Hang them, hang them all

The Foreign Office was accused of a cover-up after ministers said records of flights passing through an overseas territory used by the United States for extraordinary rendition had been lost to ”water damage”.

No, no arguments, long drop for the lot of ’em.


12 thoughts on “Hang them, hang them all”

  1. Not to come over all Mr Ecks, but the really scary thing about this is that they don’t care whether we believe this ludicrous excuse or not.

  2. James Hacker: How am I going to explain the missing documents to “The Mail”?
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, this is what we normally do in circumstnces like these.
    James Hacker: [reads memo] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967…
    James Hacker: Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
    Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.

    Yes Minister, 1982…..

  3. Yet another example of one rule for the State, another rule for you.

    The State smiles at you and holds up two fingers, saying “Tough!”. You tell HMRC that all your business records have been lost due to water damage, they’ll make up the numbers, double it, and bleed you dry in court.

  4. IIRC this exact excuse was utilised by Sir Humphrey Appleby in “Yes Minister” in order to frustrate the release of embarrassing information…

  5. Where do you think the production company got its ideas from? Real civil service stories…
    What has doubtless worked in the past will work again of course minister, a minor embarrassment but nothing like as bad as holding the files….

  6. @Ecks

    Yellow pills today.

    I’m still interested as to what other system than a jury you would prefer to decide guilt, given that it’s unlikely to be borderline insane people who think the government are in their telly, such as you.

  7. You’re starting to ramble chum.

    Never said juries shouldn’t decide–said they shouldn’t be able to do it on unsupported accusation alone. Obviously, if juries were composed of those very few people as sharp and savvy as you there’d be no problem, no problem at all. The truth would always–as of course it already is- be just what you want it to be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *