David Cameron ambushed on Indian TV over the Koh-i-noor diamond

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298541/David-Cameron-ambushed-Indian-TV-105-carat-Koh-noor-diamond.html


David Cameron has rejected a plea to return the fabled Koh-i-noor diamond - now the most famous of the Crown Jewels - to India. There has been a growing clamour on the sub-continent for the repatriation of the gem, and in an interview on India’s NDTV channel the Prime Minister was asked directly if he would give it back. After an awkward hesitation, Mr Cameron said 'that is a question I have never been asked before' and then insisted it could not be returned. The challenge came as the Prime Minister faced controversy after accusing Pakistan of 'exporting terror' and offered to share nuclear secrets and sell military jets to India. Mr Cameron is now on the final day of his whirlwind Indian trip, which has seen one of the largest UK delegations travel to the country since the sun set on the Raj in 1947.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/29/article-1298541-0A9C90F8000005DC-991_634x383.jpg


The Koh-i-noor, whose name means ‘mountain of light’ in Persian, was originally discovered in India at least 700 years ago, and possibly 5,000 years ago, according to some Hindu scholars. The 105-carat diamond was seized by the East India Company after the capture of Punjab in 1849 and later presented as a gift to Queen Victoria. At that time it was owned by the Sikh Maharajah of Lahore (now in Pakistan), but had earlier been a prize possession of the Mughal emperors. Mr Cameron said returning the legendary diamond to India would set a dangerous precedent for other priceless cultural items held in British museums. Greece, for example, has mounted a long-running campaign for the return of the Elgin Marbles, looted from the Parthenon some 200 years ago and brought back to London by the Earl of Elgin.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/29/article-1298541-0A9C771E000005DC-130_634x357.jpg



The Prime Minister said: ‘What tends to happen with these questions is that if you say yes to one you suddenly find the British Museum will be emptied. ‘I know there is also a great argument about the original provenance of the Koh-i-noor diamond. I’m afraid this will disappoint viewers, but it’s going to have to stay put.’ Earlier this month Labour MP Keith Vaz called for the diamond to be returned to India as a symbol of the Coalition Government’s stated desire to build a special relationship with the former colony. Mr Vaz said: ‘This will certainly convey a new age of Indo-British relations. The Prime Minister will certainly win the hearts of all Indians if he is prepared to discuss the display of the Koh-i-noor in India itself, and possibly even its permanent return.’


The original owners (Mughal Empire) are no longer around so you cannot 'give them back'.
It is also claimed that they were not actually looted but swapped in return for British protection.
The diamond, if left in the Mughal Empire would surely have been lost/put into a private collection.
Would India like to return all of the schools/hospitals/bridges/buildings/railways that we built them?
Would India like to return every penny of the billions we have given them in aid to?
Mr Vaz is a twit.

This always annoys me, if we are to put things back into their de facto state then lets see; India (including the former Raj) would go back to a bunch of backward and dictorial tribal groups. Africa (the majority) would be returned to the British/French/Blegiums as next to none sovereign states existed there beforehand. The United States, Canada and Austrialia would be returned to the tribes & the British. South America would be returned to the Amazon tribesmen and the Spanish/Portugese.

If the Empire had not been in existence then I could bet on my life they [Africa/Asia/South America/North America/Austrialia/New Zealand] would still be running around the jungles and on the vast uncultivated plains with spears - so maybe India and the rest of the world would be inclined to return our language, technlogy, railway, roads, bridges, hospitals + much more if they want their diamond back.

For thousands of years Africans were standing on diamonds yet it took us to go over there and bring some use to them - yet we are accused as being thieves. India and others were standing on oil/had diamonds yet had no use for any of it - we came over and made use of it. So never let anybody tell you that somehow our past is something to be ashamed of. To add to that, Britain still sends hundreds of millions to India each year (not to mention all the jobs we loose here and go over there with call centres) so maybe its time India and the rest of the world learned the meaning of independence.

Thoughts, who owns the diamond in your eyes?

[Swastika]

Obviously giving India back the diamond would be an amazing start for Cameron to get this "special" relationship with India going that he's always going on about, however i agree with you about us British building them hospitals, railways and schools.
It's a hard one but i agree that the diamond should remain in Britain and not in India, at least here we know that it wont get stolen.

[Tash.]

This always annoys me, if we are to put things back into their de facto state then lets see; India (including the former Raj) would go back to a bunch of backward and dictorial tribal groups. Africa (the majority) would be returned to the British/French/Blegiums as next to none sovereign states existed there beforehand. The United States, Canada and Austrialia would be returned to the tribes & the British. South America would be returned to the Amazon tribesmen and the Spanish/Portugese.

If the Empire had not been in existence then I could bet on my life they [Africa/Asia/South America/North America/Austrialia/New Zealand] would still be running around the jungles and on the vast uncultivated plains with spears - so maybe India and the rest of the world would be inclined to return our language, technlogy, railway, roads, bridges, hospitals + much more if they want their diamond back.

For thousands of years Africans were standing on diamonds yet it took us to go over there and bring some use to them - yet we are accused as being thieves. India and others were standing on oil/had diamonds yet had no use for any of it - we came over and made use of it. So never let anybody tell you that somehow our past is something to be ashamed of. To add to that, Britain still sends hundreds of millions to India each year (not to mention all the jobs we loose here and go over there with call centres) so maybe its time India and the rest of the world learned the meaning of independence.

Thoughts, who owns the diamond in your eyes?


While I don't think the diamond should necessarily be given back, I think alot of what you just said here you need to rethink because honestly wow. How unsurprisingly egotistical of you to suggest that because we systematically took over lands which did not belong to us and modernised them they would not have done it without us.. that is shameful.

As for Africa, yes we seem to have done a world of good there, I mean Africa is practically thriving...

As for the bit in bold, I have no words.

[Technologic]

While I don't think the diamond should necessarily be given back, I think alot of what you just said here you need to rethink because honestly wow. How unsurprisingly egotistical of you to suggest that because we systematically took over lands which did not belong to us and modernised them they would not have done it without us.. that is shameful.

As for Africa, yes we seem to have done a world of good there, I mean Africa is practically thriving...

As for the bit in bold, I have no words.

He reads the mail, there's your answer.

[Tintinnabulate]

It's a hard one but i agree that the diamond should remain in Britain and not in India, at least here we know that it wont get stolen.

Oh yeah sorry, I remember getting robbed everyday in my 10 years in India ... NOT. Been robbed here in my 10 years though ... wonder which country is safer eh? :) Doesn't take a genius to work that out hmmmmm.

No ******* wonder India prefers USA to UK with attitude such as that.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298541/David-Cameron-ambushed-Indian-TV-105-carat-Koh-noor-diamond.html





http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/29/article-1298541-0A9C90F8000005DC-991_634x383.jpg



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/29/article-1298541-0A9C771E000005DC-130_634x357.jpg





The original owners (Mughal Empire) are no longer around so you cannot 'give them back'.
It is also claimed that they were not actually looted but swapped in return for British protection.
The diamond, if left in the Mughal Empire would surely have been lost/put into a private collection.
Would India like to return all of the schools/hospitals/bridges/buildings/railways that we built them?
Would India like to return every penny of the billions we have given them in aid to?
Mr Vaz is a twit.

This always annoys me, if we are to put things back into their de facto state then lets see; India (including the former Raj) would go back to a bunch of backward and dictorial tribal groups. Africa (the majority) would be returned to the British/French/Blegiums as next to none sovereign states existed there beforehand. The United States, Canada and Austrialia would be returned to the tribes & the British. South America would be returned to the Amazon tribesmen and the Spanish/Portugese.

If the Empire had not been in existence then I could bet on my life they [Africa/Asia/South America/North America/Austrialia/New Zealand] would still be running around the jungles and on the vast uncultivated plains with spears - so maybe India and the rest of the world would be inclined to return our language, technlogy, railway, roads, bridges, hospitals + much more if they want their diamond back.

For thousands of years Africans were standing on diamonds yet it took us to go over there and bring some use to them - yet we are accused as being thieves. India and others were standing on oil/had diamonds yet had no use for any of it - we came over and made use of it. So never let anybody tell you that somehow our past is something to be ashamed of. To add to that, Britain still sends hundreds of millions to India each year (not to mention all the jobs we loose here and go over there with call centres) so maybe its time India and the rest of the world learned the meaning of independence.

Thoughts, who owns the diamond in your eyes?



