Relatives of dead British Soldiers camp out in Whitehall

Guido | 19.10.2005 09:39 | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | London

They families have been denied legal aid to take the government to court over the decision to invade Iraq. They want a public enquiry into the decision to go to war. Denying them legal aid effectively gags them. They face losing their homes if they go forward with the case without any financial help.

The Peace Camp.

Peter and Helen Brierly, father and sister of Shaun, killed in Iraq.

Rose Gentle is joined by anti war MPs.

Flowers to remember the dead.

The legal briefing.

The peace camp was due to remain in Whitehall for at least one night. The familys talked to the media before going to lay flowers at the gates of Downing street to remember their lost loved ones. Their lawyer addressed the gathering to explain the legal situation to everyone.

This was a dignified and symbolic gesture by the bereaved to demonstrate their determination to the assembled media. So why the fuck did the MET mobilise a FIT team to intimidate them??? This was not a demo, the relatives and sympathetic MPs numbered about 12, there were about the same number of photographers and journos.

In the coming weeks the MET bosses will be encouraging their minions to ware a poppy to remember our war dead. Yet at the same time they are filming and photographing grieving relatives like criminals. Hypocrites.

Guido
e-mail: guidoreports@riseup.net

Comments

Hide the following 22 comments

Why don't they blame Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein!

19.10.2005 11:15

The whole Middle East crisis happened long before Tony Blair ever came to power! It happened as far back as 1983 when Islamic fundamentalist terrorists attacked American troops in Lebanon. And again in 1990 when Saddam Husseins' terror regime invaded and ravaged the sovereign country of Kuwait! Had it not been for the evil forces of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and evil dictators like Saddam Hussein then there would of been no need for a war on terror - A war which had to be fought, as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists had declared war on us with the sole aim of destroying western civilisation and creating a global Islamic state! We couldn't have negotiated with Al Qaeda or insane tyrants like Saddam Hussein. Who now thanks to Britain and America is no longer in power, but on trial faces charges for war crimes!

Voice of Reason

Al Qaeda and Saddam were our friends

19.10.2005 13:29

Voice of Reason has a rather short memory - Saddam Hussein was propped up for years to fight Iran - when he used chemical weapons against his own people we turned a blind eye - we sold him guns, bombs and the technology to build chemical weapons.

Al Qaeda emerged from the Soviet Union/Afghanistan conflict - the Mujahadeen was funded and trained by the US to fight "Communism" - never mind they were a bunch of religious fanatics.

"Bin Bush, Bin Blair, Bin Bin Laden, Bin the whole fuckin' lot of 'em!"

Clearer Voice of Reason

We were told LIES to get us into a war.

19.10.2005 15:16

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and the capability to launch them in 45 minutes"

The voice of treason

MFAW thank you for your stand for justice for your loved ones you have lost.

19.10.2005 20:59

A peace camp in the UK is long overdue. This was a very moving and dignified demonstration and all on the left in the UK and around the world should support the UK Military Families Against the War (

http://www.mfaw.org.uk/) in their attempt to bring Blair to Court.

For those who have given up hope that protest can work remember waht Cindy Sheehan started in the USA - just one woman who had lost her son.

In the UK we must be bolder and braver in our protest just like this one. Wherever Blair and his cabinet stooges go so should the anti-war movement, day in and day out, hounding them and naming them all as mass muderers who have lied to the people of the UK, and who should be brought to justice. Its not just Saddam Hussein who should be in a cage in a Court in Iraq, Blair and Bush should have a cage built to (a good image for the next demo I think).

Lets keep the peace camps going near to every major Cabinet ministers home and everywhere they go to spin their version of events we need to be there to say "not in our name" not today and not tomorrow and we will never give up or forget until they are brought to justice.

Neil Williams
RESPECT blog

Neil Williams
Homepage: http://respectuk.blogspot.com/

Dead british soldiers memorial

19.10.2005 22:19

Voice of reason has already been evidentially informed, at least TWICE, about the truth re - Saddam and Iraq, in previous postings.
It continues its' negativity and denial in its response to the military families posting.....leading me to think that vor is an "obvious agitator".
I would like to ask voice of reason, "What were American troops doing in Lebanon(not nearly close geographically, even by George W Bush standards), when they were "bombed" out of there??

A good action by MFAW, albeit, possibly following in the wake of Cindy Sheehan and Co in USA, but, nevertheless good, solid and peaceful action against war and to bring the troops home now.

