Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws...

Originally posted by avatari777
Ihave posted a reply

- Yet manage, as always, to avoid all questions and points raised.

and a link

- ....and again fail to have the courage to admit you are referring to an obscure book published in 1933.

I really think that your personal attack

-

Just what "personal attack" was that then, do feel free to point out this so-called "attack".

This is a conspiracy whether by the fabians or the 1922 committee

- Oh dear.
Back to pretending Labour and tory parties are identical, eh?
Do feel free to show the years of policy agreement and common economic and social strategy then hmmmmm?

and regards the so called little gang do you not realise that avatari is the plural of avatar.

- I see what I see.
Another dreary plonker too cowardly to come on in their usual 'name' here as him/herself, keeping answers short to try and hide their real identity (or did you just hint that it's identities), working their boring little sock puppet (again).
Registered a couple of days back.

remember that blair might have had a majority in terms of seats but it was still a minority that voted them in

- Oh please do make an effort and try not to be so absurd.

If you're really going to try and do this whole 'I have such radical views' riff I suggest you try and grow up a little and go away and actually learn something about the political history of this country you claim to 'feel' so much for and about.....

.....cos obviously not having much of a clue about the facts really doesn't help your credibility. K?

It is an exceptionally rare thing for the winning party in any British general election, where the vote is split more than 3 ways, to ever get a majority of the total vote.

Wake up and try and learn something about our actual history, so you have something of a clue of what you are talking about first, before running off to go dream tedious, barely adolescent, little (treacherous) revolutionary dreams, eh?

Goodbyeeee socky (again).

.....and as we're about as far away as it's possible to get from the original (completely false) claims that " Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws" I think we should draw this one to an end.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

my friend it is not an obscure book when it caused the problems it did within masonic ranks and i hope sincerely that you take some time out from your crusade to keep politicians as your excuse for your shortcomings.My group the fruition project have more culmulative years of discovery and research than all the gobbledegook sprouted in political defence.I dont see this as a personal thing they are just in the way, their financial acumen is stopping the hunan race from self discovery and thereby expansion. It is like going to scrooge and asking for more. I made the example about my health because that is where these people affect me more and reading the book helped me to understand just exactly what the problem is. As a spinabifida sufferer I AM PRONE TO MORE ILLNESS THAN MOST. But this ideology or whatever it is called is sickening and the people you seem to worship are the cause. You are not peter mandelsson by any chance are you? That would explain your inner aggression.

tony blair holds 66,666 votes at sedgefield but only managed 24,421 and most of those were block votes from the unions. I agree that we should draw this to a close. If I offend you have the guts to put me on your banned list and then we will have no further contact. The fact that blair will be charged might not be right now but we all hold hope.

Originally posted by avatari777my friend it is not an obscure book

- Do behave and wise up.

Btw I take it you are now admitting you are referring to the 1933 book?

It's not exactly a best seller in 2006 - and it never was either.
Nor has it been one of the British political greats, ever.
It absolutely does fit the term 'obscure' given it's publication numbers must have reached, oh, perhaps the dizzy heights of 'tens' after about.....1935.

I made the example about my health because that is where these people affect me more and reading the book helped me to understand just exactly what the problem is. As a spinabifida sufferer I AM PRONE TO MORE ILLNESS THAN MOST.

- ....and so what?

Clearly your own (claimed) experience is not typical.

It is still undeniable that thanks to the actions of this Gov the NHS has improved massively.
So massive an inprovement in fact that even the political opponents of this Gov have stopped pretending there has not been any improvement at all and now skulk around talking vague nonsense about 'waste'.

the people you seem to worship are the cause.

- Get real.
A grasp on British political and historical reality and therefore being able to evaluate and recognise progress and achievement is nothing like your rather absurd and, if you don't mind my saying so, rather childish and risible notions of "worship".

You are not peter mandelsson by any chance are you? That would explain your inner aggression.

