Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on July 22, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
-
Everyone born before 1960 has been queuing to fill in as victims of British Colonial Land grab for weeks now. Yesterday I had to drop somebody by 6pm and the queues were already long. This has been going on I hear for sometime now. This was his third attempt to register. He told me you just pick a tea estate and claim to have been born there before being kicked out.
(http://www.the-star.co.ke/sites/default/files/styles/article_large/public/images/articles/2015/07/22/37010/12.jpg?itok=JdfULa3O)
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/45000-join-sh2trn-case-against-uk
This was long overdue case.
Will the British pay?
I would urge Prof Chepkwony Kericho governor and initiator of this to go further and Kick the british owned tea companies out of Kericho-Bomet and give shares to everyone who has claimed to be a victim.
-
it will be a big hurdle. I am not so sure if the national govt will support this move.
The same case could be applied to land in Central and Coast regions. Guess who are the persons owning this land today? Your guess is as good as mine. The case is going nowhere and the Kericho governor should just hope he can keep the momentum till 2017 elections after which he will abandon this pet subject.
I would urge Prof Chepkwony Kericho governor and initiator of this to go further and Kick the british owned tea companies out of Kericho-Bomet and give shares to everyone who has claimed to be a victim.
-
I'm not sure how far the case filled at UK will go..but they've a very good case. Colonial gov forcefully evicted folks unlike say in Maasai land where they signed some fake agreement with lenana. To compound it the forceful eviction of Talai (including children) under Laibon Removal ordinance act of 1930s from kericho all the way to Gwasi Island inhabited by tse tse fly will stink the Brits.
This kind of law which British enacted will be hard to defend.
https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=QltJYZJItzMC&pg=PA870&lpg=PA870&dq=Laibon+Removal+ordinance+act+1934&source=bl&ots=dW5IN-m8QZ&sig=Qcp1UiLICsFslFadLWa0IaRVDhU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Laibon%20Removal%20ordinance%20act%201934&f=false
Of course the British will maintain they transferred all legal responsibilities and liabilities to present kenya gov.
The tea estate only enjoy protection of 99 land lease (many of them have expired and were underhandedly extended) as long as the process of acquiring was not manifestly illegal.
The land is trust land..and county gov are the owners. They don't have to listen to National Gov (NLC) unless the land was forest which falls under NLC.
If Prof and Isaac have cojones..they should just do a zimbwabwe land grab. They already have a thousands of folks who have laid legal claim to that land.
But I'm glad something is being done. In Nandi, the county gov have refused to extend the leases that are expiring and so Nandis will get to own those tea estates.
The British should not be allowed to go scot free after visiting injustices to kalenjin, maasai, gema and coastal people.
The writting is on the wall for British land owners to give up the land now or wait until it is forcefully taken.
it will be a big hurdle. I am not so sure if the national govt will support this move.
The same case could be applied to land in Central and Coast regions. Guess who are the persons owning this land today? Your guess is as good as mine. The case is going nowhere and the Kericho governor should just hope he can keep the momentum till 2017 elections after which he will abandon this pet subject.
-
I think the Brits already compensated Kenya, but the Kenyattas, Njonjos, Mois etc took the lions share. These are the people they should be going after.
-
When was the compensation. British gave kenyans soft loan to buy back the land. The loan was repaid.
I think the Brits already compensated Kenya, but the Kenyattas, Njonjos, Mois etc took the lions share. These are the people they should be going after.
-
Who has has the land that was bought with the loan? That is the question we should ask ourselves.
British gave kenyans soft loan to buy back the land. The loan was repaid.
-
Pretty much everyone who is settled in former white highlands. It was willing seller willing buyer. Some British like delamare choose to hold onto the land and became kenyan citizen. There are few that need to give up the land.
Who has has the land that was bought with the loan? That is the question we should ask ourselves.
-
Pundit
A very very dangerous move. What about the land akin Kenyattas, Koinanges grabbed and sold after British left? Don't open a can of worms. Status quo is sometime good.
-
Jericho used to look great, but nowadays it looks like a slum. Kipsigis need to stop breeding like rabbits
-
Dangerous in what way. The land was forcefully taken. Now that is very dangerous.
Pundit
A very very dangerous move. What about the land akin Kenyattas, Koinanges grabbed and sold after British left? Don't open a can of worms. Status quo is sometime good.
-
You are opening a can of worms which the ruling elite led by Kenyatta family will not want to open. The Ndungu report on land issues is gathering dust in Harambee House and you want to say you do not understand why this is dangerous?
Forget this issue of land as long as the current ruling class has the say in Kenya. Maybe revisit it when Jomo Jnr. is president in 2055.
Dangerous in what way. The land was forcefully taken. Now that is very dangerous.
-
When was the compensation. British gave kenyans soft loan to buy back the land. The loan was repaid.
I think the Brits already compensated Kenya, but the Kenyattas, Njonjos, Mois etc took the lions share. These are the people they should be going after.
Ok. That's what I had in mind. Anyhow, this seems like a very questionable waste of taxpayer funds by the county. I don't know the legalities behind it, but my hunch is that they get chewed up in court by British govt. Queens Counsel and we just see scarce money down the drain by Kericho.
-
British choose to settle with MauMau for the same historical cases. It worth a shot.Certainly the people approve of this action going by endless queues that have lasted nearly a month now. My maternal relatives were evicted from those tea estates. I know it hard for folks coming from areas the British didn't consider "empty" or "prize" to understand the kind of injustices the british meted on people...moving them from prized pastures...to small reserves. This didn't happen in places like most of Nyanza and whole of Western kenya. Therefore you cannot relate with what people feel. From my father side, they lived in Manga for like 30 yrs before Mzungu brough tractors in 1940s and evicted them to small reserves in Bomet.
Kipsigis lost lots of land..from Muhoroni in Nyanza now (sugar belt), to whole of now Borabu 10KM belt that rans more than 100Km, to the land around tea estates and the whole of kipkelion-londiani.
The land upon exit of European remained either with British or was sold on willing buyer willing seller to non-kalenjin(Luo or Gusii) or Kikuyus.
And that is genesis of PEV. Not Moi. Not Ruto. Not Biwott.
Solving this or having a closure on this case will prevent more bloodshed in the future.
