Posts Tagged ‘war criminal’

Arresting Times? Arrest the ignorant know-alls

January 22, 2014

22nd January, 2014

My twitter account

Click to tweet this post

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.

Twiggy Garcia-crop7

Realising he was incapable of intellectual grasp, Twiggy Garcia ungrasped the former Prime Minister and scarpered “sharpish” (as he put it) before the Police (or “shit”, as he described them) grasped HIM!

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.


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 permitted to be made on any person under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an indictable offence … It is thus permissible for any person to arrest:

  • 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)



Video: Regime Change? Libya c/w Iraq c/w Kosovo

March 29, 2011
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • New blog – The Feral Press
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
  • Comment at end

    Or –

    29th March 2011

    I thought I’d experiment with the video-maker used at the “Obama Is Awesome” video.  Now it’s clear how it looks when complete. Hmmm…

    You don’t get the full picture (with gestures etc) until it’s published. I’ll do a better job next time.  Anyway, take a look. You might even want to make your own.

    I won’t be transcribing this, you’ll be pleased to know.  As no doubt will the commenters at the blog of my fellow Blairite John Rentoul.  We repeat this kind of thing often enough here and over at his end of the Forth Bridge. (Grateful thanks to Guido Fawkes for this analogy.  You’re right, Guido. I have to admit it. You’re absolutely right. And you won’t catch me saying that to you every day.)

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

    The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
    Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

    Ignore this, please: Blair Supporter’s Thoughts on TB’s 2nd appearance at the Iraq Inquiry

    January 24, 2011
  • 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 –

    24th January 2011

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    What? You mean you’re actually reading this stuff? All this self-Blair-serving nonsense? I suppose you’re sharp enough to see past the bias, lies and agenda. Impeccably trained by our press, literati and intelligentsia you are well up to picking out the juicy bits and running with them? But of course.

    As if, eh?

    Big Ben, at 8:40am, Friday 21st January 2011


    So here’s my take on the day, for what it’s worth.

    (Apologies for the quality of some of the pictures)

    When I emerged from the Tube at Westminster ready for the Inquiry I realised I’d forgotten my watch. What time was it? It didn’t take long to find out.

    I had plenty of time to walk the few hundred yards to the QEII Conference Centre. Looking at some of the architecture of our ancient capital I was once more astounded by its beauty, as I always am.  A conversation about this and British culture itself followed later in a sanity break when I met a man who said he used to be a Lib Dem, but was no more.  He told me that Blair’s Britain was now a far better place than it had been before he took over as PM in 1997.

    A picture I took of the Palace of Westminster, Houses of Parliament, 21st January 2011. Elegant still, but a far poorer place without Tony Blair.


    As I approached the QEII Conference Centre I expected to hear the usual suspects yelling the usual lies.


    I wondered for a moment if they’d forgotten. How COULD they. Here was the “greatest war criminal” of the century – yes, I know it’s only started, but hang about a bit, Blair’ll be the worst, sorry … greatest!

    The so-called WC was in the QEII Centre already, beating his enemies for early rising, and they were still lying in bed!  Fair enough. They lie everywhere else. But how could they let the side down?

    A few dozen protesters gathered outside the QEII Centre. Dedicated to the cause of giving themselves laryngitis and the rest of us a pain in the neck

    They were in fact there,  if you looked hard enough.

    Corralled in their multitudes on the pavement behind a fence to the left of the Centre, this time there were far fewer of them. I guessed somewhere between 40 and 50. At best, as the day progressed and they started to wake up, perhaps a quarter or a third of last year’s couple of hundred. They soon let us hear their megaphoned voices of moral rectitude, international law, right and justice, lies and all the usual righteous wrongness.


    Back to the important business: Mr Blair’s evidence.


    [As an aside to this, there is a BIG QUESTION. No, not that one. That’s a stupid question, and proved so in the debate today. The Big Question I refer to has a BIG ANSWER too.

    The big question is just how a former Prime Minister of this country, who, in the opinion of many at home and abroad served his country with unusual distinction, inspired dedication and determined commitment for a decade, finds himself standing so low (allegedly) in the court of public opinion.

    Some time ago, before the Chilcot Inquiry started, as the present hounding of Tony Blair moved into top gear,  I described the process as ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’. I blogged on that concept regularly (list here)

    Nothing that has happened since then makes me feel that his hounding and ‘trialing’ has actually eased up. If anything it is getting worse. And its proponents, who mostly deserve sidelining as misguided, embittered or hypocritical are even seen as entirely balanced and reasonable people. Their demands for a war crimes trial are now demands to which the BBC has given air-time, and therefore credibility.

    Bit by eventual bit, the idea takes root that Tony Blair is the great Houdini of our times. The Pimpernel. We know he exists, but – now we see him, now we don’t. And we know he did something (wrong), but Houdini-Pimpernel is invariably off before we can hold him to account.

    The pre-judgement on Blair over Iraq is ‘guilty as charged’. The pre-judging is largely if not wholly press-inspired and liberal intelligentsia-led.

    No matter how ignorant, misguided, misled or simply wrong that “public opinion”, the willing gullible swallow it. We are led to believe that this man, our former great and good prime minister, was as bad as –  no, worse than Saddam Hussein.

    So the BIG ANSWER to the Big Question is  – the press. How else do we know anything about anything? More on this at a new blog which I intend to start soon.]



    Tony Blair, the man some say "doesn't care" arrives in contemplative demeanour at the Chilcot Inquiry, 21st Jan 2011

    Last year Mr Blair came in through a back entrance, even though he arrived just after 7:00am. This year, arriving just before 8:00am, he came through the front door.

    I know these little things can sound inconsequential. They’re not.  He was there and no doubt reading through his notes when I arrived before 9am.  And outside the yellers yelled and the placards waved.


    In my opinion, and that is all I have – like the rest of us – an opinion, Tony Blair did very well.