- You really could do with working on your perception.

"Aggression"? At this stuff you've posted?
You really must be deluded.

I thnk Monty Python put it best in the Australian sketch.....
"Howls of derisive laughter Bruce".

Derisive laughter, it's nothing like "aggression", actually.

tony blair holds 66,666 votes at sedgefield but only managed 24,421 and most of those were block votes from the unions.

- More ignorant nonsense to compound the pointlessness of your comments?

Uh oh, fairy-tales about 'union block votes' in a British general election?
Oh dear.

Blair the satanic Marxist now, huh?

Tony Blair Labour 24,421 58.9 -6.0
Al Lockwood Conservative 5,972 14.4 -6.5
Robert Browne Liberal Democrat 4,935 11.9 +2.9
Reg Keys Independent 4,252 10.3 +10.3
Majority 18,449 44.5
Turnout 41,475 62.2

news.bbc.co.uk...

If I offend you

- Yeah right, you wish.

have the guts to put me on your banned list and then we will have no further contact.

- Well if I did that how could I point out your ignorance and laughably false claims?

As for "guts" well clearly there's nothing wrong with mine answering the likes of you .....

.....and you might like to try engaging your brain and try considering that as FSME I'm supposed to see all that gets posted here to assist the moderation of the boards.
K?



[edit on 13-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Here is a BBC report only a week after my original post. I think sminkey will agree that I wasn't just making anything up.

So do we have to wait until TB has left office?

Could TB go to prison for this?

Originally posted by byhiniur
I think sminkey will agree that I wasn't just making anything up.

- Er, you were, "just making it up", actually.

You originally claimed in bold headline
"Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws".

That is still not true.
It is still false.
It is a still lie.

You still have no honest factual grounds for making such a claim right now

So do we have to wait until TB has left office?

- You have to await a Police report being completed and then a decision taken on whether to forward that report to the CPS.
The copper acting as head of this investigation has estimated he will conclude his enquiry around Jan/Feb 2007 (which may or may not be accurate).

If the Police do end up forwarding a a case to the CPS (this is by no means guaranteed and a stage at which many investigations fall/fail) you will then have to await the CPS decision on whether that report contains enough in their view to warrant prosecution and a trial in Court (this is by no means guaranteed and a stage at which many investigations fall/fail).

If the CPS does send the case to trial you will then have to await the trial itself and a judgement (and this has no 'guaranteed' outcome either and is a stage at which many prosecutions fall/fail) .

So yes, it is almost 100% certain that Tony Blair will have stepped down by the time all of this is decided.

Could TB go to prison for this?

- The day-dreamers would love to think so.

But given that the opposition have ensured so much of this is supposedly tied to Blair and he will have gone by then it is also almost 100% certain that even if the CPS decided to pursue a trial (which could still just be them chickening out and refusing to take a decision and 'buck-passing' on such an obviously political case) it's almost certain the Attorney General would step in and put a stop to this expensive farce.

As a sop Parliament may later decide to put in a few new regulations (on top of the extensive new law introduced by this Labour Gov) to be seen to 'act'.

The newspapers and epapers seems to think I have some grounds for making that claim.

The headline wasn't made bold by me, and I left it open-ended with the '...' instead of a full stop, which would make it a more definite statement. It isn't a lie, it may be wrong, but I asure you it isn't a lie.

Thanks for your opinions anyway. It does seem that he will be out of office if and when he is charged, but do we have the same system as in America, where there President is beyond the law until he is out of office?

[edit on 17/11/06 by byhiniur]

Originally posted by byhiniur
The newspapers and epapers seems to think I have some grounds for making that claim.

- Oh well if the British 'newspapers' say so what more 'proof' that it's the whole truth and a 100% sure-fire prediction do you need?

(They're all so reliable and clued in that almost everyone of them have not even remarked on how it is utterly unusual and extremely odd that a senior (acting) cop should prejudice any possible pending Court case by making the kinds of unnecessary and highly public statements that he was making yesterday, hmmmm?)

