back to article Saudi govt pauses flogging dad-of-3 for Facebook posts – after docs intervene

It's been a case of one step forward and two steps back for Raif Badawi, the Saudi man facing 10 years in prison, and 1,000 lashes, for posting that he was an atheist and supporter of women's rights on Facebook and running a web forum for liberal Saudis. Last Friday, Badawi received the first 50 of his 1,000-lash sentence in …

  1. Mark 85

    All things considered...

    Considering where he is, who did the judging and sentencing, and what groups the Kingdom leaders have been suporting, I think he's damn lucky they didn't behead him. I guess that's still an option of the <cough> review <cough>.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: All things considered...

      I'm not sure - being lashed to the point they have to stop so you don't die, allowed to heal so they can repeat the process, TWENTY TIMES, many might prefer death. He's surely likely to die from the punishment and/or spend years in agony.


  2. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    ... and these are the people the west supports

    See title.

    1. elDog

      Re: ... and these are the people the west supports

      And these are the people that try to massacre western non-believers. WTF is going on here between the US and these tribal kings? Who has some goods on the other? Does the Bush family (and perhaps most of the current US government) owe their allegiance to Sauds? Is everything just a way to turn the oil spigot a bit to the left or right for "foreign policy" needs?

      I hope I live long enough to read the true story of who is screwing/screwed by whom.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ... and these are the people the west supports

      Embargo. There is enough oil on the world market to tell them to stuff it.

      Nuff said.

      1. emmanuel goldstein

        Re: ... and these are the people the west supports

        it's not just about oil. Saudi spends billions on weapon systems made by US and EU companies. That's the reason we let them get away with murder.

        1. h3

          Re: ... and these are the people the west supports

          Literally get away with murder - As in one of their princes or whatever murdered someone in this country. We sent him back after two years and then he was just released. (Maybe most people already know this).

      2. Caoilte

        Re: ... and these are the people the west supports

        They supply 12%, so ummmmm no. Sorry. There would be pandemonium

    3. h3

      Re: ... and these are the people the west supports

      Exactly we should sanction Saudi Arabia.

      Now is a good time to do it with the oil price as it is.

      Don't care that is their country.

  3. Mephistro

    You know that saying about...

    ... having the camel inside the tent shitting outside?

    It seems that Saudi Arabia is a camel with two arses.

  4. Vince Lewis 1

    The sooner the western world removes our reliance on oil, the sooner we could stop pussyfooting around and do something concrete about these dictatorships.

    1. the spectacularly refined chap

      The sooner the western world removes our reliance on oil, the sooner we could stop pussyfooting around and do something concrete about these dictatorships.

      But the Saudi justice system does have a great degree of domestic popular support - don't make the mistake of ignoring the cultural differences. This is a different culture in an entirely different environment, facing different issues and based on a different religion and different values: it shouldn't be a huge surprise that the Saudis view things differently.

      In attacking the Saudi government as a "dictatorship" (it isn't) and advocating intervention to "do something concrete" (presumably military action) you fall into the trap of faux democracy, i.e. not that the people can have any government they like, but that they can have any government that we approve of. That is a fundamentally undemocratic sham.

      1. G Mac

        Hmm 3/10 as far as a dissembling comment

        @the spectacularly refined chap

        I have no idea what you are talking about.

        Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy supported by the theocratic tenets of Wahhabism, of which ISIS/AQ is a firm believer (and who was/is supported by the Saudi royals and citizens).

        The Royal Family & Wahhabism supports the other (check the history!), such that criticism of the Royals get punished under Wahhabism, while Wahhabism itself gets a free hand in the country.

        Patrick Cockburn has excellent article on this (and other books and articles):

        I can only suspect that you are a water carrier for the Saudi government. The fact that you don't call it a dictatorship (vs. absolute monarchy!) and then conflate the original article with being undemocratic is pure gold.

      2. Vince Lewis 1

        The may have popular domestic support, because those that do not support the system are publically beaten and incarserated for decades for not supporting the system.

        There is no way to knowing with out a great amount of blood shed.