1) No, it wouldn't be given back to that empire. It would be given back to the country.
2) British protection from what? LOL. I thought we kicked you out of our country?
3) Oh yeah, such a big diamond gets returned and it would obviously get lost :rolleyes: Obviously Indians are so dumb that they lose everything :'( If only they had minds like the British eh? No wait, who is going to who to beg to be friends? Who easily survived the recession? MAN THATS A HARD QUESTION HMMMMMMMM.
4) Oh yeah, I forgot, India's hasn't built any schools or hospital or universities since 1947 :(. Oh yeah, what did a recent entrepreneur say in a interview (sorry forgot his name)? That his son applied to Oxford ... got in. Applied to Harvard ... got in. Applied to the top Indian university ... got rejected. Who do top companies such as Golden Sachs, Co-op, Mckinsey based in UK hire? Indian students who have not even graduated yet. How do I know? Four of my cousins got hired by them before they even graduated. Oh yeah, but you wouldn't know as you are so damn narrow minded and think only you help us.
5) Obviously Britain didn't steal anything when they invaded India.
6) I don't really give a crap about the diamond, but your views are seriously messed up.

That's the answer to your points.

Oh yeah, India obviously has not grown since 1947 :rolleyes:

AND PLEASE GIVE ROMANS LATIN BACK.

I am grateful UK built roads and stuff but man your post is just OTT.

This country is surrounded by water, yet you do not use hydropower. Switzerland uses like 50% or something (renewable energy). Means UK is obviously thick and needs to be invaded by Switzerland and taught how to use it.

[Frodo13.]

This is stupid. It's just a diamond.

[Moh]

The Koh-i-noor diamond is part of the Crown Jewels that belong to the British monarchy. Not exactly something Cameron can give away. All this countries wealth is pretty much taken from other countries, we're slowly giving it back - but not like this :P

I don't really think we even stole the diamond did we? Queen Victoria was Empress of India at the time :P

I would understand if we were making some sort of profit out of it, but since it's in the Tower of London - they're pretty secure and isn't going to get in the wrong hands. It's in a safe place, why do they have to complain?

[Tintinnabulate]

It's in a safe place, why do they have to complain?

He merely asked ...

[Moh]

He merely asked ...
Not the first time ;)

When the Queen visited, they actually demanded them back.

[GommeInc]

Surely it's a matter of finders keepers/who stole it should keep it? It was hundreds of years ago, it would be a bit pointless. It has more history here than over there now, or any recordable history at least :/

[Swastika]

Oh yeah sorry, I remember getting robbed everyday in my 10 years in India ... NOT. Been robbed here in my 10 years though ... wonder which country is safer eh? :) Doesn't take a genius to work that out hmmmmm.

No ******* wonder India prefers USA to UK with attitude such as that.

Umm, im the one with an attitude problem, yet your swearing in your posts getting your back up at people and being rude?
Your obviously getting on your high horse because you must be Indian or something, i wasn't making out that all Indians are thieves or whatever, i was merely stating that the diamond is probably more safe in the Tower of London.
And if your so sure that India is safer than the UK, then why do you continue to live here and not India?

[-:Undertaker:-]

While I don't think the diamond should necessarily be given back, I think alot of what you just said here you need to rethink because honestly wow. How unsurprisingly egotistical of you to suggest that because we systematically took over lands which did not belong to us and modernised them they would not have done it without us.. that is shameful.

As for Africa, yes we seem to have done a world of good there, I mean Africa is practically thriving...

As for the bit in bold, I have no words.

What, so they just happened to develop just as we arrived? They had all been standing ontop of oil for thousands of years and never made any use of it, and even if they had - what could they have done with it? no means to get it out of the ground, nothing to use to power with it - just a useless thick black substance. The same goes for the diamonds in Africa, no use for them before we came, no value of them - had no clue/no methods of how to extract them from the ground.

Look at pictures of India, look at its bridges its towns - the same goes for Singapore/Pakistan/Burma and the rest of the colonial world - nothing there before the Europeans came and more so the British who often put investment back into the colonies as opposed to the Portugese, Spanish, French and the Belgians (prime example of this is British Hong Kong compared to Portugese Macao.

As for Africa yes it was thriving under the British Empire, look at it now and its going backwards. Apartheid was damn wrong agreed, but under both Apartheid and whilst part of the British Empire South Africa was thriving - Zimbabwe was known as the 'breadbasket of Africa' until their independence. India on the other hand has only just started mondernising and developing, the same goes for Pakistan under Musharraf.

They spout on about independence yet we are still paying for them to waste money on space programmes (India), nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan), tribal wars and conflicts (Africa) and crime (South Africa). The same goes for the idea that Nelson Mandela was some sort of hero for South Africa, both he and the ANC were nothing but terrorists who killed innocent people (not the regime) using a variety of sick and brutal methods.

Check out necklacing, I wouldn't wish that on Hitler himself.


He reads the mail, there's your answer.

Oh your always full of debate.


Oh yeah sorry, I remember getting robbed everyday in my 10 years in India ... NOT. Been robbed here in my 10 years though ... wonder which country is safer eh? :) Doesn't take a genius to work that out hmmmmm.

No ******* wonder India prefers USA to UK with attitude such as that.

1) No, it wouldn't be given back to that empire. It would be given back to the country.

The Mughal Empire was a different state, which was alongside many tribal areas. If you take the historical Chinese view that 'the successor takes all despite all other changes' then that is a perfect view to hold - however it is not one that most people take in history and international politics hence why the uproar and undefined status of Republic of China (Taiwan).


2) British protection from what? LOL. I thought we kicked you out of our country?

British protection from the rebellions and uproars that plagued the area that became the Raj just before the Raj was established. The same occured with the Great Qing (Chinese Empire) in which British/European and even American administrators were being seriously considered at the time. Both nations were collapsing, just India had the benefit of the British conquest to hold it together unlike China which eventually was taken by the communists along with tribal warlords.


3) Oh yeah, such a big diamond gets returned and it would obviously get lost :rolleyes: Obviously Indians are so dumb that they lose everything :'( If only they had minds like the British eh? No wait, who is going to who to beg to be friends? Who easily survived the recession? MAN THATS A HARD QUESTION HMMMMMMMM.

Mis-taken the post darling. The problems that were in India before the Raj takeover meant that the likelyhood was that the diamonds and all other prized possesions would have been involved in conflict of interest - hence why the British took it and considering the British all of the railways, bridges and infastructure - i'd say the Raj got a pretty good deal for its diamonds and natural resources.


4) Oh yeah, I forgot, India's hasn't built any schools or hospital or universities since 1947 :(. Oh yeah, what did a recent entrepreneur say in a interview (sorry forgot his name)? That his son applied to Oxford ... got in. Applied to Harvard ... got in. Applied to the top Indian university ... got rejected. Who do top companies such as Golden Sachs, Co-op, Mckinsey based in UK hire? Indian students who have not even graduated yet. How do I know? Four of my cousins got hired by them before they even graduated. Oh yeah, but you wouldn't know as you are so damn narrow minded and think only you help us.

Where have I mentioned Indian development post-1947?

I am talking about prior to the Raj where Britain had to come in and build all of those things.


5) Obviously Britain didn't steal anything when they invaded India.

Britain was incharge of the Raj and the Raj was a colonial possession, if you class Britain having possession of the diamond as 'theft' then surely India has been the one milking the cow ever since the Raj and ever since the Raj ended - with the millions of aid this country gives every year to a country which spends billions on nuclear arsenal pointing at Pakistan and a space programme merely to rival China.


6) I don't really give a crap about the diamond, but your views are seriously messed up.No, it's your views are messed up as you clearly do not have a concept of the world before the modern age.


That's the answer to your points.

Oh yeah, India obviously has not grown since 1947 :rolleyes:

AND PLEASE GIVE ROMANS LATIN BACK.

I am grateful UK built roads and stuff but man your post is just OTT.

This country is surrounded by water, yet you do not use hydropower. Switzerland uses like 50% or something (renewable energy). Means UK is obviously thick and needs to be invaded by Switzerland and taught how to use it.

Again, you are comparing colonialism to the modern day when there is no comparsion. Not only that, but you have taken it as though i'm saying India hasn't developed since 1947 - i'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is the fact that it took the British to come and build hospitals, roads, railways and all the rest of which did not exist beforehand.

[Alkaz]

Nothing, don't want to be apart of this now lol.

[-:Undertaker:-]

2) British protection from what? LOL. I thought we kicked you out of our country?

Oh and you didn't 'kick us out', we left on our own accord - the [British] economy was shattered by the war with the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire part of which its whole purpose was to make sure that the Raj, Burma and numerous other countries remained free from the chains of the cruel Japanese Empire - A war that the 'hero' Gandhi did not give his full support to. I can understand the hypocrisy of the choice that faced the Congress and Gandhi himself, but on the other hand common sense just tells me that i'd fight to hell and back not to come under Japanese rule - [I]especially if I were coloured.

I do not believe he did it in malice, he was surely blinded though in his efforts during World War II.

[Stephen]

hxf is gonna have a 10 word limit on all posts.

You heard it here first

Edited by Cosmic (Forum Moderator) Please do not post pointlessly, thanks.