Voice of treacle

Support Our Troops - Bring Them Home Now

20.10.2005 10:07

This has the potential to become huge. There has never been a sizeable service families' movement against a war before in the UK. All us anti-war folk need to get behind them.

Visit the peace camp if you can - if you can't, why not see if you can get a MFAW speaker to visit your town? At the very least send them a message of support.

http://mfaw.org.uk

Mr Spoon

Theyre not your troops

20.10.2005 11:20

They are the troops of the worlds second biggest imperialist country with interventions everywhere and anywhere every year. They knew that when they signed up and now you're all making them out to be unknowing of their actions. Well actually its more like uncaring as long as they get paid at the end of the day.Common sense evades you all.

Support the Iraqi people

Qualify that statement!

20.10.2005 13:42

"They are the troops of the worlds second biggest imperialist country with interventions everywhere and anywhere every year. "

I assume you mean that the UK, of course. Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, give me examples of the interventions "everywhere and anywhere every year". Make life simple and just choose the last 10 years. I assume that anywhere we're doing UN peacekeeping duties you're happy to exclude, but if not fire away....

Observer

Common sense?

20.10.2005 14:07

If you're a pacifist, you believe that individuals and nations should not fight wars under any circumstances. I doubt that there are many pacifists around, including here on Indymedia.

Assuming you're not a pacifist, you recognise that political entities, including nations, have to maintain armies and from time to time, use them.

The question is, under which circumstances?

There are various instruments of international law and convention that govern when a state may use force and the nature of that force.

There are also philosophical ideas about the nature of a "just war" that are widely known.

It's strongly disputed that the invasion of Iraq met the legal standards necessary for it to be acceptable on that basis.

I don't know anyone that subscribes to conventional just war theory that can argue that the Iraq invasion meets all the criteria. (Interestingly, most acts of Iraqi resistance to the occupation don't meet them either.)

I'd say that people have a right to join our armed forces in the expectation that they will take a great personal risk to defend our highly-imperfect democracy and that the orders they are given will be both legal and moral.

I can understand how the institutional nature of the armed forces means that very few people feel able to refuse to act on orders that they consider to be suspect.

I would bear in mind, also, that the situation has changed since the first military action. New information has come to light about the legal issues around the original invasion. It's also the case that the argument that the continued occupation is lawful diminishes by the day.

The situation isn't black and white, nor is it unchanging. If you're a pacifist, fine. But if so, I don't imagine you'll be supporting the violence offered by the various Iraqi resistance groups either.

Zorro

To Observer

20.10.2005 19:33

assume you mean that the UK, of course. Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, give me examples of the interventions "everywhere and anywhere every year"

Lets leave the 80's and the falklands as well as the intervention in the Iran Iraq war.

Late 80's early 90's we have the 1st gulf war. We have Croatian Incident in 92-94, We have the flatening of Yugoslavia in 99 the Afghanistan war in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 thats 5 incidents from 89 to 2003 which were major ones. Also British troops during this time have intervened in Cyprys in 96 (we all know the supposed 'free Cyprus' is still v much under British control, and took part in the bombardment of Iraq on a regular Basis from 92-2003 on supposed military targets although it has been proven that many times their smart Bombs kinda missed and hit civilians. Lets not forget Northern Ireland, the palestine of Europe which is no different to having east and west germany. English troops still maintaining the division of north and south of what is clearly meant to be 1 country. I think its safe to say that when theres an issue ul find Britain there. U know it and the world knows It. THe USA of course is a bigger Imperialist power than Britain as it contributes more and gains more than Britain out of these situations.

Dont make me say things u already know

Dont make me say things u already know

21.10.2005 07:45

I shan't argue with your list, but it still doesn't qualify the assertion that the UK Forces are "the troops of the worlds second biggest imperialist country with interventions everywhere and anywhere every year. "

For a start surely the Russian Federation and the United States occupy first and second place on the empire scale. Britain's empire is dead. Correct me if I am wrong is this not the first engagement where the UK has broken international law (for what it's worth). I'm no expert on the crazy Blakan years, but something had to be done, not that I am suggesting that what happened was the best solution.

I'd personally say that there haven't been enough interventions. I think there is now a compelling case for a UN permanent peace keeping force that will lock down any aggressive country undertaking non-UN-sanctioned confllict and impose negotiations. That would include The US, UK, AU et al. But the US being the probably the worst offender, fat chance of any strengthening of UNSC.

