Ferals (and not the mainstream press, this time) want to Execute Tony Blair. BY LAW!

  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
  • Comment at end

    Or –

    4th February 2011

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    A quickie –

    You might be interested in this at my new blog –

    Call by Libertarian Alliance for Bill/Act to Execute Tony Blair

    The inspiration for this post?

    The blog of Sean Gabb, the Director of The LA here

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “All countries need a leader who isn’t afraid to fight terrorism. I believe Mr. Blair did a necessary job in helping his allies. Are we all just supposed to lie down and wait for them to come for us, I don’t think so.”

    And – “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the privilege of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”

    AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

    AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is an honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

    13 Responses to “Ferals (and not the mainstream press, this time) want to Execute Tony Blair. BY LAW!”

    1. Mark Gerrard Says:


    2. Mark Gerrard Says:

      Dear Mr Blair

      Since Alfred the Great created the first English Navy anyone governing this country has been charged with defending it – For those in office the quid pro quo of that responsibility is a moral requirement never to put in harms way one single human being unless

      1 – There is a genuine and immediate threat which must be countered whereby the action is justified as by self-defence AND/OR

      2 – Where there is a governing UN resolution authorising the deployment of force thereby legalising the process

      You know this as well as I do –

      Well not only were conditions 1 & 2 (above) not met in the days & weeks that preceded & included the March 2003 intervention in Iraq but the intelligence of the WMD which you suggested all along supposedly posed an imminent threat was of a ‘sporadic’ & ‘patchy’ nature –

      In a nutshell not only was there no immediate threat to these islands there was not even a foreseeable capability of that threat arising – Certainly not from Iraq which we recall at the period immediately prior to March 2003 was being monitored by Hans Blix, the UN blue berets & the country itself paralysed by sanctions.

      These are the reasons that those of us who have lost family members as a direct result demand that in the absence of an indictment against you, you nonetheless fully explain why you chose to put our loved ones ‘in harms way’ in contravention of the advice you were given not only by the Intelligence Service but also by Attorney General Goldsmith.

      …and we shall not rest until you do…

      We owe it to those we have lost…

      As indeed do you Sir.


      Mark Gerrard

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Dear Mr Gerrard,

        Thank you. I suppose I’d better try to respond, since I doubt Mr Blair will. But I am not speaking on his behalf.

        I think we all know the arguments given in your comment. I think many of us also know it is not that simple.

        Clearly when someone like yourself loses a loved one in a war, there are going to be raw emotions. I think we all understand that and empathise. However, there are actually millions of others in this country and worldwide who believe they have reasons to thank Mr Blair. His responsibility was to do what he thought right IN THE BIGGER picture to keep safe ALL of the citizens of this country.

        People who sign up for the forces understand THEIR responsibility.

        As for your quoting the Attorney General, why do you forget that he changed his mind on the legal position? And why do you actually insist that the Intelligence Services gave Blair contravening advice when this s not actually the (full) case? Some did, some didn’t.

        Apart from that, advisers advise, politicians decide. That is why we elect them.

        The simple fact is, Mr Gerrard, that it wouldn’t matter what Mr Blair said in response to your queries. If you don’t get the answers YOU want – an on-his-knees confession that he lied and misled, you’ll never be content.

        A pity to live the rest of your life that way when you should be proud that your relative helped keep freedom alive in the west and bring us the Iraqi democracy that we now have after 30 years of Saddam’s dictatorship.

    3. Mark Gerrard Says:

      Is that Charlie Falconer ?

      You people are so poisoned you can’t see the wood for the trees..

      1. The war was illegal – in at least 9 different ways – list on application

      2. The region was at least contained under Saddam – Now it is a recruitment ground for Al Qaeda & Islamic fundamentalism with added motivational Western hatred

      3. The ends do not justify the means when the means involves subverting the rule of law to the flawed judgement of two men – especially when that involves the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people contrary to law

      4. ‘On the knees’ is insufficient & trivial – This journey will not end & nor can it be allowed to end until justice is meted out UNDER THE LAW

      Althugh I no longer practice I am a Solicitor of the Supreme Court so do not appreciate the paternalistic tone when YOUR judgement is so clearly flawed – the Rule of Law is not to be taken at once & ignored at the next

      – That is what Nazi Germany did to the League of Nations in the 1930s – the failure of that institution was sealed when it failed to repremand Germany for her frequent breaches of conventions treaties & laws

      – the US & the UK acted in an identical manner over Iraq jerrymandering the facts to fit a predetermined version of the politics –

      (Donald Rumsfeld’s admissions yesterday have crystallized that particular point – and will no doubt be factually fleshed out in the upcoming weeks)


      You’ll need to find a few better arguments than bald glib assertion I’m afraid !