[Tintinnabulate]

Umm, im the one with an attitude problem, yet your swearing in your posts getting your back up at people and being rude?
Your obviously getting on your high horse because you must be Indian or something, i wasn't making out that all Indians are thieves or whatever, i was merely stating that the diamond is probably more safe in the Tower of London.
And if your so sure that India is safer than the UK, then why do you continue to live here and not India?

Oh yeah, India must be unsafe :rolleyes: Unless you have been to India, don't comment on the safety.

Just because India is safer, I don't have to return there :S :S What a stupid comment to make.
You do realise people can just pay money and sit on the queens car etc unsupervised? Great safety there isnt it :rolleyes: Plant a bomb, piss on it etc, and the staff were so corrupt they let people do it for money. Obviously you won't know as Britain is all perfect and safe. Every country has problems, and to say Britain is safer than India is laughable.

And Undertaker ... whatever you want to believe :rolleyes: and I was not talking about just taking that one diamond.

[MrPinkPanther]

I'm sorry because I didn't think I would say this about you but a lot of what you have said is genuinely racist.

[Rock]

Wasn't it used in the crown of the Shah of Persia at some time?

[Moh]

The Jewels have been kept their since the 14th century, not once has anybody succeeded in stealing them. The Jewel House is guarded by some of the highest ranking soldiers in the UK.

As for the UK been more safer than India, I think it's safe to say we are. In Europe, we spend the most money on defence - there's a few powerful countries in Europe too.

You're also forgetting that India doesn't even develop it's own figher jets. The UK pretty much develop all of our aircraft. India however use other countries, including the UKs. The UK also has a large list of powerful allies.

Sorry for going off topic :P

[Tintinnabulate]

The Jewels have been kept their since the 14th century, not once has anybody succeeded in stealing them. The Jewel House is guarded by some of the highest ranking soldiers in the UK.

As for the UK been more safer than India, I think it's safe to say we are. In Europe, we spend the most money on defence - there's a few powerful countries in Europe too.

You're also forgetting that India doesn't even develop it's own figher jets. The UK pretty much develop all of our aircraft. India however use other countries, including the UKs. The UK also has a large list of powerful allies.

Sorry for going off topic :P

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/03/11/India-and-Russia-to-develop-fighter-jet/UPI-67361268316622/

And you do realise that UK buys from other countries too?

And I did not mean the army etc, I was talking about in general. In India they don't even use house alarms as its just not needed. I was just saying to Undertaker that India wont just misplace and lost such a huge diamond ...

Oh wait, whose government keeps losing confidential data? Damn, that's the UK.

Oh and Undertaker, you ignored my reply to "Indias should give english back to us", give us back our food then? :) Give romans back latin? Oh you ignored that.

oh and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Camerons-delegation-wont-benefit-UK-business/articleshow/6234358.cms


But the presence shows how the world has moved on since Brits used to pass through Mumbai's gateway to India in the days of the Raj. It is now India's former rulers who are pleading to be taken seriously by one of the world's fastest growing economies.


BANGALORE: On his first visit to India as the British prime minister, Conservative leader David Cameron allayed fears of any curbs on the IT outsourcing by the country’s government departments, even as he asked Indian companies to create more jobs in the UK.

[Catzsy]

Oh yeah, India must be unsafe :rolleyes: Unless you have been to India, don't comment on the safety.

Just because India is safer, I don't have to return there :S :S What a stupid comment to make.
You do realise people can just pay money and sit on the queens car etc unsupervised? Great safety there isnt it :rolleyes: Plant a bomb, piss on it etc, and the staff were so corrupt they let people do it for money. Obviously you won't know as Britain is all perfect and safe. Every country has problems, and to say Britain is safer than India is laughable.

And Undertaker ... whatever you want to believe :rolleyes: and I was not talking about just taking that one diamond.

Totally agree and some of the comments made here about India and your connection with it are downright disgraceful.

The British Empire is dead - It died a long, long time ago. The big empires of the past all plundered the lands they conquered including the Romans and the Greeks. This is making a mountain out of a molehill probably to distract from Cameron's gaffes. He is becoming a new 'George Bush' although he should really know better as he seems to have some intelligence.
Loads of countries ask for their 'artifacts' back - this is just one of them and Britain is a target for this because of the 'Empire' it's as simple as that.

Just to illustrate the point:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100407-cairo-archaeology-meeting-recover-national-treasures-nefertiti-rosetta-stone

[Tintinnabulate]

I honestly don't care about the diamond, I really don't. Whether it was looted or gifted, it doesn't matter. I don't think it was even the country asking for it back, just a presenter asking if Cameron would return it.

I respect UK immensely as I have lived here for over 10 years but I will not sit there quietly if people made ludicrous comments about India. People seem to think India is everything it is today only because of UK. Some seem to get the idea its still full of poor people and under developed. If you have never been there, then don't comment. The media is known for just showing poor parts. I went there 3 years ago and its changed dramatically. Delhi is just wow and more beautiful than Manchester. The development is just amazing.

The only reason UK is in the position it is now is because of peoples attitude. They were extremely rich, then started giving out money to others and their own citizens like mad. A big part of the benefit system - simply stupid. Glad the conservatives are trying to fix it. Education is free, so a lot of people don't respect it at all. Minimum wage - although good for some, has not been great for businesses.

[Catzsy]

I honestly don't care about the diamond, I really don't. Whether it was looted or gifted, it doesn't matter. I don't think it was even the country asking for it back, just a presenter asking if Cameron would return it.

I respect UK immensely as I have lived here for over 10 years but I will not sit there quietly if people made ludicrous comments about India. People seem to think India is everything it is today only because of UK. Some seem to get the idea its still full of poor people and under developed. If you have never been there, then don't comment. The media is known for just showing poor parts. I went there 3 years ago and its changed dramatically. Delhi is just wow and more beautiful than Manchester. The development is just amazing.

The only reason UK is in the position it is now is because of peoples attitude. They were extremely rich, then started giving out money to others and their own citizens like mad. A big part of the benefit system - simply stupid. Glad the conservatives are trying to fix it. Education is free, so a lot of people don't respect it at all. Minimum wage - although good for some, has not been great for businesses.

Well it happens when people really don't know what they are talking about and use anedotes and stereotypes to illustrate their points. There is a lot to be said for living here, I agree.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yeah, India must be unsafe :rolleyes: Unless you have been to India, don't comment on the safety.

Just because India is safer, I don't have to return there :S :S What a stupid comment to make.
You do realise people can just pay money and sit on the queens car etc unsupervised? Great safety there isnt it :rolleyes: Plant a bomb, piss on it etc, and the staff were so corrupt they let people do it for money. Obviously you won't know as Britain is all perfect and safe. Every country has problems, and to say Britain is safer than India is laughable.

And Undertaker ... whatever you want to believe :rolleyes: and I was not talking about just taking that one diamond.

I choose to believe history and what actually occured, and before the British came along to many places (including the French, Germans, Belgians) those places were backward and undeveloped tribal areas or as is with India and Great Qing, a set of tribal Empires collapsing as they entered the modern world.


I'm sorry because I didn't think I would say this about you but a lot of what you have said is genuinely racist.

Point out one racist thing I have said. If you actually had read the post properly you'd realise the only point I mentioned race was involving the Japanese Empire - the Japanese were a very cruel people. The whites they captured were treated in despicable ways, but the Indians/Africans they caught were treated lower than dogs hence why I questioned the sense in the Indian Congress not supporting the Raj in the war properly.

If you dispute what I say or still think I a racist, then show me where race has played a part/prove me wrong otherwise.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/03/11/India-and-Russia-to-develop-fighter-jet/UPI-67361268316622/

And you do realise that UK buys from other countries too?

And I did not mean the army etc, I was talking about in general. In India they don't even use house alarms as its just not needed. I was just saying to Undertaker that India wont just misplace and lost such a huge diamond ...

Oh wait, whose government keeps losing confidential data? Damn, that's the UK.

Oh and Undertaker, you ignored my reply to "Indias should give english back to us", give us back our food then? :) Give romans back latin? Oh you ignored that.

oh and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Camerons-delegation-wont-benefit-UK-business/articleshow/6234358.cms

No you have mis-understood me yet again Saurav, that is my exact argument - you cannot change history and hence why I wouldn't give the diamond 'back' just as those examples you cited show the stupidity of it. The same way I would not give Hadrians Wall back to the Roman Empire. Often you are so determined to have a go at me, you actually attack me even when i'm on the same line as you.

[Moh]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/03/11/India-and-Russia-to-develop-fighter-jet/UPI-67361268316622/

And you do realise that UK buys from other countries too?

And I did not mean the army etc, I was talking about in general. In India they don't even use house alarms as its just not needed. I was just saying to Undertaker that India wont just misplace and lost such a huge diamond ...

