complicated, and always subject to negotiated conditions (such as waiting until those concerned have left office). Failing that, the report might have to be drafted in such a way as to swerve around confidential material. Each of these approaches is likely to be time-consuming, so no surprise at the delays. Another problem is the issue of self-incrimination. Everybody asked to give evidence to an enquiry is likely to do so only on condition that what they say can never be used against them. Without that condition being agreed, the enquiry has no evidence and can achieve nothing. And that condition, once agreed, cannot be violated later since to do so would be an abuse of process. Indicted? Of course no-one can be indicted. If anyone was going to be indicted for anything, the trial(s) would have had to take place before the enquiry, not after it. Setting up an enquiry necessarily implies there will be no indictments - is that not obvious?
They weren't trying to amuse, but making a serious point through satire. The point is, surely, that that is not a capital offence in the enlightened West in the way that it appears to be in backward Muslim countries. Where do you want to live? I'll buy you a burka - perfect attire for biking.
Indeed. As you say, fighting for freedom does involve courting danger, and it does involve risking lives. It needs extremely brave, courageous, selfless people to fight for freedom - as it always has done. Let's hope there will always be enough ready and willing, whether in France or elsewhere.
In which case yiu will never understand, nor solve, nor assist in koves to solve, ignorance and bigotry. To undrstand anothrs view, to stand in their shoes, does not mean behaving like them nor liking or agreeing with it. This, alas, is the reason why alleged 'bebating' and 'diplomacy' fail: because all sides insist their map of the world is the only map of the world. Expect in this contact, there is no ordanance survey reference
I think that Mr Copeland might get on quite well with those Palestinians. It's well known that many homosexuals flee from the Palestinian territories, where they are vulnerable to persecution, to Israel (if they can).
Sorry, I did not put this clearly enough. My recollection is that they wanted to be killed by the police - I think they ran towards them brandishing their weapons, instead of surrendering. To their credit (and unusually), the police shot them without killing them. The whole life sentences seem especially appropriate, although very expensive for us.
And can you just imagine how many impressionable young moderate Muslims will be turned by these two who will be preaching the company line....
it seems you are hardly an onlooker and have done little research prior to your comment, the fact is Muslims get upset easily over nothing and their wonderful Karan tells them to hate non Muslims, so they pick upon this as an excuse. Images of Mohamed have been used in Muslim religious texts and paintings for the last 15 centuries until more recently. It's a pathetic excuse to instil hate in Muslims, period. If you have an interest the facts are out there.
so, still no solutions. i would love for the good people(all) who have commented on this thread to suggest a solution, in no more than one paragraph.
And that is exactly the point; We have laws to protect against racism, etc. But religion does not trump the laws of this or most other civilised countries. Radical Islamic leaders go out of there way to find something that in their view offends PM. This is purely to further their own agenda. Just look at the mobs protesting in Pakistan, they are just pawns in a game. Getting back to the long term solution; Islam needs to modernise itself to become compatible with the West. At the moment there is nothing attractive to young "made in Britain" Muslims who can't relate to the religion they find in the mosques and so are vulnerable to be taken down the road to radicalisation. They end up being less integrated into Britain than their immigrant parents.
I have been looking and reading this I'm in no way clued up enough to debate but I do form some sort of thought only I can't put it as eloquently as most of you