At least the Talai case is special. Moving the whole community from Kericho town to some island deep in Nyanza infested with tsetsefly where they were sort of under communal arrest. Just because some folks had raped a british woman in Naivasha.
Those people were brought back after 1963 only to find their land stolen..and now are living like squattors around kericho and Kipkelion town.
Ok. That's what I had in mind. Anyhow, this seems like a very questionable waste of taxpayer funds by the county. I don't know the legalities behind it, but my hunch is that they get chewed up in court by British govt. Queens Counsel and we just see scarce money down the drain by Kericho.
-
Although the likes of Raila and Kapenguria seven claims to be longest political detainees...there is no doubt that Kipchomber Kochichlim arap Koilegen the son of Kipnyolei arap turgat and the brother of Koitatel Samoei who was initially appointed as kipsigis paramount chief and sat in present day Kericho town is one of longest detainee who was imprisoned for nearly 27yrs in places like Lamu eventually dying in muranga fort hall. Koilegen initially had opposed the Nandi resistance and persuaded kipsigis to welcome the Brits..but after the treacherous killing of his brother Koitalele arap Samoei..he revolted...was quickly imprisoned and send via the new railway to Lamu island.
-
This is good. Gema and those evicted through tribal clashes should do the same take kalenjins to court and seek compensation for lose of lives, livelihood and destruction of property. Someone should start registering Idp starting with early 90s first respondent should be moi
-
You cannot equate the work of criminal gangs with real gov like the colonial British.
This is good. Gema and those evicted through tribal clashes should do the same take kalenjins to court and seek compensation for lose of lives, livelihood and destruction of property. Someone should start registering Idp starting with early 90s first respondent should be moi
-
British choose to settle with MauMau for the same historical cases. It worth a shot.Certainly the people approve of this action going by endless queues that have lasted nearly a month now. My maternal relatives were evicted from those tea estates. I know it hard for folks coming from areas the British didn't consider "empty" or "prize" to understand the kind of injustices the british meted on people...moving them from prized pastures...to small reserves. This didn't happen in places like most of Nyanza and whole of Western kenya. Therefore you cannot relate with what people feel. From my father side, they lived in Manga for like 30 yrs before Mzungu brough tractors in 1940s and evicted them to small reserves in Bomet.
Kipsigis lost lots of land..from Muhoroni in Nyanza now (sugar belt), to whole of now Borabu 10KM belt that rans more than 100Km, to the land around tea estates and the whole of kipkelion-londiani.
The land upon exit of European remained either with British or was sold on willing buyer willing seller to non-kalenjin(Luo or Gusii) or Kikuyus.
And that is genesis of PEV. Not Moi. Not Ruto. Not Biwott.
Solving this or having a closure on this case will prevent more bloodshed in the future.
At least the Talai case is special. Moving the whole community from Kericho town to some island deep in Nyanza infested with tsetsefly where they were sort of under communal arrest. Just because some folks had raped a british woman in Naivasha.
Those people were brought back after 1963 only to find their land stolen..and now are living like squattors around kericho and Kipkelion town.
Ok. That's what I had in mind. Anyhow, this seems like a very questionable waste of taxpayer funds by the county. I don't know the legalities behind it, but my hunch is that they get chewed up in court by British govt. Queens Counsel and we just see scarce money down the drain by Kericho.
I am all for justice. But given this particular effort is probably costing something, without guaranteed returns, I just felt a county like Kericho, most likely dominated by youngsters born in the 80s and 90s, might have more pressing priorities. But if this is what they want, they should do it.
-
If UhuRuto and Sang can afford legal counsel, surely the county can afford to pursue this case. I cannot think of a more pressing issue than this. This is way long overdue. Most of the victims are dead or dying.
I am all for justice. But given this particular effort is probably costing something, without guaranteed returns, I just felt a county like Kericho, most likely dominated by youngsters born in the 80s and 90s, might have more pressing priorities. But if this is what they want, they should do it.
-
I am all for justice. But given this particular effort is probably costing something, without guaranteed returns ...
In the USA, it is not unusual for lawyers to labour on the basis of "contingency fees". Elsewhere things are a bit more "straightforward": a deposit + "billable hours". Lawyer + sucker.
In the former cases, the "target" might decide that it is less costly to pay rather to litigate---a "nuisance fee" that could well be covered by insurance---but do the "clients" always check the "fine print" to see who's getting the best chunk of any settlement?
Apart from that, such cases can be good for some: brownie points for pro bono work and a "reputational bonus" for a win (even without money coming in).
-
If UhuRuto and Sang can afford legal counsel, surely the county can afford to pursue this case.
I'm not sure I see the point here. Uhuru and Ruto did not ask for ICC financial support and specifically noted that they did not need it; doing so would have required them to be forthcoming about their financial affairs. Sang, on the other hand, did ask, as is his right; and all his legal costs are covered by the ICC.
The ICC also covers certain costs that are applicable to all three. For example, even though Uhuru's case is over, his team did get certain Mungiki types into the Witness Protection Program, all of which costs are still being covered by the ICC.
I cannot think of a more pressing issue than this.
I can easily think of more pressing matters, especially when: (a) people wake up so late after the fact, and it's not exactly some medical condition; (b) the worst cases of land-grabbing etc. have taken place much later; and (c) even if they win, the likelihood of any real money ending up in their pockets is quite remote.
British choose to settle with MauMau for the same historical cases.
That case started about 15 years ago, with a claim that was around $8 billion. At settlement, the British agreed to around $30 million, in "full and final compensation".
Apart from the difference between "billion" and "million", exactly how much has any victim seen?
Should such cases be pursued?
Purely as "a matter of principle", absolutely! But to the extent that anyone believes that victims will benefit, I have to ask: what is the basis for such belief?
-
This is a ridiculous claim that doesn't deserve much thinking to dismiss. The county can afford lawyers. Heck they already hired lawyers for this case. The county assembly approved the allocation for legal fees. What is the billable hours...1M dollar per hour?
By choosing to settle with MauMau, the British set a precedent that others will pursue.
Let hear the merit and demerit of the case..not tangential issues like cost of the lawsuit.
USA, it is not unusual for lawyers to labour on the basis of "contingency fees". Elsewhere things are a bit more "straightforward": a deposit + "billable hours". Lawyer + sucker.
In the former cases, the "target" might decide that it is less costly to pay rather to litigate---a "nuisance fee" that could well be covered by insurance---but do the "clients" always check the "fine print" to see who's getting the best chunk of any settlement?