Oh wait, whose government keeps losing confidential data? Damn, that's the UK.

Oh and Undertaker, you ignored my reply to "Indias should give english back to us", give us back our food then? :) Give romans back latin? Oh you ignored that.

oh and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Camerons-delegation-wont-benefit-UK-business/articleshow/6234358.cms
I know the UK buy some, but about 80% - 90% are all developed in the UK.

You can't exactly prove that nobody in India uses a burglar alarm. We have a burglar alarm, but it doesn't necessarily mean we've ever been burgled.

You really don't know your own government then do you? A lot of the government in India have a criminal record, some for murder and rape. The government of India is terrible, their priorities are all wrong.

I know the media only show the bad areas - but there aren't any places in the UK half that bad.

[Tintinnabulate]

No you have mis-understood me yet again Saurav, that is my exact argument - you cannot change history and hence why I wouldn't give the diamond 'back' just as those examples you cited show the stupidity of it. The same way I would not give Hadrians Wall back to the Roman Empire. Often you are so determined to have a go at me, you actually attack me even when i'm on the same line as you.

No, a presenter asked Cameron and yourself (well the Daily Mail) decided to make a big deal out of it. The Indian government isn't asking for it so why make a big deal out of it :S. You made a huge post saying how the Indians should give you back the stuff you gave us - which is beyond stupid.

Next time a presenter here says something stupid, will you blame the whole country and start making silly comments on them? No.

You are a pet of the Daily Mail and just post whatever they post without ever using your own brain.

---------- Post added 30-07-2010 at 12:52 PM ----------


I know the UK buy some, but about 80% - 90% are all developed in the UK.

You can't exactly prove that nobody in India uses a burglar alarm. We have a burglar alarm, but it doesn't necessarily mean we've ever been burgled.

You really don't know your own government then do you? A lot of the government in India have a criminal record, some for murder and rape. The government of India is terrible, their priorities are all wrong.

I know the media only show the bad areas - but there aren't any places in the UK half that bad.

All governments are corrupt - even the ones here, even the ones in USA.

Er, I have a large family in India, none of which use it and none of which know someone who uses it. I know for a fact that no none in the town I come from used it. The neighbours all look out for one another, and thus its simply not needed.

Oh sorry, Indian government must be thick and so stupid, with all their priorities wrong indeed. Thats why they survived the recession better than UK, and are becoming economically powerful. To me, it looks like you know nothing about India. You do realise why Cameron has taken so many people with him don't you? Tbh, if you did, you wouldn't be making such idiotic comments about the Indian government.

I must add however, you can get robbed on the street (like someone stealing your wallet without you knowing), but not many go into the homes and rob them.

[Tintinnabulate]

Not to mention the government here is so perfect. Oh wait no. MP's expenses... :rolleyes:
And a man easily had Tony Blair as his pet and managed to get a British Passport without living here for 5 years ... but obviously you won't remember that.

[Tash.]

What, so they just happened to develop just as we arrived? They had all been standing ontop of oil for thousands of years and never made any use of it, and even if they had - what could they have done with it? no means to get it out of the ground, nothing to use to power with it - just a useless thick black substance. The same goes for the diamonds in Africa, no use for them before we came, no value of them - had no clue/no methods of how to extract them from the ground.

Look at pictures of India, look at its bridges its towns - the same goes for Singapore/Pakistan/Burma and the rest of the colonial world - nothing there before the Europeans came and more so the British who often put investment back into the colonies as opposed to the Portugese, Spanish, French and the Belgians (prime example of this is British Hong Kong compared to Portugese Macao.

As for Africa yes it was thriving under the British Empire, look at it now and its going backwards. Apartheid was damn wrong agreed, but under both Apartheid and whilst part of the British Empire South Africa was thriving - Zimbabwe was known as the 'breadbasket of Africa' until their independence. India on the other hand has only just started mondernising and developing, the same goes for Pakistan under Musharraf.

They spout on about independence yet we are still paying for them to waste money on space programmes (India), nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan), tribal wars and conflicts (Africa) and crime (South Africa). The same goes for the idea that Nelson Mandela was some sort of hero for South Africa, both he and the ANC were nothing but terrorists who killed innocent people (not the regime) using a variety of sick and brutal methods.

Check out necklacing, I wouldn't wish that on Hitler himself.


You've completely misread or misunderstood what I was saying. I don't doubt that the British Empire did some wonderful things for countries such as India (roads, bridges etc) but what i'm saying, and what you seem to be incinuating (correct me if i'm wrong here) is that without that interference on our part they wouldn't have managed to modernise themselves. Yes as it is we took over and did it for them, but how exactly do you know and I quote, that:


If the Empire had not been in existence then I could bet on my life they [Africa/Asia/South America/North America/Austrialia/New Zealand] would still be running around the jungles and on the vast uncultivated plains with spears

I'll answer it for you, you don't. Its the same presumptious tripe you usually spout on other topics on this forum and as usual its misinformed and derived mainly from your misguided loyalty to people and organisations which are, in my view, wholly selfish about the British people.

You were also talking about if they wanted the diamond back they should 'give us back our roads, bridges etc' and why exactly is that? If you believe, as you suggest, that the British Empire genuinely invaded these countries to help them modernise then why are you demanding something back which we (with their help I might add) built for that countries good?

Back to something else you said anyway, to prove my point a little further about your sentiments. It's correct that at the time we invaded the countries which became part of the British Empire they did not have the ability to remove oil or diamonds from the ground. You seem to be saying that because we 'helped' them do this, and by helped I mean exploited and sold on for our profit, them get them from the ground this has made the world and the countries in question a better place. Wrong again. As you can see, the western world has only become more greedy for oil as you like to point out when talking about the reasons behind the Iraq war.

On to Africa. Yes it does seem that since the British Empire disolved and the African countries gained independence that they have 'gone backwards'. Well I hate to say it, but how much of this is our fault anyway? We took from them what we needed, providing only the very least we could in return and then left. Great. Providing aid to these countries is the least we can do now, even if it wasn't something we are obliged to do its only human nature (or at least decent people's human nature) to want to help those in need. Whether you are one of these people is debatable considering the views you've expressed here.

And finally, I don't know if i'm misreading here but you seem to be saying that although you believe Apartheid was wrong it helped South Africa? I don't even need to say whats wrong with that statement, anyone with a brain will realise its entirely false and the backlash from it still causes racial tensions today.

[Swastika]

Oh yeah, India must be unsafe :rolleyes: Unless you have been to India, don't comment on the safety.

Just because India is safer, I don't have to return there :S :S What a stupid comment to make.
You do realise people can just pay money and sit on the queens car etc unsupervised? Great safety there isnt it :rolleyes: Plant a bomb, piss on it etc, and the staff were so corrupt they let people do it for money. Obviously you won't know as Britain is all perfect and safe. Every country has problems, and to say Britain is safer than India is laughable.

And Undertaker ... whatever you want to believe :rolleyes: and I was not talking about just taking that one diamond.
Unless you've been inside the Tower of London, don't comment on it's safety then if your going to play like that?
How do you know India is safer than the UK? :S Your saying it asif its cast iron truth, when in fact it's anything but. Stop thinking India is top notch on safety standards just because you get offended when somebody mentions something bad about it for goodness sake.
I acknowledge that the UK's safety isn't amazing, i think you need to get off your high horse and notice some bad points about your oh so amazing India. :rolleyes:

[Tintinnabulate]

Unless you've been inside the Tower of London, don't comment on it's safety then if your going to play like that?
How do you know India is safer than the UK? :S Your saying it asif its cast iron truth, when in fact it's anything but. Stop thinking India is top notch on safety standards just because you get offended when somebody mentions something bad about it for goodness sake.
I acknowledge that the UK's safety isn't amazing, i think you need to get off your high horse and notice some bad points about your oh so amazing India. :rolleyes:

Because I have lived in both countries? I have said you can get robbed on the street in India but your house is not as likely to get robbed as here ...
However, Undertaker seems to think they are idiots who will "lose" the diamond.

No, I am not having a go because someone mentioned something bad. I am having a go as half the comments are ludicrous. Ohhh Indians would be running around with spears if it wasn't for the UK. Ohhhh they are so dumb, they will lose such a big diamond. Ohh their government is so corrupt that they have no clue about policies.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, a presenter asked Cameron and yourself (well the Daily Mail) decided to make a big deal out of it. The Indian government isn't asking for it so why make a big deal out of it :S. You made a huge post saying how the Indians should give you back the stuff you gave us - which is beyond stupid.

Next time a presenter here says something stupid, will you blame the whole country and start making silly comments on them? No.

You are a pet of the Daily Mail and just post whatever they post without ever using your own brain.