    He didn’t seem at all nervous, as some said he seemed at the start last time. For what it’s worth I didn’t think he seemed all that nervous last time either. I was also there then [See “I was a witness”]. But let’s get this one clear: he was nervous.  Inside, if he didn’t show it. Who wouldn’t be?

    I have read his memoirs and was surprised at how “scared ” he admits to having been on several occasions throughout his life as a barrister and as a politician.  In his last PMQs speech to parliament he said, memorably, of Prime Minister’s Questions – “From first to last I always feared it”.  This is not a man detached from normal human emotions.  Not some ham actor playing a pleasant part, while in reality an inhuman monstrosity. Nor is he someone who at the behest or under the influence of A N Other became an unfeeling monster after 9/11, hardening still as his embattled leadership continued and eventually waned.

    We really need to get a grip on this tendency to puerile fantasy.

    I noticed he spoke rather quickly at the start of his evidence session. I put this down to his being ready to get on with it, though nerves may well have been part of it.  But he was ready for it, and never crumbled under questioning.

    This session had no lunch break, but there were two ten-minute breaks only. It ended at exactly 2:00pm, as scheduled.

    At a 10 minute break in the proceedings Tony Blair seemed to be in no rush to get off for a comfort break or a coffee.

    Same as last time I only got a ticket for the Additional Hearing Room, a 5th Floor room, smaller than last time.  Some might say “why bother to go”. You can see it all on TV anyway.

    But you need to be there, in the vicinity, to get the full atmosphere.  I was glad I went, not least because I met other Blair supporters, one of whom, a pint-sized young lady, took on a chanting placard waver and “Tony Blair War Criminal” stuck needler with – “He’s not a War Criminal”.

    I missed this as I was inside at the time. But good on her.

    Various groups of protesters with varying causes. United on the day in the cause of getting "Tony Blair War Criminal" to The Hague

    These chanters and wavers of various assorted interests need to be held to account for spreading their LIES as truths.

    And we Blair supporters are the only ones willing to make them accountable. The press won’t. Unlike their treatment of Blair, the press seldom question their positions. They fail to even investigate their political roots and their various groups’ membership.

    I also met members of bereaved families. Their anger is easier to understand and accept. However I do not believe that their anger is shared by all family members of deceased soldiers. In fact I KNOW that anger isn’t shared by all of them.

    You may notice something here at the biased BBC’s report on the death of the 100th solder in Iraq, January 2006.  The BBC article does not mention anything about “a disgrace” from the proud parents of the soldier whose death headlines the article. But they still manage to criticise Blair by using the unhappy comment of a mother who DID complain about her son’s death, the 99th, as it happened a day earlier.

    The Additional Viewing Room had probably less than 100 people present. Last year there were four or five times that number. Take from that what you will.

    As to the questioning by Chilcot’s panel and Mr Blair’s answers, and my own reservations, including unanswered queries to the Inquiry itself, there is more to say.

    To be continued …

    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

    Cherie’s eBay bookplate & the dimwitted, freedom-hating British

    October 26, 2010

    Comment at end

    26th October 2010

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    [My words in this post are in grey, to differentiate them from The Sun’s (in black and red)]

    A couple of interesting items in today’s news regarding The Man.  One, that he may be recalled to the Iraq Inquiry; two, that his wife Cherie sold a bookplate on e-Bay.

    In the good ol’ British way of getting things a*se backwards, I’ll start at the end. That way Sun readers will realise I know what I’m talking about.

    ‘TONY Blair’s wife Cherie flogged the ex-PM’s autograph for �10 on eBay, The Sun can reveal’

    At the top, there’s also this –
    Got a story? We pay £££ Call: 0207 782 4100 – Email:
    ‘Exclusives’ don’t just fall in their laps free, y’know.

    Number Tenner Downing St ... Cherie and Tony

    Titled “Cheri-ebay”, the “exclusive” by Nick Parker has this subtitle:

    Mega-rich barrister Cherie, 56, advertised a signed “bookplate” page which fits copies of Mr Blair’s autobiography A Journey.

    I am using the Sun’s whole article here below, pasted as is. I DO hope they won’t sue me. They won’t get much – anything, if they do.

    From The Sun:

    It was originally offered for �25 on the web auction site but sold for a tenner on an account registered to the former first lady at the Blairs’ �3.7million London pile.

    For a few quid more ... Mr Blair's distinctive signature on Cherie's ad

    The SUN’s caption to the above screenshot: ‘For a few quid more … Mr Blair’s distinctive signature on Cherie’s ad’

    FIRST OF ALL – WHY I CONTEND MY FELLOW BRITS ARE DIM (“freedom-hating” later)

    Reading the comments at The Sun – OK, I know, it’s The Sun – one is forced to the depressing conclusion that one has to be a half-wit to be British.

    The news that Cherie Blair sold a bookplate with her husband’s signature on it has the usual suspects squealing “greed” cries. Not ONE of the dullards seems to have noticed that she REFUNDED the ten pounds! Not ONE! The buyer got it FREE.

    You might expect that the grateful buyer would wish to highlight this little fact OR that the press in their usual hunt-the-truth manner would be likely to look at the WHOLE picture and not just the part they have twisted into a nonsensical “greedy Blairs” story.

    Not on your life.

    The point of Cherie’s give-away (btw, she hardly needs a £10 sale … minus eBay’s charges) is seemingly lost on these commenters. Well, it isn’t on me.

    Her point is simple.


    There are, in case you don’t know, plenty of people right now trying to sell for a profit signed copies of Blair’s “A Journey”.

    I used capitals and bolding above purposely. Otherwise the dim just won’t get it. They still probably won’t.

    Police officers restrain protesters outside a bookshop in Dublin, Ireland September 4, 2010. Three people were arrested when protesters threw eggs and shoes at former British Prime Minister Tony Blair when he arrived to sign copies of his memoir at a bookshop in Dublin on Saturday, national broadcaster RTE said. REUTERS/David Moir (IRELAND - Tags: CIVIL UNREST POLITICS SOCIETY)

    I wrote about Tony Blair’s cancelled Waterstone’s book-signing farrago here, and here. With reference to the latter post my observation is this:

    when those who purport to uphold liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of association for ALL, and as at Open Democracy still argue with mealy mouths against both for Tony Blair and his admirers, we know this country is deep in the smelly stuff.

