permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/532015303
br14 Posted on 15/5 17:57
Guardian report on Blair

Am I the only one that finds Mr Blair a bit scary.

"I believe we need a profound rebalancing of the civil liberties debate," he said.

"The demands of the majority of the law-abiding community have to take precedence," he told the launch.

He sounds more like a hard line right winger than a Labour politician.

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 18:05
re: Guardian report on Blair

<Slightly right of center poster>
Whooooooooooa there fella, he's not on my side of the fence!!!

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 15/5 18:06
re: Guardian report on Blair

He's a right winger without doubt! Couldn't lie straight in bed, should be wearing blue.

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 18:07
re: Guardian report on Blair

CTC, lets perhaps we can agree on something
he's a right tvvat ?

littlejimmy Posted on 15/5 18:08
re: Guardian report on Blair

Jeez, Commi. You'll have to stop speaking sense. That's scarier than Blair.

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 18:15
re: Guardian report on Blair

sorry James, I do have my more lucid moments.

Revol_Tees Posted on 15/5 18:18
re: Guardian report on Blair

In many regards New Labour is well to the right of most post-war Conservative governments pre-Thatcher. And when it comes to immigration and aslyum, they've been arguably "tougher" than both Thatcher and Major put together.

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 18:20
re: Guardian report on Blair

"tougher than major"
not hard though is it..............

br14 Posted on 15/5 18:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

Is Blairs plan similar to that of the recent Canadian Prime Minister who having had 3 terms in office, left just before a huge scandal surfaced.

As a result his successor, who coincidentally happened to be responsible for finance (and whom he hated with a passion), was left unable to get reelected in the next election.

Alastasia Posted on 15/5 18:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

The Blair gumment has been the neatest trick foisted on the electorate by the ruling elite since the knacking of Wat Tyler.

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 18:30
re: Guardian report on Blair

This attack on our rights is simply another illustration of his blatant disregard for us, domestic law, international law, parliament, human rights ... basically anything but himself.

It is more important than ever that this shithead is done for War Crimes and I don't want it to be a foreign lawyer who brings him to the ICC as in the Pinochet case. We must do it ourselves. In fact that is the only way we can repair the damage we have done to our standing in the Arab world. And these bastads will then have to think twice about the legality of all of their actions.

I would personally like to see the dangling noose as an option. Only then will we get the truth. The same goes for Hoon and the Attorney General. The rest of the cabinet should also be charged, though I suspect they were generally suckered into this, like Parliament and the country by No.10, the MOD and the AG.

You never know, it might lead to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt eventually.

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 18:33
re: Guardian report on Blair

so lefty, you don't like the man either ?

Alastasia Posted on 15/5 18:35
re: Guardian report on Blair

I thought it was quite a flattering portrait.

swordtrombonefish Posted on 15/5 18:40
re: Guardian report on Blair

Lefty - that is also very scary.....because the truth is probably never going to surface regarding the whole sad sorry heap of shyte that is the conflict in Iraq (and Iran too if Dubya gets his way).

How dare the Arabs have oil when the 'good ole USA' needs it.

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 18:42
re: Guardian report on Blair

Can't stand the c_unt.

Used to.

But I've come to realise that most of the socialist measures that his government have done have been Gordon Brown sneaking them through or from other ministers like Robin Cook fighting against No.10. to persuade Blair he was wrong.

br14 Posted on 15/5 18:48
re: Guardian report on Blair

Just to balance things a little, dont we all need oil. Plus the genocide that Saddam Hussein indulged in looks positively peaceful compared to Tony Blair. I dont suppose many of you remember 1973.

Anyway, it seems Mr Blair has managed to make the left hate him just as much as the right.

Just leaves the middle majority then.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 18:52
re: Guardian report on Blair

I haven't read all the posts on this thread yet but just as a quick point about where on the line 'Our Tone' belongs. Isn't it true to say, that he will lie ( both senses of the word ) in anyones bed, if he thinks that there is a vote in it for him?

br14 Posted on 15/5 18:53
re: Guardian report on Blair

Eloquently put and right on target Jax.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 18:56
re: Guardian report on Blair

Thank you br14. I aim to please

swordtrombonefish Posted on 15/5 18:59
re: Guardian report on Blair

Jax, can I have my pleasing using baby oil?

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 19:00
re: Guardian report on Blair

the most damming criticism of Blair came from of all people, Jim Davison who said "Blair would align himself with a dog turd if it meant one more vote"
I find that worryingly accurate.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 19:01
re: Guardian report on Blair

LOL STF, I'll warm it up now shall I?

swordtrombonefish Posted on 15/5 19:04
re: Guardian report on Blair

*faints*

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 19:05
re: Guardian report on Blair


Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 19:05
re: Guardian report on Blair

swordtrombonefish,

Actually 95% of the truth is out there, though the public in general are not aware of it nor has their interest/anger been sufficiently roused as yet.

The public, the Labour Party and Parliament were criminally deceived and if we ever do get him into court he will be convicted. The difficulty will be in getting him into the right one, ideally our domestic courts - wouldn't it just be poetic justice if was the first case brought to the new Supreme Court? -and then charging him to face the correct charges.

The only thing we don't know is the actual motivation.

With Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt we can make reasonable assumptions, but in Blairs case it is just baffling. He might be forthcoming if he feared his neck was about to be stretched though.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 19:11
re: Guardian report on Blair

I'd love to see that happen to him Lefty. He's nothing more than a traitor.

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 19:46
re: Guardian report on Blair

In November 2002 CND tried to take the Government to court to prevent the war taking place without a legal mandate in the form of a second resolution from the UN.

The High Court was asked to carry out a judicial review to decide the matter. The court did not allow the case to come to trial. Lord Justice Simon ruled that in order to decide whether war would be unlawful, the courts would have to interpret UN Resolution 1441; clearly this is not part of domestic law. Normally, he said, "English courts will not rule upon the true meaning and effect of international instruments which apply only at the level of international law."

Actually, the court was wrong. Domestic courts are able to rule on international law. In fact it is the preferred place as far as the international community is concerned.

Our tit end of an Attorney General actually said the following himself in his legal advice of 7 March 2003

'Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts.'

Boro_Gadgie Posted on 15/5 20:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

About time we cut through this PC nonsense and started putting the civil liberties of the law abiding members of society above that of the criminals.

means_the_world Posted on 15/5 20:19
re: Guardian report on Blair

listening to you lot, you'd think the right to being safe wasn't a civil liberty.

sadly misguided.

tony blair is absolutely right.

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 15/5 22:53 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 20:37
re: Guardian report on Blair

Its the middle class pacifist pc brigrade that are again getting in the way of someone who is standing up for his countrys interests. Echoes of the 1930's, when we stood back and let Hitler set the world ablaze. Thank god for that warmonger Churchill, were the f**k would we be now if the pacifists got their way.

Illegal war my ar*e. Go and tell the suicide bombers the legallitys of war.

br14 Posted on 15/5 20:46
re: Guardian report on Blair

"Echoes of the 1930's, when we stood back and let Hitler set the world ablaze. Thank god for that warmonger Churchill, were the f**k would we be now if the pacifists got their way"

You got the analogy the wrong way round man. Blair is playing the part of Hitler. Blair is the one who is appealing to mob sentiment to roll back civil liberties a la Hitler. Blair is the one that invaded countries with limited cause, a la Hitler.

"listening to you lot, you'd think the right to go about without fear of being blown up or attacked wasn't a civil liberty."

I didnt think there was too much of a problem until the UK invaded Iraq.

Bear in mind that Thatcher was in a hotel that was blown up but didnt restrict civil liberties like Tony. Plus. We were under terrorist attacks for 30 years from the IRA but we didnt seem to need the legislation Tony wants.

Hey if you want to be Tony's bitch go ahead. He just loves to make his public scared stiff so they think they have to vote for him. Dubya's doing the same thing in the US but he's exposed for the fearmonger he is.

Fear is the tool of the dictator.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 20:49
re: Guardian report on Blair

As far as my own personal thoughts are concerned, it has nothing to do with pacifism. What concerns me, is that he lied and lied and lied. He tried to instill fear by issuing his famous 45 minute warning. He was wrong to do that and he should be severely taken to task for it.

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 20:55
re: Guardian report on Blair

"Blairs playing the part of Hitler" Thats not only offensive to a person like myself who's Grandad spent 6 years of his life fighting the Nazi's to preserve our democracy and the freedom of speech YOU now have, but its also an insult to the 6 million jews who died at the hands of Hitler.

"I didnt think there was too much of a problem until the UK invaded Iraq". Go and tell the familys of the victims of the 9/11 bombing that.

The Ira's bombing weren't on the same planet as Al Queda's.

br14 Posted on 15/5 21:00
re: Guardian report on Blair

TheBoy999 my apologies if you took offence. Still you dont seem to mind causing offence.

My point is that rolling back civil liberties is the first step towards a Big Brother scenario.

