|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 27, 2023 10:22:25 GMT
You forgot the illegal war,all the people killed in the Middle East by his and Bush’s actions therein,the hatred and terrorist threat against us generated by that war. Then there’s the breakup of the UK he was warned of,the wealth he created…..for himself,Middle East peace envoy the joke of the century,not least his and others supplication at the altar in Brussels and the promise of referendum reneged on and his behind the scenes manoeuvres to disrupt brexit. What illegal war are you talking about? The Iraq war, as sad and relatively brutal as it was, was not illegal. How quickly you forget the Attorney General's initial statement that was for some inexplicable reason later reversed.
It was stated categorically by him that whilst the US was allowed to wage war to effect regieme change, we were not. And the US were quite open that they were waging war to effect regieme change
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2023 11:51:35 GMT
What illegal war are you talking about? The Iraq war, as sad and relatively brutal as it was, was not illegal. Or at least, its supposed illegality has not been established at all. The UK is still intact. It is Brexit that has been threatening to break up the union. He has never tried to disrupt Brexit. He's one of the first ones to say that there is no point in campaigning to rejoin. There's nothing wrong about creating wealth for oneself, and what's this supplication at the altar in Brussels all about -- he defied Brussels and sided with the US, didn't he? Technically not illegal but w e all know why he was never brought to book,,the way devolution was brought in he was warned it was a Pandora’s box that would lead to the break up of the UK and that is ongoing. He has tried to disrupt brexit behind the scenes and was in thrall to the eu and I notice you skipped over his reneging on a promise of a referendum. I’ve no problem of money made honestly and therein lies my unease that there is opinion out there that disputes that. So, technically not illegal. But not illegal, all the same. The reality I see is that nobody could find a basis or probable cause to prosecute Tony Blair. Unfortunately, suspicions and conspiracy theories aren't enough to charge anyone, no matter how reasonable they may be. We're out of the EU despite his alleged behind the scene shenanigans -- you must be glad. As to this referendum: Blair U-turned based on his own judgement. So I commend him for that since I am very "Burke-ian" when it comes to representative democracy and I subscribe to Burke's notion that "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Meaning, at a critical juncture, the moment my parliamentary representative takes my opinion over his own best judgement is the time to vote him out of office. You are making a suggestion that Tony Blair made his money in a dishonest way. Care to share what you know about his financial dealings??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2023 11:58:53 GMT
What illegal war are you talking about? The Iraq war, as sad and relatively brutal as it was, was not illegal. How quickly you forget the Attorney General's initial statement that was for some inexplicable reason later reversed.
It was stated categorically by him that whilst the US was allowed to wage war to effect regieme change, we were not. And the US were quite open that they were waging war to effect regieme change
I was also quick to qualify my statement with "its supposed illegality has not been established at all." Which is the point ^ I'm making. The illegality of the Iraq war has not been established. It is arguable. Case in point is the fact that you, me plus another poster are still discussing whether it is actually illegal. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 27, 2023 12:36:17 GMT
The invasion of Iraq 2003 was not in conformity with the UN Charter. As such it WAS illegal. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_Warwww.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-textIt was also a clear violation of Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty which states: "The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." The Iraq war of 2003 was illegal.
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 27, 2023 12:58:42 GMT
Technically not illegal but w e all know why he was never brought to book,,the way devolution was brought in he was warned it was a Pandora’s box that would lead to the break up of the UK and that is ongoing. He has tried to disrupt brexit behind the scenes and was in thrall to the eu and I notice you skipped over his reneging on a promise of a referendum. I’ve no problem of money made honestly and therein lies my unease that there is opinion out there that disputes that. So, technically not illegal. But not illegal, all the same. The reality I see is that nobody could find a basis or probable cause to prosecute Tony Blair. Unfortunately, suspicions and conspiracy theories aren't enough to charge anyone, no matter how reasonable they may be. We're out of the EU despite his alleged behind the scene shenanigans -- you must be glad. As to this referendum: Blair U-turned based on his own judgement. So I commend him for that since I am very "Burke-ian" when it comes to representative democracy and I subscribe to Burke's notion that "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Meaning, at a critical juncture, the moment my parliamentary representative takes my opinion over his own best judgement is the time to vote him out of office. You are making a suggestion that Tony Blair made his money in a dishonest way. Care to share what you know about his financial dealings??Ha nice try and I actually said this Like here www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/tony-and-cherie-blair-bought-property-via-offshore-firm-and-saved-300000-in-taxand here www.counterfire.org/article/pandora-papers-the-shady-world-of-tax-dodging-tony-blair/there’s much more and some worse but I’m not about to post anything that might legally trouble this site,Ive seen it happen before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2023 13:47:49 GMT