    Alone, of authors in this country, the author of ‘A Journey’ is literally and de facto NOT FREE  to sign copies of his own book without costing the taxpayer thousands to protect him and the public from rentamob.

    Alone, of politicians in this country, this politician is unable to hold an open meeting without the need to fight off puerile know-all “arresters” or even the harsher threats of some so-called anti-war people intent on delivering so-called justice.

    Back to The SUN. So, what’s “bizarre” about this?


    The SUN: Part-time judge Cherie last night admitted hawking her husband’s moniker – but offered a bizarre explanation about why she did it.

    Her spokesman said: “Cherie Blair was cross that people were selling Tony Blair’s signature when you can get one for free.”

    Except that you can’t get one free. Why? You should be able to get his signature free. He is perfectly willing to sign copies of his book with no charge for the signature, of course, but …

    Tony Blair has been prevented by security and cost concerns regarding anti-war protestors, so-called civil-righters, so-called freedom-fighters, anarchists, anti-America/anti-west/anti-Israel juvenile-brained ”thinkers” from appearing ANYWHERE in public in Britain. This situation is an utter disgrace and has been largely ignored by our freedom-loving press.

    Close up ... ex-PM's autograph

    Back to The SUN – ‘Close up … ex-PM’s autograph’
    Now, let me highlight the next sentence:

    “She was trying to undermine the market and as soon as someone bought it, she refunded it straight away to make the point.”

    But the strange sale looked certain to spark huge embarrassment for the Blairs – who are regularly accused of cashing in on the ex-PM’s high office. It will also further call into question Cherie’s wisdom and ability to sit in judgment at trials.

    Curious eBay browsers had no idea Cherie was involved in the sale as no name was provided with her ad.

    The SUN knows that names are seldom provided with eBay ads. Only signature IDs are required.

    The SUN:

    But regular web trader Paul Hurworth’s jaw dropped as he twigged the identity behind the account number.

    He sold a silver butter knife and glass dish to the account for �24.99 a year ago. And his records showed it was registered to Cherie at the Blair family’s main London residence.

    Does anyone else see any breaking of eBay’s codes of behaviour in Mr Hurworth giving out this information so freely about another eBay account holder? Selling his story to THE SUN?  Of course not.

    (More of the hypocrisy of the “freedom-hating” later.)

    The Sun:

    Antiques dealer Paul, of Pickering, North Yorks, said: “I realised who I’d been dealing with last year and kept an eye on the account out of curiosity. But I was astonished when I saw the Blair signature on Cherie’s site.

    “It was first on offer for �25 but when there were no takers it was reduced to �20, then finally a tenner.”

    Paul, 35, added: “The normal fear is making sure the item is genuine.

    Story ... Mr Blair's book

    The SUN, continued … with this caption – ‘Story … Mr Blair’s book’

    “But there’s obviously no problem in this case.

    “It seems odd she would do something like this to try to get some point across. Why would she keep reducing the price if she wasn’t trying to sell it? No matter how you look at it, it’s an embarrassing thing to do for a tenner when you’re worth millions.”

    Quite: “Why would she etc..”? Because it was NOT about the money dumbasses!

    The SUN:

    Cherie’s pitch featured a photo of Mr Blair’s signature above the words: “This bookplate has been signed by the former Prime Minister.” It added: “This item fits perfectly in to Tony Blair’s new book. This is a hand-signed book plate and not a [sic] autopen or copy.”

    It was unclear last night whether Mr Blair, now a Middle East peace envoy, was aware of the sale.

    Since leaving No10 in 2007, he is estimated to have made �25million from lectures and consultancy deals. The Blairs have also amassed property worth �15million, including FOUR houses in London and a country estate in Buckinghamshire.

    But Cherie often uses eBay. Her purchases include Lego and salt and pepper shakers.


    So, point made by Nick Parker, the writer of this stuff: the greedy Blairs. The reality and complexity (simplicity, in actual fact) of this whole “deal” was not clearly focussed or emphasised. The return of the money did not register with the readers. Job done, Mr Parker.

    This article was little more than a quick reminder that the Blairs are worth millions. The word “FOUR” was Nick Parker’s bolding, not mine. That’s the touchwire that lights the fuse of ugly envy, dislike and distrust that the name of Blair ignites. It’s beyond the average Sun reader to work out that ten pounds is worth zilch to Mr and Mrs Blair. It is beyond the senseless dimwitted that Cherie Blair did not sell the item to raise a tenner.

    Even this sentence accuses Cherie, in order to further make sure that people miss HER point:

    “She was trying to undermine the market and as soon as someone bought it, she refunded it straight away to make the point.”

    The real point is that after more than three years out of Downing Street her husband still needs a huge security detail in order to do what most of us take for granted – go outside his own front door.

    THAT is shameful. Its effects rebound on his private life and in particular on his family life. It should be stopped immediately and the law of harassment should be used against those who somehow think they are above the law.

    If Cherie Blair, as an eBay user, had sent the press details of the buyer who ‘bought’ this bookplate, stating or even NOT stating that she had refunded the money to him, what do you think the press would be doing?

    I’ll tell you: they’d be all over her for betraying his confidentiality.  She wouldn’t have any praise for giving the bookplate away.

    But for her, in the same situation thanks to Mr Paul Hurworth, no-one is questioning any abuse of HER rights as a private citizen.

    Antiques dealer Paul Hurworth of Pickering, North Yorks should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. A complaint to eBay might be in the offing.

    The whole article stinks.



    It’s part and parcel of all the above.