Hitler came to power on the back of populist measures that appear reasonable to the majority (like as long as you werent Jewish), but in the end simply fueled his dictatorship.

Civil liberties are hard won and should not be rolled back lightly. Like arrest and imprisonment without trial for example.

littlejimmy Posted on 15/5 21:06
re: Guardian report on Blair

Here they come, with their clarion call: "PC! PC!" Stifling debate and making crass, simplistic analogies.

Fact is, destroying our liberties in the name of "security" is handing victory to the extremists. Ask yourself why habeus corpus is only now under attack. Why wasn't it at risk during World War 2, which was a proper war, not a war of convenience that has no visible end in sight.

Stick to your guns, br14. My grandfather also fought against Hitler to preserve our freedoms. But now these freedoms are being eroded.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 15/5 21:08 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 21:09
re: Guardian report on Blair

Hitler made no secret of the fact that he would do away with democracy. He spelt this out quite clearly in many of his speaches.

The reason why Blair wants to change the law on imprisonment is because he took advice from the Police (the experts in this field) and they told him what they wanted, and what was needed. He then tried to pass the law, simple as that.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 15/5 21:10 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 21:09
re: Guardian report on Blair

means_the_world,

last time we had a chat about this you mentioned that you put a high priority on a number of 'western' values, namely (1) democracy (2) freedom of speech and expression, (3) rights for women, ethnic and religious minorities and gay people, (4) regard for human life (5) the rule of law, and (6) trade union rights.

(1) Democracy.

Article 21 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.'

'The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.'

(2) Freedom of Speech and Expression

Article 19 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

(3) Rights for women, ethnic and religious minorities and gay people

Article 1 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights'

Article 2 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.'

(4) Regard for human life

Article 4 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.'

Article 5 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'

(5) The rule of law

Article 6 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.'

Article 7 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.'

Article 8 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.'

Article 9 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.'

Article 10 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.'

Article 11 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence'

(6) Trade Union Rights

Article 23 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.'

(7) Cultural Diversity

Article 27 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits'

'Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.'

Article 29 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights:

'Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible'

'In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.'

'These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.'


Now, you tell me what is wrong with all of that. The fact is that the Human Rights Act is a good thing and it is for the protection of all of us. Our government must not be allowed to attack these rights. That is a step toward a Police State and we are already too far down that path.

It is not the Act that is the problem, it is either the personnel or the system implementing them that gets it wrong and that is quite different.

But you and the other knob-ends go ahead and listen to the lying scheister, whose blatant disregard for International Law and shocking alliance to a regime that has actual contempt for the rule of law - the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, the Kyoto Protocol, the WTO (where it suits) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which has done far far more damage.

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 21:10
re: Guardian report on Blair

For the record Churchill did not lie about Nazi intent or capabilities.
Blair lied about Iraq.
Churchill had a clear plan for post Nazi Germany (erradicate Nazism), Blair had no plans for Iraq.
Churchill did nor go to war to pander to the wishes of (for arguments sake) the French.
Blair did, only it was the US.

Blair is a liar who does not have the guts or gumption to have an opinion that hasn't been tested by a focus group.

There is, and was, a clear threat from Islamic terrorism, Iraq could have been used to fight a proxy war with the Islamic terrorists. I would have far rather seen that than have to commit British troops to a war that will be long, painful and hard to win.

littlejimmy Posted on 15/5 21:14
re: Guardian report on Blair

So, boy999, you're happy with us becoming a police state then, are you? That's what is happening when the police start to dictate policies to the government.

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 21:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

All that seems well and good, but what you have to ask yourself is, do you put the right of the individual above everything eles. I say no.

What would you say if a know terrorist was released on human rights issues and then went on to plant the bomb that killed a memeber of your family. Pretty miffed i think.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 21:20
re: Guardian report on Blair

I have to say Boy999 ( any significance in that number by any chance??? )
If you are so sure that Tone, wants to do everything that the police suggest, then why hasn't acted on legitimate concerns about the levels of rising serious crime. This was mentioned on Friday during the Sky News report about that poor p/t policewoman in London. They had an ex officer on and he said that they have told the government time and time again that crime levels are an awful lot higher than the government will dare to admit.
Now that being the case, you can't cherry pick their advice, you'd have to follow everything that they recommended so to say that this was as a result only of the police demanding it, is unjustifiable, in my opinion.

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 21:22
re: Guardian report on Blair

the_commisar, are you trying to tell me that Churchill never lied to the British people, that he never hid anything from the British people, of course he did, because he was fighting a war and he did what had to be done.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 15/5 21:50 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 15/5 21:23
re: Guardian report on Blair

what would i say if a terrorist was released on a human rights issue and then went on to kill again ?
a) That the police must have had crappy evidence in the first place for a court to throw it out. We never seemed to have this trouble with the IRA and France and Spain are doing fairly well against ETA with the same legislation in place.
b) What were the police doing arresting him (or her) in the first place instead of keeping them under supervision to track down more of the terrorists.

Your trying to explain away Blairs lies, good luck, your going to need it.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 21:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

Commi, just to interject there. ( I know you won't mind (much ) ) Don't forget, we have just allowed how many hi-jackers to roam the streets here?

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 21:26
re: Guardian report on Blair

"They had an ex officer on" Oh well everybody stop and listen an "EX OFFICER" is talking. What was his name officer Dibble!!!!!!!????????

littlejimmy Posted on 15/5 21:26
re: Guardian report on Blair

In all honesty, Boy999, if a member of my family was killed, or if I was killed by a terrorist act, I might well be "miffed", but I wouldn't blithely demand that everyone's civil liberties were curtailed because of it. As I said before, to do this would mean we are winning the terrorists' battle for them. They hate our western values and freedoms, and we're destroying them ourselves.

And jax, that's a good point. Never thought of it from that angle.

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 21:28
re: Guardian report on Blair

Thanks for that point about the hi-jackers jax. Just shows we need a change in the law.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 21:35
re: Guardian report on Blair

No boy 999 he had been medically retired after suffering quite a few stabbings in the line of duty.

means_the_world Posted on 15/5 21:37
re: Guardian report on Blair

lefty - your post speaks for itself I'm afraid.

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 15/5 22:02 ---

br14 Posted on 15/5 21:57
re: Guardian report on Blair

Of course the citizens need to be protected.

Thats why over the last few centuries laws have been enacted to handle violence in the streets, crimes against individuals and property and yes even acts of terrorism.

So what is it about the existing laws that Mr Blair doesnt think work?

Answer: Nothing. He is simply spouting off about "protecting" the public to try and deflect attention from the mess he's managed to create.

Britain needs education, decent housing, a reasonable health service and the chance of a decent job. We also need an efficient police service and criminal justice system.

I cant see that any of the above require new legislation. Enforcing the existing one's will do just fine.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 22:07
re: Guardian report on Blair

I also believe that the biggest reason he had for bringing in the Human Acts Right, was because of his wife's avaricious attitude to money.

littlejimmy Posted on 15/5 22:08
re: Guardian report on Blair

Boy999, comparing Churchill's witholding of information for national security rasons to Blair's outright lie to take us to war is ridiculous. So ridiculous I wonder if you aren't taking the piss.

means_the_world - is that your best response? Are you unable to answer lefty's post?

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 22:11
re: Guardian report on Blair

* Makes note in diary *


Jax and Jimmy in agreement

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 22:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

The reason for the 90 days law was that the Police said that in certain cases they would need that lenghth of time to properly go through the evidence (much of it computer based). As i'm no expert in the field of collateing evidence and the Police are, i will take their word for it.

Its like if you had a disease and went to see an expert in that particular desease, he told you that it would take 4 months to recover, you'd take his word for it, cos he's the expert, he's spends his life doing this and did alot of training before he qualified. I certainly wouldn't make my own decision based on emotions and what suited my own agenda

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 22:20
re: Guardian report on Blair

But i don't believe that Blair told an outright lie. He spoke of the evidence at the time. The very same evidence the UN had.

littlejimmy Posted on 15/5 22:20
re: Guardian report on Blair

It's becoming a nasty habit, jax.

Boy, you're really clutching at straws now. If you have evidence, you charge people. Internment creates martyrs for their causes.

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 22:22
re: Guardian report on Blair

What they wanted and what they got are still markedly different things.
I think, if I remember correctly, that the police wanted the opportunity to keep terrorist suspects for as long as necessary to collate evidence. The human rights law was used to limit the time allowed and therefore 90 days was the maximum that the government would allow for a suspect to be held.

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 22:23
re: Guardian report on Blair

m_t_w

I'd been saving that up since our last discussion when I couldn't get back to you due to work commitments. And plenty more.

I agree it isn't incompatible to be pro-human rights and want to protect the safety of British citizens. The question is how to go about it.