Apart from that, such cases can be good for some: brownie points for pro bono work and a "reputational bonus" for a win (even without money coming in).
-
This is a ridiculous claim that doesn't deserve much thinking to dismiss. The county can afford lawyers. Heck they already hired lawyers for this case. The county assembly approved the allocation for legal fees. What is the billable hours...1M dollar per hour?
By choosing to settle with MauMau, the British set a precedent that others will pursue.
Let hear the merit and demerit of the case..not tangential issues like cost of the lawsuit.
Hiring lawyers is not the issue here; if you have the money, the lawyers will come. County has money, lawyer come like dog to raw meat.
The real question is this: what will the complainants/victims get?
You keep citing the British/Mau-Mau case, so let's use that as a "base case". What exactly have the complainants got/victims there? (I mean, beyond being able to say "we won!") If you can put forth some concrete numbers, then we can have a discussion of a different quality.
You'd like to get more on "the merit and demerit of the case". That's easily settled, and I repeat:
(a) If it is solely a matter of "principle", then the complainants ought to win. 101%. On that one, I'm there with them. All the way. They should and absolutely must win. Of course. (I doubt that they will, but that's another matter.)
(b) If they "win" and hope to get something (e.g. money) from that "victory", then that's another matter. "Billable hours", cleverly done, can take a nice chunk out of the "victory". Of course, if the "victors" don't mind, then all is well.
So, then. What's the real outcome of the precedent that the British settled on in the Mau Mau case? Let's have some concrete figures---judge awards X, victim gets Y---then we can have a more objective discussion.
Once we are on solid ground with the Mau-Mau case, then we should all be able to see all the gold that is glittering around Bomet and Kericho.
-
Sometimes you try too much. Try old plain English that goes to the point.
They are victims...and from the queues I have seen possibly 300,000 thousands are expected to signs.
The victims were forcefully evicted by the British Colonial gov from their land without compensation. The most egregious of those crimes is the 1934 eviction of Talai from Kericho to Gwasii Island in Nyanza.
When the Brits sees the 300,000 victims files..they will want to settle and settle quick. I don't know if MauMau torture is bigger crime to what Brits did in Kericho but last I checked mass displacement was a crime against humanity.
There will be avalanche of cases...I expect the Nandi to take the Brits to court..the Maasai at some point.
British have to pay for their crimes. The crimes that continues to benefit their companies. For Kericho, this for me is a start, to reposes the land that British companies still hold there. We now have moved from hypothesis to real victims.
Hiring lawyers is not the issue here; if you have the money, the lawyers will come. County has money, lawyer come like dog to raw meat. As you, I imagine, would put it.
The real question is this: what will the complainants/victims get?
You keep citing the British/Mau-Mau case, so let's use that as a "base case"; what exactly have the complainants got/victims there? (I mean, beyond being able to say "we won!") If you can put forth some concrete numbers, then we can have a discussion of a different quality.
You'd like to get more on "the merit and demerit of the case". That's easily settled, and I repeat:
(a) If it is solely a matter of "principle", then the complainants ought to win. 101%. On that one. I'm there with them. All the way. They should and absolutely must win. Of course. (I doubt that they will, but that's another matter.)
(b) If they "win" and hope to get something (e.g. money) from that "victory", then that's another matter. "Billable hours", cleverly done, can take a nice chunk out of the "victory".
So, then. What's the real outcome of the precedent that the British settled on in the Mau Mau case? Let's have some concrete figures---judge awards X, victim gets Y---then we can have a more objective discussion.
-
They are victims...and from the queues I have seen possibly 300,000 thousands are expected to signs.
The victims were forcefully evicted by the British Colonial gov from their land without compensation. The most egregious of those crimes is the 1934 eviction of Talai from Kericho to Gwasii Island in Nyanza.
When the Brits sees the 300,000 victims files..they will want to settle and settle quick.
I don't doubt any of that. And I'm astonished that you think I do. My "question" is actually a simple one. Let me put in two parts:
(a) What exactly do they hope to get (or wish to get) from this legal action?
(b) On what basis, have they pinned their hopes or imaginations?
I'm willing to accept the British/Mau-Mau case as some sort of precedent, provided there is a concrete answer to these questions:
(d) Who has got what.? Precisely, please.
(e) Where, when, and how on (d)?
P.S. 300,000 chucked out of the RV by the Brits? And how many in the PEV, by the Kenyans?
-
They are suing the Brits for possibly 2 trillion Kshs compensation and an apology. On what basis..that the Brit choose to settle with MauMau rather than face the court. British High court already set the precedent by allowing MauMau to file their case..and that send British Gov wanting to settle. So for now...the matters jurisdiction are already dealt with...the victims just need to proof that they were displaced, killed, tortured and suffered in anyway under colonial gov.
The British can no longer claim legal immunity from past colonial crimes.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/05/mau-mau-veterans-win-torture-case
The court rejected the government's claim that too much time had elapsed for there to be a fair trial, just as it threw out an earlier claim that the Mau Mau veterans should be suing the Kenyan government, not the British.
The government's lawyers accepted that all three were tortured by the colonial authorities. They suffered what their lawyers describe as "unspeakable acts of brutality", including castration, beatings and severe sexual assaults.
After the ruling, the Foreign Office acknowledged it had "potentially significant and far reaching legal implications", and said it was planning to appeal.
This is a decent shot and I'm glad these people are doing something about it. The British Gov is now facing "significant and far reaching legal implications" after they failed to appeal and choose to quietly settle.
-
They are suing the Brits for possibly 2 trillion Kshs compensation and an apology.
The Mau-Mau case too started with a waving of huge numbers. Have you managed to bridge the difference between "we are suing for ..." and "the full and final settlement is ..."? (The bit where all those nice lawyers take their cut can come later.)
On what basis..that the Brit choose to settle with MauMau rather than face the court.
In bold font: so, exactly how much is each Mau Mau victim getting?
British High court already set the precedent by allowing MauMau to file their case..and that send British Gov wanting to settle. So for now...the matters jurisdiction are already dealt with...the victims just need to proof that they were displaced, killed, tortured and suffered in anyway.
And then what? A declaration of victory? An apology?
