News1 min ago
Have The Families Of These Islamic State Terrorists Got A Case?
29 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Why didn't the government just keep quiet.//
yeah why does the gubmint tell us anyfing ?
xc when they want our vote at a general election and then they tell us how good they are
Has anyone applied for the attorney general's advice under the Freedom of Information Act ? does anyone know ?
The first time this gag was pulled was 1936 when Stanley Baldwin announced in the Commons - "my lips are sealed"
The cartoonist Lowe ever after showed him with sealing wax on his mouth
and of course events proved that SB lips werent sealed, there was no secret to protect, that he was lying and he was refusing to speak to avoid losing power wh wd occur if his lie was found out
twas ever thus
yeah why does the gubmint tell us anyfing ?
xc when they want our vote at a general election and then they tell us how good they are
Has anyone applied for the attorney general's advice under the Freedom of Information Act ? does anyone know ?
The first time this gag was pulled was 1936 when Stanley Baldwin announced in the Commons - "my lips are sealed"
The cartoonist Lowe ever after showed him with sealing wax on his mouth
and of course events proved that SB lips werent sealed, there was no secret to protect, that he was lying and he was refusing to speak to avoid losing power wh wd occur if his lie was found out
twas ever thus
Peter Pedant
He never said that.
In December 1935, when Baldwin explained that he could not yet divulge the full facts behind the government's actions. What Baldwin actually said was:
I shall be but a short time tonight. I have seldom spoken with greater regret, for my lips are not yet unsealed. Were these troubles over I would make a case, and I guarantee not a man would go into the lobby against me.
He never said that.
In December 1935, when Baldwin explained that he could not yet divulge the full facts behind the government's actions. What Baldwin actually said was:
I shall be but a short time tonight. I have seldom spoken with greater regret, for my lips are not yet unsealed. Were these troubles over I would make a case, and I guarantee not a man would go into the lobby against me.
"The family of an Islamic State terrorist killed by an RAF drone strike could try to sue the Government for compensation."
This is alarmist journalism at its worst. Nowhere in the article is there any evidence that the families have even been spoken to, let alone that they're thinking about legal action. Nothing but speculation.
This is alarmist journalism at its worst. Nowhere in the article is there any evidence that the families have even been spoken to, let alone that they're thinking about legal action. Nothing but speculation.
SeaJayPea
/// This is alarmist journalism at its worst. Nowhere in the article is there any evidence that the families have even been spoken to, let alone that they're thinking about legal action. Nothing but speculation. ///
Read what it actually says, it does not say that the families are 'THINKING' about legal action, but what it does say is:
"The family of an Islamic State terrorist killed by an RAF drone strike 'COULD TRY' to sue the Government for compensation."
/// This is alarmist journalism at its worst. Nowhere in the article is there any evidence that the families have even been spoken to, let alone that they're thinking about legal action. Nothing but speculation. ///
Read what it actually says, it does not say that the families are 'THINKING' about legal action, but what it does say is:
"The family of an Islamic State terrorist killed by an RAF drone strike 'COULD TRY' to sue the Government for compensation."
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.