        I was thinking more of severe sanctions, with out the money from oil these countries will have to be more mindful of international opinion.

        I am aware of the civil wars that ravished europe, which effectively split state, church and monarchy apart. It is unfortunate these countries will have to go through similar bloodshed.

      3. Chris 244

        Absolute Monarchy vs Dictatorship

        The government of Saudi Arabia is classified as an Absolute Monarchy, where the monarch has an absolute monopoly on power. A Dictatorship on the other hand is a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person. See the difference?

        According to The Economist, Saudi Arabia is as democratic a country as Myanmar (Military Dictatorship), and LESS democratic than Iran and Syria. Criticism or even perceived criticism of the government results in imprisonment and torture. As in, if I was in Saudi Arabia right now I could expect to disappear into a deep dark hole only seeing the light of day for my weekly public floggings just for hitting the "Submit" button after I finish typing this sentence.

        You are not "spectacularly refined", sir. You are an ass.

        1. the spectacularly refined chap

          Re: Absolute Monarchy vs Dictatorship

          The government of Saudi Arabia is classified as an Absolute Monarchy, where the monarch has an absolute monopoly on power. A Dictatorship on the other hand is a form of government where political authority is monopolized by a single person. See the difference?

          In order to be a dictatorship there has to be a dictator, i.e. a single figure calling all the shots. There isn't because there are two distinct power bases - government and religion. Let us not forget that the constitution is defined as the Qur'an and Sharia is the basis of law. Those are not subject to the whim of some despot. Saudi is certainly not some golden nirvana where everyone is free, I never said it was. But it is not a dictatorship.

          You are not "spectacularly refined", sir. You are an ass.

          Is your argument so weak that you need to resort to childish insults? You think it is right to commence military action against a foreign nation to impose your values on that population when they tell you that no, they are quite happy with current arrangements. Inevitably kill a whole load of innocent civilians in the process? What is the difference now that they are subject to the whim of your will as opposed to the previous guys?

          If you really believe in democracy (as opposed to using it as a politically acceptable cover for what is basically thuggish behaviour as the West has so often engaged in the past) there is a single inescapable truth: it is not our war to fight. If the Saudis want change let them achieve it for themselves, and in the direction they want rather than what we think best. You do not force it upon them and tell them to be grateful. That argument is far worse than being an ass, it is outright dangerous and a threat to the liberty of people everywhere.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I think you can put a good deal of the 'popular domestic support' down to the way anyone being (or even appearing) unsupportive is dealt with. The same pattern of apparently effusive support applies not just across the islamic world, but pretty much anywhere with a vaguely absolutist or dictatorial outlook. Making the 'right' noises can be the simple difference between getting on with life or having your genitals introduced to mains electricity; doing so with enthusiasm probably lands you better if rather precarious employment prospects.

        Most such systems are pretty brittle once they show a bit of wobble, although that's arguably less true in religious states; people may detest the rulers, but unlike with a political ideology most won't discard the religion when the bloke in charge ends up riddled with bullets and swinging from a lamppost. Pakistan's a good example - there are plenty of local religious leaders carving out their own little fiefdoms, with a very strong incentive to keep the finger pointing going strong because its the root of their power. The national political parties both feed off and reinforce these natural constituencies. The Pakistanis who do stick their heads over the parapet must have absolute nerves of steel.

        1. Canecutter

          "Pakistan's a good example - there are plenty of local religious leaders carving out their own little fiefdoms, with a very strong incentive to keep the finger pointing going strong because its the root of their power."


          There, FTFY

      5. This post has been deleted by its author

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        a great degree of domestic popular support

        I could mention another régime that met that criterion, but perhaps it would be better to ask the question; if that popular support has been obtained by being raised in an environment where anybody who asks questions is liable to be whipped by the religious police before being locked up for life, beaten to death or beheaded, how much is it worth? Because if I had been raised in Saudi, I know I am a big enough coward that I would be keeping my mouth shut except when asked to tell a Western journalist how wonderful was every aspect of life.