-
Yes an apology will go along way. But accepting their illegality will open ways to recover the land. The compensation for me should be for the suffering and the land. Mau Mau were paid and they are happy. I'm not sure why you're complaining. But they all got a tidy sum of money. Running into some billions Kshs.
5,000 Mau Mau got 20M dollars. That is a lot of money in Kenya. Most folks did not register because they were thinking that was long shot. In Kericho folks have learned from that and are registering in serious numbers.
And then what? A declaration of victory? An apology?
-
Yes an apology will go along way. But accepting their illegality will open ways to recover the land.
Fair enough on the first point. As for recovering land, good luck; since the Brits left, fellow Kenyans have f**ked them ten times as hard.
Mau Mau were paid and they are happy. I'm not sure why you're complaining. But they all got a tidy sum of money. Running into some billions Kshs.
I'm not complaining; I'm just curious. The amount of the award is a public figure. How much of that actually went to the victims? I hope you are not suggesting that individuals got "billions Kshs".
-
5,000 Mau Mau got 20M dollars. That is a lot of money in Kenya.
(I think it would be pounds, not dollars. I'll have to check. But we can work with your figures. Could after the lawyers take their cut, thus translating pounds into dollars.)
That works out to be about $4,000 per Mau Mau or whatever. It doesn't strike me as a lot of money, but I will accept that it is, if you insist. Have those already got their money in hand? I ask because there have been plenty of noises on that front, with prospects of yet more legal skirmishes. Take a look at this:
Last year, the Foreign Office agreed to pay £19.9?million in an out-of-court settlement after secret Colonial Office files revealed that the Mau Mau had been systematically tortured.
and
The Law Society of Kenya claims Leigh Day’s fee of £6.6?million is out of proportion to the compensation settlement reached for the former victims of British torture
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html
6.6 out of 19.9. Millions. Pounds. That's not small change. Plenty of billable hours for somebody. That's the sort of thing I was referring to. Still, I take it every one is happy except the LSK?
Never mind. If I may ask: Is this Mau Mau money already flowing in Kenya, getting dispensed on the good things of life? None of it held in some legal grid-lock or whatever?
-
Who has has the land that was bought with the loan? That is the question we should ask ourselves.
Good question. Actually, forget about "giving" and "buying". In Jomo's time, the president had the power to allocate land to any "worthy and deserving citizen, in need" or something like that. Lo and behold, as one might say. And so it came to pass that President Jomo Kenyatta legally handed over good Kenyan land to a very deserving citizen, one Johnstone Kamau. Said Kamau has siblings and assorted relatives and friends, all worthy, deserving, ... citizens. Give, give, give. Land, land, land.
Still, that is separate from the matter of loans or grants or whatever to buy land from the fleeing colonialists. But there is a relationship to the above: those who got the best deals happened to be the same worthy, deserving, needful whatever & friends.
So. The Bomet & Kericho case. On the basis of the sketchy details given here, I don't see how this can possibly get very far (minus the need to pile on those "hours"), but I'm sure RV Pundit will tell us.
-
Even the 13M pounds that remain is still tidy sum of money for those wazees for the torture and of course the official apology from British gov gives them so form of closure. I don't understand why you would deride these folks for going for what your ICC victims are going for; the same justice. Or well there is no political agenda here.
Or you believe no injustice were committed or folks should get over it?
I cannot think of a more worthy investment from those counties than such a case. If return on investment is 13M pounds for 5K victims....that is about the annual allocation a county receives...and if British are nailed and they should be nailed for this...then they are bound to make 10 times more money on this...so 130M pounds can easily translate to 10 budgetary allocation those counties will ever receive from gov.
Rather than giving that money in form of opaque aid..they should consider compensating all historical injustices committed all over the world during their colonial history.
The British should pay or the beneficiary of that land (tea companies) be forced to pay or give up land. The land kenyatta gave to himself and outsiders in RV I think is a lost cause. It impossible to evict 1-2m folks.Kalenjin have tried that with arrows but there is little success as you well know...those guys settled are equally poor.
The land the British companies own....can easily be got back. Once British admit liability...then it done deal...counties can choose to reposses that land..or well terminate the leases.
5,000 Mau Mau got 20M dollars. That is a lot of money in Kenya.
(I think it would be pounds, not dollars. I'll have to check. But we can work with your figures. Could after the lawyers take their cut, thus translating pounds into dollars.)
That works out to be about $4,000 per Mau Mau or whatever. It doesn't strike me as a lot of money, but I will accept that it is, if you insist. Have those already got their money in hand? I ask because there have been plenty of noises on that front, with prospects of yet more legal skirmishes. Take a look at this:
Last year, the Foreign Office agreed to pay £19.9?million in an out-of-court settlement after secret Colonial Office files revealed that the Mau Mau had been systematically tortured.
and
The Law Society of Kenya claims Leigh Day’s fee of £6.6?million is out of proportion to the compensation settlement reached for the former victims of British torture
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html
6.6 out of 19.9. Millions. Pounds. That's not small change. Plenty of billable hours for somebody. That's the sort of thing I was referring to. Still, I take it every one is happy except the LSK?
Never mind. If I may ask: Is this Mau Mau money already flowing in Kenya, getting dispensed on the good things of life? None of it held in some legal grid-lock or whatever?
-
Everyone born before 1960 has been queuing to fill in as victims of British Colonial Land grab for weeks now. Yesterday I had to drop somebody by 6pm and the queues were already long. This has been going on I hear for sometime now. This was his third attempt to register. He told me you just pick a tea estate and claim to have been born there before being kicked out.
(http://www.the-star.co.ke/sites/default/files/styles/article_large/public/images/articles/2015/07/22/37010/12.jpg?itok=JdfULa3O)
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/45000-join-sh2trn-case-against-uk
This was long overdue case.
Will the British pay?
I would urge Prof Chepkwony Kericho governor and initiator of this to go further and Kick the british owned tea companies out of Kericho-Bomet and give shares to everyone who has claimed to be a victim.
With due respect, don't you think it is the African/Kenyan who owes the British and not the other way around? What was the area around Kericho and the rest of Kenya like when the British Crown first set foot there? Let's see: no science, no literacy, no architecture, tropical diseases and myriad pathologies rampant, war and retribution was the accepted way of life, i.e, the norm.