    Click for the Ban Blair-Baiting petition

    The literati and the liberal ‘intelligentsia’ who dominate the British press selfishly, yes SELFISHLY, don their “we care” t-shirts while snarling like bloodthirsty dogs at the throat of Tony Blair for what they consider British loss of civil rights. They throw in such unproven yet tasty and descriptive phrases as “liar”, “Yankee poodle” and “war criminal” just for the flavour. Then they stand back and watch while the gullible swallow it all, chew it over, regurgitate it and spit out the cud.

    It never once crosses these little minds that only since we had Tony Blair as Prime Minister did we have Freedom of Information (and I am not at all surprised he regrets this), the Human Rights Act (if he doesn’t regret this, perhaps he should) and devolution of powers away from London to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But, of course it DOES cross their little minds. It just doesn’t serve their purposes to remind us of them. ANY of them.

    That is not freedom and it is not impartial. It is partial in the extreme and is thus a betrayal of all that these civil and human righters say they believe in.

    Paul Richards at Labour List had a good old go at defending Tony Blair’s freedom of association and criticising those who attacked it after the cancelled Waterstone’s book signing. But a glance at most of his commenters shows you just what an issue understanding REAL freedom is even for many in Labour when a politician’s decisions conflict with their opinions. THEY KNOW, by instinct or by their amazing ability to get inside Mr Blair’s head exactly WHY he cancelled his London book-signing  – and it had nothing to do with concern over anyone else or anything else.

    Honestly, I despair. I DO. Really, I do.

    In 1997 (yes, I know what you’re thinking, but you’re wrong – it was only 1997 – he wasn’t a ‘war criminal’ then) the Protection from Harassment Act became law. By rights people who constantly strive to make Tony Blair’s life hell should be arrested, charged with such harassment under this law and locked up if and when found guilty UNDER THE LAW.

    They would be so arrested and charged if they were harassing you or me in this way.

    But since the assumption is that it’s only Tony Blair at the receiving end of this torrent of vitriol and virtual internal exile the perpetrators are completely ignored. Their robbing of one man’s integrity and freedom (and therefore OUR freedom) to meet in a public place is by-passed by the insane and hypocritical ‘liberal’ civil/human righters. The fact that no one is ever charged with anything over what I consider unforgivable robbing of individuals’ civil and human rights lends credence to the widespread acceptance that politicians, even when retired from domestic politics, have no rights. They have no human rights afforded to the rest of us including the right to be free from harassment. Especially so if the papers say that a lot of us don’t agree with them and/or don’t happen to like them. Utterly unbelievable, hypocritical, freedom-hating nonsense.

    As for those of us who do NOT pre-judge malevolently Mr Blair (on Iraq or any other issue) we can all like it or lump it.

    I do realise that this attitude has gone too far for anything I say about the universality of real freedom to make a difference. Today’s zeitgeist is that politicians like Blair can escape and have escaped due process under the law because of friends in high places or a corrupt system, probably both.  So, it concludes, said politicians must suffer the lack of free association in public without threat or hindrance.  If this state of affairs continues to their dying day, who CARES?


    It is disgraceful that we should swallow this situation without complaint. Especially when we Brits complain unreservedly about plenty of other things.

    Open Democracy and its ilk are more concerned, FAR more concerned about the “torture” of non-British resident Binyam Mohamed than they are about the freedom of a former British prime minister to walk untrammelled in his own land. In the same untrammelled freedom that his period in office left the rest of us.

    And another thing – if Cherie Blair as an eBay user had sent the press personal details of the buyer who bought this bookplate, stating or even NOT stating that she had refunded the money to him, what do you think the press would be doing?

    I’ll tell you: they’d be all over her for betraying his confidentiality. But for her, in the same situation now thanks to Mr Paul Hurworth no-one is questioning any abuse of HER rights as a private citizen.

    Btw, isn’t it interesting that the Latin description for ‘bookplate’ is ex-librīs [Latin, “from the books of…”]

    Sounds remarkably like – ‘once free‘.


    1. Cherie’s eBay “sale” also reported here at One India. And here where this report doesn’t even realise that the buyer was NOT surprised that Cherie Blair was the seller. He admits to having kept tabs on her account for some time. Nor does this story mention that Mr Hurworth SOLD his story to The Sun. Nor that the buyer did NOT make any issue of the fact he actually got his win for FREE.

    Apart from that, it’s all true.

    2. The Telegraph, which not being of the LEFT, doesn’t hate the Blairs as much as do some other papers, also tells that on eBay Cherie has sold a watch given to Tony from Berlusconi. Why not? He paid for it on leaving Downing Street, as is required of all retiring PMs, even though it was given to him as a gift. What? You don’t get it?  That’s British fair play for you – clean noses and all that stuff.  We can’t be seen to profit from gifts. So Cherie sold it at a loss, less than a third of its value.


    Visit Cherie Blair’s website here



    Oh, yes. It seems Tony Blair may be recalled to provide evidence to the Iraq Inquiry. “May” being the operative word.   The Guardian says he will and they even KNOW why! OOOOOH!!!

    Of course The Guardian has been known to get one or two things wrong, from time to time. In this article the caption to their picture has the wrong month.

    Tony Blair at the Chilcot Iraq inquiry
    Tony Blair gives evidence to the Chilcot inquiry on the Iraq war in February. Photograph: PA

    Mr Blair did NOT give his evidence in February, but in January, as my ticket below shows. On little details like that people’s lives and freedom depend, Guardianistos.

    But, if he is recalled, and such a request has not been confirmed by the Chilcot Inquiry office, and if it’s in public, that’ll be another opportunity for the odd 100-odd to dust off their placards as they did in January when I was fortunate enough to have had a ticket to attend. My report of Mr Blair’s six hours long evidence session is here

    Other posts concerning his January appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry –

    Mr Blair gave a good account of himself and his decisions at the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry. For those with ears to listen.

    Pushkin (Russia), Catherine Palace, British Pr...

    Image via Wikipedia




    1. Saddam’s former Deputy Prime Minister – (Christian) Tariq Aziz sentenced to death in an Iraqi court today. (See video at The Telegraph.)  Personally I do not agree with the death penalty, except for child rapists and murderers. I’m strange in that way.  But many civil and human righters will scream that it is the west who have condemned this man to die.