So, technically not illegal. But not illegal, all the same. The reality I see is that nobody could find a basis or probable cause to prosecute Tony Blair. Unfortunately, suspicions and conspiracy theories aren't enough to charge anyone, no matter how reasonable they may be. We're out of the EU despite his alleged behind the scene shenanigans -- you must be glad. As to this referendum: Blair U-turned based on his own judgement. So I commend him for that since I am very "Burke-ian" when it comes to representative democracy and I subscribe to Burke's notion that "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Meaning, at a critical juncture, the moment my parliamentary representative takes my opinion over his own best judgement is the time to vote him out of office. You are making a suggestion that Tony Blair made his money in a dishonest way. Care to share what you know about his financial dealings??Ha nice try and I actually said this Like here www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/tony-and-cherie-blair-bought-property-via-offshore-firm-and-saved-300000-in-taxand here www.counterfire.org/article/pandora-papers-the-shady-world-of-tax-dodging-tony-blair/there’s much more and some worse but I’m not about to post anything that might legally trouble this site,Ive seen it happen before. I was simply following the tone and the context that you yourself set which to me was very suggestive of illegality: You: "the illegal war, all the people killed in the Middle East by his and Bush’s actions .. there’s the breakup of the UK he was warned of, the wealth he created…..for himself...."Me : "There's nothing wrong about creating wealth for oneself...."You: "I’ve no problem of money made honestly and therein lies my unease that there is opinion out there that disputes that."Surely, you can not deny that your first statement alone is replete with suggestions and insinuations of illegality and sub standard ethics and morality. Thanks for the links. But I really don't see how these transactions cast a shadow over Tony Blair's financial dealings. I mean, so he didn't pay stamp duty on the property. But he didn't have to -- he bought the company that owned it, not the property itself. Slick, clever move but hardly illegal or unethical. Tax avoidance is allowed. Tax evasion isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 27, 2023 14:18:55 GMT
I was simply following the tone and the context that you yourself set which to me was very suggestive of illegality: You: "the illegal war, all the people killed in the Middle East by his and Bush’s actions .. there’s the breakup of the UK he was warned of, the wealth he created…..for himself...."Me : "There's nothing wrong about creating wealth for oneself...."You: "I’ve no problem of money made honestly and therein lies my unease that there is opinion out there that disputes that."Surely, you can not deny that your first statement alone is replete with suggestions and insinuations of illegality and sub standard ethics and morality. Thanks for the links. But I really don't see how these transactions cast a shadow over Tony Blair's financial dealings. I mean, so he didn't pay stamp duty on the property. But he didn't have to -- he bought the company that owned it, not the property itself. Slick, clever move but hardly illegal or unethical. Tax avoidance is allowed. Tax evasion isn't. Hi Gnome, nice to see you are still trolling about the EU, did you forget we're no longer a member, thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 27, 2023 15:24:32 GMT
How quickly you forget the Attorney General's initial statement that was for some inexplicable reason later reversed.
It was stated categorically by him that whilst the US was allowed to wage war to effect regieme change, we were not. And the US were quite open that they were waging war to effect regieme change
I was also quick to qualify my statement with "its supposed illegality has not been established at all." Which is the point ^ I'm making. The illegality of the Iraq war has not been established. It is arguable. Case in point is the fact that you, me plus another poster are still discussing whether it is actually illegal. Or not. Well i suppose the problem was stormin' Norman. Unhappy at the "shooting fish in a barrel" game the first military action was reduced to, he called off the advance before Hussein's head was stuck on a pike so the US had to find a reason to go back and finish the job. He sent Coe-Lynn Powell (who the hell names their son Colin and pronounces it like that) to tell us if we were not part of their solution we were part of the problem and what we SHOULD have done is handed him a truck load of body bags with the words 'you're gonna need these' on a sticky label but no, Blair had to go take his opportunity to grease palms and set up his retirement fund.
I suppose Blair was never happy with the fact Ted Heath then father of the house went to see Hussein when he was running his human shields policy, openly stating he thought it would do sod all good really, "but if the life of just one person is saved by a burnt out has-been like me going and massaging this twonk's ego then it was a job worth doing". Now to be fair i no longer remember what heath actually said, but that was not far off. He did call himself a burnt out has been and suggested Hussein was the sort of man who enjoyed his ego being preened so i think Heath had both the measure of the man and took every opportunity to set his actual position down.
It did bugger all good really, but had it done so i think it would have shown who was the peacock and who the statesman
|
|