Oh end this Daily Mail nonsense, I posted on it to get a debate going over the diamond as a point of discussion - nothing to do with the sodding Mail so leave it alone for once. I never said Indians should give anything back, I said that if it is the case the Indians want the diamond back - then maybe they should take a look at all the money and things this country has given them over the years and re-assess their claim over a diamond.

Again, not reading what I put properly.


Not to mention the government here is so perfect. Oh wait no. MP's expenses... :rolleyes:
And a man easily had Tony Blair as his pet and managed to get a British Passport without living here for 5 years ... but obviously you won't remember that.

Yet you are still one of the many who advocated supporting Labour on this very forum.


You've completely misread or misunderstood what I was saying. I don't doubt that the British Empire did some wonderful things for countries such as India (roads, bridges etc) but what i'm saying, and what you seem to be incinuating (correct me if i'm wrong here) is that without that interference on our part they wouldn't have managed to modernise themselves. Yes as it is we took over and did it for them, but how exactly do you know and I quote, that:

I'll answer it for you, you don't. Its the same presumptious tripe you usually spout on other topics on this forum and as usual its misinformed and derived mainly from your misguided loyalty to people and organisations which are, in my view, wholly selfish about the British people.

Actually I did not say they would not modernise - I merely stated that without the Western World that the chances these nations would have developed is almost nil as shown by history. Of course with the Western World about, they would have eventually taken off much as Japan, Singapore and others did in the 1980s and as India and China are doing so now. If the west had never colonised to fuel its own expansion, then the Asian/Arab/African worlds would never have taken off as they required the expertise and investment of the western world and even now (some of them at least) are going backwards and not forwards.

The pattern of modernisation (for those who do geography) can be seen with the first powers to industrialise (Britain/France/Germany) where they took almost 150 years to modernise because they were the first. The likes of Singapore modernised faster because they had instant access to that western know-how and thus could develop in a timescale never seen before - periods of 10 to 15 years which is quite remarkable.


You were also talking about if they wanted the diamond back they should 'give us back our roads, bridges etc' and why exactly is that? If you believe, as you suggest, that the British Empire genuinely invaded these countries to help them modernise then why are you demanding something back which we (with their help I might add) built for that countries good?

I never stated we went in solely to 'give help' - the whole object of Empire was wealth and to benefit ourselves, otherwise you'd be mad to embark on such a task as colonisation. I am not demanding them back, merely stating how stupid the argument is that you can restart history in 'give me that back' and 'we demand that back then' - history ended as it did so, so everyone needs to leave it alone and stop demanding pieces/objects from eachother back.


Back to something else you said anyway, to prove my point a little further about your sentiments. It's correct that at the time we invaded the countries which became part of the British Empire they did not have the ability to remove oil or diamonds from the ground. You seem to be saying that because we 'helped' them do this, and by helped I mean exploited and sold on for our profit, them get them from the ground this has made the world and the countries in question a better place. Wrong again. As you can see, the western world has only become more greedy for oil as you like to point out when talking about the reasons behind the Iraq war.

No, they had no clue as to what the purpose of oil was/whether or not it was even there. The modern usage of oil and the conflicts surrounding it have diddy squat to do with this topic. The Iraq conflict was about oil yes of that there can be no doubt, however that has nothing to do with the exploration of oil and afterall it was oil which fuelled development in the first place. To compare the modern world with the colonial world is a non-discussion - different time, differing history and differing politics from today.


On to Africa. Yes it does seem that since the British Empire disolved and the African countries gained independence that they have 'gone backwards'. Well I hate to say it, but how much of this is our fault anyway? We took from them what we needed, providing only the very least we could in return and then left. Great. Providing aid to these countries is the least we can do now, even if it wasn't something we are obliged to do its only human nature (or at least decent people's human nature) to want to help those in need. Whether you are one of these people is debatable considering the views you've expressed here.

What did we take away from them?

Before we entered Africa, Africa was a collection of tribes at war with eachother, no real cities established, no real economy, no hospitals, no schools, no rule of law, no stable monarchy and no moral values.

We left Africa with well built roads, schools, well built sewers, democratic governments, a stable monarchy in position, well trained armed forces, strong government, democratic government (hence why the Rhodesian question was never fully settled with the United Kingdom as we refused to accept their self-proclaimed independence due to a minority government being in power), hospitals and a strong agricultural sector as with Zimbabwe.

Since we [the colonial powers left] most of that has fallen apart despite the fact we are still providing them with aid. It is corrupt because of their own doing and not of ours. We did not take anything away from them, we provided for them and they have spoilt what they could have used to truly achieve independence - fair play I say to them, and thats why I would cut all aid to their corrupt western-hating governments tommorow full stop.


And finally, I don't know if i'm misreading here but you seem to be saying that although you believe Apartheid was wrong it helped South Africa? I don't even need to say whats wrong with that statement, anyone with a brain will realise its entirely false and the backlash from it still causes racial tensions today.

Yes it did Tash, my Dad lived through it in the very country itself and has also watched its decline - stop believing the hype surrounding Mandela and the ANC and maybe read into it. Apartheid was wrong, but at least the majority of them had jobs, homes, security, low crime and stable government - unlike now where the country is becoming ever more ghettoised, ever more corrupt and ever more backwards.

Just because something is evil or bad doesn't mean it didn't work in the economical & social sense.

[Catzsy]

I know the UK buy some, but about 80% - 90% are all developed in the UK.

You can't exactly prove that nobody in India uses a burglar alarm. We have a burglar alarm, but it doesn't necessarily mean we've ever been burgled.

You really don't know your own government then do you? A lot of the government in India have a criminal record, some for murder and rape. The government of India is terrible, their priorities are all wrong.

I know the media only show the bad areas - but there aren't any places in the UK half that bad.


Have you any actual factual sources to back up what you say here?

[Tintinnabulate]

Oh end this Daily Mail nonsense, I posted on it to get a debate going over the diamond as a point of discussion - nothing to do with the sodding Mail so leave it alone for once. I never said Indians should give anything back, I said that if it is the case the Indians want the diamond back - then maybe they should take a look at all the money and things this country has given them over the years and re-assess their claim over a diamond.

Again, not reading what I put properly.

Yet you are still one of the many who advocated supporting Labour on this very forum.

You only ever post crap which the Daily Mail reports. Has this story been reported on BBC etc, nope. Only one Indian asked on TV if it would be returned as Cameron was trying to make a special relationship with India and this would have been a fantastic way to begin. So the Mail and yourself decided to turn it into some huge thing because someone just asked :S

Benefits is beneficial in helping the citizens and I am not against it, what I am against is people exploiting it. For example, a man who quit his job when he realised he would get more from benefits than from actually working.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You only ever post crap which the Daily Mail reports. Has this story been reported on BBC etc, nope. Only one Indian asked on TV if it would be returned as Cameron was trying to make a special relationship with India and this would have been a fantastic way to begin. So the Mail and yourself decided to turn it into some huge thing because someone just asked :S

Benefits is beneficial in helping the citizens and I am not against it, what I am against is people exploiting it. For example, a man who quit his job when he realised he would get more from benefits than from actually working.

No it was not the Mail who only reported it, but as you seem obsessed with the Mail here are some other news sources listed for you on the same story - including the one you said didn't report the story!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10802469 (YES THE BBC!!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7917372/The-Koh-i-Noor-diamond-robbery.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66532,news-comment,news-politics,koh-i-noor-diamond-will-remain-in-britain-says-david-cameron
http://wotnews.co.uk/like/david_cameron_refuses_to_return_koh_i_noor_diamond _to_india/3182987/


Has this story been reported on BBC etc, nope.

..so yes, yes it has.

[Tintinnabulate]

No it was not the Mail who only reported it, but as you seem obsessed with the Mail here are some other news sources listed for you on the same story - including the one you said didn't report the story!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10802469 (YES THE BBC!!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7917372/The-Koh-i-Noor-diamond-robbery.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66532,news-comment,news-politics,koh-i-noor-diamond-will-remain-in-britain-says-david-cameron
http://wotnews.co.uk/like/david_cameron_refuses_to_return_koh_i_noor_diamond _to_india/3182987/

In which case I apologise but you completely ignored my other points.

Also if the Daily Mail thinks he was "ambushed" then the author is a moron. He only asked a simple question as its one of the things Cameron could do to achieve the special relationship he wants.

Maybe the Daily Mail writers need some English lessons?


an act or instance of attacking unexpectedly from a concealed position.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In which case I apologise but you completely ignored my other points.

Also if the Daily Mail thinks he was "ambushed" then the author is a moron. He only asked a simple question as its one of the things Cameron could do to achieve the special relationship he wants.

Maybe the Daily Mail writers need some English lessons?