I think the worst accusation that could be levelled at the UK is that it gets involved in all the wrong fights. They pick and choose what country to take an interest in. Subsaharan Africa is full of better candidates than the Middle East. In fact, Israel is a better candidate in the MIddle East.

Sadly, military intervention is inevitable wherever others impose their will martially on others. It's HOW, WHEN and WHY we do it that's the problem. Which is after all a political responsibility not a military one.

The trouble...

21.10.2005 09:32

...when you produce "back up" is that its full of more holes than Swiss cheese. Right, where to start:

Firstly, the original quote claimed that the UK was involved in " interventions everywhere and anywhere every year". Even if we accept your figures, that's simply wrong. Let me emphasis that - WRONG.

Since you mention the Falklands, lets get one thing straight. The Argentinians invaded it. We took it back. Not really imperial warmongering, eh?

Next, Croatia. Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, provoking an immediate response from the federal military which erupted into full-scale war. In January 1992, after at least 10,000 people had died in Croatia and after 14 cease-fires had been broken, a United Nations-sponsored truce took hold. For nearly three years 14,000 UN peacekeeps maintained an uneasy standoff between the Croation defense forces and the rebel Serbs. I cant recall if we had many troops there, but again not really imperial warmongering, eh?

Later peacekeeping duties in Bosnia were broadly similar. You may want to check out the other countries there.

Cyprus. 1996. What the hell are you talking about? Nothing happened in Cyprus in 1996 and if we really ran the country as you suggest I think we'd have heard about it by now. Are all your facts as reliable as this?

And then we get to sunny Ulster. Take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland before you get yourself in a twist. Its fairly simple. 59% of the population still want to be part of the UK. They've been given devolution and the nationalists have a significant degree of control. The troops have been pulled out. The watch towers have been dismantled. Prisoners have been released from the Maze, albeit that a few got chucked back in for shooting and bombing. In what possible way is this comparable to the Palestine problem?

Incidentally, what are "English troops"?

So just to recap, you're wrong on every single point! Don't have a go at me until you can get your facts straight.

Observer

Support the Iraqi people! AND our troops!

21.10.2005 10:11

All sides suffer in this conflict. The previous comment 'to observer' is blinkered and plain silly. The UK military has done a good job in trouble spots such as Siera Leone, Bosnia and Northern Ireland. They also paid the price and saved thoose societies from utter chaos. This comment is plain silly: 'English troops still maintaining the division of north and south of what is clearly meant to be 1 country. I think its safe to say that when theres an issue ul find Britain there'. Presumably you mean Northern Ireland? It's part of the UK and the majority of the people prefer it that way. English troops? What about the RIR, RUC and scottish regiments? So we should just abandon these places and let it be the rule of the jungle? Your ill thought out rant, would see Northern Ireland abandoned to terrorists, the Falklands ruled by a military junta in Argentina, utter murderous chaos in the Balkans and lets not forget the Taleban! The Iraq conflict is wrong and may have been illegal but that doesn't mean everything the UK military has done can be judged by that. Groups such as mfaw merit support. Now head over the Union for another state subsidised pint!

Simon

Looking at this the wrong way

21.10.2005 11:01

Firstly id like to know what relation do the falklands have with the UK. They are nowhere near and only because of UK imperialism and enslavement of the island did they become British. Secondly Northern Ireland still has English troops in there and the truth of the matter is Westminster has not allowed the national assembly there to operate for more than a day. What are they afraid of. Refferendums for the independence of Northern Ireland have never been held and i wouldnt include the English backed 1973 one where the rules were made by england and were so unfair that the Republicans boycotted the vote. Northern Ireland is controlled by westminster this is not devolution this is plain British control. The idea of Northern Ireland being a different country is as stupid as the idea of North Korea being a different country to south Korea. 1996 Cyprus? Nothing Happened? get educated my friend. Violence erupted in the neutral zone between turkish and greek cypriots and the first army to intervene was the already cypriot based british army. If u dont think the british control cyprus look up the annan plan and tell me what it means to u.
As for the guy that said interventions are neccessary. I there was to be an intervention this would have to be by an impartial army who was only there to 'keep the peace' rather than 'take a piece of the country' like Britain and america (and others to a smaller extent) are doing to Iraq, yugoslavia, and afghanistan.Even the violence in african countries can be traced back to the imperialist powers divide and rule tactics when they were in control. i find it disgusting that there are so many British who believe their army is any good. Modern day large armies are only there for one reason and thats to impose this new form of imperialism which just has 'in the name of peace' o 'freedom' or 'democracy' labelled to it when in reality its no different to Hitler invading Austria or Musollini invading Ethiopia.

observer observes through black and white spectacles.

