XPost: misc.legal   
   From: marte005@frontier.com   
      
    Avoid,   
      
      This may be better placed in uk.legal.moderated.   
      
   >they   
   > called on some  .   
   > I think these assets were the UK government's agreement to fund   
   > the take-over of 'white owned farms', but the details are not   
   > important, to the report that the UK minister said:   
   >  we are not liable. Besides: I'm of Irish descent [Claire Short IIRC]   
   > and I can't claim damages for colonial oppression>.   
      
      The above quote by the member indicates that the assets were for damages.   
   not to purchase farm land. I don't believe that the agreement had any money   
   for land reform. In 1981 there was a donor conference in which th UK, among   
   others, agreed to fund both land reform and grant money to the Zimbabwe   
   government   
      
      > Supporters of the Zimbabwean stance, point out that a corporation   
   > is a jurisic person, and change of ownership/control cannot   
   > extinguish it's liabilities and obligations.    So too a nation.   
      
       Yes?   
      
   > If the Zimbabwian claims were ungrounded, irrespective of a UK   
   > change of government, why aren't the reasons clearly spelled out.   
      
      Which claims? Sorry, I can't figure out where you are going with this.   
      
   Good luck,   
   Dave M.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)