      Something I learned at infant school

      Right is right is right – And WRONG is no man’s right – not the US President nor the UK Prime Minister

      So try smelling the (truth) coffee eh ?


      M Gerrard

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Er, no, Mr Gerrard. Not Falconer. Though I confess I have been called a “right Charlie” at times. And perhaps I am. But I don’t think time will prove that.

        If it is SO easy to “prove” that the Iraq invasion war was illegal on so many fronts, why haven’t you and your colleagues managed to twist a few arms and get Tony Blair and the hundreds of other MPs, intelligence people, forces’ leaders etc into court?

        There are various points to deal with in your comment. Hardly worth bothering as our minds will never meet on these matters. But I can’t resist a challenge.

        For instance, as regards the UN, it is pretty much useless in maintaining or bringing peace anywhere. It is the johnny-come-lately of the international community, piling in AFTER the event with its well-meaning and worthy peace-keepers, to pick up pieces. It is well past its sell-by date and needs to be replaced. Have you noticed how lacking in dominance it has been in the Egypt uprisings? Ban ki-moon says certain things (sounding remarkably similar to the things many other “leaders” are saying) but it suggests little new and nothing beforehand in prevention measures.

        The world looks to it as a world watchdog, with power and authority to DO something to prevent wars. In that it has failed and continues to fail.

        It was complicit in ignoring its own warnings and the breaking of its own sanctions on Saddam over 12 years. Some might say it was bailed out of its impotence by the USA and allies over Iraq. Some might say it was shown up for its own incompetence. You’d, probably, say it was ignored. It, presumably, needed another 12 years of being equally ignored by Saddam as he sought to re-build his WMD arsenal.

        Well, imho, the UN’s incompetence certainly was ignored. It needs to go, ASAP, before its Arab section with its own interests (anti-west) – cultural, religious and politcal override those of the moderates in this world.

        But you presumably, are more concerned that we high-minded Brits (whose legal system is more abused by outsiders than that of any other western country) convict one of our own. Tony Blair, from your rationale, is to blame single-handedly, via this narrow line of thought, than those who really DO aim to overturn civilised society as it has developed in the west for hundreds of years.

        The 2009 UN proposal to make criticising religion illegal (well, ISLAM only) has slipped of the radar, for now. But for how long?

        You really need to do a little bit of homework on the hatred of some in the Middle East against the west. It has been long-standing. Centuries-long, not invented as a consequence of the Iraq war. And it was NOT absent or dormant until Blair and Bush and OTHERS went into Iraq. Anjem Choudary, a hateful and hate-filled British-born Islamist has been preaching jihad and worldwide caliphate for the last 30 years.

        Do you ever consider WHY there are plenty of “locals” in Iraq and Afghanisan who are killing their own in order to get you on your high-horse? They do it all the time. Still today. And it works. But people who kill their own children in order to get the soul-searching Brits riled are to be despised or at least recognised as evil. But you only have room in your heart for one “evil”. That is the supposed “evil” of a man who led this country brilliantly, imho, until he was removed by lesser men, who then failed to maintain, or get re-elected, the best-led Labour government in decades. Btw, there have been more deaths in Iraq caused by ‘locals’ and ‘near-locals’, according to recent figures, than by the foreign “invaders”. Not that you will take any notice of that. People with your mindset never do.

        Once people, legally qualified or not, start to understand that it is not as simple as saying “right is right” (presumably your have no interest in helping others attain their “rights”?) we might get some balance into this debate over right and wrong.

    4. Stan Says:

      Excellent answers, KTBFPM (aka Tony Blair, Charlie Falconer, etc. etc.)

      As you say, the US and its allies actually strengthened the United Nations by enforcing resolutions that various countries, for their own national interest reasons, were trying to sabotage.

      I would only add that Saddam did in fact represent a direct threat to this country. His agents were behind a number of plots in the US and no doubt we would have also become a target if those UN resolutions had not been implemented, possibly with biological and chemical weapons involved.

      As Dr Kelly put it in an article written just before the outbreak of hostilities

      “The threat from Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries. Perhaps the real threat from Iraq today comes from covert use of such weapons against troops or by terrorists against civilian targets worldwide. The link with al-Qaeda is disputed, but is, in any case, not the principal terrorist link of concern. Iraq has long trained and supported terrorist activities and is quite capable of initiating such activity using its security services.”

      Thankfully Blair and Bush nipped this possibility in the bud.