The headline wasn't made bold by me, and I left it open-ended with the '...' instead of a full stop, which would make it a more definite statement.

- "Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws..." is a definite statement however you now try and spin it.

If you were attempting to make that an 'open proposition' then you should have put a '?' at the end of it.
You didn't.

Therefore 'we' are entitled to view this for what it is, a statement that turns out to be, right now at the time of it's making, wholly misleading and totally wrong.

It isn't a lie, it may be wrong, but I asure you it isn't a lie.

- OK, it is just wrong.
It is an untruth.
It is a false statement.
It is a statement totally in error.
It is not the reality of the matter.
It is a comment not grounded in and wholly at odds with the actual facts.

You might claim it was not a deliberate and actual "lie" but that is mere semantics, a lie is exactly what it amounts to.

do we have the same system as in America, where there President is beyond the law until he is out of office?

- No.

But it appears the Attorney General may get also have a say in this.

Whatever.

The simple and most obvious outcome is extremely likely to be either
(a) no case even goes to Court or
(b) a case goes to Court but is so weak that it quickly gets thrown out or is soundly defeated......

....and actually just ends up making a fool of the cop who investigated, compiled and brought the case, along with those in the CPS who insisted the case be put and lastly ripping the p**s out of the tax-payers (once again) who will end up paying out a fortune funding what will turn out to be a pointless & politically motivated 'action'.

What you can be sure of is that Tony Blair (himself a qualified QC lawyer and married to one of the country's' leading QC lawyers who is also a Judge) is not going to end up being convicted of anything in relation to this,
mark my words.

See you in the summer/autumn.
(this thread will still be here a few pages back from the main page so it'll be there to review and smile over then)

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It is a comment not grounded in and wholly at odds with the actual facts.

You might claim it was not a deliberate and actual "lie" but that is mere semantics, a lie is exactly what it amounts to.

A comment not grounded in reality and wholly at odds with the actual facts would be 'TB is an honest and uncorruptable PM'. My statement has it's feet firmly on the ground.

A lie implies an intentionally misleading and false remark. I am not a liar, I may be wrong, but it is unfair to pair me with TB. A lie isn't what it amounts to, it is completely different from being wrong. You can't be libled for being wrong, but you can for lying, so I'm sure semantics are neither here nor there in this case.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
What you can be sure of is that Tony Blair (himself a qualified QC lawyer and married to one of the country's' leading QC lawyers who is also a Judge) is not going to end up being convicted of anything in relation to this, mark my words.

I wil hold you to that. I'd bet a pound to a penny he will be found to be the most corrupt PM of my lifetime.

I respect you have a wealth of knowledge on this area, I just feel it is unfair that you continue to insist I am a liar when there are so many threads set up on the same principle as mine, yet I don't see you posting in them.

As a side note, am I correct in thinking that Blair undid the privatisation that M. Thatcher put in place. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by byhiniur
It does seem that he will be out of office if and when he is charged, but do we have the same system as in America, where there President is beyond the law until he is out of office?

Well, technically a President can be brought to justice whilst in office... whilst he/she can't be charged whilst in office as President of the United States, they may be charged if they're impeached (and hence removed from office). So the US doesn't have to wait until a President is at the end of his term if he/she has broken a law - the law still applies to them, albeit indirectly. See the case of President Nixon for a good example.

As for our Prime Minister - no, he/she can be charged whilst in office. The only person who may not be charged is the Monarch, because the authority of all courts, the government, police forces etc. are theoretically derived from the Monarch's powers. The Queen can grant pardons (as can the US President), but this is rare and is done (as with most royal prerogatives) on the advice of the Prime Minister/Cabinet. And I don't believe the Prime Minister would be able to get himself/herself pardoned - if the law allows it, I doubt the public would accept it.

