Login
 



 


 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!

  
Topic: Blair
The new items published under this topic are as follows.



See all

Jobs for the Boys 
Posted by: ringverse on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 01:35 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Never let it be said that the Bliar doesn't look after his mates. His paying, sycophantic mates, that is.
Do you fancy a peerage? Well, just bung the New Labour party a few grand, and use whatever expertise you have to speak well of the Bliar and his policies, and that peerage is yours.

Tony Blair is to reward a clutch of millionaire Labour Party donors - including the head of the Priory celebrity rehabilitation clinic - with peerages, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

In a move that will trigger a fresh row over "cash for honours", Mr Blair is to elevate to the Lords four businessmen who between them have given almost half a million pounds to the party.

A leaked list of forthcoming honours shows that Dr Chai Patel, a high- profile Labour donor who runs the Priory clinics, is among those who has been personally recommended for a peerage by Mr Blair.

The Prime Minister is also set to elevate to the peerage Sir Gulam Noon, who has made millions from ready-made curries and given more than £220,000 to Labour since 2001.

Mr Blair also plans to add to the next list of working peers businessmen who have been financially supportive of his flagship projects, including city academies.


For those whose relatives have been abused and neglected in Dr Patel's Nursing Homes, there is a new support group. For those of us sickened by this despotic nepotism and cronyism, tough.

New Labour's institutional sleaze makes the passing of cash in brown envelopes for parliamentary questions by a few bent Tory MPs look like a birthday present.

Shameless, but we knew that already.
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


'Backing Blair' is Back! 
Posted by: ringverse on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 03:29 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Backing Blair is Back:)

With another stunning animation, and a pledge...

"I will pledge £10 to a cash prize fund to be awarded to the person who proves Tony Blair is a liar and prompts that PM's removal or resignation as a result,
but only if 100,000 other people will too."

— Tim Ireland, Bloggerheads.com

Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Political Conferences - and echoes? 
Posted by: DavidK on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 04:29 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
"Then he went through all the points in the programme, at which he received a lot of applause. The hall was very full. A man who called Herr Hitler an idiot was calmly kicked out."

Report of Nazi party meeting in the Hofbraunhaus, Munich, 28th August 1920.
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


3 Months Detention Without Trial 
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 07:53 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Does anybody else remember Charles Clarke suggesting plans for 3 months detention without Trail for terrorist suspects were 'a proposal' and 'up for debate and discussion'?

Well, the proposal has been debated, discussed and regected by everyone outside Number 10 and Scotland Yard.
The Bliar made things clear[sic] at this mornings press conference, for those of us who might have hoped that this consultation might lead to the plans being modified..

Question:

Prime Minister, aren't you really suffering from a fundamental misconception which is that the Police should be the servants of the people rather than its masters, and that it would be very convenient for the Police if they could bang everyone up for as long as they like without having to go to the Court. And when you talk about summary powers in your Party Conference speech for the Police, that is precisely really what you are advocating. You may respect the system of justice, but it is a bit like the Monarchy you want to put it on one side and not actually subject people to the test in the Courts. That is what one would conclude from what you said about 19th century values as far as the justice system is concerned. And can you point to one example related to July the 7th of how the new powers which the Police want, and which you want to give them, would have actually prevented July the 7th?

Tony Blair:

Well, first of all again if we are going to have a debate let us have it on a reasonable basis. I am not saying that whatever the Police say we have just got to do, that is not my case. My case is, if the Police put forward a new power that they say is necessary and they do it and they back it up as they have done in a paper that they have published saying, this is the practical situation we face, this is why this terrorism is different, this is why we need to be able to detain people for longer. And after all they are detaining them for up to 3 months with judicial oversight throughout. Every 7 days it has got to go back before a Court. Now of course we shouldn't do whatever the Police say we should do, but if the Police and particularly the Police charged for fighting terrorism in this country say to me as Prime Minister and to the members of Parliament, since we should all share responsibility for this, this is why we need it, and that case is a good and compelling case as I find it, then what is it my duty to do? My duty is to do it unless somebody can come forward with a very good reason why their case is unsound. So of course it is not a situation that you do whatever the Police want, and actually I don't agree with you in saying that the Police would bang up whoever they wanted to bang up.

