Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Why Blair must stay and resist jackboot justice...

In case you missed it, here's the link to an article by Tim Hames, Chief Leader Writer of The Times which was published yesterday.

It appeared under the following headline:
This would make the Gestapo proud: Why Blair must stay and resist jackboot justice.
Well worth a gleg...

20 comments:

Mark said...

I had a look (I presume that's what "gleg" means?) yesterday morning and thought it a very helpful article. I can't say much more in public but it is very important to hang on rather than look as if you've been hounded from office - and as the article says, the police have not been good in this case. You would think they were trying to make a political point ...

Then the PM should resign as soon as he decently can after being cleared. (Assuming he is cleared, of course!)

Michael Oakeshott said...

Quote of the year: "the police have not been good in this case". Yeh all them damn question eh?

Bet Nixon said the same.

Brynley said...

OK, the article in The Times is intended to be provocative and throwaway.

The writer seems to be anxious to protect our "political class" and his reference points come from America.

Very Murdoch. Rupert, promote this man!

Just to recap: the Labour National Treasurer, Jack Dromey, knew nothing whatever of the big amounts coming in from wealthy individuals. Some of these individuals were willing to donate, but were persuaded from the office of the Prime Minister to make them into "loans" which could be kept off the books, even though no repayment mechanism for the loans was set up.

Clearly, there is a case to answer, although it is just about possible that some of this went beyond the instructions of the Prime Minister himself.

Should Blair go now?

Well, the danger of keeping him relates to the current provocations against Iran. The possibility of Tony remaining in charge while the world is dragged into some kind of trumped up confrontation with Iran is not something which the public can really be expected to put up with.

Liz said...

I thought the article was well written and thoughtful. I do admit my bias as I am a great supporter of the PM and dread his leaving office. I watched (over several hours from tape) his long session with the Liaison Committee yesterday. For some two and a half hours he answered questions on a wide range of subjects without notes or prompting by his officials. Could anyone tell me what other politican could perform so well?

Brynley, the PM said clearly yesterday that there were absolutely no plans to enter into any military situation with Iran. Indeed, he mentioned the three nations in Europe trying to win Iran over by dialogue. Also, I do feel that it is rather nice to have an article that did not "demolish" our political class. There are many good and hardworking MPs from all political parties. I am sick and tired of the media undermining the political system as I believe they are the cause of people not wanting to vote. I believe many newspapers base stories on rumour and gossip (as do some blogs)and many of their reports are economical with the truth. It is awfully easy to write an article picking out salient points to support your political stance. The Mail and Express are serial offenders in this regard - I do dip into them to see how they have covered a particular story. Polly Toynbee's recent speech as reported in the Press Gazette articulates this point really well - it is worth a read.

Gill said...

Anyone who saw the Prime Minister in action at PMQ's today can see he's a class act who is determined to rise above the nonsense and get on with the job he was elected to do.

Anonymous said...

The Prime Minister should suspend those indicted fothwith.

If the Downing Street machine was a private or public limited company they would have done that long ago.

p/s - gill - he may be a good actor but thats as good as his act gets.

fairdealphil said...

anonymous:

Despite all you may have read in the Daily Mail, no-one has been indicted.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Yet

Brynley said...

Liz says that Tony Blair says that we have no plans to bomb Iran.

That is right of course. Our forces have imperial overstretch.

The point is that Blair has not warned against the terrible conflict that will convulse all our futures if others bomb Iran.

Presumably Blair has not issued this warning because he tacitly approves of the provocations.

That is why he is so dangerous to Britain's interests at home and in the wider world.

Michael Oakeshott said...

So pray tell Brynley...how would you stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons? Get them to promise to be good boys(?). The myopic left don't seem to realise that if the threat of force is not held over Iran, we have no hope of making them talk sensibly about getting rid of their threat. Hopefully it won't come to force. But we have to be prepared to avert the threat with force. And more importantly we have to convince them that we will use force if necessary. Your approach would not do this. Thus I am delighted that the US, and probably even the UK, will ignore you and press ahead regardless.

Brynley said...

I don't think anyone is in a position to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons long term, if they really feel threatened.

Certainly, taking a hard line, failing to negotiate, strengthens the hardliners in the Iran government and I am sure the hardliners love your rhetoric, Michael.

