norsk

Actually I'm nowhere near perfect. I've made plenty of mistakes in my time and I expect I will make some more before my time is up, but I think you missed my point in your 'red mist'.

What I'm saying is that they more than likely knew the associated risks when they decided to do what they did. Why is it my responsibility to indirectly pay for their recklessness? What is the long term impact on people's inability to take responsibility for their own actions of doing so? This isn't just about these two poor people, it's also about trying to avoid setting a long term precedent.

Perhaps I am a twat and a sanctimonious idiot...

[Edit: Just saw your edit. I agree that these guys need help to get out, and I'm sure they will get it soon. It is just unfortunate that others will use it as an excuse for doing sh*t they shouldn't be doing...]

weescot

Are you an expat still paying income tax then?

REgardless of who foots the bill not just for a potential rescue operation - but also all the time and effort of the civil servants/polticians engaged in meetings/discussions/report writing on this couple's captivity, it is still a responsibility and duty the government has to exercise to support its citizens. As individuals, we might not like it, and we might not agree with this couple's decisons that led to their captivity, but I think funding assistance to fellow citizens in trouble, as these two are, should be debated once they are safely home. Then they can answer to us directly.

norsk

Of course I don't pay income tax hence I used the word indirectly! And don't for a second think that income tax brings in enough cash to run the country. If it did then how come (if you live in the UK) you have to pay VAT, council tax, tax on booze, tax on cigarettes, tax on petrol and the list goes on and on...

Like I said I think these people need to be helped out of the mess they're in. There is no doubt about it that they need help, my argument was more on a principle level. To be honest my intention wasn't to shock or offend anyone and I apologise if I did, and deep down I wish that I had kept my mouth shut...

BTW, as far as I am aware the government has no obligation to help its citizens if they get in trouble abroad regardless of what has happened to them! The fact they usually do is another matter entirely.

littlejimmy

Ouch. Norsk, I bet you wish you could delete your last 3 posts.

Ethos83

In the 1860s the British government sent an entire army to rescue a few missionaries and British officials captured by a tribal king in what is now Ethiopia. 13,000 troops, auxilliaries and over 36,000 animals were involved in the rescue.

It's a fascinating account of a little known imperial adventure.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/force...pabyssinia.htm

weescot

I have been an expat for several years now.... and it is a well known fact the UK government is not only skint, but in debt.

As much as I moan from afar the wreckless spending in general the UK government seeems to be engaged in back home, I always end with "but of course I have no right to complain since I don't pay tax anymore". The same applies to this case. Directly or indirectly, as a non-tax payer I have no ligitimate right to talk about the rights and wrongs of funding of this, or any other UK operation abroad. This is my point. Would you moan about a restaurant bill if you hadn't eaten there, would you?

As for rescuing Brits in trouble abroad - it doesn't always happen - we know that. But it does - another recent case was that metally ill Londoner that was recently executed in China. The UK tried to get a pardon etc ... These things are done on a case by case basis. But this is an elderly couple doing what we all dream about - sailing around the world. It is not about precedent as people will always do stupid things... that is human nature.

Personally, you haven't offended me at all. This forum is full of healthy debate. I am just adding to it. One day this could be me, although I'll be on a dive boat.

seven seas

Errrr, so it wasn't all about annexing another part of the world to plunder and pillage?

TGFKASE

Auto, I am intrigued by your response...

You rally for someone to help these people, yet never actually state what you feel should be done to rescue them...

Would you condone a ransom be paid, thus making every UK passport holder a possible lottery win for some Somali piece of shit...

Would you condone sending in troops, thus putting at risk even more British lives?


Or have you come up with the 3rd path?

Ethos83

Read the link before you mouth off and display your ignorance.

Autonomy

The UK government could never pay the ransom (see my very first post), though that doesn't stop any other body or individual paying. I don't think that is the best option though.

Even if the ransom was not paid the pirates will continue to view all shipping as a potential lottery win...

Yes in this case I do think the use of force should be considered. I know this puts lives at risk.

If I was in that situation I would probably rather take the risk that I may be killed in a rescue attempt rather than probably be beaten for an indeterminate time then executed in the desert...

I fully understand that the rescue team would be in danger but there seems to be few other options.

If the rescue was successful then this would hopefully be a deterrent to future kidnap attempts.

I know it's a difficult situation and I don't think for one second I have any where near all the facts...

What is the bored's view on the course of action to take?

leave them to fend for themselves
government pays the ransom
another entity pays
military force is used
other options?

weescot

Fending for themselves is not an option - everyone would then be criticised for not doing enough and the couple would likely suffer a fate that would not be pleasant

Ransom is not an option, for reasons already mentioned. I don't want to be a potential ATM ..

Another entity - who? Insurance with an appropriate Lloyds syndicate? An altruistic do-gooder?

as force was used to capture them, sadly it has to be considered to release them... this is all that their captors will "comply" with

Don't think there are any others, other than diplomacy and negotiation.... which may never yield a result

So for me, option 4 - military force is used. By deduction...

TGFKASE

I assume you are speaking about mathematical deduction, not logical deduction....

shiva

as it is aside day heres another one

most people are against the death penalty ( eg emirati rapist thread) and yet most are also for military action to free these two mupets.
In both cases the guilty will be punished by death, where is the difference?

Autonomy

On the face of it interesting question - i.e. both scenarios could equate in death.

However I think this is a simplistic reduction.

In one case it is a case of punishment and the other of rescue. One will 100% result in death as that is the intention the other may result in deaths but that is not the intention.

One is a choice the other is due to a lack of choice.

One is (allegedly) a muppet by choice the others are muppets by misadventure.

I could go on, however I don't see the correlation....

Autonomy

What would you suggest?