I don't think the Police have that view. I think most people, if you have dealt with Andy Hayman who is the Head of Counter-Terrorism in this country, I think the modern Police Force is a very different type of service today. I think they are entirely respectful of the proper judicial process and the civil liberties of people in this country, but they are trying to fight a terrorist threat that is real. And they set out in their paper, and you can go and look at the examples that they give both from existing cases and the hypothetical cases that they put forward as to why 14 days is not enough, as to why they need to detain people for longer in order to complete the investigations and make sure that they protect people properly. Look, it is a debate we should have in the country about what is right and what is wrong, and as to the summary powers, I had a meeting first thing this morning with a whole lot of front-line police officers and others from local authorities about anti-social behaviour and particularly binge-drinking and so on, and they were saying that the summary power of fixed penalty notice, which people greeted with a certain amount of derision when we introduced it, has been absolutely essential as a tool for fighting crime. So it is all about in the end the balance between OK the civil liberties of the person who is accused, but also the civil liberties of other law-abiding citizens in the country who want protection, whether it is from terrorism or organised crime or just anti-social behaviour in the streets, and I am on their side. That is what I believe.


More listening Labour...
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Try Not To Snigger 
Posted by: quarsan on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 04:59 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
While commenting on the suspicions that Iran is arming Basra insurgents, Blair came out with this classic quote:

Mr Blair said:
"There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq."

Well, now we've all had a grim chuckle over Tony's complete lack of irony (he's becomming more American by the day), we get down to a serious issue. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the Iraqi president British troops will stay in the country "as long as he wants them".

That's right. Our armed forces are at the beck and call of the Iraqi President. Traditionally the British Prime Minister and Cabinet decide where forces are stationed, but under Blair, they're treated like a dodgy mercenary company.
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Read 'Tony Blair Provokes Terrorism': Over at Bloggerheads. 
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 06:51 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Tim Ireland, over at Bloggerheads, manages to say in one post, what we have been trying to get across since March.
Git ;-)
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


I'm an Establishment liar - put me in the scanner 
Posted by: bedblogger on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 02:01 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Now we can know who is a habitual liar.

Polygraphs can be inaccurate, especially with pathological liars.
Some liars deny facts and evidence put before them, like mass killers and confidence tricksters, telling the rest of us black is white.

Some liars simply say "trust me" I'm a doctor as Harold Shipman did.
Or "Trust me" I'm The Prime Minister (Blair), the MET Chief (Blair2) or both (Blairs squared???).

Either way, now lies statements need not be taken at face value to the detriment of innocent victims thanks to a new assessment of how much grey and white matter people had in the prefrontal cortex areas of their brains, using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

A BBC Health article says:Habitual liars' brains differ from those of honest people, a study says.

A University of Southern California team studied 49 people and found those known to be pathological liars had up to 26% more white matter than others.

White matter transmits information and grey matter processes it. Having more white matter in the prefrontal cortex may aid lying, the researchers said.

The researchers drew up a list of criteria for lying, cheating and deceiving, including habits such as conning people or behaving manipulatively, and telling lies in order to obtain sickness benefits.


Or even telling lies to Parliament and public, UN and the world, in order to start an illegal war, for fabricated reasons, targeting the wrong villain for the crime being punished, which increases threats to the country, despite saying it was necessary to protect the country from terror.

Rather than the real reason of oil, the control of resources, domination an important geopolitical area and the lure of having Saddam's massive palaces as US Embassies.

Maybe a political reality show is the way re-engage the electorate...

Who is going to be the first to drag the Blairs squared, Jack Straw and the rest of the Cabinet and Establishment into a scanner to see who lights up the board on the lie-ometer? There can be a Top Ten, a leader board.

With all the private independent scanning companies employed by Blair to shorten NHS backlogs, costing us 10% more than NHS scans do, nobody can say we don't have any machines...Let's put them to good use.
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


The Bliar Claims he is Powerless: In the face of Dentists...?! 
Posted by: ringverse on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 04:01 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
While we are on the subject of Conference, cast your minds back to Bournemouth 1999.
Remember the Bliar assuring us that 'everybody will have easy access to a NHS dentist within 2 years'?

Well, with the provision of NHS Dental care going from bad to worse, at Conference 2005, the Bliar has had to eat his words.
Tony Blair has admitted he is 'powerless to increase access to NHS dentistry.'

Hmm, remind me again why I should ever believe a single word he says...?

Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Chicken Yogurts take on the Bliar's Speech 
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:56 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
So the Bliar thinks he is here to stay. It remains to see if anyone else outside his lackeys, and his wife are convinced...
Chicken Yoghurt has done a top job of dissecting the Bliar's invective, in his own inimitable style, and his 'analysis' comes highly reccomended.

Here are a few highlights from the Bliar's speech...
"Thank you for the hard work, faith and courage that means I stand before you as the first leader in the Labour party's history to win three full consecutive terms in office."

"Next month we will publish proposals radically to reform the [incapacity]benefit for the future and help people who can work back into the workforce, where they belong."
"Every time I've ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further."
That is why the NHS reforms, to break down the old monolith, bring in new providers, allow patients choice, must continue.

"But we haven't decisively altered the balance of advantage away from background to merit. The wealth of your parents is still the biggest decider of your future."

"For eight years I have battered the criminal justice system to get it to change."
"And I now understand why: the system itself is the problem. "
"The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted."
"It means a complete change of thinking. "
"First, a radical extension of summary powers to police and local authorities to take on the wrongdoers."

"Britain should also remain the strongest ally of the United States."
"This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq."
"Yes, several hundred people stoned British troops in Basra. Yes, several thousand run the terrorist insurgency around Baghdad. And yes, as a result of the fighting, innocent people tragically die."

"Political parties love to tie themselves up in doctrine. They develop comfort zones. Policy becomes ideology, sometimes theology. To challenge it is heresy; to agree it is a sign you belong."
"One thing I've learnt, and I learnt it from Neil Kinnock and it is now so ingrained it's like a strip of granite running through my being. It's about leadership."
"Government is not a state of office but a state of mind."
"Some day, some party will make this country at ease with globalisation. Let it be this one."
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the Labour movement, and the PLP are going to put up, or shut up.
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Blair said Saddam can stay on eve of war 
Posted by: bedblogger on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:05 AM
[Topic:-Blair]
Watching Question Time, I'm frankly disgusted at the willfull rewrite of history by everyone.

Lets get one thing straight for the record.
Blair said on the eve of war SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD STAY IN POWER, IF ONLY HE GAVE UP HIS WMD.

Yup, that's right, he said the tyrant could stay where he was; no show trial for the mass graves, the repression, the torture, the dictatorship abusing human and women's rights, and supressing democracy. He could not have given less of a fuck about the Iraqi people and their lot.

So let us have a new mantra.
When someone fatuously says: what do you prefer, no war or Saddam Hussein in power?
Tell them to get their facts right and repeat this:

"Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime . . . but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand"

Full text of Blair's speach to Parliament in Hansard here
Hansard, 25th february 2003: column 124, 5th paragraph
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Blair & BLunkett were consulted over shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy 
Posted by: bedblogger on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 01:29 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Very interesting interview with Lord John Stevens, on Radio 4 Today programe.
It emerged that although the change to the shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy was "only" a Police operational issue, Tony Blair and David Blunkett were involved in the decision to send gung ho armed police on the streets.


It puts a different slant on how the shoot-to-kill-to-protect came to our streets. Here is the transcript of John Humphries and Lord John Stevens (11.45 minutes in on Listen Again):

JH: We did not know the policy had been changed. The politicians apparently did not know the policy had been changed, certainly some politicians did not know the poilicy had been changed.

JS: Well I think some did.

JH: Some did?

JS: Mmm

JH: But it was not discussed in Cabinet. It was not discussed with the MPA, as far as we know.

JS: No, it wasn't discussed with the MPA as it was a change of operational direction really, that's right.

JH: Is that right? Is that how it should have been?

JS: Maybe we should have discussed it, but I think at the end of the day we have to keep some things quiet(his strike) secret about because in fact if people know what we are doing then obviously they can take action to stop it.

JH: So who did...? Well, precisely, that's what democracy is all about - if people are concerned about something then they can do ...

JS: Indeed

John Humphries: Who did know? You knew it was your suggestion. Who did know?

John Stevens: Well there was a Working Party on this...

JH: The Home Sec?

JS: Oh, certain Senior politicians, of course they knew. Yes

JH: So the Home Sec knew, without any question. Tony Blair would have known then, without any question?

JS: Politicians, of course they know and they... these things are discussed because we have to find the right ways of ······dealing with them.

JH: But those specifically, the home sec and PM would have known?

JS: In terms of what the operational decisions, yes indeed.

*


So who else was in the loop? Who was consulted? Who was on the "Working Party and does this form part of the IPPC'c inquiry into Menezes murder?