Firstly, might I suggest not illegally invading a country that was no threat purely for economic reasons, thereby confirming Bin Laden's predictions, alienating us throughout the Arab (and indeed much of the non-arab)world, creating a whole new generation of terrorists and substantially reducing the number of informants.

The way to tackle terrorism is through intelligence. It is the gathering of this intelligence that is made many many times harder by alienating the communities that we rely on for informants.

It is a bizarre argument to say that these terrorists are attacking us because they resent our freedom and democracy and all those other basic human rights, so the way to defeat them is to begin to remove them ourselves.

TheBoy999, the war was illegal. Why do you think it was not?

br14 Posted on 15/5 22:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

Why not give them 6 months so they could make doubly sure?

Especially since now in the age of computers investigation takes so much longer than when we didnt have to use the burdensome relics of technology.

Suppose by some accident you were arrested for acts of terrorism and held for 3 months, are you telling us you would be happy to be out of action for so long.

Of are you ok with this because you're not Islamic and dont look Arabic.

I cannot believe that apparently intelligent individuals can look at the situation now, compare it with the period of IRA terrorism in the UK and not see that if these laws were not necessary then, they are absolutely not necessary now.

--- Post edited by br14 on 15/5 22:28 ---

jax_1 Posted on 15/5 22:26
re: Guardian report on Blair

He did lie and he lied through his teeth. He knew those claims were untrue. He was responsible and if there was the faintest chance that those details were incorrect he should have checked, double checked and then checked again that the information he gave out to the public was correct long before he started to send our boys into a never ending war.

Revol_Tees Posted on 15/5 22:41
re: Guardian report on Blair

Just a quick point about the Afghan hijackers - I don't see how or why they should be deported now, except that Blair and Reid are hell-bent on pandering to the Daily Mail. Their criminal conviction for hi-jacking was overturned in 2003, but by the time they'd been found "not guilty" on appeal most of them had already served their full sentence anyway.

The government still tried to have them deported (a double form of punishment) but this failed in 2004 on asylum grounds - returning them to Afghanistan would endager their safety and arguably be tantamount to the death penalty.

The government didn't even challenge this court judgement at the time, so what right have they to completely ignore it 2 years later? It's another example of the Blair government assuming that they're above the law. In the words of the judge this week:

"It is difficult to conceive of a clearer case of conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power. It is our money that they wasted, and our courts that they mocked. Many may wish to reflect on whether they want to cheer on the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for this behaviour."

Too damn right.

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 22:42
re: Guardian report on Blair

Lefty, war is war, who says its illegal the UN???????? Ffs you liberals have been banging on for years about how the UN's corrupt, just a mouthpiece for the US, not enough nations on the secrurity council, but when it suits you its the holy grail.

br14 you cannot compare what is happening now to the IRA, for starts this is a world wide problem, not contained on a couple of islands in the Atlantic.

I wouldn't be arrested for terrorism because i don't mix in terrorist circles.

P.S I wondered how long it would be before someone played the race card.

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 22:45
re: Guardian report on Blair

Revol, do you think its ok to take over a plane to enter a country illegally??

br14 Posted on 15/5 22:49
re: Guardian report on Blair

Not sure why you think the IRA situation doesnt compare. If anything it was worse than now.

As for the race thing. It really is a problem for people of Arab descent.

Take the Canadian national who for reasons noone is sure of was arrested while traveling in the US, flown by the US to Syria (weird or what) where he was tortured.

Just an innocent bystander. He didnt mix in terrorist circles either.

The whole point of terrorism is to create terror. By changing our laws to suit the terrorist all we do is play into their hands, changing our liberal democracies into places where fear reigns and people can be locked up for no good reason.

--- Post edited by br14 on 15/5 22:50 ---

means_the_world Posted on 15/5 22:50
re: Guardian report on Blair

lefty, i don't doubt your sincerity. but we're just going to have to agree to disagree. this argument is not one where either sides arguments influence the other.

Revol_Tees Posted on 15/5 22:55
re: Guardian report on Blair

Boy999 - that's not the point. But for the record, no, I don't think it's okay, although I can't say I wouldn't try the same thing in their position, if it was the only way to escape torture at the hands of the Taleban/war lords.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the government can simply reject any court judgement it wants (usually when it comes under pressure from the media), arbitrarily bypassing the law with impunity - in this instance, not just the criminal case but also the asylum decision. Talk about taking the law into your own hands. We all know where that can lead...

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 23:01
re: Guardian report on Blair

'But i don't believe that Blair told an outright lie. He spoke of the evidence at the time. The very same evidence the UN had.'

And the UN rejected the idea that there was any evidence which, in case you forget, there wasn't.

In fact Hans Blix reported on 7th March (the date of the AG's advice) that the Iraqi's were accelerating their co-operation. Furthermore he was scathing about the intelligence fed to him.

'I thought "My God, if this is the best intelligence they had and we find nothing, what about the rest?"'


Blair did not have any intelligence worthy of the name. What is more he knew it, but he pretended to us that there was.

Toward the end of February 2003 Robin Cook expressed the view on separate occaisions to the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and to Tony Blair that Saddam did not have real WMD that could be used against city populations or capable of being delivered over long distances. The Chairman agreed. The PM did not even try to argue him out of it.

The chemical weapons that America had sold them were way out of date. Nuclear capability required the construction of substantial industrial buildings, despite the stringent economic sanctions, hidden in the most satellite mapped country on the planet. Not credible.

TeessideCleveland Posted on 15/5 23:06
re: Guardian report on Blair

"I believe we need a profound rebalancing of the civil liberties debate,"
"The demands of the majority of the law-abiding community have to take precedence,"
I agree with that

Revol_Tees Posted on 15/5 23:10
re: Guardian report on Blair

"The demands of the majority of the law-abiding community have to take precedence."

In that case, I'd give it 6 months before the re-introduction of hangings...

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 23:13
re: Guardian report on Blair

Revol, i see your point, but by the same measure there has to be some elected political come back on these judges. You can't just say thats the word of the judge, so thats that. Half of these judges are so old they don't know what day it is. We getting into a whole differant debate here though, along the lines of how and why our antiquated system of appointing judges should be overhauled.

br14, The IRA weren't indiscriminate bombers.

I'll have to take your word for it on the Canadian, but even if there is any truth in it, is that it? One person were they got it wrong. I know its harsh on him but one out of 6 billion ain't bad. Anyway the way the yanks do things is nowhere near the way we do.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 15/5 23:15 ---

Grumpy_Paul Posted on 15/5 23:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

"The demands of the majority of the law-abiding community have to take precedence."

In that case, I'd give it 6 months before the re-introduction of hangings"


And what a damned good idea that would be in some cases

Scrote Posted on 15/5 23:23
re: Guardian report on Blair

"br14, The IRA weren't indiscriminate bombers"

warrington?

The_DiasBoro Posted on 15/5 23:30
re: Guardian report on Blair

Two thoughts:
1.
The percent of the population who want capital punishment is the same (60something) in both George Dubya's Texas (where they have it) and the UK (where they don't).
2.
How did we all survive before the Human Rights Act?

TheBoy999 Posted on 15/5 23:30
re: Guardian report on Blair

I'm not defending the IRA by any stretch of the imagination (coraigh will testify to this), but the IRA did give warnings and their main aim wasn't to kill and maim, it was disruption. Although they did kill and maim and thier ranks dredged the depths of humanity.

Lefty the evidence at the time from the UN was that Iraq had WMD but the inspectors should be given more time to uncover them, which was difficult as Saddam was being so obstructive.

TeessideCleveland Posted on 15/5 23:31
re: Guardian report on Blair

Revol_Tees I can see what you mean but I think what he means is the law-abiding majority are sick of seeing criminals get away with things

TeessideCleveland Posted on 15/5 23:35
re: Guardian report on Blair

I am personally against the death penalty but in favour of harsher penalties for crimes and the abolishing of parole
You don't go to prison for good behaviour so if they are going to let people out after a 3rd of their sentence why not just make sentences a 3rd as long and add on time for further bad behaviour?

ospreyheights Posted on 15/5 23:41
re: Guardian report on Blair

regarding the afghan hijackers. Their crime was i believe serious in causing fear amongst the passengers onboard and certainly not the "british way" of doing things. If the courts considered the evidence that they were acting out of legitimate fear for their very existence then there is a stong claim for mitigating circumstances, (they coulnt just jump on the x65 and hop off at the bus station this is a third world war ravaged country which is/was controlled by religious fanatics who beheaded women in a football stadium. In these circumstances by our standards what they did was wrong however put yourself in there position you could say that they were themselves victims of terror.
Now compare this situation with a citizen of our own country who was party to the organisation of a terror like attack upon another state involving mercenaries helicopters and armed to the teeth, the perpetrators intention was to kill there way to a position of power wereby they could control the oil wealth of an impoverished african country.
judge the morality of these two differing act and think who are criminal 6 desperate refugees or the wealthy son of margeret thatcher who was allowd back into our country with barely a whimper from the daily mail and all.