    2. Robert Fisk fisking it again. Here, as Muslims attack Christians and chase them out of the Middle East, guess whose fault Fisk suggests it is?

    3. Great fun this. Reporting on Lauren Booth’s amazing conversion, regression, sorry, reversion to Islam Monsters and Critics, has this:

    In a comment on Booth’s conversion, one entry on a Muslim internet forum, published by the Daily Mail, read: ‘Now a war criminal has an innocent sister in law! God bless her!’


    4. The Daily Mail has a very fair and balanced article by Eve Ahmed, who was brought up as Muslim, but abandoned Islam at aged 18, asking “Why are so many modern British career woman converting to Islam?”


    ‘With a recent YouGov survey ­concluding that more than half the ­British public believe Islam to be a negative influence that encourages extremism, the repression of women and inequality, one might ask why any of them would choose such a direction for themselves.

    Yet statistics suggest Islamic conversion is not a mere flash in the pan but a significant development. Islam is, after all, the world’s fastest growing religion, and white adopters are an important part of that story.[…]

    Evidence suggests that the ratio of Western women converts to male could be as high as 2:1.

    5. This article by male writer Peyvand Khorsandi also discussing Lauren Booth’s conversion takes a far firmer stance against this choice to convert. A commenter says, presumably correctly, as it has not been moderated out by the writer, that “Peyvand Khorsandi is the son of the exiled Iranian satirist Hadi Khorsandi. He is himself a Muslim and quite rightly directing some vitriol towards this vile Iranian regime and any sycophantic numpties that cannot see the wood for the trees.  There are certain Liberal-Lefties in our society who would actually join the enemy in some perverse attempt to justify their own skewed political views. Personally I think she is a very naive and perhaps an unbalanced individual.”

    6. It’ll be interesting to see how THIS turns out. A World On Trial series where the world’s big issues are debated, discussed and decided on in a court-room situation. In this pilot edition they are looking at the French ban on head-coverings in schools in France. Guess who is the presiding judge? Cherie Booth/Blair. Hmmm…

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “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


    John Rentoul, Sunday Morning Live: ‘Was Tony Blair a force for good?’

    August 29, 2010
  • 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

    29th August 2010

    UPDATE: Confession. As I mentioned at an earlier post, I was watching this programme because my new friend Peter was on it. Except he wasn’t in the end. It time out. I had started to draft it with Peter Reynolds’ name in the title, then changed it to ‘John Rentoul‘. JR to the rescue!  Read Peter’s very amusing account of his on/off encounter with the most attractive Susanna Reid. Disappointed? I’m sure she is.

    UPDATE 2: Julie has this great title – “Blairphobia spreads to Ireland. 23 Victims reported”

    John Rentoul appeared by webcam on Susanna Reid‘s Sunday Morning Live this morning, debating Tony Blair.

    [Watch it here] You can also comment at the BBC’s website here, as I have done.

    [Starts here – “Was Tony Blair a force for good?”, if you’d rather skip cats and faith schools.]

    After they discussed REALLY important things like the furore over the woman, Mary Bale, who put her the cat [not hers, it seems – humble apologies] Lola in a bin, and the ensuing calls for her death on Facebook as well as millions of hits on YouTube [watch here.]

    The BIG question on the programme was – “Are we too obsessed with animals?”

    Yes, many Brits ARE nuts over animals. Hypocritically so, considering we eat them after some cruel farming methods, and wear their skins daily on our feet.

    And, yes, the reactive attacks on this woman, whose action was clearly reprehensible, was way OTT.

    Next question?

    Should faith schools be abolished? Placed by historian Francis Beckett.  He was concerned that children were being taught religious opinion as FACT.  Beckett thinks that the phrase “Christian values” is the most pernicious phrase in the language. Lovely how people exaggerate to make a point, even historians, who should know better. I can think of a few more pernicious, like say “Tony Blair is a war criminal”.

    Anne Atkins responded that faith itself is the basis of our society, law, parliament, even government. Her angle was that it seemed wrong-headed to throw out our society’s mores, and possibly our law, parliament and government in order to either dismiss faith or place them all on a level playing field.

    This link with our very society (Christian/Jewish link) is one I have often made. At least religious schools are presently subject to some sort of inspection and regulation. On this, if not on her opinions on Tony Blair (read below) I think she was more right than wrong, and far more correct than Beckett.

    He, by illuminating contrast, was COMPLETELY WRONG, on everything.

    Francis Beckett usually IS wrong.

    Pernicious enough phrase for you, Mr Beckett?

    If anyone thinks that Jews and Muslims will accept the “abolish faith schools” proposition, without putting something else in its place, they were born yesterday.

    Personally I have taught in Anglican and Catholic schools, and they taught about ALL religions. Do… would Muslim schools?

    Next question?


    Beckett: “No he wasn’t a visionary and he wasn’t a peace-maker … the minimum wage was the key one.” [He then complained about the then low (at the time) rate of the minimum wage.]

    Susanna Reid: “So everything that came out of the Blair years you qualify?”

    Beckett: “Yes.”

    Charlie Wolf:  “He [Blair] saw the bigger picture – over 9/11 – Afghanistan, Iraq – he wasn’t a poodle – took a lot of guts.”

    Atkins: “I’m not a natural Blairite … loathe the policies … not my phrase but he will go down as a ‘war criminal’ … the war in Iraq was a disgrace … over a lie … those tens of thousands are on our conscience … he does have stature and a wholesome personality … peace process a real achievement.”

    John Rentoul: “Your panel is depressing apart from Charlie  – disgraceful for the BBC to bandy the words ‘war criminal’ –  despicable – Tony Blair stood against war criminals.”

    Challenged by Beckett on the “lie” of  WMD, 45 minutes as the basis for going into Iraq John Rentoul dismissed Beckett’s popular and populist misconceptions. Well dismissed.