How can it "only" be a Police operations issue, when the only logical end point of shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy is the death of someone, be they a prospective suicide bomber or an innocent Brazillian electrician going about his day, and thus the killing needs to be "legal" under UK law as it stands?

Blair and Blunkett and those in the Working Party decided to quietly hide this important change of policy from Cabinet, Parliament, the MET Police Authority and the public.

When innocents are killed "by mistake", will only the coppers take any responsability in the courts? Or because the PM and Home secretary kept a policy that was always going to be highly controvertial quiet, not wanting to draw attention to it by drafting new legislation, could this mean they have left themselves wide open to a conspiracy to murder rap?
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Blair is a dictator with a smile: Bedding down nicely! 
Posted by: bedblogger on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 07:43 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.



The repeated mantra Blair spouts in response to almost any question is "we need to spread democracy to defeat evil ideologies and tyranical regimes".
No doubt even when Cherie asks what he wants for tea.

Well he's sodding lying, and after this mornings interview on Today, defending his new anti-terror laws, his removal of universal Human Rights and a lot of other bum fluff, I simply cannot be arsed mincing my words any longer. This guy is fucking dangerous and needs stopping.

Blair's hypocritical take on democracy is shown by his wanting to "engineer" future UK policies, while refusing to address questions on any possible repercussions of this policy. To "bed down" laws. This quaint, seemingly innocuous line means:

I AM ALWAYS RIGHT, WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING I DECIDE AS POLICY.

EVERYTHING I FEEL OR BELIEVE IS RIGHT, IS THE LAW. FACTS ARE FOR PUSSIES.

I BELIEVE INVADING IRAQ - DESPITE BEING WARNED CHAOS WOULD REIGN AND TERRORISM INCREASE GLOBALLY - WAS AND IS THE RIGHT CHOICE.

REMOVING HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE UK IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT TERROR. NO OTHER OPTIONS ARE OPEN.

USING FOREIGN TORTURERS TO DO OUR DIRTY WORK IS GOOD, SO SHUT YOUR WHINING.

DEPORTING PEOPLE WHOSE WORDS I DON'T LIKE INTO THE HANDS OF SUCH TORTURERS IS RIGHT. I HAVE LETTERS SAYING STUFF, BUT WON'T SHOW YOU, SO THERE. THIS COULD BE YOU SOMEDAY.

I FEEL IT IS RIGHT, SO DO RIGHT-MINDED PEOPLE. IF YOU DISAGREE YOU MUST BE AN EVIL-DOER OR AN UNREASONABLE, MENTALLY UNSTABLE WANKER.

THUS I AM MAKING MY POLICIES PERMANENT, IRRIVERSIBLE, UNTOUCHABLE.
NEVER TO BE CHANGED BY FUTURE LEADERS, BE THEY GORDON BROWN OR A DIFFERENT PARTY.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
HAHA HAHA HAHA (fade to silence)


I'm sorry? Say again?

When a future electorate casts its vote for a different party/set of policies because they disagree with New Labour, it will be an ineffective and pointless action because Blair government laws cannot be changed at a later date by voting for alternative representation. A new government will be unable to repeal laws that are morally wrong, as New Labour did in 2000 with Section 28. Nor laws that are hastily written with many problems still to be addressed, such as these terror laws, which the Law Lords say are badly drafted and incompatible with observing the rule of law and respecting fundamental human rights.


This administration doesn't care for facts, just gut feelings of the leader, which will now forever stand enshrined in UK law. The PLP sheep trust the mighty leader's gut implicitly, allowing his every whim, cos if tony says he needs it, he must be right. With no evaluation of efficacy or effect on the country and wider world allowed and no future modification. Just imagine if loony-tunes Margaret Thatcher had given herself such powers? This sea change idea of unassailable permanancy leaves us with a sham of democracy, not a real say in the running of our country.

And Blair has the audacity to PRETEND to be a cheerleader for democracy? He doesn't want democracy in UK to undermine his policies, thus legislates against democracy. He said in May he was listening, changing his deaf ear act after a slapping from the voters. Is this listening???? He needs his ears waxing methinks.


*

PS: There are too many other Blair comments from this interview that are not rational statements, do not make sense, let alone answer very serious questions that any democracy demands. The man is clinically deluded. The Today programme should be embarrassed to have pulled all punches on discussing policy direction because the PM will not be interviewed as other politicians, just tickled a bit.