Now contrast all that with what was achieved by that day, December 12th, 1963, when your country attained its in-dependence. The British bequeathed kenya with: viable institutions, a functioning first-rate railway system, a cadre of well trained civil servants, overall decent infrastructure, clean and orderly capital city of Nairobi "Keep your City Clean", an education system almost at par with that in the mother country; you had St. Mary's Nairobi, Duke of York, Prince of Wales, etc, and for the African, decent schools like Alliance, Mangu, Maseno, St.Mary's Yala, etc. Let's not forget a legal system borrowed from the much maligned British.
Yeah, I know, civilization, education, plumbing, law....but other than that what did the British do for us?
-
Everyone born before 1960 has been queuing to fill in as victims of British Colonial Land grab for weeks now. Yesterday I had to drop somebody by 6pm and the queues were already long. This has been going on I hear for sometime now. This was his third attempt to register. He told me you just pick a tea estate and claim to have been born there before being kicked out.
(http://www.the-star.co.ke/sites/default/files/styles/article_large/public/images/articles/2015/07/22/37010/12.jpg?itok=JdfULa3O)
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/45000-join-sh2trn-case-against-uk
This was long overdue case.
Will the British pay?
I would urge Prof Chepkwony Kericho governor and initiator of this to go further and Kick the british owned tea companies out of Kericho-Bomet and give shares to everyone who has claimed to be a victim.
With due respect, don't you think it is the African/Kenyan who owes the British and not the other way around? What was the area around Kericho and the rest of Kenya like when the British Crown first set foot there? Let's see: no science, no literacy, no architecture, tropical diseases and myriad pathologies rampant, war and retribution was the accepted way of life, i.e, the norm.
Now contrast all that with what was achieved by that day, December 12th, 1963, when your country attained its in-dependence. The British bequeathed kenya with: viable institutions, a functioning first-rate railway system, a cadre of well trained civil servants, overall decent infrastructure, clean and orderly capital city of Nairobi "Keep your City Clean", an education system almost at par with that in the mother country; you had St. Mary's Nairobi, Duke of York, Prince of Wales, etc, and for the African, decent schools like Alliance, Mangu, Maseno, St.Mary's Yala, etc. Let's not forget a legal system borrowed from the much maligned British.
Yeah, I know, civilization, education, plumbing, law....but other than that what did the British do for us?
Reticent Solipsist,
Your argument is interesting. If I can't argue against the facts, the merits are not there. Because this issue has never been before a court. The alleged perpetrator cannot be judge, jury and executioner.
I believe there were injustices. But these are old wounds secondary to more pressing issues. People have argued in favor of ignoring the injustices of 2007/2008, because Ruto and Uhuru had made peace.
PEV wounds are still raw. Perps still on the lose and even in authority. Yet I would not be surprised that some of the victims coming out of the woodwork were fanatical supporters of forgetting PEV.
-
My guess is that all "liability" associated with the colonial possession of land would have been passed on to GoK around independence; so it is not clear where these folks think they are going with this one. One can look at, for example, native-land cases in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., where legal cases have been against the government of the day and not the British; a judge in the UK will be cognizant of such cases. Have the RV people tried suing (in Kenyan courts) either GoK or the current occupiers of the land?
The "inspiration" from the Mau Mau case seems misplaced. Even setting aside current views and laws on torture all over the world, it would have been hard to sustain a claim that torture by, on behalf, of a government in one country would have been passed on to a government in another country, unless the latter was somehow involved, which was not the case for GoK. That is, the Mau Mau could not sue GoK for torture by the Brits. On the other hand, regardless of what one thinks of such arguments, some can certainly be put forth to the effect that the "illegal" acquisition of land somehow benefitted the natives.
What's more, even without getting into the "merits" of such the case, considering what the British got to with land all over the world, it's hard to see a British judge opening a can of worms that would have the British paying through the nose all over the place. Could the Brits, then, be sued in an African court? Around 2004, some folks in Uganda went to the High Court there to sue the Brits over all sorts of mischief associated with land. I no longer recall the details, but they did not get very far: a couple of the Ugandan judges quickly found out that the Brits had entered into all sorts of tricky agreements with the locals, and they pretty much killed the case. Here, we have a county or two setting off to sue the British government.
Has the Attorney General of Kenya given any legal opinion, or even made a comment, with respect to any applicable legal agreements (between the locals and the Brits) and on independence and (between the Brits and the incoming of GoK)? It is such that will determine where this goes; merely insisting that folks were screwed will not suffice, even if they were indeed screwed.
-
Maybe you should re-read Mau Mau case where high court dismiss matters jurisdiction quickly. I think thanks to that case...this case has precedents..and the questions that will remain is to weed out the fake from the real victims.
Remember the land belong to community as we speak....
So for me this is just a shot across the bow.
My guess is that all "liability" associated with the colonial possession of land would have been passed on to GoK around independence; so it is not clear where these folks think they are going with this one. One can look at, for example, native-land cases in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., where legal cases have been against the government of the day and not the British; a judge in the UK will be cognizant of such cases. Have the RV people tried suing (in Kenyan courts) either GoK or the current occupiers of the land?
The "inspiration" from the Mau Mau case seems misplaced. Even setting aside current views and laws on torture all over the world, it would have been hard to sustain a claim that torture by, on behalf, of a government in one country would have been passed on to a government in another country, unless the latter was somehow involved, which was not the case for GoK. That is, the Mau Mau could not sue GoK for torture by the Brits. On the other hand, regardless of what one thinks of such arguments, some can certainly be put forth to the effect that the "illegal" acquisition of land somehow benefitted the natives.
What's more, even without getting into the "merits" of such the case, considering what the British got to with land all over the world, it's hard to see a British judge opening a can of worms that would have the British paying through the nose all over the place. Could the Brits, then, be sued in an African court? Around 2004, some folks in Uganda went to the High Court there to sue the Brits over all sorts of mischief associated with land. I no longer recall the details, but they did not get very far: a couple of the Ugandan judges quickly found out that the Brits had entered into all sorts of tricky agreements with the locals, and they pretty much killed the case. Here, we have a county or two setting off to sue the British government.
Has the Attorney General of Kenya given any legal opinion, or even made a comment, with respect to any applicable legal agreements (between the locals and the Brits) and on independence and (between the Brits and the incoming of GoK)? It is such that will determine where this goes; merely insisting that folks were screwed will not suffice, even if they were indeed screwed.
