Where is Judge Jeffreys ............

[Bugsy]

.............when he's needed ?

Bliar

[:@]

.

[nounours]

As Tony Blair has not yet given evidence to the enquiry, how can you or anyone else make a judgement on what he is going to say?.  Hope you never sat on a Jury whilst you were in the UK!![:P]

[Bugsy]

Where have you been for the last seven years then ?

[nounours]

Living in France, Gary where have you been,?  

[Frederick]

[quote user="Bugbear"].............when he's needed ?

Bliar

[:@]

.
[/quote]

 

If we had another Judge Jeffriys and he did find Blair guilty of an offence if he followed the ways of the origional one he would send him to Australia...Many dozens  of good Dorset men went to Dorchester to see him and then on to the colonies . We even have a bridge in Wimborne that has a sign on if you damage it you get transported . I am sure the Aussies would love to have Blair . 

[DerekJ]

I don't think they'll lay a glove on him. He'll duck and dive, avoid and change the questions to suit the answers he has had seven years to perfect...... Unfortunately.[:@]

[nounours]

Thanks for that Derek and Bugsie[:$], won't need to bother to sit in front of the TV all day today.  Perhaps all "trials" should be like that, guilty as charged, no evidence required or produced, trial by right wing media, good old British justice eh!!   I wonder if old chemical Ali would still be Minister for population control in Iraq if the Allies had not deposed Sadam and Israel still surviving?  Truth is we will never know..........[Www]

[DerekJ]

So you think you'll get straight answers from Blair do you? Well, you must have watched some different interviews with him over the years than I have.

[nounours]

[quote user="DerekJ"]So you think you'll get straight answers from Blair do you? Well, you must have watched some different interviews with him over the years than I have.
[/quote]

No I didn't say that, I said why don't you wait for the enquiry instead predicting the outcome and  probably like the editor of the Mail already writing your own headlines? 

Of course he isn't going to admit he was duped by the US or suspected the evidence was dodgy but you never know, he might just admit he would have gone in anyway and the world is a better place for it, who can prove him wrong?  

If he does admit he invaded without a UN mandate where would that leave him and Bush?  For trial for what and where exactly and by whom? Whilst there they at it they can do Blair for invading Kosova and getting the murdering Sebs out of there , Blair had no UN mandate for that either but that was OK wasn't it?

Quite frankly, the media coverage of this enquiry and particularly Blairs day in court is downright ridiculous, it just fills their day, it won't mine.[:(]

[DerekJ]

I suggest you reread what I originally posted. I expressed the opinion that they wouldn't lay a glove on him.  In other words, he will be too slippery, clever and intelligent for the panel of examiners to catch him out.

Also, I'm not convinced the panel are sufficiently strong to press him adequately... perhaps John Humphries and Jeremy Paxman would make it more entertaining.

[Bugsy]

[quote user="nounours"]................ but you never know, he might just admit he would have gone in anyway and the world is a better place for it, who can prove him wrong?  [/quote]

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.[Www]

BTW, What time is it on that planet you're living on [:D]

.

[Quillan]

Just as a matter of interest is anyone watching/listening to this, its on the BBC News channel at the moment.

Interestingly enough when asked if he had talked to the cabinet about going to war he said he had but that he had not let them have copies of the 'papers' he had called for that outlined the legality and the possible outcome of invading and regime change. Therefore how could they ever make an informed decision if they didn't know the facts and the possible fallout.

[Russethouse]

No I didn't say that, I said why don't you wait for the enquiry instead predicting the outcome and  probably like the editor of the Mail already writing your own headlines? 

Of course he isn't going to admit he was duped by the US or suspected the evidence was dodgy but you never know, he might just admit he would have gone in anyway and the world is a better place for it, who can prove him wrong?  

If he does admit he invaded without a UN mandate where would that leave him and Bush?  For trial for what and where exactly and by whom? Whilst there they at it they can do Blair for invading Kosova and getting the murdering Sebs out of there , Blair had no UN mandate for that either but that was OK wasn't it?

Quite frankly, the media coverage of this enquiry and particularly Blairs day in court is downright ridiculous, it just fills their day, it won't mine.

Blair has already admitted that he would have gone in anyway, several weeks ago in an interview with Fern Britain.

He did invade without a UN mandate - its a fact isn't it ?

As for Kosovo - are their Americans drilling for oil there ? Did a respected scientist conveniently commit suicide before we went in there too ? There just wasn't the suspicion surrounding it that there was for Iraq.

