QuoteLaw chief to examine new evidence in Breaker Morant case
Nick Galvin
August 30, 2011 - 12:24AM
MORE than 100 years after Harry "The Breaker" Morant was executed for killing Boer prisoners of war, Attorney-General Robert McClelland is believed to be considering calling a public inquiry into the controversial case.
Mr McClelland will today meet Jim Unkles, a military lawyer and commander in the Australian Naval Reserve, who is leading the campaign on behalf of the descendants of Morant and his co-accused, Peter Handcock and George Witton.
Mr Unkles believes he has vital new evidence showing Morant and the others were victims of a miscarriage of justice and subsequent cover-up by the British authorities.
Among the crucial documents he has unearthed is an opinion from a British military lawyer at the time, James St Clair, mentioning that soldiers had been ordered not to take prisoners.
Mr Unkles said regardless of the time that had passed since Morant and Handcock faced the firing squad in Pretoria jail (Witton's death sentence was commuted), the men deserved justice.
"I'll be telling the Attorney-General directly that after 110 years of no action, controversy and stalling by the British government, this case needs a judicial inquiry," he said. "The descendants want their day in court. There's no request for compensation they just want honour for these three men.
"The government hopefully will take a stand. The descendants of these men and all Australians want justice and that must be put above all other considerations."
Michael Handcock is the great-great grandson of Peter Handcock. He said holding a public inquiry into his relative's death was "a no-brainer".
"This issue has been a bone of contention in our family for over a hundred years," he said. "The British government has fobbed us off on the basis of no new evidence but that's just not true."
Mr McClelland confirmed that his office was examining the new material presented by Mr Unkles and others.
"I've received a number of pieces of correspondence from descendants of Breaker Morant and other advocates regarding the possible existence of new evidence," he said. "I don't want to raise expectations in relation to this matter, but I'm happy to discuss these issues in good faith with family and legal representatives."
However, he added that Australia had no jurisdiction to review decisions made by a British court martial.
Not even a little jurisdiction.
Live by rule 303, die by rule 303.
This is quite retarded.
Great Film.
may god damn those boers
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lg6onosbi91qenz53o1_400.gif&hash=8c954bf93a4f205ecdccb9b24f084e255853b385)
they perverted british south africa from within :(
(i do like that gif, though :D)
The British were nothing more than Gold grabbers in Zuid Afrika!
It's only morally repugnant to murder prisoners of war and their families if they're not Germanic, apparently.
May the filthy British forever be cursed into squalor and filth on their despicable little island. :mad:
The "I was just following orders" defense? OK...
Quote from: The Brain on September 07, 2011, 01:45:43 AM
The "I was just following orders" defense? OK...
It appears almost all of the Germans executed following the Nuremberg trials were actually innocent. :hmm:
Anglofag Kitchener kocksuckers. You know who you are.
Quote from: Habsburg on September 06, 2011, 11:57:46 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lg6onosbi91qenz53o1_400.gif&hash=8c954bf93a4f205ecdccb9b24f084e255853b385)
Whos the chick on the left?
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
Indeed.
But more importantly, what a waste of fucking time and money.
Quote from: Slargos on September 07, 2011, 12:31:59 AM
It's only morally repugnant to murder prisoners of war and their families if they're not Germanic, apparently.
May the filthy British forever be cursed into squalor and filth on their despicable little island. :mad:
when they subjugated the african, everyone shrugged and went about their business. when they went after the afrikaan... why hate the british simply because they decided race wouldn't play a factor this time around? ;)
Quote from: Habsburg on September 07, 2011, 12:16:38 AM
The British were nothing more than Gold grabbers in Zuid Afrika!
No, they were a civilizing force.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2011, 06:59:42 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
Indeed.
But more importantly, what a waste of fucking time and money.
Not really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 07, 2011, 06:27:21 AM
Quote from: Habsburg on September 06, 2011, 11:57:46 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lg6onosbi91qenz53o1_400.gif&hash=8c954bf93a4f205ecdccb9b24f084e255853b385)
Whos the chick on the left?
Bighair McHagface.
I'd do her.
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2011, 07:33:43 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2011, 06:59:42 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
Indeed.
But more importantly, what a waste of fucking time and money.