What are your other points? all you posted was the usual rant about the Mail and something about benefits (the benefits system or what?), something I was not even talking about. If you want my opinion on relations with India then they can also be backed up by Jordy who i've often spoken to on this very issue and i've always been very pro-India as I believe we share a cultural bond with the Empire and the Commonwealth. I always also advocated that a British PMs first offical state visit should be to India before the US and all other nations.

As for ambushed, its another word for unexpected - the question is not one you would usually ask a visiting head of state/senior representative of a foreign government hence why they used ambushed - if you have an issue with the Mail and its writing style then complain to the paper, not me.


He only asked a simple question as its one of the things Cameron could do to achieve the special relationship he wants.

..and that is why I posted the thread in the first place, to state my opposition to any backdown of this diamond and its status.

[Tintinnabulate]

What are your other points? all you posted was the usual rant about the Mail and something about benefits (the benefits system or what?), something I was not even talking about. If you want my opinion on relations with India then they can also be backed up by Jordy who i've often spoken to on this very issue and i've always been very pro-India as I believe we share a cultural bond with the Empire and the Commonwealth. I always also advocated that a British PMs first offical state visit should be to India before the US and all other nations.

As for ambushed, its another word for unexpected - the question is not one you would usually ask a visiting head of state/senior representative of a foreign government hence why they used ambushed - if you have an issue with the Mail and its writing style then complain to the paper, not me.

Then why go on and pretend the who of India wanted it back when only a reporter asked for it :S
There is a clear difference between the Mail and BBC etc on how they reported the news.

[Tash.]

Actually I did not say they would not modernise - I merely stated that without the Western World that the chances these nations would have developed is almost nil as shown by history. Of course with the Western World about, they would have eventually taken off much as Japan, Singapore and others did in the 1980s and as India and China are doing so now. If the west had never colonised to fuel its own expansion, then the Asian/Arab/African worlds would never have taken off as they required the expertise and investment of the western world and even now (some of them at least) are going backwards and not forwards.

The pattern of modernisation (for those who do geography) can be seen with the first powers to industrialise (Britain/France/Germany) where they took almost 150 years to modernise because they were the first. The likes of Singapore modernised faster because they had instant access to that western know-how and thus could develop in a timescale never seen before - periods of 10 to 15 years which is quite remarkable.

You cannot apply history to how fast a country would/would not have modernised, the two things are complete opposites. You also cannot say that the likelihood these nations would have modernised without the western world is 'nil' because nobody knows. Again being egotistical. I think you need to face up to the fact that while colonisation did help the countries invaded it also does not mean they wouldn't have helped themselves eventually without western interference. It may well have taken them as long as it took the western world to modernise themselves but you seem to forget that not so long ago we were living in not so modern a state ourselves. I understand what you are saying but the comment you made about 'running around with spears' in your first post is wildly misguided and false, not to mention wrong on so many levels.



I never stated we went in solely to 'give help' - the whole object of Empire was wealth and to benefit ourselves, otherwise you'd be mad to embark on such a task as colonisation. I am not demanding them back, merely stating how stupid the argument is that you can restart history in 'give me that back' and 'we demand that back then' - history ended as it did so, so everyone needs to leave it alone and stop demanding pieces/objects from eachother back.

The problem is that this diamond has not been 'demanded back', it was a polite request which was in turn politely denied for good reason. If you read the first sentence of my first post you will see I actually agreed with what Cameron said about not returning it, its the other things you've gone off on a tangent about that I disagree with.


No, they had no clue as to what the purpose of oil was/whether or not it was even there. The modern usage of oil and the conflicts surrounding it have diddy squat to do with this topic. The Iraq conflict was about oil yes of that there can be no doubt, however that has nothing to do with the exploration of oil and afterall it was oil which fuelled development in the first place. To compare the modern world with the colonial world is a non-discussion - different time, differing history and differing politics from today.

It hasn't in the way you're discussing it no, but you were using the fact that we helped countries remove oil from the ground as something to be proud of, when I don't think it necessarily is. Yes oil was central to the industrialisation of Britain but it has since caused nothing but conflict and you know it.


What did we take away from them?

Before we entered Africa, Africa was a collection of tribes at war with eachother, no real cities established, no real economy, no hospitals, no schools, no rule of law, no stable monarchy and no moral values.

We left Africa with well built roads, schools, well built sewers, democratic governments, a stable monarchy in position, well trained armed forces, strong government, democratic government (hence why the Rhodesian question was never fully settled with the United Kingdom as we refused to accept their self-proclaimed independence due to a minority government being in power), hospitals and a strong agricultural sector as with Zimbabwe.

Since we [the colonial powers left] most of that has fallen apart despite the fact we are still providing them with aid. It is corrupt because of their own doing and not of ours. We did not take anything away from them, we provided for them and they have spoilt what they could have used to truly achieve independence - fair play I say to them, and thats why I would cut all aid to their corrupt western-hating governments tommorow full stop.

Again, yes we did provide those things but the problem is we forced upon them western values which is not necessarily the right thing to do is it? Yes in this country the western values have turned us into a respectable society, by our standards. However, and it just so happens i'm studying human rights and values at the moment, the values we imposed upon them do not always fit with the cultural beliefs of Africa. So, while it might seem to us to be perfectly acceptable and correct for these things to be in place there, it's not always right for that country. You don't seem to be taking that into account at all.


Yes it did Tash, my Dad lived through it in the very country itself and has also watched its decline - stop believing the hype surrounding Mandela and the ANC and maybe read into it. Apartheid was wrong, but at least the majority of them had jobs, homes, security, low crime and stable government - unlike now where the country is becoming ever more ghettoised, ever more corrupt and ever more backwards.

Just because something is evil or bad doesn't mean it didn't work in the economical & social sense.

Might I ask, is your dad black or white? Because honestly that will have a huge influence on how he sees apartheid. For now, I presume he's white. I actually mentioned nothing about the ANC or Mandela so i'm not sure why you've brought him up again. Apartheid, despite the 'benefits' you describe it to have brought, was wrong. You acknowledge that and then disregard it as if thats unimportant. You are clearly not very humanitarian if you think that something which imposed terrible restrictions on a persons rights and life because of the colour of their skin, in their own country(!), is ok as long as it benefits some people economically. Using this line of thinking, well torture isn't strictly right but if we get the information we need it's good in the long run I guess.. no. To most people, if something is evil and against human rights then the benefits do not come into it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Then why go on and pretend the who of India wanted it back when only a reporter asked for it :S
There is a clear difference between the Mail and BBC etc on how they reported the news.

Because the fact is that a lot of India or its ruling elite/nationalist sector push for issues such as this to be settled, hence why the question was raised by the reporter as it obviously is a burning issue to some (or many in Indias case).

Of course there is a difference between them both - I prefer the Mail for its comments section which is very funny at most times, its stance on most issues (Peter Hitchens and Richard LittleJohn) and just the same with the Telegraph (Daniel Hannan and Lord Tebbit). If the Mail reports something and I find it interesting/something to debate or bring to attention then I will post it - just as you also have that right.


You cannot apply history to how fast a country would/would not have modernised, the two things are complete opposites. You also cannot say that the likelihood these nations would have modernised without the western world is 'nil' because nobody knows. Again being egotistical. I think you need to face up to the fact that while colonisation did help the countries invaded it also does not mean they wouldn't have helped themselves eventually without western interference. It may well have taken them as long as it took the western world to modernise themselves but you seem to forget that not so long ago we were living in not so modern a state ourselves. I understand what you are saying but the comment you made about 'running around with spears' in your first post is wildly misguided and false, not to mention wrong on so many levels.

Why is it wrong? where they driving cars then? no, they lived in Jungles with no cars, no electric, no common language, no hospitals, no moral sense of law and order and did not achieve very much at all in the thousands of years they had been living there (with the exception of early China, Persia and India). I will say it how it was, because thats how it was and I do not care whether you think it is better to talk about the issue in a politically correct sense. I am proud of this countrys history and I will state it how I see it and how it occured.


The problem is that this diamond has not been 'demanded back', it was a polite request which was in turn politely denied for good reason. If you read the first sentence of my first post you will see I actually agreed with what Cameron said about not returning it, its the other things you've gone off on a tangent about that I disagree with.

There is a clamour for these objects to return back, just the same case with the Greek Elgin marbles.


It hasn't in the way you're discussing it no, but you were using the fact that we helped countries remove oil from the ground as something to be proud of, when I don't think it necessarily is. Yes oil was central to the industrialisation of Britain but it has since caused nothing but conflict and you know it.

Just because it has caused conflict does not mean I am grateful for it, I am grateful for the development of the nuclear weapon - for protection and development. It is not an amazing thing no and not a very friendly issue, but both oil and nuclear weapons are vital to security and modernisation.