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 23:43
re: Guardian report on Blair

'war is war, who says its illegal the UN????????'

Didn't you just have a pop at someone earlier about Hitler, you tosspot? It was precisely as a result of Mr Hitlers wars of agression that the UN was set up.

I don't believe I have ever expressed an opinion about the UN but if there is a criticism that too often members operate in their own self interest rather than in the common good, how is what Bush did any different?

There are 3 possible reasons for legally going to war.

1. Self-defence. Well we weren’t attacked, nor was there any credible evidence, as later proved, that we were about to be.
2. Overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. This is a credible reason in my opinion. The sanctions were having a devastating effect on the Iraqi people. However, we did not cite this as a reason, did we?
3. Authorised by the UN Security Council. We didn’t get a second resolution. We tried (remember Colin Powell’s special presentation?) so we obviously put great store in it. Then we decided we hadn’t needed it after all as the earlier one was sufficient.

I should like to refer you to the words, in an interview with Vanity Fair, of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who said that the WMD argument was the only one about which administration officials could all agree. “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” the magazine quotes him as saying.


The War was illegal. Only in America is there any legal body of opinion that does not think so. In fact even in America there is precious little support outside the lawyers of the Bush administration. And even within the administration, the lawyers of the US state department, who after all are the ones most versed in International Law, expressed serious doubts about the legality of the War, but they were sidestepped.

In the UK, at the most there just 3 international lawyers who thought the war was legal. One was the AG and another was the lawyer who was drafted in on the 17 March 2003 to help the AG answer the parliamentary question regarding his 'view' on the legality of the war.

ALL the other international Lawyers are of the opinion it was illegal and said so before the war began. Indeed, the deputy Foreign Office Legal Advisor resigned on 18 March 2003 because the AG’s ‘view’ on the 17 March differed from the official ‘advice’ given just 10 days earlier.

Are you aware that the AG said, in his official advice to Blair.

" ..having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution……

But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with this view."


Even the AG’s ‘view’ that there is a reasonable case to argue that the war was legal is wrong. The guy is a moron, bit like you.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 16/5 1:07 ---

br14 Posted on 15/5 23:58
re: Guardian report on Blair

So the pub bombings were meant to disrupt eh?

My argument all along is that we dont need the additional legislation.

There are laws on the books that dealt adequately with terrorism in the past (IRA etc) that was far more destructive than any wrought by would be Islamic terrorists in the UK.

I agree with an earlier comment. Why do you need the Human Rights Act; Supreme Courts etc? What is so wrong with UK laws?

Blair is simply trying to engender fear so he can hang on to power.

Ok a bunch of people died because of the bombings on 7/7 - but - far more died in various IRA bombings, and the biggest threat on the streets of the UK is not Islamic terrorists. Far from it.

Lefty3668 Posted on 15/5 23:59
re: Guardian report on Blair

'Lefty the evidence at the time from the UN was that Iraq had WMD but the inspectors should be given more time to uncover them, which was difficult as Saddam was being so obstructive.'

Simply not true. There was no evidence. There was suspicion. The majority of the 'evidence' were claims by Ahmed Chalabi, a man wanted in Jordan to serve a sentence of hard labour for major bank fraud!

You wouldn't even buy a used car off this guy let alone go to war on his claims, would you?

Well, perhaps you would. You, Tony Blair and George Bush, the Three Amigo's.

Boro_Gadgie Posted on 16/5 0:09
re: Guardian report on Blair

As regards the war in Iraq, it was "sold" to the UK and the US by Blair and Bush that it was about WMD. Bit by bit, they backtracked from the line "We know Iraq has WMD" to the line used after the war "Well they might not have had WMD after all, but we got rid of Saddam".

Now, first I'll say getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but going to war for regime change is illegal. For 3 years, Blair and Bush have been using this line to justify the war. Are we going to start on every tyrannical tin-pot dictatorship going?

Iraq was about two things:

Oil

Unfinished business after Daddy Bush refrained from going into Iraq in 1991, which it has been alleged, he regrets.

ospreyheights Posted on 16/5 0:33
re: Guardian report on Blair

The day before that twit got elected i was in stockton market with my girlfriend there was a big crowd funneled to a podium asking around it was blairs mob were in town. i waited right at the front and put a boro hat on blairs head it was just before the chelsea fa cup final(made the front page of the telegraph apparently)didnt like the wonker even then i should have punched him.
oh and cherie looked like a cherry queen all stained teeth and ugly whilst prescott looked like a very small slimy frog.
My main memory of that day was that the crowd in their desperation actually listened to him, the loudest applause came when he went into his education education education speil. He lied then to me so now its personal, ihate the curent

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 0:45
re: Guardian report on Blair

'The issue is whether the government can simply reject any court judgement it wants (usually when it comes under pressure from the media), arbitrarily bypassing the law with impunity - in this instance, not just the criminal case but also the asylum decision. Talk about taking the law into your own hands. We all know where that can lead...'


Worth repeating, look where riding roughshod over International Law has got us. He doesn't think Iraq had any bearing on 7/7, and God will be his judge he told Parky. The cheeky get!

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 0:49
re: Guardian report on Blair

lefty, it would be better if you changed your language. cretin is not a name that is respectful in 2006. think on.


--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 0:52 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 1:09
re: Guardian report on Blair

Are you for real?

Edited anyway.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 1:23
re: Guardian report on Blair

I am actually. i don't think language about disability is acceptable as an insult.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but, you know, actually it's used really commonly and it's not on. cheers for editing.

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 1:40 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 1:42
re: Guardian report on Blair

Disability?

Cretin.

1. Offensive term.

a taboo term that deliberately insults somebody’s supposed intellectual capacity

2. Somebody with thyroid hormone deficiency

medicine  somebody affected by congenital myxoedema (dated) (sometimes considered offensive)

Well you learn something everyday. However, in the context, I don't think anyone would seriously think I was suggesting the thyroid hormone deficiency one.

Are you happier with tosspot then?

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 1:50
re: Guardian report on Blair

probably not. but as it was a word used derogatorily about people who were mentally retarded that's why it shouldn't be acceptable these days - like i say, i didn't think you did mean it that way.

apparently a tosspot is a habitual drinker according to my dictionary, which i have to say is different to what i expected too.

towz Posted on 16/5 8:33
re: Guardian report on Blair

I though it meant a jizz receptacle

--- Post edited by towz on 16/5 8:33 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 8:37
re: Guardian report on Blair

Quite fitting that on a thread about Blairs ability to bend the english language when it suits him, we learn the real meaning of a few words.....

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 9:29
re: Guardian report on Blair

I had a pop at someone about Hitler beacuse they compared Blair to him. Do you see why now?

3 reasons for going to war. Says who, you? the UN? The liberal party? the green party? the EU?

I don't accept that there is any authority who can decide on which wars illegal and which isn't. Least of all the UN which has little credibility and is just a place for countrys to stroke their own ego's and pursue self interest (ie the USA).Wars have been happening for 1000's of years and will continue for 1000's of years.

Is this what the UN was set up for so a bunch of overpaid, unelected lawyers could sit round smoking cigars debateing the technical points on whether a war is leagal or not (at the expense of the US tax payer, as they put more money into the UN than any other nation). God we've come along way.

PS, please don't call me a tosspot for expressing my democratic right to have a opinion. Next you'll be impinging on my civil liberties and telling i don't have right to have a differant opinion to you.

God, come the revolution eh! People like me will shot against a wall.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/5 9:30 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 9:40
re: Guardian report on Blair

TB999
Role of UN
Re
"I don't accept that there is any authority who can decide on which wars illegal and which isn't. Least of all the UN which has little credibility and is just a place for countrys to stroke their own ego's and pursue self interest (ie the USA).Wars have been happening for 1000's of years and will continue for 1000's of years."

the UN was created to prevent aggression. It gave it self the right to decide if aggression was legal (defence of Korea) or illegal (invasion of Kuwait).

Reasons for going to war, your right, there are many, however most observers don't think the fact that you want your neighbours land/goat/oil is a good reason to go to war, I thought we had advanced beyond that.


Sorry but the UN was set up solely to decide if a war was legal (or at least accpetable). It was set up in 45 to ensure that we never had a second world war again.
The US (and a lot of other countries) have the annoying habit of wanting the UN to back them, but reserving the right totottaly ignore the UN if it doesn't produce the right decision, see Israel for details.

The bottom line on this is Blair lied, he lied to parliament, he lied to the press, he directly lied to the public.
You can argue as much as you want about anything else, but the evidence is inctravertible. Tony Blair is a liar.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 9:50
re: Guardian report on Blair

The same UN that would collapse without the USA funding, where the Head of the UN's son has been benefitting from the Oil for Aid programme for over a decade.

'Guardian report on Blair' syas it all, you would have got a far more honest opinion from Private Eye.