P.s Simon

21.10.2005 11:05

It was all good when Britain was supporting the Murderous regime of the Taleban wasnt it. Lets not also forget the economic support Britain offers to the murderous regime of Zimbabwe (look at british investment) and the support it offered to the murderous regime of Iraq in the 80's and Chile (Pinochet). So cut the bullshit tired and aged argument of stopping murderers because your country along with teh US are the main people who create them when they need them and bomb them when they dont.

that beer tastes terriffic

Erm....

21.10.2005 11:34

Simon wrote:

"The UK military has done a good job in trouble spots such as Siera Leone, Bosnia and Northern Ireland."

I think you will find Simon that in Northern Ireland the British troops were the cause of the problem not the solution*. Just as the coalition are in Iraq. I know little about the Siera Leone but in Bosnia the British/Nato troops were bound by their rules of engagement from doing anything about the genocide except watching it happen.

*Human rights abuses against Northern Ireland's catholic community are well documented.

Guido
mail e-mail: guidoreports@riseup.net

Ahem

21.10.2005 12:40

"I think you will find Simon that in Northern Ireland the British troops were the cause of the problem not the solution"

Justify and explain that statement.

Observer

I second that!

22.10.2005 17:36

"I think you will find Simon that in Northern Ireland the British troops were the cause of the problem not the solution"

Justify and explain that statement.

And also:

"Firstly id like to know what relation do the falklands have with the UK. They are nowhere near and only because of UK imperialism and enslavement of the island did they become British."

Hahahahahaha! Blimey, I didn't know that you could enslave puffins!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/1.htm

There was no call from the *cough* British Citizens (the only citizens) to be liberated by Galtieri's miltiray dictatorship. In fact, most of the poor Argies who invaded didn't want to be there and were only too willing to surrender!

If anything, the "conflict" was one big fiasco upon fiasco. Glatieri was blatantly mad and Thatcher seized an opportunity to ensure re-election. At the end of the day, it was as usual, laregly the working classes that came back home in body bags (well what bits they could find).

No-one has asked what the islands' original popullation thought of it all. Every time they try, the puffins fly away.

As for the rest of your POV it is too ill-informed to be anything other than a joke? Is this a windup???

Murres

Was it the Puffins they wanted

23.10.2005 15:41

Or was it control of the South Atlantic sea in order to ease commercial interests. I think you better wake up because if you think that Britains conquer of the falklands was just for fun then your an even bigger idiot than u sound. And another thing. If Rome had infact (back in the days where it had control over Britain)overflowed Britain with Romans, would this not mean that Britain had no claim to independence? Of course the Falklands shouldnt belong to Britain so you and your lame fucking empire can fuck off.

God Murres your a Genius..It was the Puffins all along

God Murres your a Genius..It was the Puffins all along

23.10.2005 23:28

How do you conquer puffins?

M(urres)

Right- let Galteri rule the Falklands!

24.10.2005 10:05

I mean he started the war didn't he? Any attempt by the UK to reclaim it's own territory from an aggressor is imperialism right? Not a single Argie lived there, the people were and still are British. As for commercial activities, the only business is tourism and sheep! No money goes to the UK from it! Be sensible many of your comments are intensely self-discrediting!

Arthur

At least do SOME research!

24.10.2005 15:00

http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/chron.htm

It was sad that so many had to lose their lives in a conflict that could have been wholly avoided. But, at the end of the day an Argentinian dictator decided to invade UK territory. The Islanders never wanted to be Argentinian. So I fail to see what the hell some people here are on about???

Sure, it was a pointless waste of life on both sides and a cynical move by Thatcher, but as far as I can gather it was totally legal in international law and if anyone had a right to claim the islands it would be Spain in a very, very teneous way. But since there has never been anything other than a British community there, it's a pretty clear cut matter of the locals deciding their loyalties.

The UK negotiated the handover of the Islands to Argentia years back and withdrew since no assurances could be given that the Islanders could continue their own government.

There are a handful of these little UK dependent territories dotted around the planet. Most of them without a pot to piss in and iffy national status in terms of leaving for the UK. To my knowledge, Gibraltar is the only one with any seriously active disputes over sovereignty.

Blair was trying to get rid of Gibraltar to the Spanish, but again the locals were having none of it!

This still sounding like imperialism?