Not really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
Not the war, I meant the the Attorney-General. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on September 07, 2011, 06:27:21 AM
Quote from: Habsburg on September 06, 2011, 11:57:46 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lg6onosbi91qenz53o1_400.gif&hash=8c954bf93a4f205ecdccb9b24f084e255853b385)
Whos the chick on the left?
actually, who are they, both of them?
Quote from: 11B4V on September 07, 2011, 06:27:21 AM
Whos the chick on the left?
SNL, star of Bridesmaids.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2011, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2011, 07:33:43 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2011, 06:59:42 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 06, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
may god damn those boers
Indeed.
But more importantly, what a waste of fucking time and money.
Not really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
Not the war, I meant the the Attorney-General. :P
It's not like Australian politicians have a lot on their plate. Damning immigrants and abos can be done pretty quickly and by relatively few pols.
I was at a history club luncheon at which Kit Denton, the author of Closed File, spoke. His topic was why he had never written the promised sequel to Closed File (which was supposed to have outlined all the times the fucking Poms had failed to redress the injustice when given the chance), and his answer was that further research had convinced him that Harry Morant was guilty as hell, and deserved to die. The murder of Reverend Heese to keep him from reporting the killing of PoWs was particularly troubling to Denton. That murder was in absolutely cold blood, and Morant's aquittal on the charge was, according to Denton, a miscarriage of justice.
Quote from: grumbler on September 07, 2011, 01:11:24 PM
I was at a history club luncheon at which Kit Denton, the author of Closed File, spoke. His topic was why he had never written the promised sequel to Closed File (which was supposed to have outlined all the times the fucking Poms had failed to redress the injustice when given the chance), and his answer was that further research had convinced him that Harry Morant was guilty as hell, and deserved to die. The murder of Reverend Heese to keep him from reporting the killing of PoWs was particularly troubling to Denton. That murder was in absolutely cold blood, and Morant's aquittal on the charge was, according to Denton, a miscarriage of justice.
Interesting first person testimony. It would be nice if he went on to write a short paper about this or would that be a too politically charged act ?
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2011, 06:38:07 AM
Interesting first person testimony. It would be nice if he went on to write a short paper about this or would that be a too politically charged act ?
He wouldn't have been allowed back into Oz if he had put his opinions into writing! :D
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 06:51:21 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2011, 06:38:07 AM
Interesting first person testimony. It would be nice if he went on to write a short paper about this or would that be a too politically charged act ?
He wouldn't have been allowed back into Oz if he had put his opinions into writing! :D
Yes, you'd think now we're so far removed from the events, people would be prepared to look at events more dispassionately. :(
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2011, 06:56:50 AM
Yes, you'd think now we're so far removed from the events, people would be prepared to look at events more dispassionately. :(
I think you are taking my comment more seriously than intended. Denten may well have put his opinion into writing, and I just haven't seen it.
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2011, 06:38:07 AM
It would be nice if he went on to write a short paper about this or would that be a too politically charged act ?
Quick check reveals Denton died 14 years ago.
Insert grumbler age joke here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2011, 01:36:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2011, 06:38:07 AM
It would be nice if he went on to write a short paper about this or would that be a too politically charged act ?
Quick check reveals Denton died 14 years ago.
Insert grumbler age joke here.
:hmm: Or
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FSolitary-Seance.jpg&hash=fb8269e2bc7365bbf24a68e0082763bd0074436b)
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2011, 07:33:43 AMNot really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
why not WWI?
Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2011, 07:33:43 AMNot really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
why not WWI?
I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War. They wouldn't have been able to resist Naziism though, on account of the fact that they were already there.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 06:54:16 PMI'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War. They wouldn't have been able to resist Naziism though, on account of the fact that they were already there.
i can see them playing footsie with the hun in the early years before the war, then unleashing hell once war broke out. might there be: a cape town gun? :D
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2011, 07:33:43 AMNot really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
why not WWI?
I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War.
Given that they did revolt in 1914 (though the revolt fizzled), I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure that the Boers were really equipped to conquer South Africa.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 07:11:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 07, 2011, 07:33:43 AMNot really. It's not like there was anything better to do with it, and it would have been more expensive to annihilate the Boers during WWII.
why not WWI?
I'm not certain the Boers would have fought in the Great War.
Given that they did revolt in 1914 (though the revolt fizzled), I'm not so sure.