I would also suggest that if the Monarch did commit a crime, they would be made to stand trial in some fashion. It would bring on a constitutional crisis, hence I think Her Majesty understands that she has to be very careful when it comes to dealing with the law.

Originally posted by byhiniur
As a side note, am I correct in thinking that Blair undid the privatisation that M. Thatcher put in place. Thanks in advance.

I can't really think of any major nationalisations Blair has made. If you remember, upon becoming leader of the Labour Party in 1994 he persuaded the party to remove Clause IV from its constitution - Clause IV called for the nationalisation of major industries. I doubt Brown would be pleased if there was some kind of nationalisation spree either - it wouldn't do the economy much good, something he is obviously very closely linked to as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[edit on 17-11-2006 by Ste2652]

Originally posted by byhiniur
I wil hold you to that.

- Please do, I will still be here, with the same name, and will welcome a review of what actually happened compared to what we each expected now.

I'd bet a pound to a penny he will be found to be the most corrupt PM of my lifetime.

- You know, you really ought to separate your prejudice and desires from the reality of this.

People mightn't like Blair and they might not even like the calculation of this Gov & the Labour party but as for personal corruption?
No.
Frankly I'd bet the house on that being a complete invention/prejudice by those who are politically opposed.
What for anyway?
He (and his wife) are already enormously wealthy and since his having become British PM he is assured of very large personal wealth for the rest of his days.

That's not to say there cannot ever be the possibility of anyone around him having done wrong.....as happened with Mrs T & Major.
But even there wrong-doing or 'corruption' by this Labour Gov has been insignificant compared to what went before.

The only reason we hear more about it is because (thanks to Blair and this labour Gov.......and against the desires of the tory party for instance) the rules on party funding and MP's personal conduct are now so tight that a procession of very minor infringements appear to suggest 'there's a lot of it going on'.
That might be so but the "it" referred to is not what anyone in their right mind would call equivalent to a couple of Ministers being sent to prison for several years nor people claiming undeclared and hugely expensive freebies are no-body's business but their own!

Unless you are very young the most corrupt Gov (in terms of cash flying about and large shady deals) was probably Maggie T's.....think of all that middle eastern arms/'defense' money, Mark and his unusual and very rapid huge wealth accumulation and the later African dealings.
But as for your 'lifetime' (or mine) perhaps there's plenty of time left yet for further disappointment for us both.

I just feel it is unfair that you continue to insist I am a liar when there are so many threads set up on the same principle as mine, yet I don't see you posting in them.

- Well if you don't mind my splitting hairs on this I would simply say calm yourself.
I am not so much into calling you a liar as pointing out this statement you have made amounts to a lie......even if it was through an errornous phrasing.

.....and what other threads are you referring to?
(there aren't too many here on UK politics that I haven't stuck my size 10's into......but then that is part of the point & idea of the FSME, to try and stimulate and encourage active debate.....thank you for your participation btw)

As a side note, am I correct in thinking that Blair undid the privatisation that M. Thatcher put in place.

-In terms of actually reversing any tory privatisations?
No.
Not one that I can think of.

Even the singular instance of the takeover of the old privatised 'Railtrack PLC' by Network Rail was a case of the privatised entity collapsing completely (but not before having the cheek to expect the public purse to bail them out even further) and not simply a renationalisation, check the link Network rail is a Ltd 'not for dividend' company.

As for greater involvement of the private sector?

Well actually Blair and this Labour Gov have extended that (much further than Thatcher or Major ever did) and brought much more private investment into the public sector (you'll no doubt be aware of things like PFI or perhaps the sale of a minority share of the London tube network or the air traffic control network?).

The difference is that they prefer partnerships (often with the private sector taking a minority share - which technically means it is not an actual 'privatisation') or leasing arrangements (which is what PFI boils down to when all the noise & froth is stripped away).
But basically the Gov & the taxpayer/nation remain the ultimate owners and those with ultimate responsibility......but with a far far 'lighter touch' than anything like the old days of the old 'nationalised' industries.