    The small-minded, cynical and frankly outrageous Beckett then said on the donation to the Royal British Legion of  four and a half million pounds – “giving money to charity is a way of avoiding taxes.”

    Oh, give me strength.

    Well done, John Rentoul.

    Way to go.

    UPDATE: John Rentoul has a post up on this too. Great psychological analysis going on there, what! WHAT?



    ‘Lauren Booth, Tony Blair’s anti-semitic sister-in-law’ calls for an end to the Jewish state.  Disgraceful. And from someone who purports to ‘CARE’ about peace. This is the true agenda of many of her fellow travellers.

    Mystery of the marriage of Sharia Law & Feminism

    Back to top

    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “Getting really bored with the persistence with which people pursue their anti-Blair propaganda, steadfastly refusing to see any good in the man.” – 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.”

    Free Hit Counter

    Confirmed by a Lib Dem I respect – Paddy: ‘Clegg is the New Blair’

    April 24, 2010
  • 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. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • And now for a bit of true fiction –

    Comment at end

    24th April 2010

    As I suggested the other day, at my Big Fight post, Nick Clegg may well be the new “clunking fist”. I suppose it’s fair to say that some are wondering just which of the contenders Mr Blair is cheering on.

    Lord Ashdown at Truro Cathedral, in his constituency. ‘It fundamentally changes politics if the old unholy alliance that has run this country is broken up,’ he says

    I have a lot of time for Paddy Ashdown. I think he was by far the best leader the Liberal Democrats have had since their inception.

    But I’m afraid I do NOT believe him on this. Asked –

    Tony Blair or Gordon Brown?

    He said “Neither”.

    Well, as a former leader he has a party to please. And we know how tough that can be. Apart from that he can’t be seen to be too close to a “war criminal”, can he?

    Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair worked behind the scenes from 1994 to, from my understanding, 1998/9 to try to fashion an anti-Conservative coalition/merger. Gordon Brown put a stop to it.

    But I know that Mr Ashdown prefers Mr Blair, HUGELY. And why wouldn’t he? The pair spent many years, not months, years  from 1994 until well after Blair’s fist famous victory of 1997 trying to fashion a deal designed to coalesce the anti-Tory vote.  Referred to by Ashdown as “the love that dared not speak its name”, Mr Blair was ‘OMF’ – Our Mutual Friend. Ashdown knows WHO exactly flummoxed the whole plan when he found out about it – a certain Gordon Brown.

    Go here to read more from Ashdown’s excellent Diaries for evidence of Mr Ashdown’s high regard for Tony Blair.

    The present leader of his nonsensical and politically ignorant party described the Iraq invasion as  “illegal” the other night in Bristol.  Populism dressed as high-mindedness. And another leadership contender Chris Huhne has called Tony Blair a “war criminal”. I understand that even Dame Shirley Williams and that Lib Dem doyenne of Radio 4 humour Sandi Toxteth also used this insulting phrase against one of the greatest leaders it has been our privilege to have had running our presently confused state.

    Let me spell it out to these simpletons as plainly as I can:

    Tony Blair is NOT a criminal of any sort until he has been tried and proven to be. Remember that little rule, oh ye great liberal freedom fighters? The one you apply to foreign ne’er-do-wells who often use our system against us? Innocent until proven guilty.

    Blair will never be found guilty of any such crime. Proof and even charges of war crimes requires more than the Lib Dems seem to think. Something to do with intent to wipe out/a policy of ethnic cleansing … to name but two. Forget the ultimate lack of WMD or even the lack of a second UN resolution. FORGET them. ALL of them. They are of no consequence in the decision-making. They are not reasons to charge a leader or former leader of this country with war crimes.

    Times article excerpts follow –

    Paddy Ashdown – so close to his ultimate political prize

    ‘Paddy Ashdown so nearly did it. In 1997, days before the election, he had secret meetings with Tony Blair to discuss a coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Now, 13 years later, his dream could come true. His protégé, Nick Clegg, may finally sign the deal that almost gave the present Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon a seat at the Cabinet table.


    ‘The man who knows more than anyone what the Lib Dem leader must be feeling cannot help seeing parallels between Clegg and Blair. “Almost the first quality I spotted in Nick was his ability to speak in the language of ordinary people. He is very comfortable in his own skin and relaxed. Like Blair, he has the ability to make you feel that you are the centre of his attention.”

    Both men are charming public school boys, with reforming instincts and high-flying Roman Catholic wives. “There’s the same sense of optimism,” Lord Ashdown says. “The big problem with Blair was that there wasn’t a sheet anchor to keep the ship head-on into the storm when the winds blew. Clegg knows exactly where he is. If you asked the public who is the ‘heir to Blair’, with all that Blair has been revealed to have been, I think they would say Cameron. Clegg is more like people thought Blair was in 1997.”


    ‘For Lord Ashdown there must be a sense of unfinished business in the speculation about Lib-Lab pacts. Does he regret not closing the deal with Mr Blair in 1997? “That is one of the ‘what ifs’. It is very different today from 1997. Then we were dealing with a discredited Tory Government, a Labour Party that was very popular and a potential prime minister, Tony Blair, who seemed to be in many things a liberal, though not on civil liberties. Some of us may have been misled. Now it is much more like 1983. I don’t think Gordon Brown is like Michael Foot, exactly, but he has all the attributes of a condemned man taking the last steps up the scaffold, grabbing policy, trying to find a way out.

    “His commitment to electoral reform — which he opposed vehemently before — is not about a progressive partnership for the future, it’s about someone trying to save their skin at the last moment. All that ‘I agree with Nick’ stuff — it’s extraordinary what he will do.” What if Labour gets the fewest votes and the most seats? “We all know that because of the appalling electoral system there could be a difficult judgment to be made, but that is for after the election. We would prefer to work with the party that has the best mandate.”


    ‘Perhaps the Blairites could join forces with Clegg? “The Blairites are excited because Gordon is getting his comeuppance, they would love Gordon to be paid back for all the misery he caused Tony. I think it’s probable that Labour will go down to one of its hardest political defeats of all time.