Both TB and GB refused to be interviewed by John Humphries this week, chooosing the gentle fireside chat approach of James Naughtie. If an interviewee lays down restrictions on how interviews must be conducted in order to agree to the interview, we the listener/viewer deserve to be informed. We were rightly told when Saddam used these tactics to subvert our free media. The same rules should apply in UK. Unless of course we no longer have a free media.

*


PPS: Guess last nights stress management course did not work...
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


It's 'Official': The Great British Public think there is more point to Jade Goody than Tony Blair!? 
Posted by: ringverse on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:35 PM
[Topic:-Blair]
We must take time out to congratulate the Bliar on being voted Britain's 5th most pointless celebrity.

He will be relieved, I am sure that we the British public thought Abi Titmuss, Jordan and the Beckhams more pointless than he.

But that relief will be shortlived, when he realises that he polled more votes than Jade Goody.

He leads the Labour party from opposition to a historic 3rd term, changes the face of British life and politics for ever, and the great british public thinks there is more 'point' to Jade from Big Brother!

1 Victoria Beckham
2 David Beckham
3 Jordan
4 Abi Titmuss
5 Tony Blair
6 Jade Goody
7 The Royal Family
8 Jodie Marsh
9 Anyone from Big Brother
10 Rebecca Loos


Priceless :-)
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Roy Hattersley Wakes Up, and Smells the Coffee... 
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:35 AM
[Topic:-Blair]
It has taken a while for some people to catch up.
But more and more of those few who blithely continue to support the Bliar's integrity while maybe questioning his judgement,
are starting to acknowledge that in fact his integrity is just as irrevocably flawed as his judgement.

Hmmm, is that coffee I smell...
Roy Hattersley
Monday September 5, 2005
The Guardian

The admission of error is never easy - even for someone of a naturally humble disposition. But, having misjudged Tony Blair for years and repeated my misjudgment time after time in this column, honour requires me to confess that I was mistaken about an important aspect of his character. While others accused him of mouthing whatever prejudices reports from focus groups made politically appealing, I argued that he always said what he honestly believed. I was wrong.

Last Friday, after a contrived photo opportunity at the Beechwood Family Centre in Watford - regulation mug of tea in hand - he described one of his aspirations for a better Britain. It was a "historic shift from a criminal justice system which asks: 'how do we protect the accused from the transgressions of the state and police?' to one whose first question is 'How do we protect the majority from the dangerous and irresponsible minority?'"

Could any grown man - with even a smattering of understanding about the real world - genuinely imagine that the criminal justice system is based on the principle that its primary purpose is the protection of suspected criminals against the law? Does the prime minister really believe that an obligation to hamstring the police was the imperative that motivated MPs as they passed successive bills in the last parliament? Was it the hope that guided David Blunkett when he was home secretary? Is it the principle that judges observe when they administer the law, and the aim of every voluntary justice of the peace who sacrifices valuable leisure time in order to sit on the local bench?
Hattersley continues to derride the Bliar for his strategy of 'outflanking' the Conservatives, 'Parking his Tanks on the Tory Lawn', or whatever else you choose to describe it as.

Last Friday's nonsense was just another feature of a tactic that I first witnessed 10 years ago but deluded myself into believing was beneath the prime minister's dignity. It is called "outflanking"...
...Instead, he simply said - clearly believing it to be the killer argument - that the Tories were doing it, so Labour must do it too.


Has Tony gone too far to the right of sensible?
With previous Tory Leaders he was pretty safe, whatever he did.
But have his manouveures taken him so far out to the 'Right', that he could be vulnerable being outflanked himself by an attack from the "Left...!?"

Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page


Blair calls for better parenting 
Posted by: quarsan on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 09:43 AM
[Topic:-Blair]
Story

He will argue bad parenting is not just a private matter for families, and that the state should intervene earlier.

Does this include families whose daughters attempt suicide?
Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page



Blairwatch has now moved!

You are here [the old site] because you have entered via a 'ringverse.f2s.com/' URL.

We now live at:

www.blairwatch.co.uk


and the new RSS feed is located at:

http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/?q=node/feed


Please update any bookmarks, and come over and visit us in our new lodgings.



Fatal error: Call to a member function Execute() on a non-object in /websites/LinuxPackage04/ri/ng/ve/ringverse.f2s.com/public_html/includes/pnSession.php on line 368