-
PEV, 92 and many RV land clashes stems from this British forcefully eviction of folks and then later on land was given to non-indigenous folks. PEV was like the London riots or the US riots. You cannot compare to an OFFICIAL sanction policy like colonialism. Nobody sanctioned PEV. Not at least officially. That is why ICC has come unstuck.
PEV wounds are still raw. Perps still on the lose and even in authority. Yet I would not be surprised that some of the victims coming out of the woodwork were fanatical supporters of forgetting PEV.
-
Maybe you should re-read Mau Mau case where high court dismiss matters jurisdiction quickly. I think thanks to that case...this case has precedents..and the questions that will remain is to weed out the fake from the real victims.
Remember the land belong to community as we speak....
So for me this is just a shot across the bow.
(Which high court was that, and what were the jurisdictional issues that you have in mind?)
A major question in the Mau Mau case was whether "liability" in the maltreatment of the Mau Mau was transferred from the Biritish government to the Kenyan government at independence. That was unclear, and arguments could be made, and were made, both ways.
The land issue is different, and, as I see it, there are two major hurdles that the hopefuls face:
Hurdle #1: Shortly after independence, Kenya enacted a new constitution (1964). In that, under "Land, Property and Contracts", you will find this:
26. (1) All rights, liabilities and obligations of-
a) Her Majesty in respect of the Government of Kenya; and
b) the Governor-General or any public officer in respect of the Government of Kenya on behalf of that Government; and
c) the Government of Kenya
shall on and after 12th December 1964 be rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government of the Republic of Kenya.
(2) In this section, rights, liabilities and obligations include rights, liabilities and obligations arising from contract or otherwise (other than any rights referred to in section 25 of this Act),
That seems clear enough, and I don't see how anyone proposes to argue that the liabilities then, somehow, miraculously, got transferred back. How do you see it happening?
Hurdle #2: For good measure, the new GoK took the Crown Land Ordinance, dusted it off a bit, and renamed it the Government Lands Act. As far as I can tell, that still forms the basis of land law in Kenya.
-
With due respect, don't you think it is the African/Kenyan who owes the British and not the other way around? What was the area around Kericho and the rest of Kenya like when the British Crown first set foot there? Let's see: no science, no literacy, no architecture, tropical diseases and myriad pathologies rampant, war and retribution was the accepted way of life, i.e, the norm.
Now contrast all that with what was achieved by that day, December 12th, 1963, when your country attained its in-dependence. The British bequeathed kenya with: viable institutions, a functioning first-rate railway system, a cadre of well trained civil servants, overall decent infrastructure, clean and orderly capital city of Nairobi "Keep your City Clean", an education system almost at par with that in the mother country; you had St. Mary's Nairobi, Duke of York, Prince of Wales, etc, and for the African, decent schools like Alliance, Mangu, Maseno, St.Mary's Yala, etc. Let's not forget a legal system borrowed from the much maligned British.
Yeah, I know, civilization, education, plumbing, law....but other than that what did the British do for us?
Reticent Solipsist,
Your argument is interesting. If I can't argue against the facts, the merits are not there. Because this issue has never been before a court. The alleged perpetrator cannot be judge, jury and executioner.
I believe there were injustices. But these are old wounds secondary to more pressing issues. People have argued in favor of ignoring the injustices of 2007/2008, because Ruto and Uhuru had made peace.
PEV wounds are still raw. Perps still on the lose and even in authority. Yet I would not be surprised that some of the victims coming out of the woodwork were fanatical supporters of forgetting PEV.
This entire charade almost smacks of a fishing expedition, in my opinion; it's about a quick payday riding on the back of colonial guilt.
As MOON Ki succinctly notes, this quest to sue The Man might inadvertently open liability questions vis-a-vis the Kenyan government and these folks in Kericho. Secondly, it might result in other folks looking anew at other historical land issues, including the historical cases involving the 'willing buyer, willing seller' fellow currently ensconced in the State House Nairobi. Additionally, the case could end up setting precedent for financial reparations for victims of the post-colonial Kenyan state for, say, "pain and suffering". In my estimate, therefore, I see a silver ling in all this: the biggest land usurpers in Kenya, the Kenyattas, the Mois, the Mathenges, Kibaki, Mahihus, etc, might finally see their log awaited day in court. Is the A-G of Kenya ready for that?
It could then be argued that the Net Present Value was already factored in terms of what the British bequeathed to these folks in Kericho, anyway.
Then lastly, this is a distraction from the real job of educating the ignorant fellows or making the real and necessary sacrifices to craft a better future and economy that can support themselves and 'their' communities. I would suggest that instead of advocating for The Man to cut each and every Tom, Dick and Harry, a fat check that he can then flaunt at the nearest Motel/Hotel/Holiday Inn. How about the Kerichoans, ask for, say, four well constructed and equipped secondary schools, one state of the art tech institute, or something along those noble lines -- assuming that they have a case in the first place, which I highly doubt.
Enough of all these nebulous wrongs of the past solely targeting the so-called beberu.
-
Earlier today I read a whole bunch of material on the "Mau Mau Cases", I and II. (As a side note: I found it "interesting"---because it seems to have been lost somewhere---that Raila, as P.M., appears to have played a significant role in getting the British to settle rather than go to trial.)
This land case is, as has correctly been pointed, a fishing expedition---and one that is going nowhere any time soon. But lawyers too have to eat, and that means running up "billable hours". Dead on arrival. I can't even begin to list the number of ways in which it is dead, so I shall save that for another day.
In my view, Mau Mau Case II will run into some very rough waters indeed. Those who brought it either do not understand what really happened in Case I, or they understand it but lawyers see a chance to eat. It seems to be all mindless "precedent!, precedent!, precedent!; let's go get some British money!" ... except for those who appear to know where the real suckers are.
Reticent Solipsist: Yes, perhaps the people who want to hear the least about these land cases are right there in Kenya.
-
And we should just believe you because you read and you cannot even bother to list why.
Here is a link from Leighday who ran the billable hours that your hate
http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2011/July-2011/Historic-judgment-as-UK-Government-loses-court-bat
“In my judgment, it may well be thought strange, or perhaps even ‘dishonourable’, that a legal system which will not in any circumstances admit into its proceedings evidence obtained by torture should yet refuse to entertain a claim against the Government in its own jurisdiction for that government’s allegedly negligent failure to prevent torture which it had the means to prevent, on the basis of a supposed absence of a duty of care. Furthermore, resort to technicality… to rule such a claim out of court appears particularly misplaced at such an early stage of the action.” (Paragraph 154)
In short there is not stature of limitation for certain actions such as mass forceful displacement and land grab.