        Any government that plans to beat somebody to death over 20 weeks for asking for a bit more democracy is a dictatorship. That didn't happen in the Soviet Union, even. Your dichotomy is false; military action is not the only answer. Isolation, sanctions, stopping arms sales, ceasing to turn a blind eye to violations of the law by Saudis abroad are all actions that could be taken.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: a great degree of domestic popular support

          "if that popular support has been obtained by being raised in an environment where anybody who asks questions is liable to be whipped by the religious police before being locked up for life, beaten to death or beheaded, how much is it worth?"

          Saddam used to hold fairly regular elections, and funnily enough, every time the result would be 97 percent approval. With the prospect of a holiday for the whole family in Abu Ghraib if you ticked the wrong box, who can blame them.

          On the flip side of that, without the cattle prod as an incentive here I predict the upcoming general election will have the lowest turnout on record.

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        But the Saudi justice system does have a great degree of domestic popular support

        Yes, that tends to happen when you send all the people who don't express popular support to prison or worse. Did you even read the story?

      8. Ossi

        Let's examine your argument shall we? First of all, does the fact that a government is "democratic" mean that you have to agree with what it does? The answer, I think, is no. Popular support for that government is beside the point.

        Can you take action against a government, no matter how democratic, that you disagree with? Yes you can. It's up to you, for example, who you decide to trade with. They have the same right with regards to your government.

        Despite your assertions, I don't think people are calling for the overthrow of the Saudi government over this, they're just wondering why nations that claim to defend human rights don't do so in this case.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The sooner the western world removes our reliance on oil, the sooner we could stop pussyfooting around and do something concrete about these dictatorships."

      That's right. It's our Western way or die. Let the world be on notice, we're coming to "reform" you. We will be your judge! Praise Jesus!

      There is a scene at the end of "Apocalypto" that shows a man watching the Christian reich pilgrimage arriving to his continent just after he escaped the Aztecs. The "Western" way reminds me of that.

      To be clear, I support what this man did, but I do not support external government involvement in this matter. I don't feel it's our place to be in everyone's place. Freedom does come at a cost.

      1. Vince Lewis 1

        Not so much the westen way or die, there are pleanty of crimes the western states need to address. However public torture is not one of them.

        Remember, your sarcastic use of a religious figure would leave you jailed and beaten elsewhere.

    3. Mark 85

      Things are changing and the nice thing is, we won't have to do anything about them. They'll do it to themselves. Much has been written about the falling price of oil being manipulated by the Saudis. It takes a pile of money to keep that Kingdom afloat as well keeping all those little violent groups going also. The price Russia was charging from raising production and then the States from fracking was/is making them nervous. So they dropped the price figuring that in the States, fracking will go away as too expensive and Russia will cut back production. Then they have the monopoly again.

      I and others have no doubt that removing dependence on oil from them would destroy their government. Sure, the King and his ilk would find asylum somewhere, but those splinter/terror groups would suddenly see a lot of cash dry up.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I and others have no doubt that removing dependence on oil from them would destroy their government."

        But I really, really doubt you'd like what replaced it much better at all. Mecca and Medina are so central to islam that there'd be a long queue of factions slugging it out for control and arguing over 'legitimacy' of claims to custody. In that sense, as a power base, they are a resource in the own right and the basis of Ibn Saud's claim to rule the Kingdom.

        But at least without the money they'd be a lot less able to piss endlessly on everyone else's bonfire.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Mark 85

        I think you're engaging in a bit of wishful thinking that terrorist funding will dry up. Sure, if increased production in the US can be sustained at current price points and eventually replicated elsewhere, the Saudi government will no longer be able to provide its population the good life and will be deposed in a manner that would likely be pretty violent.

        That isn't likely to affect the flow of money to terrorists though because they 1) don't need a whole lot of money and 2) don't get a whole lot of money measured as a percentage of the Saudi oil revenues each year - we're talking like a fraction of a fraction of one percent. If the Saudi royal family wanted to support them from exile, they could so at the same levels using only the interest on the interest from their holdings!