    “If that happens, then there’ll be a knockdown fight for the heart and soul of the Labour Party. My guess is that the Left will take charge. I don’t know what is the outcome of that.

    “There are all sorts of potential consequences. The other side of the election is a different country.”’

    You’re right about that, Paddy. A different country, indeed.

    Meanwhile James Kirkup at the Telegraph/Torygraph wonders – while offering a few scenarios“Is it possible Labour is staring oblivion in the face?”

    Well, they would say and like that, wouldn’t they?

    Suggesting that Labour may be preparing for oblivion, Kirkup says  –

    “Mr Clegg’s demands for saving Labour could include Mr Brown’s head on a platter. Far from dismissing the idea, senior party members are again talking about if, when and how Mr Brown should be removed from office. Almost inevitably, the idea of a decapitation is most enthusiastically embraced and debated by acolytes of Tony Blair.

    One Blairite scenario goes something like this: a delegation led by Alistair Darling, Harriet Harman and Jack Straw tells Mr Brown that for the good of the party, he must make way for Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary.” (More here.)

    Free Hit Counter

    Aaronovitch & McElvoy defend Tony Blair – as depicted in Harris’s ridiculous GHOSTly film

    April 19, 2010
  • 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. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Fancy a bit of true fiction?

    Comment at end

    19th April 2010

    Yes, I regularly have a go here at the press. But watching these videos I forgive some of them now. David Aaronovitch has always been clearly on the correct side – one of the “we few” who believe that Blair was and still is a good man and an extraordinarily capable politician. But Anne McElvoy hasn’t always seemed to be as fair-minded towards Tony Blair as she is here. (See recently with John Rentoul on Blair’s election campaign appearance at Trimdon.) It just shows that there are positive effects resulting from sharing a platform with liberal leftie half-brains like Pat Kane, the Scottish idiot on the panel (who also makes me ashamed of being Scottish, btw, as it does the video channel owner.)

    Young & Aaronovitch: The Ghost by Robert Harris (1/5)

    MuggedByReality — 17 April 2010 — Another day, another dreadful & paranoid anti-war conspiracy theory by the Blair haters. Robert Harris – who defends child rapists in print – doesn’t like Tony Blair much these days. He’s a ‘war criminal’ (as we all know!), who ‘slavishly’ dragged Britain into an ‘unnecessary’ and ‘illegal’ war against a ‘sovereign’ nation who wasn’t a threat to anyone. It was all about ‘oil’ or ‘Israel’ for the ‘neocons’ and the ‘Jewish cabal’ in the White House …or Halliburton…or Bush’s Christian ‘crusade’ …or CIA control by the NWO…blahblahblahblahblah….Yawn

    Pat Kane makes me embarrassed to be Scottish – a typically resentful, angry, boring, self-righteous, self-pitying, left-wing, SNP-supporting, anti-war retard. And he even manages to shoehorn Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’ drivel into the last part of the show. Toe-curling & cringeworthy leftism…

    Young & Aaronovitch: The Ghost by Robert Harris (2/5)

    Young & Aaronovitch: Political Satire (3/5)

    Now two videos for the anti-Tory “art”. Hysterical, juvenile stuff, isn’t it? Wonder what they’ll do about the Liberal Democrats if they ever get into government? Then it’ll be MY turn. And believe me I can write on the LD’s liberalism. Been there, done that, bought and now burned the t-shirt. All grown up.

    Young & Aaronovitch: Posh by Laura Wade (4/5)

    Young & Aaronovitch: Political Satire (5/5)


    Tony Blair stranded in Israel. Volcanic ash grounds Blair? Not an excuse for much longer, I reckon. By the end of this week the economics of world survival will see most planes flying again over Europe. Mark my words. Now, what other reason can we find for keeping Mr Blair away from Brown’s struggling election campaign? I am determined, as should he be, that it will NOT be Mr Blair’s fault if the self-destructive Labour party falls at the last hurdle. It will NOT be at his hands, but only if he manages to keep clear of the fray. Ideas here please. Oh, and here to Tony Blair’s Office, in case they’re struggling for excuses.

    Martin Ivens, Times: Vote Lib Dem and be hung out to dry

    Free Hit Counter

    Adam Lang IS Tony Blair. So, will Cherie sue Polanski & Harris?

    April 7, 2010
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting


    7th April 2010

    UPDATE: Fellow Blairite Julie has just informed me that another of the “we few, we happy view” band of brothers and sisters John Rentoul has numbered my question in his famous list. (It’s 270, not 384 as I plumped for here.)

    Rentoul: ‘And this allows me to catch up with number 270, asked by Blair Supporter about the opening of the Blair-hating film, The Ghost Writer: Will Cherie sue Roman Polanski and Robert Harris? Not because the portrayal of her and her husband in the film is not defamatory, but because she is not mad.’

    John – you have a concise and effective way of summarising.



    Tony Blair, the former PM and The Ghost (Writer) Ewan McGregor, (mock-up.)


    While Britain’s head is buried in the domestic politics of the election on May 6th(don’t mention the war) – the rest of the world goes about its wider political interests.

    The state of play in the Middle East and in Obama’s America will continue to top most of the world’s search engine queries.  But there is something else going around the world of serious importance, much as it shouldn’t be. And it will hang around for years, decades, even centuries, much as it shouldn’t. What exactly? Books and then films which claim to be documenting history – docu-fiction. Topmost of these right now is the Harris/Polanski invention – The Ghost.

    It seems to be accepted that in a free world this kind of “writing” is no more than opinion/interpretation. Made and meant without agenda or rancour but only for entertainment, it is deemed quite acceptable, even when about living people.  Without agenda and rancour are the operative words. I haven’t read the book or watched the film and have no intention of spending money on such biased money-grubbing exercises. If you are in Dublin tonight you might be able to see this free. Wish I was there.  I could just about stretch to ‘FREE’ for this.