(which were/are a long, complex and involved tales and not really the black and white and horribly simplistic tale some people - on either side of the debate - prefer to make out)

[edit on 17-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I think it's also prudent to point out that this is a major cross-party issue. These peerages are at the patronage of the three main parties, and not the government. So what else are you supposed to do with them besides give them to people who helped your party?

Those who are given peerages for long service to their country and so forth (such as retired Prime Ministers) are usually government business, but the peerages which the police are currently investigating are party-based. It seems to me that this is something that was introduced knowing full well how they'd be used... so it's a bit odd that we now start to complain. To stop it under the current system, make it so that parties don't select people for peerages. The problem there, however, is that the government can simply stuff the House of Lords full of its own friends without any counter-balances from the other major parties. So really, until there's a significant reform of the House of Lords and the way it works, this is making the best of what is arguably a bad system.

Originally posted by Ste2652
I think it's also prudent to point out that this is a major cross-party issue.

- Quite so Ste2652.
That's why Hague's treatment of Michael Ashcroft was so relevant; the guy was the largest tory donor, a tax exile, became tory party treasurer and ended up with a Peerage.

Talk about 'don't look at the guy behind that curtain.....concentrate on Labour and speculation about Blair!'

Imagine the shock (and deflated indignation) if it turns out the coppers and the CPS end up going after some torys!

The problem there, however, is that the government can simply stuff the House of Lords full of its own friends without any counter-balances from the other major parties.

- ......and yet for all the talk and inferred claims of packing the place with 'cronys' etc it is absolutely true that even after 9+yrs of labour Gov the Labour benches in the HOL do not hold anything like a majority there, far from it in fact.

(and anyone who doesn't recognise the tory inclination of a significant and large section of the so-called 'independant' cross-benchers really hasn't been paying attention to the usual 'side' with which they vote.)

Anyhoo, here is exactly what all the fuss is about -

The House of Lords, as of 31 October 2006:[1]

Affiliation-----------Life peers--Hereditary peers------Lords spiritual-------Total
----------------------------------Party Elected † House Elected----Royal office
Labour--------------208---------2------------------- 2-----------0----0--------212
Conservative-------160--------39-------------------9-----------0----0--------208
Liberal Dems---------73---------3-------------------2-----------0----0---------78
Green------------------1---------0-------------------0-----------0----0-----------1
Cross-benchers----168--------29-------------------2-----------0----2--------201
Non-affiliated---------9----------2-------------------0-----------0----0----------11
Lords Spiritual--------0----------0-------------------0-----------26---0---------26
Total----------------620---------75-----------------15-----------26---2--------738

Note: These figures exclude thirteen peers who are on leave of absence.

†The number of hereditary peers "allocated" to each party, which is based on the proportion of hereditary peers that belongs to that party, is:

Conservative Party: 42 peers
Labour Party: 2 peers
Liberal Democrats: 3 peers
Cross-benchers: 28 peers
Of the initial 42 hereditary peers elected as Conservatives, one (Lord Brabazon of Tara) now sits as a Cross-bencher, having become the House of Lords' Chairman of Committees, and another (Lord Willoughby de Broke) now sits as a non-affiliated member.

en.wikipedia.org...
(apologies if the table doesn't look so good, I tried.....but it's on the link)

So really, until there's a significant reform of the House of Lords and the way it works, this is making the best of what is arguably a bad system.

- Well there is further reform promised in this QS.

My government will also continue its programme of reform to provide institutions that better serve a modern democracy. It will work to build a consensus on reform of the House of Lords and will bring forward proposals.

news.bbc.co.uk...

It also seems to be the case that substantial reform is agreed across the parties, what emerges at the end remains to be seen but it looks as if the status quo is not an option.



[edit on 17-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]