        What's more, as Afghanistan showed before, and Syria and Iraq showed more recently, an unstable state breeds violence and terrorism. Having Saudi Arabia become another isn't going to help. What will help is if we don't need their oil so we quit meddling in the region (other than to defend Israel, since I'm sure there's no way western governments will change their position on that anytime soon)

        Let them go back to fighting over Shia vs Sunni and the various sects like Wahabbism and leave the west out of it. Their hatred of each other goes back far longer and is way deeper than their hatred of America or even Israel. Given half a chance, they'll go back to killing each other and forget about us. If we intervene to stop the killing of innocents, we're only putting the killing on hold. We can't stop them anymore than an outsider could have stopped the wars between various European nations until they'd finally worked out all their differences well enough to live in peace. The middle east has been held in check by various powers for centuries and haven't had the opportunity to settle their differences the hard way like the west.

        1. Mark 85

          Re: @Mark 85

          I suspect you're right. Yes, it was bit wishful thinking, but from reports the ISIS is going through about 10 million a month. I guess for pay and weaponry.

          OTOH, I totally agree about not stopping them from fighting at this point. If anyone actually invades, both sides will join forces to kick out the "Crusader Infidels".. After the invaders leave, they'll go back to in-fighting and few terrorist acts just to strut their power.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            ISIS $10 million a month

            ISIS isn't a terrorist organization, it is a jihadist army. It is a lot more expensive to fight a war than to train suicide bombers.

            Anyway, ISIS gets their money from selling oil, smuggled into Turkey from wells they control in north Iraq and Syria. I suppose the price decline has or will eventually affect them, as they'll need to move over twice as many barrels per month for the same revenue.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Mark 85

          "What's more, as Afghanistan showed before, and Syria and Iraq showed more recently, an unstable state breeds violence and terrorism."

          The instability in the case of Iraq and to a lesser extent Syria comes from the old favourite in the ME, factionalism, and most of it can be placed squarely at the feet of the colonial powers who drew the lines in the sand post WWI based on their own post war settlements and with little regard to demographics. To be fair, they also in turn inherited a Sunni minority administrative class in Iraq from the Ottomans, and the pragmatic British happily kept them in power at the expense of the Shia. In Syria it was the even more minority Alawites that ended up at the top of the pile.

          The leaders changed, but for the rest of the twentieth century the British and US simply backed whoever they felt was 'their bastard' of the day; as long as the oil flowed and the encumbent did pretty much what he was told on wider middle east policy with respect to the Soviets, he'd be well enough armed to slaughter Shia and Kurds as he liked. In doing so they just spent a century building a powder keg that erupted with Bush and Blairs vain project. When they handed the oil to their mates and a slice of power to the Shia and Kurds - and specifically pissed on the Baathists sense of self entitlement, the Sunni threw their toys out of the pram with a vengeance, and that rather than simple instability is the root of the current problems. The well trained and disciplined elements of the Iraqi military, specifically the Republican Guard allied with a growing number of Islamists spent the next decade making life hell for everyone, including the British and Americans.

          When Syria started coming apart, they moved across the border and made good use of the captured Syrian heavy weapons that fell to the various opposition forces, and as ISIS, have been using that training and combat experience to good effect, turning what would have been a rag tag of factions as happy to slit each others throats as fight any nominal 'enemy' into a more unified, well armed force with a decent grasp of tactics, excellent knowledge of the terrain, a reasonably common ideology and considerable motivation, a loathing of 'different' and something very much like a plan that appeals to muslim populism; restoring the caliphate. The successes have brought more recruits and the know how to create a solid media strategy and plenty of funding - the Saudis are responsible for the core ideology and have been spreading it around the world for decades, providing plenty of well funded fertile ideological ground for recruiting. ISIS are also keeping Western countries at arms length by attacking them on their own territory, something of enormous additional symbolic value.

          This is indeed instability, but its instability built layer by layer over decades of myopic Western and Russian foreign policy making that refused to look any further than immediate political and economic gains and ascribed values to people who had no interest in them, refusing to acknowledge natural boundaries or justice, or to participate in the building of stable states based on demographic lines long ago.