Again, yes we did provide those things but the problem is we forced upon them western values which is not necessarily the right thing to do is it? Yes in this country the western values have turned us into a respectable society, by our standards. However, and it just so happens i'm studying human rights and values at the moment, the values we imposed upon them do not always fit with the cultural beliefs of Africa. So, while it might seem to us to be perfectly acceptable and correct for these things to be in place there, it's not always right for that country. You don't seem to be taking that into account at all.

I would agree with you there, but as I said before - differing era and cannot be compared to the modern day.


Might I ask, is your dad black or white? Because honestly that will have a huge influence on how he sees apartheid. For now, I presume he's white. I actually mentioned nothing about the ANC or Mandela so i'm not sure why you've brought him up again. Apartheid, despite the 'benefits' you describe it to have brought, was wrong. You acknowledge that and then disregard it as if thats unimportant. You are clearly not very humanitarian if you think that something which imposed terrible restrictions on a persons rights and life because of the colour of their skin, in their own country(!), is ok as long as it benefits some people economically. Using this line of thinking, well torture isn't strictly right but if we get the information we need it's good in the long run I guess.. no. To most people, if something is evil and against human rights then the benefits do not come into it.

I have not justified apartheid, I am merely stating that the country was better off (in the usual sense of the word; economically [jobs, security, crime]) than it is today. You seem determined to bring up the racial discrimination that went on - I am not disputing that.

[Tintinnabulate]

Because the fact is that a lot of India or its ruling elite/nationalist sector push for issues such as this to be settled, hence why the question was raised by the reporter as it obviously is a burning issue to some (or many in Indias case).

Of course there is a difference between them both - I prefer the Mail for its comments section which is very funny at most times, its stance on most issues (Peter Hitchens and Richard LittleJohn) and just the same with the Telegraph (Daniel Hannan and Lord Tebbit). If the Mail reports something and I find it interesting/something to debate or bring to attention then I will post it - just as you also have that right.

No I meant on how they both reported this same story. And show me where the Indian government are asking for it back? You seem to make such a huge deal out of it when a REPORTER asked BECAUSE DAVID CAMERON WANTS TO FORM A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP.

Is it so hard to get into your head? And maybe the Mail should say he has been ambushed in every news story then because as PM he gets asked a lot of unexpected questions everyday.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I meant on how they both reported this same story. And show me where the Indian government are asking for it back? You seem to make such a huge deal out of it when a REPORTER asked BECAUSE DAVID CAMERON WANTS TO FORM A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP.

Is it so hard to get into your head? And maybe the Mail should say he has been ambushed in every news story then because as PM he gets asked a lot of unexpected questions everyday.

Oh Saurav do use your head, ask yourself why did they ask that question then? because it obviously matters to them therefore it is important and interesting also that the question was brought up.

"Mail this, Mail that", boring boring boring.

"OMGZZ I DISAGREE WITH UNDERTAKER SO I'LL SLANT THE MAIL!!!" - very boring. You don't like the Mail, I get it.

[Tintinnabulate]

Oh Saurav do use your head, ask yourself why did they ask that question then? because it obviously matters to them therefore it is important and interesting also that the question was brought up.

"Mail this, Mail that", boring boring boring.

"OMGZZ I DISAGREE WITH UNDERTAKER SO I'LL SLANT THE MAIL!!!" - very boring. You don't like the Mail, I get it.

Oh my God. Just because ONE PERSON asked it, it doesn't mean the whole country wants it. Are you seriously dumb?
OMG IF ONE PERSON HERE SAYS CAMERON SHOULD GET NAKED ON THE STREET, THE WHOLE COUNTRY MUST THINK IT. OMG OMG OMG. THEREFORE THE WHOLE COUNTRY SHOULD TURN GAY. OMG WE SHOULD BAN MARRIAGE AND ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OPPOSITE GENDERS. THEREFORE WE MUST ASK EVERYONE WHO IS MARRIED TO GET A DIVORCE.

That's how pathetic you and the Mail sound with this story.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh my God. Just because ONE PERSON asked it, it doesn't mean the whole country wants it. Are you seriously dumb?
OMG IF ONE PERSON HERE SAYS CAMERON SHOULD GET NAKED ON THE STREET, THE WHOLE COUNTRY MUST THINK IT. OMG OMG OMG. THEREFORE THE WHOLE COUNTRY SHOULD TURN GAY. OMG WE SHOULD BAN MARRIAGE AND ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OPPOSITE GENDERS. THEREFORE WE MUST ASK EVERYONE WHO IS MARRIED TO GET A DIVORCE.

That's how pathetic you and the Mail sound with this story.

No Saurav, what does sound pathetic is when you keep harping on about a newspaper reporting a story which has been reported by Sky News, BBC News, the Telegraph and other news outlets. The difference between your childish examples and the actual story is that we are talking about a diamond that is linked within two powerful countries shared history - an object that is worth a lot and is culturally signifigant. I was hoping to have a good discussion about colonialism as Tash has done and as others have done so, but as usual one has to come along and bring up either; UKIP or the Daily Mail.

Being from India/Pakistan yourself I thought you would of had something to offer to the discussion that is interesting or insightful, but you've proven me wrong by shooting down chance by chance to discuss colonialism as you did here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=658833&p=6643275#post6643275) where you appear to have got out of your own depth but still you wanted to challenge me so you brought up the paper just to have a rant against me for rantings sank.


And Undertaker ... whatever you want to believe :rolleyes:

Alright Saurav, whatever you want to believe - lets leave it at that.

[Tintinnabulate]

No Saurav, what does sound pathetic is when you keep harping on about a newspaper reporting a story which has been reported by Sky News, BBC News, the Telegraph and other news outlets. The difference between your childish examples and the actual story is that we are talking about a diamond that is linked within two powerful countries shared history - an object that is worth a lot and is culturally signifigant. I was hoping to have a good discussion about colonialism as Tash has done and as others have done so, but as usual one has to come along and bring up either; UKIP or the Daily Mail.

Being from India/Pakistan yourself I thought you would of had something to offer to the discussion that is interesting or insightful, but you've proven me wrong by shooting down chance by chance to discuss colonialism as you did here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=658833&p=6643275#post6643275) where you appear to have got out of your own depth but still you wanted to challenge me so you brought up the paper just to have a rant against me for rantings sank.



Alright Saurav, whatever you want to believe - lets leave it at that.

Not my fault is it that you turned the whole story into "Indians will lose it" and "they would be running around with spears still if it wasn't for us". Like I said, there is a clear difference in the way the Mail reported it and the way other newspapers reported it.

And you keep ignoring the fact that one person asked this question, you seem to think this one person represents over a billion people. Quite idiotic.

[Swastika]

Because I have lived in both countries? I have said you can get robbed on the street in India but your house is not as likely to get robbed as here ...
However, Undertaker seems to think they are idiots who will "lose" the diamond.

No, I am not having a go because someone mentioned something bad. I am having a go as half the comments are ludicrous. Ohhh Indians would be running around with spears if it wasn't for the UK. Ohhhh they are so dumb, they will lose such a big diamond. Ohh their government is so corrupt that they have no clue about policies.
Well i could say your house is more likely to get robbed but your less likely to get robbed in the street in the UK, its the same thing as your saying..?
I don't think myself nor Undertaker are hinting that the people of India will "lose" the diamond, i think we are both merely saying that the diamond would probably be better suited and kept alot more safer in the United Kingdom, because of being locked in the Tower of London.
My apologies if India have a safe-haven that matches the tower of london, but i highly doubt they do.
I agree some peoples opinions are quite strong and quite silly to say but everybody is entitled to an opinion and you should respect that weather to agree with it or not.
The fact is the UK did help out alot of the world and people are just saying that, but quite a rude way.

[Tintinnabulate]

Well i could say your house is more likely to get robbed but your less likely to get robbed in the street in the UK, its the same thing as your saying..?
I don't think myself nor Undertaker are hinting that the people of India will "lose" the diamond, i think we are both merely saying that the diamond would probably be better suited and kept alot more safer in the United Kingdom, because of being locked in the Tower of London.
My apologies if India have a safe-haven that matches the tower of london, but i highly doubt they do.
I agree some peoples opinions are quite strong and quite silly to say but everybody is entitled to an opinion and you should respect that weather to agree with it or not.
The fact is the UK did help out alot of the world and people are just saying that, but quite a rude way.

I know many people and have been robbed on the streets in UK so yeah, not safe.

[Swastika]

I know many people and have been robbed on the streets in UK so yeah, not safe.
Then India is not safe either, you could quite possibly have your house robbed over there.
You've got no facts at all to back up your claims, so untill to have, your points are invalid and irrelevant.

[Tintinnabulate]

Then India is not safe either, you could quite possibly have your house robbed over there.
You've got no facts at all to back up your claims, so untill to have, your points are invalid and irrelevant.

No, my comment was about UK: "I know many people and have been robbed on the streets in UK so yeah, not safe."