 

 

 

[lucylastic]

We have seen it all before and this enquiry will serve no useful purpose except to cost a lot of money, where the only people to come out of this the better for it will be, the consultants and lawyers.

So what if Blair is shown to have fudged the reasons for going to war - then what?  Will he be prosecuted, I guess not. So where is the benefit of this enquiry?  So that everybody can feel justified in saying he lied?

I cannot imagine that the Iraqi's who have seen their wives and children blown to pieces will gain much from it.

 

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Blair has already admitted that he would have gone in anyway, several weeks ago in an interview with Fern Britain.

[/quote]

The interview was done in July 2009 and only aired a few weeks ago for the first time. As you say he said then it wouldn't have made a difference although now (today) he says he didn't realise it was a serious interview. He maintains he only invaded because there were WMD's, or so he was told. Its got more twists and turns that a soap opera.

[Tricia]

[quote user="lucylastic"]

We have seen it all before and this enquiry will serve no useful purpose except to cost a lot of money, where the only people to come out of this the better for it will be, the consultants and lawyers.

So what if Blair is shown to have fudged the reasons for going to war - then what?  Will he be prosecuted, I guess not. So where is the benefit of this enquiry?  So that everybody can feel justified in saying he lied?

I cannot imagine that the Iraqi's who have seen their wives and children blown to pieces will gain much from it.

 

 

[/quote]

I was going to post the same opinion - all of this came out in the Hutton enquiry.

Two points I can't understand:

1)Blair's unquestioning support of Bush - was it simply as a result of 9/11?

2)How important was the fear that oil supply would be curtailed by Saddam Hussein? At the time many people thought this was the real reason for the invasion.

[Iceni]

[quote user="lucylastic"]

We have seen it all before and this enquiry will serve no useful purpose except to cost a lot of money, where the only people to come out of this the better for it will be, the consultants and lawyers.

So what if Blair is shown to have fudged the reasons for going to war - then what?  Will he be prosecuted, I guess not. So where is the benefit of this enquiry?  So that everybody can feel justified in saying he lied?

I cannot imagine that the Iraqi's who have seen their wives and children blown to pieces will gain much from it.

[/quote]

Well said o slack one. As ever I can only marvel at the ways in which them what's in charge find to waste our money.

John

[Quillan]

"So you don't think that it was true that they could launch missiles of mass destruction at the west at 45 minutes notice?"

"Looking back now perhaps I shouldn't have said it or I should have said afterwards it was only a speculative comment, I didn't realise people would take so seriously or that it would be repeated so often by so many especially in the press."

I think he knew exactly what he was saying and what effect it would have i.e. scare the pants off people, stupid man.

[tegwini]

[quote user="Frederick"]

[quote user="Bugbear"].............when he's needed ?

Bliar

[:@]

.

[/quote]

 

If we had another Judge Jeffriys and he did find Blair guilty of an offence if he followed the ways of the origional one he would send him to Australia...Many dozens  of good Dorset men went to Dorchester to see him and then on to the colonies . We even have a bridge in Wimborne that has a sign on if you damage it you get transported . I am sure the Aussies would love to have Blair . 

[/quote]

Judge Jefferies, the hanging judge, punished men ( and the odd woman) after the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685 when there was an anti-Catholic  attempt to depose James 11.

Strangely Australia was not yet a penal colony, that was about 100 years later.  The 'guilty' were executed, and those transported were sent to the colonies in America, & the West Indies where some became slaves.   Salisbury was one of his court houses, where the Guildhall is today.

But, to get back to the theme, Blair will not be punished, after all it's only an enquiry.  UK MPs seem immune from criminal charges, the expenses scandal has not been cleared up, and Blair was probably part of that too.

Tegwini

[Weedon]

Apologies for bringing this topic back in from the cold, but did anybody see BBC's Question Time last night?

The only thing of any note was the statement from Lord Falconer who summed up the Chilcot in one sentence when asked whether Tony Blair could be prosecuted.

Lord Falconer revealed the utter futility of the whole affair by saying that even if the Chilcot Inquiry finds that the war was illegal, then the government did not act illegally, because they had a lawyer’s letter to say they were acting in good faith.

He didn't go as far as to say what date was on the lawyer's letter though.

As I said before, what a waste of time and money.  It will most certainly end up costing more than the amount paid back by nose in the trough MP's.