          The only thing that has a passing chance of stopping this lot before they really do get entrenched are the the Kurds and in particular, the Shia, and not just those in Iraq. If the Americans really want to at least contain ISIS, they're going to have to do some hard thinking about their relationship with Iran (another problem of their own devising, long before Khomeini), and whether their bitter historical stance is now a bit past its sell by date in the current circumstances. It may stick in the throat, but the same applies to the view of Assads Syria, at least in the short term, and they could do a lot worse than reading the riot act very loudly to the Saudis. By the same token all European governments should immediately ban the Saudi funding of mosques in Europe, and deny visas to the Saudi trained and supplied Imams that dominate.

          It may seem morally wrong and politically unsaleable in the US and Europe to come to an an accommodation with Iran (and through them Hezbollah in Lebanon) and Assads Syria, but almost no one, state or individual, beyond ISIS themselves and some elements in Saudi, want to see an entrenched Islamic state dominating the Middle East and taking their fight and absolutist ideology to states in and beyond the region. But unless Europe and America in particular do some rapid re-evaluation and swallow a lot of historical prejudices, that's exactly what they're going to get.

  5. Teiwaz

    Support and legitimicacy

    I think having nations that carry out this sort of brutal punishments and excessive sentencing on a leading Humna Rights council deligitimises the whole council.

    I think no one in this country would think it wise (to pul a blackadder reference out for no apparent reason) to put the 'baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells' on a comittee running of a nursery or creche.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Support and legitimicacy

      baby eating Bishop does not belong anywhere near a creche, no; in fact, looking at the experience of various diocese around the world, it would seem that the further the clergy are kept from children the better.

      having that government on the Human Rights Council either (a) is a deliberate plan to demonstrate that the UN does not stand for anything whatsoever and no-one should believe a single word it says, or (b) is someone's idea of a very very twisted joke.

      On the plus side, if we need to cut government spending for any reason, we no longer need teachers to show kids how medieval (or worse) "justice" systems worked.

      1. Grikath


        Dear AC, please read up on your history.

        I think you'll find that western european medieval systems of punishment were on the whole pretty much comparable to what we are used to: fines in lieu of incarceration, incarceration as a last resort, and capital punishment only for capital crimes and crimes against the Crown.

        Torture as a method only came into "vogue" during the 16thC onwards, mostly tied to religious courts, and even that wasn't a patch on what passed for justice under the British Empire, which even in its day was seen as "overdoing it" by most other european nations.

        There's a sharp shift from "salvation through penance" to "condemnation through suffering" tightly tied to the period we now call the Reformation. It's actually interesting reading up on, since it emphasises how bloody important the Trias Politica as a social and political concept is.

  6. JustWondering


    We never seem to hear much about all the people the Saudis behead for rather trivial reasons.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Strange

      We never seem to hear much about all the people the Saudis behead for rather trivial reasons.

      I assume 'sorcery and witchcraft' is a serious reason then?

      That's when it all went wrong in Britain, the moment we stopped burning witches. etc.

  7. Brian Miller

    Laws like Hammurabi wrote, or ad-hoc?

    What is with these "crimes?" Are these laws being made up ad-hoc? "Oh, we decided to reconsider your sentence. Conjugate the verb 'to go'." ... "Wrong! Another five years."

  8. Hud Dunlap
    IT Angle

    IT Angle?

    I have followed this on other sites but I don't see why it is on the register. A lot of people say stupid things on and off the internet and pay the consequences.

    As others have pointed out, if you violate the laws of your country you suffer the consequences. Be glad you live in the west. I surprised that El Reg didn't mention the video of the women being beheaded that was briefly on Youtube. Smuggled videos that end up on social media sites seem to me to be more of a story. Wikileaks anyone?

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      Re: IT Angle?

      I don't care whether there's an IT angle or not (even though there clearly is, because it has to do with using the web to raise awareness of human rights). Important stories like this need to be spread as widely as possible so that those who don't use the normal news channels (newspapers, TV, radio) get to hear about them.

      1. Hud Dunlap

        Re: IT Angle? @ Bloodbeastterror.

