The £250k is such a made up number (itself a maximum if all of the protesters turn up). The security people would probably be somewhere else so there is no additional cost to the taxpayer.
Some of the comments are horrific. Can’t imagine why they were unmoderated…
I couldn’t give a toss and here’s why. It will be the put-upon “hard-working” families who pay for this, and as I work for the local authority and don’t have any kids, I’m therefore exempt.
That’s more money to spend on skunk, Facebook, lentils and tree-hugging. Woo!
As state expenditure goes, £250,000 is a fairly piffling amount, easily recoupable people proclaiming to be British paid the tax aligned to that (hello Mr Rothemere and Mr Littlejohn).
Ever since the sleazy Tories were driven out by Labour they have done everything to discredit them and their leaders especially Tony Blair. Remember the Iraq war wasn’t anything to do with Tony Blair, it was started by Thatcher when she ordered the first attack on Iraq. it is Thatcher and the Tories who should be answering the questions.
Tax payers pay for PM security. Wow. That must be new. Apart from the millions paid to keep Thatcher safe from the IRA as she spent 10 years trying to be as inflammatory as possible to them, rather than just be smart.
Grilling. I’d safely suggest that a person as clever as Blair isn’t even going to break sweat batting back the sorts of questions the inquiry will ask him.
I’ll give you a summary right now.
Was it technically illegal. No. Was it morally wrong. Yes. Did the UK think regime change will ultimately benefit the world. Yes.
The problem being, unless the Mail and it’s readers get their story, and outcome, it will be “whitewash!”.
You know, when Maggie Thatcher chased a ship, into neutral waters, when it was retreating, 6 hours after they had already surrendered, and ordered it sunk for little more than moral “revenge” for the war, I didn’t see the Mail do anything but defend this sort of war crime.
I don’t remember her facing any inquiries either. As those that win wars, set the rules.
When Churchill ordered the carpet bombing of a civillian city, to break “moral”, killing half a million civillians in 48 hours, I haven’t heard many people asking for his trial.
We all know, if Hitler had won, Churchill and the like would have been executed for atrocities like that, just like the German lot were for their war crimes on the battlefield.
You know, Churchill. Even Hitler wouldn’t dare carpet bomb a civillian city.
He purposefully “blitzed” it with sporadic bombing, so it was more “shock” than mass loss of life. I think 30′000 people died in the entire 4 years of the blitz.
Churchill carpet bombed (as in, bombed every square inch of a city, about 50x over) Dresden to such an extent that people actually died from atomisation(liquified almost), as the temperatures were so high – as in thousands of degrees.
500′000 in 48 hours. 12 times as many killed in the entire blitz.
You know, when your doing something even Hitler wouldn’t dare to do, you know it’s.
@Chris:
Put the crack pipe down and step away from it.
Then go and do some actual homework on the General Belgrano and the bombing of Dresden. I hated and detested Thatcher but the sinking of the Belgrano was actually militarily justifiable. As to an admittedly lesser extent was the bombing of Dresden – in the context of the war in which it took place. And your numbers for the dead in Dresden make even Goebbels’ and the Soviets’ claims look reasonable. The vast majority of serious credible historians put the number killed at less than 40,000.
The expense would not be a problem had it been Thatcher of course.
Nor would Thatcher be getting a “grilling”, she’d just be putting the record straight.
Considering the nature and intensity (or lack of it) of questioning so far, ‘grilling’ may not be the mosrt appropriate term to use.
Not “grilling” more like “lightly poached”.
The Mail think Blair is shiting bricks and working all night to prepare.
Whatever Blair says the Mail will declare him guilty by his own admission because he is one of their hate figures.
Let’s face it, Blair is pretty much everybody’s hate figure right now.
The £250k is such a made up number (itself a maximum if all of the protesters turn up). The security people would probably be somewhere else so there is no additional cost to the taxpayer.
Some of the comments are horrific. Can’t imagine why they were unmoderated…
Bit rich from the paper prepared to print some semi-murderous comments on their website concerning this story.
I couldn’t give a toss and here’s why. It will be the put-upon “hard-working” families who pay for this, and as I work for the local authority and don’t have any kids, I’m therefore exempt.
That’s more money to spend on skunk, Facebook, lentils and tree-hugging. Woo!
As state expenditure goes, £250,000 is a fairly piffling amount, easily recoupable people proclaiming to be British paid the tax aligned to that (hello Mr Rothemere and Mr Littlejohn).
That does seem a lot of money to hold a barbecue..
Ever since the sleazy Tories were driven out by Labour they have done everything to discredit them and their leaders especially Tony Blair. Remember the Iraq war wasn’t anything to do with Tony Blair, it was started by Thatcher when she ordered the first attack on Iraq. it is Thatcher and the Tories who should be answering the questions.
Tax payers pay for PM security. Wow. That must be new. Apart from the millions paid to keep Thatcher safe from the IRA as she spent 10 years trying to be as inflammatory as possible to them, rather than just be smart.
Grilling. I’d safely suggest that a person as clever as Blair isn’t even going to break sweat batting back the sorts of questions the inquiry will ask him.
I’ll give you a summary right now.
Was it technically illegal. No. Was it morally wrong. Yes. Did the UK think regime change will ultimately benefit the world. Yes.
The problem being, unless the Mail and it’s readers get their story, and outcome, it will be “whitewash!”.
You know, when Maggie Thatcher chased a ship, into neutral waters, when it was retreating, 6 hours after they had already surrendered, and ordered it sunk for little more than moral “revenge” for the war, I didn’t see the Mail do anything but defend this sort of war crime.
I don’t remember her facing any inquiries either. As those that win wars, set the rules.
When Churchill ordered the carpet bombing of a civillian city, to break “moral”, killing half a million civillians in 48 hours, I haven’t heard many people asking for his trial.
We all know, if Hitler had won, Churchill and the like would have been executed for atrocities like that, just like the German lot were for their war crimes on the battlefield.
Whoever wins the war is judge and jury.
Marcs
Blair embarrassed the Mail, and tory leaders for a long long time. He ruined Hague politically (one of their faves), and Michael Howard.
Even in his last year in power, he still held a 9 point poll lead over Cameron.
When they can’t do it politically (as in through democracy) tabloids try to do it any way they can.
You know, Churchill. Even Hitler wouldn’t dare carpet bomb a civillian city.
He purposefully “blitzed” it with sporadic bombing, so it was more “shock” than mass loss of life. I think 30′000 people died in the entire 4 years of the blitz.
Churchill carpet bombed (as in, bombed every square inch of a city, about 50x over) Dresden to such an extent that people actually died from atomisation(liquified almost), as the temperatures were so high – as in thousands of degrees.
500′000 in 48 hours. 12 times as many killed in the entire blitz.
You know, when your doing something even Hitler wouldn’t dare to do, you know it’s.
But he won. So no nuremberg trials for him!
@Chris:
Put the crack pipe down and step away from it.
Then go and do some actual homework on the General Belgrano and the bombing of Dresden. I hated and detested Thatcher but the sinking of the Belgrano was actually militarily justifiable. As to an admittedly lesser extent was the bombing of Dresden – in the context of the war in which it took place. And your numbers for the dead in Dresden make even Goebbels’ and the Soviets’ claims look reasonable. The vast majority of serious credible historians put the number killed at less than 40,000.
Chris, that’s (historically speaking) garbage.