    Since this film is clearly ALL about Tony Blair –


    Simple. Tony Blair won’t sue because as a politician (even former) he has no human rights. Human rights exist to protect the rest of us from politicians, don’t you know? Never the other way round.

    Still, it’s worth asking why those whose names and reputations are blighted by this sort of offshoot of the mad liberal anti-war press never seem to stand up to say “enough”.  Later I will look at Cherie and the ‘will she/won’t she sue?’ question.

    But first, it’s also worth asking why the question of this kind of propaganda is never addressed by the mainstream press. The present climate – anti-Iraq war, anti-politician, anti-everything and anything? Perhaps.  Some political writers of quality have reviewed the film, but even they do not seem to realise that their reviews provide more questions than answers.

    For instance, for the earth-shattering epitome of a statement of the obvious this is it: “Charles Moore finds that the spirit of Tony Blair pervades The Ghost Writer, Roman Polanski’s new film.”

    What, Mr Moore? You mean wheels are round?

    In his article – “The Ghost Writer: The secret life of the man who wasn’t there” – Moore says this (my bolding inside Moore’s parentheses):

    “The story is very enjoyable for apparently conflicting reasons. On the one hand, it is “realistic”, in the sense that it is extremely close to real events and real people (if I were Cherie Booth QC, I would ask my colleagues in the field of libel law to see the film now). At the film’s special screening last week, which I attended, the presence of Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy (Foy, by the way, is part of his title, not the name of his dog) provided a sort of manufacturer’s guarantee that we are dealing with real-life high (and low) politics.”

    [I too wrote about Lord Mandelson’s attendance at the British preview of The Ghost.]

    Moore’s ‘conflicting reasons’? It seems it’s in the unlikelihood of the tale and also in its conclusion. The tale is more than just unlikely. It is fantasy. As for the ending – it’s hardly a secret. We all know that Blair … sorry, Lang gets his bloody comeuppance. But sometimes knowingly, sometimes unthinkingly our careless press and book & movie-writers make the second possibility real. They are as responsible as any Middle East war for the burgeoning costs of Mr Blair’s personal security. It is said to be somewhere between £2m and £6,000,000 per year.

    Excerpt: ‘Dai Davies, a former head of Scotland Yard’s Royalty Protection Squad, said: “Because of his role in talking Britain into conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, the potential threat he faces is very real.’

    Mr Davies might also have added that Mr Blair probably feels safer in the Middle East than in “liberal” Britain.

    Mr Moore’s two conflicting reasons for enjoying this film deserve further investigation.  Moore lightly describes the ending as being ‘highly’ and ‘particularly’ improbable, even moreso it would seem than is the tale in relation to the real story of the real former PM:

    “On the other hand, the tale is highly improbable, particularly in its denouement. Robert Harris – to whose book the director, Roman Polanski, is admirably faithful – has John Buchan’s gift of telling a story which could not possibly have happened, yet feels highly authentic.”

    In the humble opinion of a Blair-watcher/Blair-haters watcher, I think that Mr Moore is wrong in the rather facile way he dismisses the ‘improbable’ elements of the story. The improbability seen through the fiction/faction eyes of the viewer is actually of no consequence. Largely thanks to the opining of the press and the liberal literati, particularly here in Britain, these unlikelihoods hardly even register.  Instead the likelihood registers. Half of those interested enough to follow this disparagement of Tony Blair are expectantly awaiting such a denouement, tongues lolling. It could be argued that through the vehicle of such as this film there is almost an inevitability of tragic consequences.


    If you dismiss this and are of the opinion that a film representation is of little significance, Moore also says –

    “Instead of being undermined by improbability, reality becomes heightened by it.” And – “So who, apart from the ghost writer, is the ghost? The answer is Tony Blair, and not only in the obvious sense that he is the thinly veiled subject of the story. “

    And the story behind the story? That senior politicians (sometimes known as “war criminals”, untried of course, but that’s another angle to the ‘point’ of the story) can run but they can’t hide from so-called “justice”.  Somewhere, somehow, they will “account” or die trying not to, whichever comes first.

    I contend that it is deeply shameful that writers use their privileged space in the papers to promote their own thoughts without considering how they themselves are stoking fires. For instance, Moore continues –

    “But it turns out that Brosnan’s style fits the predicament of his character. His Lang/Blair is not a man who really decides things, but one to whom things happen. He is famous and controversial, but oddly passive. Although he sometimes gets angry under the extraordinary pressures that build up on him, he is, for the most part, almost detached – vain enough to care a bit about how he might appear in his memoirs, but not really all that interested. He retains an easy charm, an almost mocking vagueness.

    It is the people around him – Amelia and, above all, Ruth, furiously jealous of Anna, and furious, indeed, about everything – who are so worked up. Lang/Blair is almost disembodied, the ghost of what he was.

    What was he? That too, is not made clear. Robert Harris is one of many on the centre-Left who started by believing that Tony Blair was the shining light of their generation, and later came to see him merely as its shooting star.

    But neither novel nor film version is an act of out-and-out revenge. As the story builds up, you expect that Lang/Blair is about to be exposed as the greatest traitor in British political history. I shan’t give away the ending, but that expectation is not fulfilled. Instead, you feel sorry for this trapped man – the object of so much passion for and against, and yet, when you get close to him, not quite there. Was the real Tony Blair always a sort of ghost?”

    NOT “an act of out-and-out revenge”? What was it then? If the ‘dark’ hero/villain is not “the greatest traitor in British political history” that’s only because he is killed by the father of a dead soldier. So, is it in reality a kind of tragic love story? Yeah. Right.

    As for this – “Was the real Tony Blair always a sort of ghost?”

    If so, no problem. He’s only ‘dead’ … again.

    These remarks point to subtly disturbing travesties of truth. They are fundamentally unfair and, yes, I repeat, dangerous.  Although not seriously vicious – not vicious at all in Moore’s case – it is still one of the most intentional disparagements of the real Mr Blair that I have recently read, its subtlety being its shield.  (More from Moore here at the Telegraph.)

    And another thing …