I'm not surprised after this appeared on the BBC today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair

Well done Tony. Statements like that totally never do more harm than good.
STFU, now, srsly dude.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

Juan Two Three - no, I hadn't read that. But I take no real credit. Gordon Brown is generally much liked in Scotland because he's a type we know very well and respect - the intelligent, serious, sober son of the manse (OK, not everyone of his type is a son of the manse but you know what I mean) who doesn't know the meaning of the words glitz, charm or schmooze. I think a lot of Scots have a pretty old-fashioned attitude to politicians in that we haven't quite caught up with the 'image before anything else' thing and actively distrust the over-groomed pretty boys. We also, in general, don't really see the need for stuff about their clothes/grooming routines/preferences in music and so on.

GB is also much liked because Scotland is a small place and he's very much seen as one of us. He lives in an ordinary town, not a country mansion. He went to a state school and one of our universities, not Eton/Fettes and Oxbridge. His wife looks like a nice woman who behaves herself well, dresses neatly and doesn't attempt film-star glamour. Scots like this. We also like Charles Kennedy a lot better than journalists do, and we like Alex Salmond, and we like Menzies Campbell BECAUSE he's older and wiser. They keep saying that Scottish education is no longer what it once was, but the respect for education and cleverness over glamour and image definitely remains in Scotland.

The really funny thing is that back in 1971 when GB was Rector of Edinburgh University, he was seen as rather glamorous and a definite babe-magnet.

I've just discovered I'm a Scot! Is there an Armsteen tartan, please?

Just going back to that Blair in Dublin post, is it just me who thinks the whole anti-war message isn't best protrayed by a group of people picking fights with the rozzers? Just a thought, like.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

There will be those who oppose fighting on the grounds that any fight is wrong.
Others will fight whoever their team tells them to.
A third group will be willing to fight for certain principles, not others.


The Dublin protestors look to be from that third group.

So selectively hypocritical anti-war protestors, then?

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

To make a rather facile point, there is a world of difference between a few protesters throwing eggs and tens of thousands of soldiers dropping bombs. One can be opposed to wars - even all wars - without being committed to complete nonviolence. Indeed, for many (not all) opponents to the Iraq war the key issue is one of legality under international law and not necessarily whether war and violence in general is right or wrong, good or bad.

In which case why are they attacking Blair and not the Attorney General at the time, Lord Goldsmith? After all, if the Governments legal advisor advises the Government that the course of action is legal under international law (which is bloody complicated at the best of times), then who is Tony Blair to argue against his own expert?

Unless, of course, they just wanted a bit of exposure by attacking an easy target without recourse to such things as facts, but then no-one would be that daft, surely?

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Blair was the head of government who took Britain into war and therefore is the right figure for such protesters to target. The point is to ensure that 'illegal wars' do not happen again and one can more easily advance that aim by protesting against Blair than one can by protesting against someone who, to those who don't follow the news, is a rather obscure figure. (Although I am sure that the anti-war movement has had many things to say about Goldsmith in their time.) Besides, I think it's a bit rich to complain when a pressure group seeks exposure for its cause - what else do you expect them to do?

Going after the right people might be a start...

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Bluebellnutter:

You don't think there's the tiniest possibility that Goldsmith was giving the advice that he knew Blair wanted to receive?

Maybe, maybe not, without evidence to back it up it's all conjecture. Which is the sort of thing we accuse Littlejohn of on a twice-weekly basis.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

In my case, evidence includes long experience of lawyers' ways. If you're briefed to advise on whether what the client wants is viable, you tend to come up with good arguments in its favour.

But that's just personal experience, unless you can actually come up with proof that Goldsmith was told by Blair to find a way in which it was legal then it doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Haven't we done this before and acknowledged that going around demanding chapter and verse proof of every comment is not what this forum is about?