Earlier today I read a whole bunch of material on the "Mau Mau Cases", I and II. (As a side note: I found it "interesting"---because it seems to have been lost somewhere---that Raila, as P.M., appears to have played a significant role in getting the British to settle rather than go to trial.)
This land case is, as has correctly been pointed, a fishing expedition---and one that is going nowhere any time soon. But lawyers too have to eat, and that means running up "billable hours". Dead on arrival. I can't even begin to list the number of ways in which it is dead, so I shall save that for another day.
In my view, Mau Mau Case II will run into some very rough waters indeed. Those who brought it either do not understand what really happened in Case I, or they understand it but lawyers see a chance to eat. It seems to be all mindless "precedent!, precedent!, precedent!; let's go get some British money!" ... except for those who appear to know where the real suckers are.
Reticent Solipsist: Yes, perhaps the people who want to hear the least about these land cases are right there in Kenya.
-
Your rambling on and on...and you're neither here nor there. What makes you think the case is an end to itself. Or that folks have abandoned their normal activities for this case. The folks think after Mau Mau they have a shot at this and they've hired (and the county has hired lawyers).
Is it a worthy a shot? Definitely. Are there victims of the land grab. Definitely.
The rest of what you write is doesn't make sense. It like moonki caring about billable hours. You can get them pro bono lawyers greatly if it bothers you but the lawyers have to get paid for their services too.
This entire charade almost smacks of a fishing expedition, in my opinion; it's about a quick payday riding on the back of colonial guilt.
As MOON Ki succinctly notes, this quest to sue The Man might inadvertently open liability questions vis-a-vis the Kenyan government and these folks in Kericho. Secondly, it might result in other folks looking anew at other historical land issues, including the historical cases involving the 'willing buyer, willing seller' fellow currently ensconced in the State House Nairobi. Additionally, the case could end up setting precedent for financial reparations for victims of the post-colonial Kenyan state for, say, "pain and suffering". In my estimate, therefore, I see a silver ling in all this: the biggest land usurpers in Kenya, the Kenyattas, the Mois, the Mathenges, Kibaki, Mahihus, etc, might finally see their log awaited day in court. Is the A-G of Kenya ready for that?
It could then be argued that the Net Present Value was already factored in terms of what the British bequeathed to these folks in Kericho, anyway.
Then lastly, this is a distraction from the real job of educating the ignorant fellows or making the real and necessary sacrifices to craft a better future and economy that can support themselves and 'their' communities. I would suggest that instead of advocating for The Man to cut each and every Tom, Dick and Harry, a fat check that he can then flaunt at the nearest Motel/Hotel/Holiday Inn. How about the Kerichoans, ask for, say, four well constructed and equipped secondary schools, one state of the art tech institute, or something along those noble lines -- assuming that they have a case in the first place, which I highly doubt.
Enough of all these nebulous wrongs of the past solely targeting the so-called beberu.
-
And we should just believe you because you read and you cannot even bother to list why.
Pundit: I can't tell whether you are like the people signing up for this or like the lawyer signing them up. But one thing I always admire is your "determination", regardless of the facts. Once you've picked a position, that's it.
I have already pointed out to you the little matter of GoK taking over certain liabilities.
Here is a link from Leighday who ran the billable hours that your hate
http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2011/July-2011/Historic-judgment-as-UK-Government-loses-court-bat
“In my judgment, it may well be thought strange, or perhaps even ‘dishonourable’, that a legal system which will not in any circumstances admit into its proceedings evidence obtained by torture should yet refuse to entertain a claim against the Government in its own jurisdiction for that government’s allegedly negligent failure to prevent torture which it had the means to prevent, on the basis of a supposed absence of a duty of care. Furthermore, resort to technicality… to rule such a claim out of court appears particularly misplaced at such an early stage of the action.” (Paragraph 154)
In short there is not stature of limitation for certain actions such as mass forceful displacement and land grab.
Please read slowly and pay careful attention:
* First, no matter of limitations arises from what you quote; and straight reading, with a basic command of plain English ought to suffice to see that. Your "in short!" leap goes a long way in explaining how people are getting suckered in this one; I imagine they are getting all sorts of "in short!"s all over the place.
That aside, had you read the actual judgment you would have known that the particular "technicality" that the judge was referring to was "the notional divisibility of the Crown".
* Second, the paragraph you quote neither says nor implies anything about "mass forceful displacement and land grab". That is you own fanciful and misplaced extrapolation. Again the sort of think that, I imagine, has the suckers lining up.
* Third, what kills the matter is not any issue of limitations: what the RVs need to do is explain how they propose to get around little matter of "liabilities" that were transferred in relation to their grabbed land. Any ideas from you?
Now, this is purely for your education, because your case is dead long before it gets there: Contrary to what you believe, as you make TV-speak assertions, there are in fact limitations to this sort of thing; you will find them in the Limitations Act. A judge can exercise discretion to put aside such limitations, which is what happened in the Mau Mau case. What you should do, if you can, is read the actual judgment on just that aspect of the matter and understand why such discretion would not apply in the land case. Go here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/mutua-others-fco-judgment-051022012/
-
We can waste all day long discussing the merits and demerits of this case..that has yet to even begin..like we did with ICC. But my point will remain stubborn. These guys [and anyone else who was wronged by the British] should take heed of Mau Mau case and file theirs two. This may not be a clean shot. But it a shot worth taking. Especially when thousands of folks are pulling resources. Clearly the QC are not that expensive.
The British chose to settle out of court....rather than APPEAL what you describe in your misguided mind as "DOA".
It was so DOA..the Brits paid 20M pounds.
Maybe they should hire you as their AG so you can really save them money while working pro bono.
So back to where we were...more than 45,000 folks (now maybe 100,000) are filling a case against the British GOV for atrocities committed during colonial period...that sounds to me like an upcoming "crimes against humanity" ...that British do not want associate with them.
And we should just believe you because you read and you cannot even bother to list why.
Pundit: I can't tell whether you are like the people signing up for this or like the lawyer signing them up. But one thing I always admire is your "determination", regardless of the facts. Once you've picked a position, that's it.