Our beloved press have tried to get personel crap on Blair for almost a decade and failed, he must be squeaky clean on that front.

I am 'Old Labour' through and through, I believe in high taxes, full employment, minimum wage, low interest rates and high public spending, it seems to me the Blair has succeeded in all them aims.

As for Iraq ask the Kurds and Shiites who voted for the first time in their lives their views.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 10:00
re: Guardian report on Blair

Interesting Blot, so the vanguard of the left wing press is too left wing for an old style Labour supporter ?
My how the world has changed.

Which bit of Tonys launch chemical weapons in 45 minutes claim was the truth then ?
His lies are
Lie One

“Iraq has chemical and biological weapons” and that, “Saddam has continued to produce them”.

Lie Two

Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes.

“he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”

Lie Three

Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger in Africa in order to produce a nuclear warhead.

“In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa”’

Lie Four

Tony Blair did not say that the intelligence assessment was that Iraq would only use chemical or biological weapons if attacked.

Has someone widened the definition of chemical weapons to include fly spray whilst I wasn't looking ?
By launch was the use of catapults included ?
Does the crtieria of weapons of mass destruction apply to anything with balst radius in excess of a water filled balloon ?


At best he is a calculating Liar, at worst a simpleton.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 10:15
re: Guardian report on Blair

Comissar,
the only reason the war in Korea was legal was that The Soviets had resigned from the secrurity council and were not there to vote against it, otherwise we might be now having the debate of whether the Korean war was legal or not.

This is my point, the debate on the legallity of war is a farce, because the UN is a farce. See Isreal for details.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 10:18
re: Guardian report on Blair

The UN is a farce only if it doesn't vote the way that the US wants it to vote.
Korea
The USSR had not resigned from the security council, it abstained, allowing the US to win the vote.

The war is illegal by all measures of international law.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 10:19
re: Guardian report on Blair

By the way you've now showed your true colours, a bitter tory, grasping at anything you can to get our socialist goverment out. You know as well as i do, the Tories would have took us into this war without a thought.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 10:21
re: Guardian report on Blair

There has been at least 3 public enquiries on the issue, each headed by a top Judge, each clearing Blair, therefore by default all 3 were a whitewash.

Commi which of his achievements that I listed do you want to change?

zaphod Posted on 16/5 10:21
re: Guardian report on Blair

There is another reputable reason for war, which is to defend allies from aggression, as the UK did in WW II. Any WMDs in Iraq would have threatened Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, not the UK and US, but they are allies. I thought it was pretty clear at the time that Iraq was in no position to threaten anybody, but war would have been justified if our allies had been threatened.

I don't think our Tone has nefarious intentions. He's just rattled and running scared, and reacting stupidly as a result. It's a bad proposal, but it's not the end of civilisation as we know it. I'm hoping cooler heads will prevail in the long run.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 10:26
re: Guardian report on Blair

The USSR did not obstain, it had boycotted the UN earlier in the year, otherwise it would have voted against action (useing its veto) and the war would have been illegal, by your reckoning.

--- Post edited by TheBoy999 on 16/5 10:27 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 11:08
re: Guardian report on Blair

Blot
There have been no public enquiries into the issue of the WMD claims, are you confusing the enquiry into a sucicide with Blairs 45 minutes lies ? Please go back and revisit the terms set for the various enquiries, the terms were set by Blair, whitewash may be a bit strong a term however, it's probably appropriate.

I think Gordon Brown has been a great prime minister who has not squandered what he inherited. I wish someone would have a word about the taxes though... Tony Blair is a proven Liar. Indisputable.

Tory government and going to war. If a conservative government had gone to war on the same exscuses then it should resign.

BTW I notice you have resorted to throwing the ceap political jibes about " By the way you've now showed your true colours, a bitter tory, grasping at anything you can to get our socialist goverment out" First of all, it's MY government as much as yours and I have a right to expect it not to lie. I think you have now shown your colours, a new Labourite scared that Blairs beloved project has come off the rails because he has been stupid enough to lie.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 11:16
re: Guardian report on Blair

Boy
Korea
fair dues the USSR WAS boycotting the UN security council as Taiwan was occupying Chinas seat.
If they had have voted against the war it WOULD have been illegal.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 11:18
re: Guardian report on Blair

Commisar, PM's make decisions on a scale that you and I cannot understand, every minute of every day.

What benefit did Blair get from getting involved in a war where we were going to lose lives and was inherently unpopular?

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 11:18
re: Guardian report on Blair

Am loving your work, Commissar. You tell 'em. This issue transcend petty party-political lines. It's about a government that has lied and is now trying to destroy our liberties.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 16/5 11:20 ---

Wilkosperm Posted on 16/5 11:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

OUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT!! My tea nearly went out of my mouth onto the laptop. I am loving watching this government collapse in on itself in hypocirsy, lies, sleaze, repetitous announcements of already failed policy - they are desperate and it is sickening the way Blair is clinging to power - he is Alan B'Stard.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 11:37
re: Guardian report on Blair

Nice one Blot
so you have abandoned the line that Blair didn't lie and are now puushing the line that I'm not bright enough to do his job ? Unusual stance.
As for what benefit did Blair have from taking us into war ?
None, feck all, zero.
SO WHY DID THE MORON TAKE US INTO WAR !!!!!
_IF_ he wanted to get rid of Saddam that could have been done with a much greater economy of effort (I assure you, dropping a 1000kg laser guided bomb from circa 20k feet is a very good way of removing an indivdual).
If he wanted to free the Iraqis from oppression he's replacing the Baath party with a bunch of militia and reliegoes zealots.
If he wanted to remove the threat of WMD's from the world he would have been better spent imposing the sanctions Iraq was under onto Pakisatan, India and North Korea.
Basicly the guy lied and took us to war without any agenda.

And you think he's brighter than most ?

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 11:42
re: Guardian report on Blair

He HAD to have an agenda to do something so stupid. The agenda was "standing shoulder to shoulder with the USA", which means "We'll stick by you while you go for your big oil grab in the Middle East. The big businesses that run both our governments are relying on this, and if we don't come through for them, we're screwed..."

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 11:43
re: Guardian report on Blair

Of course, much of the real problem that the so-called left have with Tony Blair and the other leaders across the party and labour movement who have helped win three elections, is that instead of limiting themselves to debate huddled in small groups, they put themselves up for election to be accountable to the public, turned round the Labour party by beating unrepresentative and self-interested groups like Militant, then went on to convince the country. That's the only way that change happens.

Such sections of the far left have fed themselves on denunciation and allegations of lies and betrayal (whether of the Labour Party or Britain) for decades and this is no different. It's the sine qua non of oppositionist politics.



--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 11:58 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 11:44
re: Guardian report on Blair

Hang on, I did not say any off that, you have been reading too much Orwell.

Basically your saying that the religious apartheid should of been left alone 'If he wanted to free the Iraqis from oppression he's replacing the Baath party with a bunch of militia and reliegoes zealots' fair enough.

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 11:45
re: Guardian report on Blair

Commie,

I am feeling faint here because I totally agree with you. Technically Blair didn't lie. As most international lawyers will tell you, pay very close attention to the words Government ministers use because they are always chosen very very carefully. The Hutton enquiry found the Blair did not lie because of that, but it was a technicality and the enquiry was still very critical of the government. There is no doubt that the way the Government presented the case for war was nothing short of a monstrous deception, which some people are obviously still buying.

The best example is Goldsmiths legal advice on the war. He gave that balanced advice on 7th May. It basically says that although a case can be made for going to war without a further UN resolution authorising it, he didn't think it had a good chance of standing up in court if it got there. Blair refused to make that written advice public or even allow Parliament to scrutinise it (until he was under severe pressure in the 2005 elections).

Then a Parliamentary question was tabled asking the AG for his view on the legality on the war.

What happened? The AG recruited another couple of lawyers and on 17 March produced a document that reduced the 12 page 6000+ balanced legal advice with a 338 word written answer stating the reasonable case for a legal basis for war. Gone was the balance, the alternate views. The result was such a distortion that the FO deputy legal adviser resigned in disgust the very next day.

How was it possible that the AG could change his tune so much in the space of 10 days? Had something happened in the meantime? No, in fact Blix reported that the Iraqi’s were much more co-operative (not what Blair and Bush wanted to hear).

The answer lies in the use of the word ‘view’. The AG seized on that to present not his balanced advice, but his own view that the earlier resolutions did present a reasonable case.

This wasn’t even extreme spin, it was sophistry. Parliament let us down, but I find it hard to blame them. Except the unfortunately even more war mongering IDS, Howard and most of the other Tory MP’s.

The Bot999 – re tosspot, I was just having a bit of fun.

With regard to who decides if a war is legal. If you sign up to an agreement, you are bound by it. If you do not abide by it, you are breaking the law.

Blot,

'What benefit did Blair get from getting involved in a war where we were going to lose lives and was inherently unpopular?'

