Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saudi to buy 50%??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Saudi Arabia/UN: Deliver on Promises of Rights Reforms
    UN Human Rights Council to Review Saudi Record Today
    February 4, 2009 [Human Rights Watch]


    (Geneva) - The international community should hold Saudi Arabia to its promises of rights reform, Human Rights Watch said today. UN member states will review Saudi Arabia's record during the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the first time that the kingdom will submit its entire human rights record to international review.

    In past years, Saudi Arabia has promised to include protection for domestic workers in its labor law, abolish the sponsorship system for migrant workers that often leads to abuses, establish specialized courts and write its first penal code. Other unfulfilled promises relate to protecting children by setting 18 as the age of adulthood, thereby abolishing the juvenile death penalty, and giving women better access to work, education, health and justice, and easing restrictions on their travel.

    "For years, Saudi Arabia has made promises to do a better job of protecting rights," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The international community should ensure that its review of Saudi Arabia does not just produce more promises, leaving the Saudi people empty-handed."

    In the first official international scrutiny of Saudi Arabia's overall human rights record, UN member states, in a three-hour question-and-answer session, will review three reports highlighting that record: one submitted by the kingdom; one consisting of observations by UN bodies; and one with observations by nongovernmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch.

    Human Rights Watch criticized the government's report, written by the Human Rights Commission, a ministry established in 2005, saying that it contained little factual information on human rights violations and made references to laws and decrees without indicating to what degree, if any, they were being observed.

    The Human Rights Commission stated that it had involved all nongovernmental stakeholders in compiling its report, but well-known human rights activists in the kingdom told Human Rights Watch that the commission had not consulted them. The official report describes the government's endeavors to promote civil society and its cooperation with international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch. Yet it fails to make note of the ongoing serious violations of rights in the kingdom, including restrictions on speech, association, assembly and religion; an arbitrary criminal justice system, discrimination against women, whom the government treats as legal minors; and serious abuses against migrant workers in the country.

    The report also fails to highlight particular abuses against Saudi human rights activists, including the ongoing travel ban against Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, a Saudi human rights lawyer. Professor Matrook al-Faleh, one of the country's best-known activists, remained in solitary confinement in the intelligence prison without charge for eight months before his release in January 2009. Al-Faleh was among activists who, in 2003 and again since 2006, repeatedly requested permission to establish a genuinely independent local human rights organization, but so far without success. A 2007 draft law that would for the first time establish a legal basis for establishing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to operate in the kingdom has been awaiting the government's approval since 2007. The government has barred Human Rights Watch from visiting the kingdom since March 2008, despite promises to the contrary.

    "You can measure Saudi transparency in dealing with human rights questions by the government's treatment of local and international activists and rights organizations," Whitson said. "The Saudi reply to inquiries about rights violations or legal developments is typically total silence."

    Human Rights Watch published six detailed reports about Saudi Arabia in 2008, examining: the criminal justice system; juvenile justice; the juvenile death penalty; women's rights; migrant domestic workers; and the treatment of the Ismaili religious minority. All reports and recommendations built on discussions with and advice from Saudi policy makers. Human Rights Watch urges the international community to press the Saudi government to fulfill promises of rights reform.
    "The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
    -- William Blake

    Comment


      Originally posted by Tee View Post
      Where do we slag off 'Yanks'? Show me please.

      Yes, we slag off the lying cunts H&G but not 'Yanks'.

      Say what you want about the Saudi Royal Family but don't generalise with stupid comments like "somewhere like Saudi Arabia there is a LOT of dirt and wrongness". Like America is such a saintly nation eh?
      Who made any comparison?

      **** it, think what you like. Makes little difference which cunts we have in charge.

      Comment


        Originally posted by dww View Post
        Saudi Arabia/UN: Deliver on Promises of Rights Reforms
        UN Human Rights Council to Review Saudi Record Today
        February 4, 2009 [Human Rights Watch]


        (Geneva) - The international community should hold Saudi Arabia to its promises of rights reform, Human Rights Watch said today. UN member states will review Saudi Arabia's record during the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the first time that the kingdom will submit its entire human rights record to international review.

        In past years, Saudi Arabia has promised to include protection for domestic workers in its labor law, abolish the sponsorship system for migrant workers that often leads to abuses, establish specialized courts and write its first penal code. Other unfulfilled promises relate to protecting children by setting 18 as the age of adulthood, thereby abolishing the juvenile death penalty, and giving women better access to work, education, health and justice, and easing restrictions on their travel.

        "For years, Saudi Arabia has made promises to do a better job of protecting rights," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The international community should ensure that its review of Saudi Arabia does not just produce more promises, leaving the Saudi people empty-handed."

        In the first official international scrutiny of Saudi Arabia's overall human rights record, UN member states, in a three-hour question-and-answer session, will review three reports highlighting that record: one submitted by the kingdom; one consisting of observations by UN bodies; and one with observations by nongovernmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch.

