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

[-: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/feat...d-robbery.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66532,...-david-cameron
http://wotnews.co.uk/like/david_came...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/feat...d-robbery.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/66532,...-david-cameron
http://wotnews.co.uk/like/david_came...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.