Err considering I have lived in India for 10 years, have a large family is evidence enough for me.

[GommeInc]

I'm somewhat confused by what we're a;; arguing about. I don't think we can say all say "the UK is safer" or "India is safer" when we do not know everyone in each country to provide such a statistic, large family or not :P

As far as I can tell, the main argument for returning it is because India is "safe", yet it does belong to the UK now as it was taken without much fuss. If it was returned, that would mean millions of items in the possession of UK museums would need to be removed, setting a weird and dangerous precedent across the globe - the US returning items, Russia, the Netherlands, France, India and so forth. Although this item was taken by the East India Company, it's had more purpose here than in India from what I can tell - seeing as India has changed with different groups, tribes and so forth while Britain has stayed relatively the same and made use of it in a crown - it seems to of been given to the UK by the East India Company as a gift to Queen Victoria, Empress of India, so I suppose in a way it's something to look at, other than a spoil of war. It's amazing it hasn't been lost like many war rewards :/

[jam666]

No, my comment was about UK: "I know many people and have been robbed on the streets in UK so yeah, not safe."

Err considering I have lived in India for 10 years, have a large family is evidence enough for me.

Oh please, this is really getting quite annyoing. You are experessing YOUR opinion and that does not mean everyones in your country. Opinions are NOT FACT and therefore have no basis in this argument since they have not been proven and thus cannot be argued about.

I could say the complete opposite and indeed i will and do believe that the UK IS SAFER then India. I believe this because we have a rather small amount of people who commit crime when compared to the rest of the population and are therefore less likely to steal or rob etc for food to feed their families. Whereas in India more people are likely to rob/ be robbed because of the higher population and the fact that a larger percentage of the indian society lives in poverty than the UK.

[Moh]

Doesn't India have one of the highest murder / rape rates?

[Ajthedragon]

While I don't think the diamond should necessarily be given back, I think alot of what you just said here you need to rethink because honestly wow. How unsurprisingly egotistical of you to suggest that because we systematically took over lands which did not belong to us and modernised them they would not have done it without us.. that is shameful.

As for Africa, yes we seem to have done a world of good there, I mean Africa is practically thriving...

As for the bit in bold, I have no words.

The former British colonies of Africa are doing quite well, actually, South Africa just hosted the world cup. The poorer ones tend to have been part of the French or Dutch colonies.

And they were a gift to us, so I think we should keep them.

[Tintinnabulate]

Oh please, this is really getting quite annyoing. You are experessing YOUR opinion and that does not mean everyones in your country. Opinions are NOT FACT and therefore have no basis in this argument since they have not been proven and thus cannot be argued about.

I could say the complete opposite and indeed i will and do believe that the UK IS SAFER then India. I believe this because we have a rather small amount of people who commit crime when compared to the rest of the population and are therefore less likely to steal or rob etc for food to feed their families. Whereas in India more people are likely to rob/ be robbed because of the higher population and the fact that a larger percentage of the indian society lives in poverty than the UK.

Yeah the presented asked and people here seem to think just because one person asked, the whole country wants it back :S :S

Like I said, you have never been to India, so don't bother commenting on safety. A lot of people are in poverty yes, but you would be surprised to hear that a lot of them don't steal.



Doesn't India have one of the highest murder / rape rates?

Both of you seem to know nothing.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

So what if India has a high population? UK has the second highest crime rate in the world ... with such a small population. Oh look, India is way way down which 10x more population.

[ifuseekamy]

:S But it belongs to the queen as part of the crown jewels, who's David Cameron to have any say over it?

[alexxxxx]

Yeah the presented asked and people here seem to think just because one person asked, the whole country wants it back :S :S

Like I said, you have never been to India, so don't bother commenting on safety. A lot of people are in poverty yes, but you would be surprised to hear that a lot of them don't steal.

it's a bit unfair to come to a conclusion of the safety of living in india with just your account.




Both of you seem to know nothing.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

So what if India has a high population? UK has the second highest crime rate in the world ... with such a small population. Oh look, India is way way down which 10x more population.

RATE being the word. RATE does not mean raw number. PLUS i think figures like this mustn't be taken at face value. Is it reported crime? Is it solved crime? What constitutes a crime? Are the figures correct? Other websites (nationmaster) shows that the UK has a lower murder rate than India... I find it hard to believe that the police force can penetrate developing areas as easily as developed areas.

[Tintinnabulate]

it's a bit unfair to come to a conclusion of the safety of living in india with just your account.




RATE being the word. RATE does not mean raw number. PLUS i think figures like this mustn't be taken at face value. Is it reported crime? Is it solved crime? What constitutes a crime? Are the figures correct? Other websites (nationmaster) shows that the UK has a lower murder rate than India... I find it hard to believe that the police force can penetrate developing areas as easily as developed areas.

Well I speak from experience :S And I have a large family there from all over the country, so its not just my experience.

[MrPinkPanther]

it's a bit unfair to come to a conclusion of the safety of living in india with just your account.

It's better than speculating based on what a journalist who has never visited india has said.



RATE being the word. RATE does not mean raw number. PLUS i think figures like this mustn't be taken at face value. Is it reported crime? Is it solved crime? What constitutes a crime? Are the figures correct? Other websites (nationmaster) shows that the UK has a lower murder rate than India... I find it hard to believe that the police force can penetrate developing areas as easily as developed areas.
Those figures are not correct because you are right we cannot know how many crimes are committed in India but it's impossible to say India has more crime than Britain when we simply do not know their crime levels.

[alexxxxx]

It's better than speculating based on what a journalist who has never visited india has said.

true.


Those figures are not correct because you are right we cannot know how many crimes are committed in India but it's impossible to say India has more crime than Britain when we simply do not know their crime levels.
also true.

[Catzsy]

Doesn't India have one of the highest murder / rape rates?

The answer to that is absolutely not:

Murder:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Rape:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita



Yeah the presented asked and people here seem to think just because one person asked, the whole country wants it back :S :S

Like I said, you have never been to India, so don't bother commenting on safety. A lot of people are in poverty yes, but you would be surprised to hear that a lot of them don't steal.




Both of you seem to know nothing.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

So what if India has a high population? UK has the second highest crime rate in the world ... with such a small population. Oh look, India is way way down which 10x more population.


true.

also true.

To be fair Saurav it is 'per capita' so differences in the size of the country/population do not matter.

[Swastika]

Is Saurav still going on about how India is better than the UK? :P

[Moh]

The answer to that is absolutely not:

Murder:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Rape:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita






To be fair Saurav it is 'per capita' so differences in the size of the country/population do not matter.
Before -repping me, you should realise that there is A LOT of unreported cases in India.

[Tintinnabulate]

Before -repping me, you should realise that there is A LOT of unreported cases in India.

And a lot here ...

---------- Post added 02-08-2010 at 11:07 AM ----------


Is Saurav still going on about how India is better than the UK? :P

I never said its better, I just defended the claim that it will easily get lost in India or stolen.

[Catzsy]

Before -repping me, you should realise that there is A LOT of unreported cases in India.

Well that's interesting because I didn't :S


Is Saurav still going on about how India is better than the UK? :P

I don't think he has - he is just in a position to be more knowledgeable about India than most of us.

[nvrspk4]

Just from reading the first post, I think the man is a bloody idiot.

The diamond is among the Crown Jewels, you say that you have no authority to demand such of the queen. What kind of politician is he??

[Dan2nd]

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt Undertaker was suggesting that the entire population of India want the Diamond back. However it is most likely a topic which interests a large number of people as it was asked.. for example on BBC news if they asked David Cameron if he was going to put taxes up in the UK they are asking because that is what some people want to know.

I'd also like the add that I have lived in the UK for my entire life so on the basis that other people in this thread have been measureing country safety I have come to the conclusion that the UK is 100% safe as I have never had any sort of crime be it theft, vandilisim, rape or assault performed against me. :8 yes people rest assured that you can leave your front doors wide open and your windows unlocked as I'm sure every area of the country will be the same :)

[MJJ]

Surely it's a matter of finders keepers/who stole it should keep it? It was hundreds of years ago, it would be a bit pointless. It has more history here than over there now, or any recordable history at least :/

I agree with this. They may as well keep the diamond where it is.

As for India being safer than the UK, Ive always thought the opposite to be honest. I've been to India plenty of times as I have family there as well, and I sometimes feel a bit unsafe there which I never feel here in the UK. But I think that's just because my family lives in pretty poor conditions over there so I always feel a bit uncomfortable. There are some safe places in India like in the cities but there's also some really horrible places (like where I have to stay. :P) It's the same here in the UK I'm sure, but to me the UK is much better. To be honest if I had to choose, I'd rather live in the UK than in India because I definetly feel a lot safer here and much more comfortable.
Just wanted to add my opinion to this as I've been to India.