        Human Rights Watch criticized the government's report, written by the Human Rights Commission, a ministry established in 2005, saying that it contained little factual information on human rights violations and made references to laws and decrees without indicating to what degree, if any, they were being observed.

        The Human Rights Commission stated that it had involved all nongovernmental stakeholders in compiling its report, but well-known human rights activists in the kingdom told Human Rights Watch that the commission had not consulted them. The official report describes the government's endeavors to promote civil society and its cooperation with international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch. Yet it fails to make note of the ongoing serious violations of rights in the kingdom, including restrictions on speech, association, assembly and religion; an arbitrary criminal justice system, discrimination against women, whom the government treats as legal minors; and serious abuses against migrant workers in the country.

        The report also fails to highlight particular abuses against Saudi human rights activists, including the ongoing travel ban against Abd al-Rahman al-Lahim, a Saudi human rights lawyer. Professor Matrook al-Faleh, one of the country's best-known activists, remained in solitary confinement in the intelligence prison without charge for eight months before his release in January 2009. Al-Faleh was among activists who, in 2003 and again since 2006, repeatedly requested permission to establish a genuinely independent local human rights organization, but so far without success. A 2007 draft law that would for the first time establish a legal basis for establishing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to operate in the kingdom has been awaiting the government's approval since 2007. The government has barred Human Rights Watch from visiting the kingdom since March 2008, despite promises to the contrary.

        "You can measure Saudi transparency in dealing with human rights questions by the government's treatment of local and international activists and rights organizations," Whitson said. "The Saudi reply to inquiries about rights violations or legal developments is typically total silence."

        Human Rights Watch published six detailed reports about Saudi Arabia in 2008, examining: the criminal justice system; juvenile justice; the juvenile death penalty; women's rights; migrant domestic workers; and the treatment of the Ismaili religious minority. All reports and recommendations built on discussions with and advice from Saudi policy makers. Human Rights Watch urges the international community to press the Saudi government to fulfill promises of rights reform.
        Don't say that! How dare you!

        Comment


          Originally posted by Fierce View Post
          With all due respect mate, I'm not sure looking to the New York Times for unbiased opinion is particularly prudent!

          Further, if we're looking to dissassociate ourselves with such large scale and potentially important issues concerning funding for (insert major world atrocity here) then I think there is a long old list for us to plow through. And our American, Bush alligned owners might also come under scrutiny

          DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting H&G have any ties whatsoever to anything of this nature, I was merely making a point. Your honour
          I can see what you are saying. I would however like to know more about the Prince before feeling happy with him taking over the club. People have been quick enough to attack other owners (H&G included) for all manner of perceived bad qualities none of which really compare in importance to a poor record in human rights. I think there is a important difference in scale between supporting someone like Bush and being part of the ruling system. Albeit the presumably hereditary nature of his link might somewhat muddy the waters.
          "The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
          -- William Blake

          Comment


            Originally posted by Chrono View Post
            Where would you like a link from?
            Ooh I dunno, maybe someone without the name NEW YORK in the title of their newspaper?
            Let me think, err, a publication not renowned for its governmental apologist stance?
            One that isn't described as the Pentagon's mouthpiece?


            My point isn't whether the Saudi's are clean as a whistle (I don't need Google, ta) its that whoever buys us has to have a certain amount of money to do so, no?

            Do enough digging about anyone that can afford half a billion quid and I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons to be found

            This is about football, and a football team. Would I rather Liverpool Football Club goes to rack and ruin (no, I'm not suggesting it would under H&G) or would I rather it was owned and maintained by someone with enough financial muscle to allow us to compete at the very highest level?

            In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to choose, naturally. But we do, so I'm just wondering at what point do we collectively decide that our morals dictate who should own our club.....
            I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought "what did you expect?"
            There's no water round here stupid, should have stayed where it was wet

            Comment


              Didn't take long did it guys, this thread will soon be in Nicey's Library.
              Those that hid Anne Frank were breaking the law.
              Those that killed her, were following the law.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Fierce View Post
                Ooh I dunno, maybe someone without the name NEW YORK in the title of their newspaper?
                Let me think, err, a publication not renowned for its governmental apologist stance?
                One that isn't described as the Pentagon's mouthpiece?


                My point isn't whether the Saudi's are clean as a whistle (I don't need Google, ta) its that whoever buys us has to have a certain amount of money to do so, no?

                Do enough digging about anyone that can afford half a billion quid and I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons to be found

                This is about football, and a football team. Would I rather Liverpool Football Club goes to rack and ruin (no, I'm not suggesting it would under H&G) or would I rather it was owned and maintained by someone with enough financial muscle to allow us to compete at the very highest level?