Exactly. It is unfathomable. Let's stretch his neck a bit and we might find out.

red_rebel Posted on 16/5 11:56
re: Guardian report on Blair

I don't think it is in dispute that not just Blair but the entire government machine - and non-elected advisors - lied systematically throughout the period of manipulation that made war inevitable.

But that is just one issue. The same systematic subterfuge, squirming around the point and contradictions are deployed on almost every multi-faced aspect of government policy now: taxation, the health service, benefits, PFI, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, smoking, transport, the roles of some of its own key members... there is no subject so trivial or pressingly important that this regime will not slip into default mode and lie about.

In that they have only taken over from the Tories, although they have refined it, have used more advanced forms of connivence with the media to advance it, and because they have key allies in the public sector where the Tories had widespread opposition, it has become all pervasive at all levels of the state machine. Local health authorities, education authorites, councils... all now replicate that duplicity in their everyday practice.

And this is not a party political issue. Far from it. This is a fundemental issue of democracy, freedom, political accountability and the nature of the state.

At what point do people put aside the fact that they agree with the aims of the government and start questioning the methods.

Britain always had a democractic deficit. Now we have been plunged into a black hole of authoritarian centralisation.

Even conservative constitutional experts always conceded that without a written constitution and bill of rights we were "an elected dictatorship".

Now that theoretical position is being shored up almost daily by a government obssessed with making its own power absolute.

The slide started under Thatcher as she emasculated the unions, judiciary, press and local government. It has accellerated under Blair who has neutralised the scrutiny powers of Parliamentry committees, has diluted the Lords, further eroded local government and packed the quangos with cronies in an act of patronage not seen since medieval tomes.

Futhermore there have been corrosive developments outside Parliament to end participatory democracy. Increasingly any form of organisation is being characterised as being 'against the state' and is covered by public order legisaltion supposedly designed to be used against terrorists.

In a nation supposedly a beacon of democracy with have seen moves to end trail by jury, legal aid and the right to silence. Moves against political organisations, the right to demonstrate and pickets. Moves towards house arrest, dentention without trial, control orders, widespread phone and e-mail intercepts without asking a judge, the right of a 'senior' police officer to declare demonstrations illegal.

These are alll things we used to take as the hallmarks of a third world tin pot dicatorship and banana republic.

Worst still, a Bill is going through the Commons right now that will give ministers the right to amend the law without the consent of Parliamment. It signals the end of representative democracy and the notion that Parliament has a role of formulating, discussing and objecting to legislation.

All those right thinking people who champion Britishness, democracy and political freedom.... where are you? Where will you draw the line? At what point will you concede there is a problem? When it is too late?








--- Post edited by red_rebel on 16/5 12:11 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 12:05
re: Guardian report on Blair

This is fun, the Blairistas are in total retreat.
They have abandoned disputing that he lied.
They are now using the line "he won 3 elections so he must ne good" - OK lads and lasses, can you remember that one next time your slagging Thatch off ?
They are now resorting to (and I'll quote) "Commisar, PM's make decisions on a scale that you and I cannot understand, every minute of every day" - ie saying we are too thick to understand the wonders of Government, I think that last person to try and pull that one off was the Wizard of Oz.
And Blot, I never said the reliegous aprtheid (steady blot, your falling back on the terminology of the old left there, the pager in your pocket will go off as Mandy tells you off for being off message) should be left alone. I pointed out that Blair has managed to exchange one form of abuse of power for another.

Leftie, we can exchange pleasentries at another time...git

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 12:13
re: Guardian report on Blair

Exactly r_r.

Blair needs to be put on trial, by us. We must set an example to remind these people that they are elected to serve us the people, not rule or manage us, with the added bonus that it will restore our reputation in the international community.


Did someone just mention Thatcher?

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 16/5 12:17 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 12:18
re: Guardian report on Blair

They are now resorting to (and I'll quote) "Commisar, PM's make decisions on a scale that you and I cannot understand, every minute of every day" - ie saying we are too thick to understand the wonders of Government

I never said anyone was thick, I happen to know that I could not cope with the daily decision making process that the PM has to make, whilst you are obviously far superior in brain power than me.

Like I said stick to reading Orwell.

And exactly where was I in retreat?

red_rebel Posted on 16/5 12:23
re: Guardian report on Blair

To be fair Blot is the only Blairista on here and he has been consistent since day one that he accepts the fudges to get results.

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 12:32
re: Guardian report on Blair

I'll give him plenty of credit in his first term. I thought it was a good start.

To his credit, he also had a lot of international standing and the UK were a major player in Europe and on the world stage, generally in a good way. That just heightens the tragedy of Iraq.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 13:28
re: Guardian report on Blair

You all seemed obsessed with the did he lie debate, frankly i don't care, but this is what he said at the Labour party conferance, "the evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge and accept that. I simply point out that it was agreed by the whole international community." As i said the whole world(even the French) agreed at the time that Saddam had WMD. So did he lie, no.

Lefty - "With regard to who decides if a war is legal. If you sign up to an agreement, you are bound by it. If you do not abide by it, you are breaking the law" Just like the French and Germans break EU agreements on a daily basis. The problem with the UN is that countrys simple pursue their own agenda.

Commisar - "IF he wanted to get rid of Saddam that could have been done with a much greater economy of effort (I assure you, dropping a 1000kg laser guided bomb from circa 20k feet is a very good way of removing an indivduel" You obviously know very little about warfare.

Why are you banging on about Blair clinging to power, he's already said he won't stand again, not the admission of a man "clinging to power"

Of course its party political, the Tories have been trying to score points of the war for over 2 years now. Typical of Tories, supported it at the start, seen the opportuniy for some political point scoreing, and suddenly had a change of heart. Scum.

Lets bring up the point about the Korean war again. As i said the only reason it got legal backing was because the Soviets had boycotted the UN. If they hadn't, and the US led coalition hadn't got a mandate but went ahead with the war, would it of made the war less just?

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 13:50
re: Guardian report on Blair

It's "Superior to" not "superior than".
Thank you.

TeessideCleveland Posted on 16/5 13:56
re: Guardian report on Blair

"Of course its party political, the Tories have been trying to score points off the war for over 2 years now. Typical of Tories, supported it at the start, seen the opportuniy for some political point scoring, and suddenly had a change of heart"
"Blair clinging to power, he's already said he won't stand again"
I am not a massive fan of Blair but I agree with both those statements
Those to the left of the Government seem to want the Labour Party to return to their 1983 policies which the public rejected on a huge scale
Those who support the Tories will join in as they know their party will be the main beneficiary of Labour losing votes
I really don't know who I will vote at the next election and have massive problems with some aspects of this government - but I have not yet been convinced that the other parties will be better

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 14:09
re: Guardian report on Blair

TB999
if you don't think that a laser guided 1000kg bomb can do the job then a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone WILL do the job. You can (again) ask the Israeli's on that one as it has been their method of choice for taking out the leadership of the palestinians for the last few years. It's certainly more economical than deploying the US central command plus large chunks of the British Rapid reaction force.

We know you don't care if Blair lied, and thats the issue, a leader in power who lies in such a way is untrustworthy. Under Blairs leadership it is acceptable to lie and dodge responsibility, the various fiasco's at the home office are examples of that.

You appear to be taking the high moral standpoint that it's ok if we break the rules if others do the same, you use the EU and Germany/France as an example. Sorry, Blair came to power on (in part) a ticket of an ethical foreign policy, ethics and Tony Blair now seem highly estranged bed fellows.

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 14:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

TheBoy999

You are wrong about Blair and the whole world believing Saddam had WMD. I am sure Blair thought so in September 02, but by March 03 our own intelligence services did not think so. The world was sceptical, hence their refusal to give a 2nd resolution, though in the face of such insistence by Blair and Bush they wanted Blix to do his job and find them.

Tell me, why did we have to go to war then? Why could we not just wait and let the UN inspectors do their job first. 3 months down the line and we would have known for sure what we know now. There was no WMD, nor was there even a capability.

A few more questions.

What agreements do France and Germany regularly break?
Are any of them invading another country?

and finally

Are you saying that there is no such thing as going to war for a right reason or going to war for the wrong reasons? That seems to be your argument.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 14:28
re: Guardian report on Blair

"Shitappens. Why care?"

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 14:35
re: Guardian report on Blair

Can I join your perfect world?

Kilburn Posted on 16/5 14:36
re: Guardian report on Blair

My problem with Blair’s government isn’t so much with its aims, which at least initially were admirable, but with the way it has gone about trying to achieve them, and how it has reacted to the failure of those methods.

With the exception of the management of the economy, all of the other ‘big projects’ of the Blair administration have been badly executed to a greater or lesser degree. The heart has generally been in the right place, but the brain seems to have been sadly absent. Even the success of the economy has come at a high price in terms of social inequality, something that the government has pledged to reduce.