I have already pointed out to you the little matter of GoK taking over certain liabilities.
Here is a link from Leighday who ran the billable hours that your hate
http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2011/July-2011/Historic-judgment-as-UK-Government-loses-court-bat
“In my judgment, it may well be thought strange, or perhaps even ‘dishonourable’, that a legal system which will not in any circumstances admit into its proceedings evidence obtained by torture should yet refuse to entertain a claim against the Government in its own jurisdiction for that government’s allegedly negligent failure to prevent torture which it had the means to prevent, on the basis of a supposed absence of a duty of care. Furthermore, resort to technicality… to rule such a claim out of court appears particularly misplaced at such an early stage of the action.” (Paragraph 154)
In short there is not stature of limitation for certain actions such as mass forceful displacement and land grab.
Please read slowly and pay careful attention:
* First, no matter of limitations arises from what you quote; and straight reading, with a basic command of plain English ought to suffice to see that. Your "in short!" leap goes a long way in explaining how people are getting suckered in this one; I imagine they are getting all sorts of "in short!"s all over the place.
That aside, had you read the actual judgment you would have known that the particular "technicality" that the judge was referring to was "the notional divisibility of the Crown".
* Second, the paragraph you quote neither says nor implies anything about "mass forceful displacement and land grab". That is you own fanciful and misplaced extrapolation. Again the sort of think that, I imagine, has the suckers lining up.
* Third, what kills the matter is not any issue of limitations: what the RVs need to do is explain how they propose to get around little matter of "liabilities" that were transferred in relation to their grabbed land. Any ideas from you?
Now, this is purely for your education, because your case is dead long before it gets there: Contrary to what you believe, as you make TV-speak assertions, there are in fact limitations to this sort of thing; you will find them in the Limitations Act. A judge can exercise discretion to put aside such limitations, which is what happened in the Mau Mau case. What you should do, if you can, is read the actual judgment on just that aspect of the matter and understand why such discretion would not apply in the land case. Go here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/mutua-others-fco-judgment-051022012/
-
The British chose to settle out of court....rather than APPEAL what you describe in your misguided mind as "DOA".
It was so DOA..the Brits paid 20M pounds.
Maybe they should hire you as their AG so you can really save them money while working pro bono.
You have become so excited that your failure to distinguish between the Mau Mau case and the Kericho-Bomet fishing expedition, and comments on those, is now way, way over the top. Here, scroll up to the top of the page and read slowly:
This land case is, as has correctly been pointed, a fishing expedition---and one that is going nowhere any time soon. But lawyers too have to eat, and that means running up "billable hours". Dead on arrival. I can't even begin to list the number of ways in which it is dead, so I shall save that for another day.
According to you:
that sounds to me like an upcoming "crimes against humanity" ...
I take it that you are referring to the sorts of matters raised in the "historic" debate that led to all this:
Nominated assembly member Bency Too said the colonialist had promised give them seven acres but only gave them two.
“We are also at risk of contracting diseases due to the contamination of our water resulting from aerial spraying of the tea plantations by the company, and other emerging diseases resulting from pollution.”
http://mobile.nation.co.ke/counties/Case-against-Britain-on-land-gets-the-nod/-/1950480/2426610/-/format/xhtml/-/2ha2ls/-/index.html
Sounds very serious. When do we call in Bensouda?
-
Your rambling on and on...and you're neither here nor there. What makes you think the case is an end to itself. Or that folks have abandoned their normal activities for this case. The folks think after Mau Mau they have a shot at this and they've hired (and the county has hired lawyers).
Is it a worthy a shot? Definitely. Are there victims of the land grab. Definitely.
The rest of what you write is doesn't make sense. It like moonki caring about billable hours. You can get them pro bono lawyers greatly if it bothers you but the lawyers have to get paid for their services too.
This entire charade almost smacks of a fishing expedition, in my opinion; it's about a quick payday riding on the back of colonial guilt.
As MOON Ki succinctly notes, this quest to sue The Man might inadvertently open liability questions vis-a-vis the Kenyan government and these folks in Kericho. Secondly, it might result in other folks looking anew at other historical land issues, including the historical cases involving the 'willing buyer, willing seller' fellow currently ensconced in the State House Nairobi. Additionally, the case could end up setting precedent for financial reparations for victims of the post-colonial Kenyan state for, say, "pain and suffering". In my estimate, therefore, I see a silver ling in all this: the biggest land usurpers in Kenya, the Kenyattas, the Mois, the Mathenges, Kibaki, Mahihus, etc, might finally see their log awaited day in court. Is the A-G of Kenya ready for that?
It could then be argued that the Net Present Value was already factored in terms of what the British bequeathed to these folks in Kericho, anyway.
Then lastly, this is a distraction from the real job of educating the ignorant fellows or making the real and necessary sacrifices to craft a better future and economy that can support themselves and 'their' communities. I would suggest that instead of advocating for The Man to cut each and every Tom, Dick and Harry, a fat check that he can then flaunt at the nearest Motel/Hotel/Holiday Inn. How about the Kerichoans, ask for, say, four well constructed and equipped secondary schools, one state of the art tech institute, or something along those noble lines -- assuming that they have a case in the first place, which I highly doubt.
Enough of all these nebulous wrongs of the past solely targeting the so-called beberu.
I am not a psychic and so wouldn't know what the end is.
I simply responded to your banal and poorly articulated premise.
-
Your rambling on and on...and you're neither here nor there. What makes you think the case is an end to itself. Or that folks have abandoned their normal activities for this case. The folks think after Mau Mau they have a shot at this and they've hired (and the county has hired lawyers).
Is it a worthy a shot? Definitely. Are there victims of the land grab. Definitely.
The rest of what you write is doesn't make sense. It like moonki caring about billable hours. You can get them pro bono lawyers greatly if it bothers you but the lawyers have to get paid for their services too.
My 'rambling on and on' was merely a retort to what you put forth: a banal and poorly articulated premise. And what exactly is the end here? Altruism? And do refrain from the usual and predictable "it's the principle that matters...." malarkey. Because whenever people say it's not about the money....then...it really is about the money.
And to reiterate what I previously stated: this is a fishing expedition devoid of principle other than a group of dice players hoping for quick payday riding on the back of colonial guilt.