Disgusted...........

Daveb · Post by **Daveb** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:40 pm

Wonder how much the government are paying them to tell there lies??

Or is it more say this or you wont be around for much longer?

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:56 pm

As has been pointed out by Paul, the Iranians knew exactly what they were doing. The televised bit was for their state TV for their own people not for us. All that will be remembered is that some Brit navy types got nicked by Iranians, held for a few days and then released safe and sound. they only held on to them to kick up a sh*t storm of press interest.

Can't go to war over that now can you....

MacK · Post by **MacK** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:02 am

Heard, read and watched several different opinions on this, my feelings are that the 'captives' did nothing wrong when taken prisoner, and their appologies did no harm. (not militarily anyway, as we are not at war with Iran and no 'secret' info would have been released)

I believe the MoD let them tell their stories to prevent undue media harrasment of their families, which I believe is fair enough, but, any money they made/make from the media should be paid to charity, e.g Erskine Hospital, Lord Haig Poppy Fund etc.

jamie · Post by **jamie** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:26 am

I think it was a Gov PR stunt and at the cost of the Brit armed forces. I can imagine one of them in Hello or OK - makes me shudder

Nice to see a few chose the high ground and spoke without a fee.

jason · Post by **jason** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:21 pm

Echo others' comments re never having served, respecting those who do, etc. Hats off to them all.

But it does concern me that this sets a precedent for bizarre incentive, ie. do today's forces personnel fight or surrender knowing they have a good chance of making a fortune selling their stories later (if fortunate enough to come home of course).

This is perhaps an uneducated over-simplification...

jamie · Post by **jamie** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:01 am

Anyone know when they stopped with the name, rank and number?

MacK · Post by **MacK** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:35 am

jamie wrote:Anyone know when they stopped with the name, rank and number?

I heard one commentator say they co-operated the way they did, and did not just give "name rank and serial number" (and religious ethnicity

) because they were not captured by an enemy, and are not at war with Iran. So the rules of engagement are different.