                In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to choose, naturally. But we do, so I'm just wondering at what point do we collectively decide that our morals dictate who should own our club.....
                www.Liverpoolbaymlt.org

                www.twitter.com/lbmlt

                www.Facebook.com/liverpoolbaymarinelifetrust

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Fierce View Post
                  Ooh I dunno, maybe someone without the name NEW YORK in the title of their newspaper?
                  Let me think, err, a publication not renowned for its governmental apologist stance?
                  One that isn't described as the Pentagon's mouthpiece?


                  My point isn't whether the Saudi's are clean as a whistle (I don't need Google, ta) its that whoever buys us has to have a certain amount of money to do so, no?

                  Do enough digging about anyone that can afford half a billion quid and I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons to be found

                  This is about football, and a football team. Would I rather Liverpool Football Club goes to rack and ruin (no, I'm not suggesting it would under H&G) or would I rather it was owned and maintained by someone with enough financial muscle to allow us to compete at the very highest level?

                  In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to choose, naturally. But we do, so I'm just wondering at what point do we collectively decide that our morals dictate who should own our club.....
                  It was an example article, not a presentation.

                  Without drawing any comparisons (as you can't compare two business men and their dealings with the ruler of a nation) here is the 2009 summary of Saudi Arabia from Amnesty Internernational:

                  Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.

                  This relates DIRECTLY to those looking to purchase our club and I made similar points when Thaksin Shinawatra was rumoured to be looking to purchase us.

                  In essence I do care where the money comes from and would prefer us to service debt with these clowns rather than take blood money and buy a **** load of stars.

                  Comment


                    So anyway, when are we signing Villa and Aguero?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Chrono View Post
                      It was an example article, not a presentation.

                      Without drawing any comparisons (as you can't compare two business men and their dealings with the ruler of a nation) here is the 2009 summary of Saudi Arabia from Amnesty Internernational:

                      Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.

                      This relates DIRECTLY to those looking to purchase our club and I made similar points when Thaksin Shinawatra was rumoured to be looking to purchase us.

                      In essence I do care where the money comes from and would prefer us to service debt with these clowns rather than take blood money and buy a **** load of stars.
                      Apart from the flogging part that bit in bold can relate to a lot of western countries as well.
                      We come not to play.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Imy View Post
                        Apart from the flogging part that bit in bold can relate to a lot of western countries as well.
                        I know mate but they are not trying to purchase us. I'm not trying to single out Saudi Arabia for the sake of it

                        Comment


                          Why has this been moved from the speculation forum?
                          Oh I don't know.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Chrono View Post
                            I know mate but they are not trying to purchase us. I'm not trying to single out Saudi Arabia for the sake of it
                            Yeah i know what you're saying, i'm not overly keen on the Saudi Royals either, but i suppose we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush some of them do 'good' too. We've got to remember that Hicks was very close/supporter of George W Bush and he's already one of our owners.
                            We come not to play.

                            Comment


                              Saudi Arabian sports investment company F6 have confirmed they have reached an agreement with Liverpool to establish a number of football academies in the region, while chairman Prince Faisal bin Fahad bin Abdulla Al Saud also reiterated his desire to buy a 50% stake in the Premier League club.

                              The deal signed with Reds co-owner George Gillett will seek to set-up two exclusive academies in Saudi Arabia and two in North Africa while also extending the interests of the American's NASCAR franchise Richard Petty Motorsports.

                              "The memorandum of understanding with George Gillett group will establish an exclusive partnership between F6 group, Liverpool FC and Richard Petty Motorsports team," a statement released by the company read.

                              "His Highness Prince Faisal stated that the partnership with George Gillett's group will be a good addition to F6. This partnership will provide a lot of investments in football, racing and sports media in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East."

                              Prince Faisal confirmed the deals were done following Liverpool's 6-1 defeat of Hull City at Anfield on Saturday, a game he attended as a guest of the club.

                              "We have signed several contracts with Liverpool after visiting the club and attending the match with Hull City in the Premier League," he told Al Riyadh daily newspaper.

                              "The contracts are basically sports investments, which also include establishing football academies that will definitely help the future of Saudi sports in the future.

                              "We will make two academies in Saudi Arabia and two in North Africa."

                              Prince Faisal also claimed he is closing in on a 50% share of Liverpool for a price of between 200 and 350 million pounds.

                              "At the moment we are looking forward to acquiring 50 per cent of the club's stake," said the Prince, who is also an honorary member of Saudi football giants Al Hilal.

                              "The deal will be concluded soon and its value will be between 200 and 350 million pounds.

                              "If we finalise the deal, it will be something marvellous because Liverpool is one of the best and most famous clubs in England and the whole world."

                              If the Saudi prince does indeed manage to acquire half the club, it will undoubtedly bolster manager Rafael Benitez's spending power during the January transfer window.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by lfcchris View Post


                                I think I might even watch that film tonight now ha ha.
                                Best film ever Coming to America!
                                Klopp on LFC vs MUFC (March 9th 2016) - "This is why I love football. This is why we watched it when we were young. I can still not have enough of it."


                                Always, keep your face to the sun, and shadows will fall behind you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X