Stan Rosenthal, a moderate voice of NON-pre-Judgement of Blair has to PAY to be heard

  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. A recent sig comment: “Blair was an outstanding prime minister doing his job very well. One of his jobs was to take decisions like going to war.”
  • Comment at end

    2nd February, 2010

    With thanks for much of the below from Julie’s here. Thanks, J. Love will prevail, not hate.



    A Moderate, non-judgemental Voice paid for a full page advertisement in the current New Statesman in order to remind supposed liberal-minded Britain of one of their favourite maxims. A maxim favoured when applied to such as terror suspects, even those caught red-handed – ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

    For when it comes to Tony Blair – ah well that’s different, isn’t it? We ALL KNOW, don’t we?

    Er… no, we don’t.

    This moderate voice – Stan Rosenthal – felt that the pro-Blair and pro-Iraq war message had been so submerged in all the “war criminal” bluster and lies that he felt compelled to PAY to get this “innocent until..” message across in Britain’s press. This is a DISGRACEFUL SITUATION and the British Press should hang their hands in shame. The press in Britain were ALL sent the information by press release on the Ban Blair-Baiting petition when it was launched several months ago.

    You may have noticed that my heading at this blog also describes this atrocious brainwashed situation: “Innocent Until Proven Tony Blair”.

    Now, let’s see if a mainstream daily runs with this petition or the FACT of press bias against Tony Blair and the Iraq war or even thinks to analyse the positive reasons for the war. They may even realise that there have been many, many improvements in Iraq and many people there who regard Tony Blair as a hero. But, don’t hold your breath.

    By Julie

    In this week’s New Statesman you find a full-page advertisement of the Ban-Blair-Baiting petition on which I blogged here. Stan Rosenthal, the owner of the petition (with whom you can get in touch via email, in case you are interested in giving support:, was invited to write a short column and explain why he felt it was necessary to launch an attack on the atrocious and scandalous hate speech against Tony Blair.



    Why I placed that Ban Blair-Baiting ad

    Posted by Stan Rosenthal – 01 February 2010 18:24

    The hate-speech directed at Blair must be countered

    “Bliar is a war criminal and should be tried and executed – let’s bring back castration, disembowelling, hanging, and quartering since he is also a traitor.”

    This is a more extreme example of the sort of hate-speech being incessantly directed at our former Prime Minister which prompted a group of concerned citizens to set up the online petition related to this week’s New Statesman ad. Our other worry was that the media would be cherry-picking, distorting and exaggerating anything said at the Iraq inquiry which appeared to undermine the case for war and therefore Tony Blair’s reputation.

    And so it has proved to be. Here’s a graphic case in point from the BBC’s supposedly impartial coverage of Blair’s inquiry appearance. In the morning coffee break the commentator, against a backdrop of hostile anti-Blair banners and placards, blithely referred to previous testimony “that a deal (about regime change) had been signed in blood”.

    In fact the witness in question, Sir Christopher Meyer, had merely explained that he wasn’t in on the meeting so he couldn’t say whether a deal was “signed in blood”. Last week’s Observer twisted his words in the same way. I could have provided many instances of such biased reporting had there been more space for this post.

    I have looked in vain for mainstream media comment setting the record straight on this vital matter. That is why I felt compelled to take out that advert as the only way of getting the message across.

    Surely there is something badly wrong with our principal channels of communication if the reporting of such an important topic can be so slanted in one direction that those with another perspective have to resort to paid advertising to make their views known.

    It has to be put right soon if we are to have a functional democracy in this country.

    Signing the petition would be a first step.


    SIGN THE PETITION (Sorry to shout. But that seems to be the ONLY way the moderate voice is heard.)

    Telegraph: Hanging crowd bays for blood as Blair faces his inquisitors, but the lynch mob “hadn’t landed a glove on him”


    01 February 2010 at 20:52
    (Yes, there are more than one of us.) Well done Stan Rosenthal for your perseverance, dedication and commitment to a fair hearing for Mr Blair in spite of the forces of the entire British media raged, seemingly, against you. For we need to understand that it is not only Tony Blair that they rage against but fair political play of any sort. The fact that not one mainstream paper has given this Ban Blair-Baiting petition (or the unfairness that inspired its conception) any headline coverage is testimony to the lack of balance within the all-pervasive news media. Only John Rentoul, well-known as a believer in Mr Blair has been supportive at his Independent blog. In a rash moment Quentin Letts gave the petition a mention in the Daily ‘Maul’. But as Mr Rosenthal says it indicates something is amiss when Blair supporters have to pay for an ADVERT to hear the WHOLE story rather than just the twisted, cherry-picked reporting and opining around Mr Blair and his words and/or actions.
    Right now, Tony Blair could, and in my opinion, should still be this country’s prime minister. But he isn’t. So, if there had been any fear about his being able to run the country while under scrutiny for this “war crimes” charge, that fear should have died when he left Downing Street. It didn’t. There is another agenda at play, imho. Or rather strange bedfellows combining around one temporary agenda item.
    Despite hardly commenting at all on British politics since June 2007 Tony Blair is still portrayed as the “evil without equal”. It is atrocious, shameful behaviour.
    For the record I have saved in my files many examples of online threats and bloody descriptions of the hoped-for death of Mr Blair. Mr Rosenthal’s references are correct. I have even been told that he should be strangled with MY intestines.
    It has come to something too, when the whole debate on Iraq has been narrowed to this – WMDs/lies/dossiers/legality/relationship with USA. On such self-judgement the naive west will implode. The whole question of peace in the Middle East is and always was far wider than this, influenced by economic balance, historic power, complex inter-relationships and trade as well as today’s various threats. The sooner we can face up to those complexities and stop thinking that the whole world is a liberal democrat love-in if only given the chance, the better.
    The only western leader who understood and could cope with this is lost to us. And we still hold him to blame for causing it in the first place. The naivety is astounding.

    John Rentoul: Staggering hypocrisy


    And if you think we Blair supporters are exaggerating the personally threatening behaviour towards Mr Blair by the ignorant, rabid crowd read this YouTube title, watch the video and try to work out HOW or WHY this individual  – NRKNOWS (NOTHING) – concludes that Mr Blair, not, it seems, Saddam, is the war criminal.

    war criminal Blair chilcot enquiry part1

    Speil from the YouTube uploader, NrKnow (Nothing):

    “chilcot enquiry pantomime.In reality this evil piece of sh1t..vile excuse for a human being should be stoned to death.But he wont for obvious reasons .”

    Clare Short idiot “lied”

    Clare Short. With political sense like her fashion sense.

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    2 Responses to “Stan Rosenthal, a moderate voice of NON-pre-Judgement of Blair has to PAY to be heard”

    1. BBC apologises for its anti-Blair bias (and sexing up the ‘evidence’). Is this a first? « Tony Blair Says:

      […] My earlier post on ‘Stan Rosenthal, a moderate voice of NON-pre-Judgement of Blair has to PAY … […]

    2. BBC’s sneering Paxman carpeted as “partial” by Helen Boaden, via Stan Rosenthal « The Feral Press Says:

      […] 3. In February 2010 I wrote about the fact that Stan Rosenthal had paid out of his own pocket for the ‘no, Blair is NOT a war criminal’ argument to be seen and read – Stan Rosenthal, a moderate voice of NON-pre-Judgement of Blair has to PAY to be heard […]

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s