        As I said in my post. Other sites are covering it. It is not like the Reg is breaking something that no one else is. You didn't even respond to my point that the video of a beheading that was leaked out is using the web to "raise the awareness" as you say would be more of a valid article for this site.

        I don't go to political sites for tech news and I don't read El Reg for political news.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: IT Angle? @ Bloodbeastterror.

          "I don't read El Reg for political news" -- Hud Dunlap

          Me neither; I read it for the comments on those stories. Most of what passes for discussion on the news sites to which you implicitly refer is shockingly ignorant and profoundly uninformative shouting. Here on El Reg, spam is nearly non-existent; the inevitable trolling is at a minimum; you know who the conspiracy theorists are --- in fact, you get to know who a lot of the regular contributors are --- and the arguments are often considered and coherent, regardless of political persuasion.

          If you don't want to read these stories, don't read them. The number of comments on this article suggests that your opinion that such articles don't belong here is probably far from unanimous.

  9. skeptical i

    But what will this achieve?

    People will be more careful about covering their tracks when posting online, and bow a little more deeply before statues of the Great Leader in public. But if their hearts and minds become a little more skeptical, what has the government won?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Democracy my arse. The form of government is irrelevant if it's hell to do any work there.

    Heard of a number of expats who drive their new Mercs out to the airport, leave, abandon everything and never come back. Apparently going broke there is against the law too.

    Apparently, the wealthy locals don't have this problem, they save money by just not paying their contactors at all "what are you going to do about it?" is the usual response I hear. Also heard about a plumber who on the completion of a large job who pumped concrete into newly laid pipes (in walls and everything) in response to this. That's what you're going to do about it.

    Again: Democracy my arse.

  11. Bloodbeastterror


    I'm surprised that I'm the first to use the word. The Saudi delegate demonstrates, as does his country, the pathological reaction of a bully to a challenge. A lot of noise and bluster and the use of violence.

    "Shut (punch) the f**k (punch) up (punch)!"

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Bully

      As a yank entering 2nd year at a Yorkshire highschool fresh out of California, miscellaneous idiots tried to bully me. I located the ringleader, and kneed him in the groin. He cried, loudly ... seems nobody had ever stood up to him before.

      The bully dropped out of school mid-way through 3rd-year.

      I passed all the Os, and later the As, that I sat.

      The fastest way to shut down a bully is to hit 'em right in the mouth. Or knee 'em in the groin.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How humane from the Saudi government!

    Here, buy some more F-15s from us!

  13. Frank N. Stein

    Human savagery knows no bounds, particularly in the places where expressing an opinion or posting to social media can get you jailed and lashed, or worse...

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Je suis Badawi

  15. jake Silver badge

    Al Saud ...

    Fuck you.

    This is the 21st century, not 2000 BCE. Grow the fuck up, join the modern world.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Al Saud ...

      You know the year in Saudi is 1436 don't you?

      Have a pint, because that's what all the Saudi's were doing (ok it was whisky) on the plane from Jeddha to Heathrow, whilst their wives were in the toilets changing into skimpy outfits.

      Can't say I blame them mind, but it did come as a bit of a shock after spending two months out there.

  16. Andy 97

    And we still do business with these savages?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      of course we do, money has no smell

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oy, Get your filthy hands off my Desert

    Saudi was run by our man until he nationalised Aramco (Arabian-American Oil Co) at which point the leader was assassinated by the Americans (proxy) and the man belonging to the US was installed.

    The current leaders can do what they like internally as long as they protect their masters interests.

    This is just like Iran, we used to own that until our oil was nationalised so in conjunction with the US the democratic government was overthrown and the Shah installed.

    Because the new bunch (Ayatollahs) won't do their former masters bidding they are ostracised.

    If a new source of energy was to be discovered it wouldn't surprise me to see the whole of the Middle East glassed over to cover up previous crimes (by Western States)

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    initial thoughts

    this would make a great cartoon

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And this country is where so many expats go...

    Good for the money init?

  20. Anonymous John

    "UK contract to help train the Saudi Prison Service with their floggings and beheadings"

    Magna Carta. Did she die in vain?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like