It is infuriating to see the number of opportunities for real progress that have been wasted. Lack of a clear strategic vision, and of understanding of the people, issues and processes involved seem to be common factors, whether it be in the field of education, health, foreign policy, etc.

When failures have resulted from this mismanagement, then the ugly side of the political machine has shown its face, lying, manipulating and backtracking in order to conceal them.

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 14:39
re: Guardian report on Blair

Commisar - "ask the Israeli's on that one as it has been their method of choice for taking out the leadership of the palestinians for the last few years". The problem with that is that the palistinian area's are very small and local leaders are easier to pin point than in Iraq, which is several times the size of Britain. Also who would fill the power vacum once he was dead? The problems your seeing now in Iraq would have been ten fold without the allied forces.

Lefty - If you don't know that France and Germany don't break EU rules, you need to take a bit more notice of EU politics, anyway here's a quote just for you. "Not only do the French not seem to manage to adhere to the rules, but they don't even seem to try," says William Lelieveldt, a spokesman for Dutch Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm. Mr. Zalm has called on the EU to fine France.

Lefty - "Are you saying that there is no such thing as going to war for a right reason or going to war for the wrong reasons? That seems to be your argument". My argument is that it doesn't matter if the UN say the war is illegal, there is a right and wrong reason for going to war and whether its leagl or not is irelevant, particulary when the UN are the judge.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 14:39
re: Guardian report on Blair

So, blot, because the world's not perfect, we should just sit back, do nowt, and let it all turn to crap. Super.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 14:43
re: Guardian report on Blair

Jimmy the world is not perfect because Ballack is worth £130,000 a week for his job, what do we do tax him at 98%?

The world will never be perfect as long as I put my children before yours, and I always will.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 14:44
re: Guardian report on Blair

littlejimmy, gzd

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 17:31 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 14:47
re: Guardian report on Blair

Blot, that's right. Doesn't mean I have to like it. We've got a lovely world, messed up by 6 billion apes with brains too big for their own good.

Means_the_world, what do you know about me? Sweet FA, is what. Don't pass off your preconceptions as fact.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 14:48
re: Guardian report on Blair

Commisar - "ask the Israeli's on that one as it has been their method of choice for taking out the leadership of the palestinians for the last few years". The problem with that is that the palistinian area's are very small and local leaders are easier to pin point than in Iraq, which is several times the size of Britain. Also who would fill the power vacum once he was dead? The problems your seeing now in Iraq would have been ten fold without the allied forces. - Sorry, simply not true.
If Saddam had been removed from power with the Baath party left in place then there would have been an internal Iraqi authority the west could have done business with.
Can I also remind you that this thread is not about an alternative way of conducting an illegal war, but Tony Blairs lies and perfidery to the people of Britain.

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 14:49
re: Guardian report on Blair

Jimmy my brain is not big enough to understand that, pass me a banana.

--- Post edited by blotonthelandscape on 16/5 14:50 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 14:53
re: Guardian report on Blair

Sure you'd not rather have a lemon?

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 14:57
re: Guardian report on Blair

passing preconceptions off as fact, jimmy? you've certainly put me in my place there.

and for the record, I am embarrassed at even trying to compete with you, lefty, commissar and red_rebel on that score


--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 17:29 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 15:01
re: Guardian report on Blair

Sarcasm now, eh? Aren't you a clever little ape. You have a banana as well.

What annoyed me was the implication that all I do is sit on here all day typing stuff. It's just not true. I go to the toilet every few hours.

Sniping from the sidelines is a piece of piss. Maybe you should contribute something to the debate instead of acting like some heroic voice-of-reason who runs around with a big bag of anti-left cliches.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 16/5 15:05 ---

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 15:03
re: Guardian report on Blair

I think you can buy George Bush toilet paper off the internet somewhere. That might help relieve the tension a bit.

Actually you could try to become an activist. What about joining the Lib Dems. That'll have Karl Rove shaking

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 15:04 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 15:06
re: Guardian report on Blair

Jimmy you seem unable to cope with any political opinion you disagree with.

I can tell you in the business I work in we have never ever had to give a back hander to a Civil Servant to get a project started, that cannot be said for many other countries in Europe and the rest of the World that we deal with.

I live in the best, most honest, country in the world and have no intention in living anywhere else.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 15:07
re: Guardian report on Blair

Nice try, but no cigar. I'm going to move to Cuba and smoke some of Fidel's finest.

Revol_Tees Posted on 16/5 15:08
re: Guardian report on Blair

"I can tell you in the business I work in we have never ever had to give a back hander to a Civil Servant to get a project started..."

You're not an arms dealer, are you?

zaphod Posted on 16/5 15:09
re: Guardian report on Blair

South Korea was invaded by North Korea. I'm pretty sure that, with South Korea being an ally of the UK and US, it would have been legal for the US and the UK to help defend the country even without a UN resolution. My recollection is that the main purpose of the UN resolution was to constitute a UN force to come to the aid of South Korea.

The UK's provision of forces to Malaysia at the request of the Malaysian Government to keep out Indonesia was certainly legal, even though it constituted war. Similarly, the US's support for South Vietnam at its Government's request was legal, even though some of the consequent actions weren't.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 15:13
re: Guardian report on Blair

How don't I cope, and what opinion are you talking about? All I'm seeing is sniping and name-calling. I can cope with it. Just because I'll keep arguing, doesn't mean I can't cope. I accept we all have our opinions. And we have our opinions of each others opinions. Where's the problem?

As for the great myth of British fair play, I think you must be very lucky. I've worked in the construction industry for 17 years and have seen many dodgy things. Of course, I'm sure there's worse corruption in other places (I'm looking at Mr. Blairs buddy, Berlusconi), but to say we're whiter than white in this country is blinkered, parochial nonsense.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 15:15
re: Guardian report on Blair

ah, yes jimmy, cuba.

land of democracy, equality and free speech indeed

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 17:30 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 15:19
re: Guardian report on Blair

Thank you. You're proving to be reliable in your responses. Now please stop grinning at me. It's like some creepy patronising uncle winking at me.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 15:22
re: Guardian report on Blair

you love it

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 15:22 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 15:23
re: Guardian report on Blair



--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 16/5 15:24 ---

riverboat_captain Posted on 16/5 15:29
re: Guardian report on Blair

blot:

"There has been at least 3 public enquiries on the issue, each headed by a top Judge, each clearing Blair, therefore by default all 3 were a whitewash."

Its great being able to appoint your own judge and state the parameters of the enquiry.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 15:29
re: Guardian report on Blair

- for jimmy, not you riverboat.

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 15:29 ---

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 15:30
re: Guardian report on Blair

Jimmy, which off the following would have won an election gaining any of the benefits that Blair has;

Tony Benn, Red Robbo, Scargill, Livingston (what nice lads the IRA are), Derek Hatton, Dennis Skinner, Honest George Galloway, Cook, Corbyn, ....

FFS Blair Focused on Mondeo man and has won 3 general elections, something the left of this country has never done.

The_Commisar Posted on 16/5 15:34
re: Guardian report on Blair

Isn't it strange that on a football message board theres been more effort debate and discussion on politics than you get in 20 years of the Sun ?
(and if Curly turns up thats page 3 knocked into a cocked hat)

"FFS Blair Focused on Mondeo man and has won 3 general elections, something the left of this country has never done."
Tony Blair.....Left ?
Shome mishtake shurely ????

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 15:39
re: Guardian report on Blair

hmm, would be good if it were true Commissar, but I'm not sure that this thread is really debate. more of an electronic slanging match where no one takes on anything else writes because it's the same argument that's been put for three years now.

not that i want to shatter the good will you understand

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 15:43
re: Guardian report on Blair

Ah, Commie this is where I completely disagree with the other left on here. I believe that Blair is 'very' left wing, has achieved aims Benn could only dream about. He just had the nouse to get the press on his side at the start, said some nice things about Murdoch and co., and Bobs your uncle.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 15:48
re: Guardian report on Blair

o

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 17:29 ---

red_rebel Posted on 16/5 16:06
re: Guardian report on Blair

Blair a left? If only it were so. The social gains have been paid for by letting massive conglomerates fill their boots through PFI and by an army of advisors seconded from big business and the giant accountancy firms set fiscal policy.

The great achievement of Blair has been the sleight of hand in which he has advanced this pro-corporate polciy while persuading the labour and trade union movement that if they don't play along then the bogey man will com eback and get them.

But again, the achievements are not soley the issue, it is the methodology and the precedents being set by government.

Blair has presided over a massive slide away from consent and partipatory democracy and towards an oligarchic bureaucratic system that lacks transparency or accountability.

I find the possibilities inherent in that frightening. I find the complacency among those who talk a lot about 'freedom' and 'democracy' as essentially English things even more frightening.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 16:08
re: Guardian report on Blair

oh, here we go again.

br14 Posted on 16/5 16:13
re: Guardian report on Blair

I am gratified to say that Tony Blair has accomplished at least two things.