There are real dangers of nuclear proliferation. The Pakistan nuclear bomb - which really exists - is far more worrying because Pakistan is a highly unstable dictatorship, while Iran is a deeply plural society where clerical hardliners have to compete with other currents.

Don't forget, Iran is the country where the hard right have just been trounced in local elections.

As for "pressing ahead". Pressing ahead to what exactly? Armageddon, by the sound of it.

Mark said...

Mr Oakeshott, I have met the police.

And in this particular case they are the same force that shot an innocent electrician and then made up ridiculous stories to try to justify it. They know all about cover-up, do the Metropolitan Police!

Further, have *you* actually read The Times article? It does actually describe the ways in which the police have been politically active in this case. We can also read in the British press, it is not necessary to read a book to award it a prize - but I really think that to engage in proper debate it does help to know what that debate is about - and this one is about an article in The Times. I know not of what, if anything, Mr Blair is guilty, but I do think he should hold fast if he is not - and no matter what we may choose to believe, *we* have no evidence of that guilt (yet, at least).

By the way, if you can use expressions like "Yeh all them damn question eh?" can I assume that everything you say is as incomprehensible, and therefore I have simply been misunderstanding all that you have been saying and it is really quite sensible?

Samantha said...

Don't answer him: you'll only encourage him.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Mark - thanks for making a statement in public. I know important you are, and how the media watch your every word(!).

"The same force that shot the innocent electrician"? Pray that you never have to do a difficut job Mark(I suspect your job causes difficulties only for the poor sods in your borough). Question for five Mark, saying you are such a bright boy. Which famous historical figure said(from memory): "there are men who have to do horrific things, so that you can sleep peacefully in your bed at night. And all they ask of you in return, is that you let them do it". I personally believe the death of the electrician was a tragic accident. You clearly believe it is political fodder. Fair enough. Whatever you believe, what is clear is that Labour did nothing about it. Therefore it would be hypocritical to hark about it now, in a vain attempt to make the public distrust the police.

I have read the article in the Times. I find little interesting in it. Do you have anything particularly interesting to note from it? Of course they have been politically active. The case is based in the political world, and they have had to fight constantly to have access to sources and evidence, whilst being rubbished by the New Labour PR machine.

The whole debate did nothing for me. I have already noted my conclusions. There was a crime. Only a fool would believe that the similarities between the list of big donors and the nominations list for peerages was a coincidence. So there HAS been a crime. As far as I am concerned, the investigation is merely the follow up operation, to find WHICH of the New Labour principles is sufficiently involved to justify prosecution. I cannot imagine that such a process could have existed without the knowledge, and the implicit approval of the PM. Thus I hope and fully expect Blair to be indicted. Many others should follow. The PM would at least spare his office the indignity if he resigned now, and came clean.

As for the expression. Get a dictionary, and check the "parody", then read it again. I am not wasting any more of my time trying to educate a pleb like you.

Mark said...

I know from other posts what your attitudes are towards the plebs.

"We don't need no education" though.

Samantha said...

There you are: I told you!

Isn't he AMAZING?!!

Albert said...

Can someone explain the meaning of "I know important you are," and the expression, "saying you are such a bright boy"?

Is this writer literate?

If his reading is as good as his writing it is no wonder he has the wrong end of so many sticks.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Thanks for flocking back folks. Samantha - your blog is great. The last post starts: "I went shopping at Serpentine Green yesterday afternoon! I got some little black shorts to wear with black tights.". I stopped reading after that! Dear oh dear, I'm not wasting my time on someone like that.

Mark - stay in your mud and enjoy it.

Albert - anything intelligent, interesting or witty to say? Or have you given your all?

Seriously, I'm loving some of the jokers you have here Phil.

michelle oakeshott said...

Albert,

Clearly Michael's reading is considerably worse than his writing because he frequently attributes to people things they have not said! I am not bothering with the details (just as he does not bother with you) but the posts are all there for us to see. The ripostes to things people have not said and the blatant rudeness to any who dare to disagree.

This is a person who does not seek the truth in a debate and does not care to listen to others' arguments properly because they can never be as important as his own.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Quite witty actually, but still rubbish. I'd love to hear one example. Your failure to provide one will be the proof that your post is nonsense.

I'll wait for you...