22nd January, 2014
There are no words sufficiently spitoutable to describe my utter disdain for such as the aptly named
tweep twit ‘Ghoulian Assange’ (similarities to any ghouls living or dead are not purely coincidental). His Twitter ID link is Twiggy Garcia. The offending article is here.
My outrage at this continuing nonsense and blatant disregard and/or ignorance of the law has awakened me from my hibernation if only for a short time, some will be pleased to note. Mr Blair may well laugh off this kind of puerile, unlawful nonsense but I don’t. Whenever I have time or am so moved I will continue to stand against the consequences of the brainwashing of the anti-warriors by those with a similarly careless ‘do nothing about murderous foreign dictators’ agenda. They and their public platforms spouting such “thinking” need to be brought to task.
WHY DO SUCH AS THIS MAN DESERVE THE CONTEMPT OF ALL BALANCED PEOPLE?
Well, where do I start? It’s not just that a “citizen’s arrest” (see here for the real meaning and compare it with Garcia’s fantasy version) when it comes to such as our former great Prime Minister is little more than a cash-gathering publicity stunt or that the would-be civil-and-uprightists are too ill-educated, self-centred and frankly self-obsessed to realise that. It’s far simpler than that. Or, if you are a gatherer of the Moonbat shilling, it’s too, too complicated. So let’s try to meet in the middle with just one of the FACTS:
Tony Blair’s so-called “crime” is NOT an indictable offence. Did you get that, cheerleaders at the bloodsport of getblair under the ill-principled management of such as Garcia, Monbiot & Galloway? If not, let me explain -
A CITIZEN’S ARREST IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHERE AN INDICTABLE OFFENCE IS UNQUESTIONABLE, ENCOMPASSING THESE PROVISOS:
- Anyone who is in the act of committing an offence, or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be in the act of committing an offence, or
- Where an offence has been committed, anyone who is guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it
In order for the arrest to be lawful, the following conditions and sub-conditions must also be satisfied: (My bolding & underlining)
1. It appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead
2. The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following:
The person causing physical injury to himself or others
The person suffering physical injury
The person causing loss of or damage to property
The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him (more here)
NONE of those conditions applied. Not one, far less all of them. In other words Garcia did NOT and never could have put Tony Blair under arrest. He uttered the words as described by other moonbats, true, but he did not “accompany” Mr Blair to a Police station or into the waiting handcuffs of a London copper. He did NOT. Instead he ran off before the “shit” could get to him. Twiggy Garcia failed and his failure is writ large even in his own report. None of these facts matter one iota to the Blair haters. Their determinedly wrong-headed and misleading blindness as regards Mr Blair, Iraq and the law (nationally and internationally) means that they’d persuade themselves that black is white if it helped their cause.
In actual fact the only one to have committed an offence in Tramshed last Friday was Twiggy Garcia. For the very act of laying a hand on Tony Blair he could have been charged with common assault.
But now we have this, from George Monbiot’s Arrest Blair site: “His [Garcia's] arrest attempt was reported more widely than any other there has been so far: throughout the British media and across the world. Twiggy will receive £2222.55” (Moonbat’s bolding)
Got it? Tweet all over numptyland your ignorance of reality, politics and the law and Moonbat will slip you a few thousand.
Time permitting I have a lot more to say on this “Blair is a war criminal” nonsense. The last word here goes to Matthew d’Ancona: “Who interrupts the appeaser’s meal?”. Quite so. A question to which the answer is no-one. (Twitter d’Ancona)