    5. Mark Gerrard Says:

      This is the most hysterical form of desperation I have ever encountered & only steels my resolve

      You can both perpetuate Muslim hate if you choose to – But Blair & Bush love ?

      How twisted is that ?

      And such a minority view as to be negligible morally, politically & I contend legally –


      You keep peddling this fantastic benevolence of Bush & Blair – THE WHOLE WOULD KNOWS THE MOTIVATION WAS FOR OIL

      All the way back In 1995 I asked Sir Peter de la Billiere why the first Gulf War did not proceed to Baghdad in order to remove Saddam

      “Because we were NOT authorised to do it” was Sir Peter’s blunt & correct reply –

      …and then a decade later when scrabbling around for a legal basis both Bush & Blair cited the 1990 UN Resolution as if it legitimaised theb whole sordid process !!

      Well ity didn’t authorise invasion in 1991 nor in 1995 nor in 2003 and would not tomorrow either were one so proposed !

      SO Mr FACELESS & MR VOICELESS you can both drop the pathetic double act – You have built no shred of legal defence for either –

      If this is the best you can do to legitimise their barbarity then I wouldn’t fancy your chance persuading the public in the UK, the US or in the Arab world…whose view is at least as important as our own…

      I am through with this discussion now as each position is clear…and yours is no more supportable by fact or legal precedent today as it was on 18 March 2003.

      I look forward to continuing this discussion in a different arena at some future time…


      M Gerrard

      PS – If you intend to address me in any way again then kindly attest & attribute your comments if you believe in them as you say – It is a somewhat unequal playing field to have omnly one side declairing theiur identity – although unequal playing fields are what you despotic apologists thrive on aren’t they ?

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Dear anyone other than Mr Gerrard.

        (you understand – he cannot be addressed personally by people he does not know personally. I suppose it’s so written in his law books.)

        I’m not quite sure how sheltered a life one leads as a solicitor in the Supreme Court, but if Mr Gerrard thinks the comments here in response to his are “the most hysterical form of desperation [he has] ever encountered & only steels [his] resolve”, I’d guess pretty sheltered. I can imagine one or two people within and around the British legal courts system who might be considered “desperate” at times. Here, we are cool, calm and collected.

        Annoying, isn’t it?


        A tongue-in-cheek ‘despostic apologist’.

        (Btw, my sincere apologies to non-Brits who didn’t realise the British legal system had been so badly corrupted. It has been so for years. Count yourselves lucky you haven’t had to watch it, and its friends in the media, attempt to destroy the country from within.)

    6. Mark Gerrard Says:


    7. Mark Gerrard Says:

      To those on Capitol Hill, Downing St or any other bastions of dyed-in-wool-Muslim-hatred hear this – Freedom of speech involves the right for the truth to be heard – so why do you interminably attempt to suppress is it ? It never worked with Stalin & won’t work for you http://www.reverbnation.com/mgctm1 – Back when Napoleon was sent to St Helena in 1815 it was possible to try autocratic despotism so why is it NOW no longer possible to do so in 2011 ?? – the truth will out Blair & Bush whatever you do, whoever you employ, whatsoever jury you may try to rig…

      Its just soooo tiresome that you keep trying…but then what else can you both do to repair such tarnished-beyond-repair legacies ?

    8. Mark Gerrard Says:

      Just one measure of how times have changed: When John Profumo was caught out misleading/lying (please strike out as appropriate) to Parliament in 1963 he resigned AND apologised…the mark of a penitent & honourable man I’d say…

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        The mark of that era, some might say.

        On the other hand – Profumo “penitent and honourable”. I’m sure he was personally but that was not the reason he was “resigned”.

        Others, with longer memories, might recall that Profumo resigned because of the unravelling of the situation in the court case concerning the prostitute Christine Keeler. This brought him down due to earlier statements he had made denying an affair. He could do no other than resign, given his position as “War Secretary”, and her contemporaneous realtionship with Yevgeny “Eugene” Ivanov, a senior naval attaché at the Soviet embassy in London.

        The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Russian spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.

        Since then standards of probity in private and public life have clearly moved on. Some might say moved backwards. And since then there have been one or two others, who have been illiberal with the verity. Or have cheated, bribed and/or lied to a court of law. Two Conservative MPs come to mind, later imprisoned. And recently a former Labour MP, probably more to come, as their cases are heard over the expenses business.

        So hardly a high example of honour, in every way, Profumo, though one has to feel sorry for him in a personal way.

        Of course your narrowness of mind or certainty of all the facts pertaining, probably both, means that you consider Blair to be “dishonourable”, by extension of your opinion that he “lied”.

        ‘fraid a lot of us don’t agree with you on that.

    Leave a Reply

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

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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