1. He has knocked Margaret Thatcher of the top of the Top 10 ways to get a 100 post.

2. He has me agreeing with Red Rebel.

Other than that, it is at least reassuring that Blair supporters, though still loyal, recognise what he is.

As Jax put it yesterday, "he will lie ( both senses of the word ) in anyones bed, if he thinks that there is a vote in it for him".

For "lie" read, "economical with the truth" if you prefer.

Of course he's not unique as a politician in lying.

BTW Blair didnt just make nice with Murdoch, he sold his soul to him. Just an afterthought, but maybe it was the Suns headline on the day Thatcher was elected that prompted his deal with Murdoch. The headline read something like "Will the last one to leave the country put the light off" or at least that how I remember it.

--- Post edited by br14 on 16/5 16:15 ---

TheBoy999 Posted on 16/5 16:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

Comissar, let me remind you, it was you, not me who brought up the alternative of precision bombing to freeing Iraq of Saddam. I'll remind you what you said "IF_ he wanted to get rid of Saddam that could have been done with a much greater economy of effort (I assure you, dropping a 1000kg laser guided bomb from circa 20k feet is a very good way of removing an indivdual)".

Any way this is getting tedius now, we're just going over old ground with no conclusion in sight for the next 50 years, i have enjoyed it though, cheers!

blotonthelandscape Posted on 16/5 16:17
re: Guardian report on Blair

Red, the problem with your approach, that I believe Blair got over, is that you terrify people. I could not care less who has built my wifes new school in one of the most deprived areas of the UK as long as it has been built.

littlejimmy Posted on 16/5 16:18
re: Guardian report on Blair

Means_the_world, you'll have to come up with more than little asides and cheeky smiles, mate.

Blot, I'll give him credit for getting Labour elected. Hell, I voted for him back in '97 and even '01 when it seemed he was taking us the right way. I remember that night in May '97 when Tory after Tory was kicked out of office and we watched them dance to "Things Can Only Get Better" and the world was looking a better place. Of course, he had to move towards the centre to get Labour in, but it's the same for all parties. Moving too far to either side is going to lose you votes.

Anyway, this ain't the argument here. This is just clouding the issue. Whatever his achievements, whatever he's done that is good, it doesn't excuse what, in my eyes, is the biggest sin of all, which was to follow George Bush's administration into an unholy mess in Iraq, based on flimsy evidence, lies and misinformation and with no proper plans in place for the aftermath. And now, the moves to restrict and remove civil liberties in the name of "national security" is really starting to worry me. Is that a price worth paying to have a "Labour" government in place? In my opinion, it isn't. What makes it worse is that they're turning into the Tories of the mid-90s, neck-deep in sleaze and self-interest. I've lost my faith in New Labour and I've lost my faith in mainstream politics.

br14, that headline was the day of the '92 election, when Kinnock was on the verge of winning against Major. The Sun scared the country's swing voters into keeping the Tories in for another 5 years.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 16/5 16:21 ---

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 16:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

jimmy, you break my heart.

blot, i think you are right about r-r and about the school.

and when it comes down to what is good for teesside, it is undoubtedly better off since 1997 and Tony Blair came to power. that's why Labour should win next time too.

and that my friends, is my last word too

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 16/5 16:30 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 16/5 16:26
re: Guardian report on Blair

TheBoy999

We agree that there are right and wrong reasons to go to war then. The question is, what are those right/wrong reasons and, just as importantly, who decides.

The criteria stated in the UN charter are pretty good ones. Remember, it was largely drawn up by Churchill and FDR during and just after WW2.

Your argument seems to rest on the question of who decides if a war is justified or not. You do not trust the UN, based on some of its previous political infighting, dating back to Korea. That is a fair point but I think you have to bear in mind that the world was very different then. The UN was a fledgeling organization, the cold war was at its peak and international law was also in its infancy. It still is in fact.

Look at the UN since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. The Security Council has sanctioned actions in the first Gulf War 1990-91, again with Desert Fox in 1998, Kosovo, Afghanistan plus others. It has shown itself a very different animal, even if it is not perfect.

If you do not rely on the UN then you are saying that it is ok for the decision about whether to go to war to be a unilateral one. Would you still be saying that if it had been Turkey that invaded Greece, or Iran that invaded Iraq? Is it ok just because it is the good old USA?

But regardless of who makes the decision, ultimately it has to be for valid reasons. This was not. Blair now accepts that there was no WMD. The fact is he knew that before our troops went in. The evidence was shaky and pathetically thin. You haven’t seen any evidence have you? Why haven’t they published this ‘incontrovertible’ evidence that they had in the build up to war? Are you telling me, with the pressure they have been under, if they had it they wouldn’t publish.

So the only conclusion is that Bush went to war for other reasons and we got into bed with him, flouting the UN and disregarding International Law.

Barring genocide, there can be no greater crime, with all the resulting deaths, than waging war without justification on another country. If Blair can do that, what makes you think he gives a hoot about our human rights?

He no longer deserves our trust.

br14 Posted on 16/5 16:29
re: Guardian report on Blair

Thanks lj - my memory isnt what it used to be.

I do recall a picture of Kinnocks face on a light bulb, and that the swing was put down at least in part to the headline.

Anyway, I think the UK should perhaps adopt the US tactic by forcing a Prime Minister to resign after 2 terms in office.

Thats where the US has one over on the UK, at least the states know that Bush is gone next election. Whereas, despite what Tony says, he may decide to try and hang on for one last go.

means_the_world Posted on 16/5 16:32
re: Guardian report on Blair

err, ok. so not gone yet.

but br14, just to let you know. britain could have forced tony blair to go after two terms. but unfortunately for you, it is the voters who are the boss in a democracy, not the courts and thank god too.

now, having "LIED" to you and not gone. i am this time

TeessideCleveland Posted on 17/5 0:19
re: Guardian report on Blair

Blotonthelandscape"Jimmy, which off the following would have won an election gaining any of the benefits that Blair has;

Tony Benn, Red Robbo, Scargill, Livingston (what nice lads the IRA are), Derek Hatton, Dennis Skinner, Honest George Galloway, Cook, Corbyn, ...."
LittleJimmy"Blot, I'll give him credit for getting Labour elected. Hell, I voted for him back in '97 and even '01 when it seemed he was taking us the right way. I remember that night in May '97 when Tory after Tory was kicked out of office and we watched them dance to "Things Can Only Get Better" and the world was looking a better place. Of course, he had to move towards the centre to get Labour in, but it's the same for all parties. Moving too far to either side is going to lose you votes"
Blotonthelandscape and littlejimmy both taking sense there imo
I myself am at the 'disappointed' rather than 'disillusioned' stage with our present government as I am not sure that they are still not the best of a bad bunch

br14 Posted on 17/5 7:08
re: Guardian report on Blair

means_the_world I think you may have misunderstood my point.

I was merely suggesting that when politicians are in power for too long, they get somewhat arrogant and start believing they are "gods".

Your friend Tony is a case in point. Should have stepped down and let Gordon take over at the last election.

I did not mean to suggest that Labour couldnt win a third/fourth or even fifth term in a row, simply that once a Prime Minister had served two terms he should KNOW that he was done and the party would find a successor (typically the second in command as it were). Less messing about with retirement dates and the like.

I missed this in your comments but it's relevant:
"it is the voters who are the boss in a democracy, not the courts".

Relevant because if Tony has his way, it will be the courts that are the boss in the UK.

Countries with a Supreme Court and Human Rights legislation can have all manner of problem with judicial activism. Parliament passes a law and the courts decide it's illegal etc.

--- Post edited by br14 on 17/5 7:12 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 17/5 7:24
re: Guardian report on Blair

Speaking as an outsider to this labour party love in a few things seem to have happened
The very same faults and issues which Blair seized upon and used to beat the Conservatives around the head with, he is now guilty of
- Sleaze - the peerages for donations issue is but the latest ( I can now hear various parties going "yes but they did it when they were in power" so they did and were rightly castigated for it, especially by Blairs spin machine.
- Hypocrasy - see above, everything they accused the conservatives of is coming home, how many Conservative politicians had their private lives invaded at the behest of Tonys henchmen, yet when Two Shags Prescott does it it's a "private matter".
- Incompetence - sorry but the Home office is a shambles - Blunkett, Clarke, whens the next fiasco going to emerge.
- Callous lieing - this whole thread started off by nailing Blairs continued lies to Parliament and the country about Iraq. Theres been nothing to make anyone believe he didn't lie, and worryingly won't lie again.
The whole "Trust me I'm Tony" mannifesto has gone t*ts up in a big way.
Will he get elected or will labour get in again ? Honest feel, 50/50, he's made such a pigs ear of the last term that it may be a poison chalice that Brown gets off him, if he goes, which I don't think is 100% certain,

Oh and for the record, I would far far rather have a New Labour government than a hung parliament which results in the abomination that is proportional representation.