Without the subjugation beforehand, why would the Boers fight on the German side? They certainly didn't possess the means to take and hold South Africa.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 07:14:58 PM
I'm not sure that the Boers were really equipped to conquer South Africa.
If they had fought the British to a standstill in the 2nd Boer War and then entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers? No, they wouldn't have conquered South Africa. They would have been a big headache to the British for a while, but ultimately, the Allies would have brought in enough troops to swamp them.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 08, 2011, 07:17:47 PM
Without the subjugation beforehand, why would the Boers fight on the German side? They certainly didn't possess the means to take and hold South Africa.
first boer war. plus, the germans supplied them with quite bit of heavy and small arms. with their gold reserves, i don't think they would have stayed friendly with the brit out of pure paranoia if anything. the first moment of true weakness the Empire exhibited, i think they'd have struck. crushing the boers for good was sound policy, imo
@neil: as dps said, i really doubt they'd actually be able to conquer south africa.. but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 07:22:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2011, 07:14:58 PM
I'm not sure that the Boers were really equipped to conquer South Africa.
If they had fought the British to a standstill in the 2nd Boer War and then entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers? No, they wouldn't have conquered South Africa. They would have been a big headache to the British for a while, but ultimately, the Allies would have brought in enough troops to swamp them.
I think that the counterfactual was that the 2nd War never happened. Once the war was on, I don't know how the British could lose, unless they put Italians in command. Fortunately, Buller was smart enough to learn.
It's also possible, if not likely, that the British would have attacked the Boers at first opportunity, in order to pre-emptively deny the Germans a south African ally.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 08, 2011, 07:41:37 PM
It's also possible, if not likely, that the British would have attacked the Boers at first opportunity, in order to pre-emptively deny the Germans a south African ally.
Possible. There certainly was a lot of strange stuff that went on in Africa in WWI. Like the Germans in S.W. Africa proposing that Africa be sort of neutral territory during the war. They were serious about it (afterall, they knew how cut off from Germany they were) and went so far as, when an African tribe in Angola revolted against the Portuguese, they marched out to attack the tribe as a show of European solidarity. Unfortunately for them, the Protuguese weren't having any of that, and attacked the German units involved. The Germans lost a pretty significant portion of their force in S.W. Africa in that little misadventure. Plus, IIRC, that happened at the same time that some of the Boers were trying to revolt, so the Germans were in no position to support the Boers.
Such is the tragedy of the Great War.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 09:09:03 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 08, 2011, 07:41:37 PM
It's also possible, if not likely, that the British would have attacked the Boers at first opportunity, in order to pre-emptively deny the Germans a south African ally.
Possible. There certainly was a lot of strange stuff that went on in Africa in WWI. Like the Germans in S.W. Africa proposing that Africa be sort of neutral territory during the war. They were serious about it (afterall, they knew how cut off from Germany they were) and went so far as, when an African tribe in Angola revolted against the Portuguese, they marched out to attack the tribe as a show of European solidarity. Unfortunately for them, the Protuguese weren't having any of that, and attacked the German units involved. The Germans lost a pretty significant portion of their force in S.W. Africa in that little misadventure. Plus, IIRC, that happened at the same time that some of the Boers were trying to revolt, so the Germans were in no position to support the Boers.
Any more info or even links about that incident?
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 09:09:03 PM
Possible. There certainly was a lot of strange stuff that went on in Africa in WWI. Like the Germans in S.W. Africa proposing that Africa be sort of neutral territory during the war. They were serious about it (afterall, they knew how cut off from Germany they were) and went so far as, when an African tribe in Angola revolted against the Portuguese, they marched out to attack the tribe as a show of European solidarity. Unfortunately for them, the Protuguese weren't having any of that, and attacked the German units involved. The Germans lost a pretty significant portion of their force in S.W. Africa in that little misadventure. Plus, IIRC, that happened at the same time that some of the Boers were trying to revolt, so the Germans were in no position to support the Boers.
I must say that your is a narrative that is pretty much 180 degrees out from what I have read elsewhere (though I haven't seen much on the topic). In conventional histories, the Germans are the ones instigating the revolts in Angola and Mozambique (and the invasions were to support those tribes and bring them against the British) and the Germans won the battles with the Portuguese, suffering few losses.
Where did your read your version of the history?