Tony Blair donating book money

Do you think Tony Blair is trying to assuage his guilt over the Iraq war or is it a genuine offer of kindness? I must admit knowing how much he likes money, the announcement did surprise me.

I bet Cherie is livid.

When the Dr Kelly saga is properly looked into i think Blairs kingdom will come down.

I was surprised as well, but I am sure that his advisers pointed out that profiteering on the back of his time as PM, which the biggest decision was the war, would not go down well. Interesting to see that the press give it a mixed reception. I am naturally cynical and fall in to the camp of him washing his hands of blood etc.

When the Dr Kelly saga is properly looked into i think Blairs kingdom will come down.

When or if? I do not think that it will ever get re-opened. If Dr. Kelly was assassinated by the state, then this is almost worse than invading another country. If it can be traced back to the top, then I really do think that those at the top would spend time behind bars. Interesting that the announcement of the give away of the profits comes at the same time as 9 or 10 top doctors/pathologists say that Kelly's wounds (slashed wrist) were not the cause of his death and that Hutton whitewashed things. Coincidence?

The simple fact of the matter is, that 5million quid will do a lot of good for ex-servicemen. But yes, that money-grabbing troll he is married to is probably quite narked.

The fact is, that people join the forces knowing they will be used as a tool of UK domestic and foregin policy. They take the Queens shilling, and therefore must live (and die) with the consequences.

This is different from the Military Covenant; the ZaNuLabour goverment has acted disgracefully in upholding that.

When we look back at the legality of the wars, Afghanistan was perfectly legal, backed by UN mandate. The Taliban are an odious buch who were sheltering wanted terrorists (as well as allowing them to train there). Iraq does appear to have been illegal and oil-driven.

The David Kelly issue I can barely believe of a UK government; if ever re-opened and prosecuted, I hope whoever responsible has real problems with slippy soap at shower time in one of Her Majesty lesser places of residence.

Money is money and whatever his reasons for giving it, the RBL will no doubt do a fantastic job with it

Since leaving office, Blair has apparently been earning £5 million a year.

'Tony Blair donating book money'

Bloody nice bloke!

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't IMO (speaking as one who marched against the war and left the Labour Party in protest)

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't IMO (speaking as one who marched against the war and left the Labour Party in protest)

Which war did you march against ?

I saw the picture of that girl on the front of Time magazine last month and rediscovered my moral compass.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't IMO (speaking as one who marched against the war and left the Labour Party in protest)

I agree with this sentiment, if he hadn't given the money he would have been a greedy git but now he has he's got a guilty conscience.

By the way not got much time for the bloke myself, he ruined what was a great opportunity for Labour to make some irreversible changes for the better

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't IMO (speaking as one who marched against the war and left the Labour Party in protest)

It has yet to be ascertained exactly how much of the books proceeds are to be given. Like all things Blair look through the spin. Is it all the royalties worldwide and not a penny going his way including the advance?

He is just damned in my household much in the way you despise the great Margaret Thatcher

"A spokesman said Mr Blair would hand over the reported £4m advance payment plus all royalties to honour "their courage and sacrifice".

from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10988478

"A spokesman said Mr Blair would hand over the reported £4m advance payment plus all royalties to honour "their courage and sacrifice".

 

from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10988478

I won't hold my breath about that. Although he has made more than he will ever require add to that the gold plated human rights laws for his wife to earn from.

Cruela De Blair won't be amused.

I won't hold my breath about that. Although he has made more than he will ever require add to that the gold plated human rights laws for his wife to earn from.

Dreadful, isn't it. Talented QC earning good money. Still, I guess she pays her taxes.

Looks like the murdering **** is finally developing a conscience.

Dreadful, isn't it. Talented QC earning good money. Still, I guess she pays her taxes.

it depends how you look at it. Running the human rights scam is not that hard

it depends how you look at it. Running the human rights scam is not that hard

What on earth are you talking about? There are laws. People break them; people challenge them. Said people need lawyers.

Whether it's human rights legislation or being accused of murder. That's what solicitors, barristers, recorders and judges are there for.

I would have thought you would have approved of someone using their talents for their own betterment. That's what Tories believe in, surely?

Dreadful, isn't it. Talented QC earning good money. Still, I guess she pays her taxes.

Let's hope she went to the local comprehensive school then, and had the same opportunities as everyone else in the country.

What's that you say, a Grammar School! Shocking, shouldn't be allowed to have such an advantage!

What on earth are you talking about? There are laws. People break them; people challenge them. Said people need lawyers.

 

Whether it's human rights legislation or being accused of murder. That's what solicitors, barristers, recorders and judges are there for.

 

I would have thought you would have approved of someone using their talents for their own betterment. That's what Tories believe in, surely?

Yes lawyers are very important but sadly i have no time for many if them, as you no doubt can tell.

Interesting that the announcement of the give away of the profits comes at the same time as 9 or 10 top doctors/pathologists say that Kelly's wounds (slashed wrist) were not the cause of his death and that Hutton whitewashed things. Coincidence?

None of the 9 were pathologists from what I understood from the radio. I listened to someone last night on Radio4, the explanation he gave given all the evidence was quite clear. There was no sign that Kelly was murdered. If it were a faked suicide, why not slash his wrists cleanly so he bleed to death more quickly? There was no sign of toxins in his body apart from coproxamol or co-codeine. There was no subcataneous (sp?) brusing, only bruising was on his knees, as you'd get from kneeling down for a long time.

There was a quite a long piece on this in interview form, have a listen for yourself on PM.

We'll never get to the bottom of this conspiracy theory I'm afraid, same as JFK and Diana.

It's a bit like cutting off someone's leg then offering to buy them crutches really.

Let's hope she went to the local comprehensive school then, and had the same opportunities as everyone else in the country.

 

What's that you say, a Grammar School! Shocking, shouldn't be allowed to have such an advantage!

It was a (state) convent grammar school but, given her age, there probably was an 11+ selection system in force at the time. It wouldn't have been an 'advantage' that was paid for. If there was 11+ selection, there wouldn't have been comprehensive schools at that time.

She was raised by her grandmother, a devout Catholic, and CB is a catholic so it's understandable she went to a catholic school. Her school was amalgamated with another and is now a state secondary school.

Blair can't win at all with some people. Whether I believe in his wars or not, I can still respect that he appreciates the job servicemen did under his direction. Well done on this extra generous donation, the biggest in Royal British Legion's history.

Yep like the ambulance chasers on Claims Direct and Human rights lawyers who cost the taxpayer fortunes, who have had the laws tailor made by their husband.

Yes lawyers are very important but sadly i have no time for many if them, as you no doubt can tell.

Human Rights legislation is Europe wide - it's not the perogative of a British PM to 'tailor make' them.

It's silly to equate QCs with ambulance chasers. That's like comparing a heart surgeon to a school nurse, or a chief constable to a wheel clamper

None of the 9 were pathologists from what I understood from the radio. I listened to someone last night on Radio4, the explanation he gave given all the evidence was quite clear. There was no sign that Kelly was murdered. If it were a faked suicide, why not slash his wrists cleanly so he bleed to death more quickly? There was no sign of toxins in his body apart from coproxamol or co-codeine. There was no subcataneous (sp?) brusing, only bruising was on his knees, as you'd get from kneeling down for a long time.

 

There was a quite a long piece on this in interview form, have a listen for yourself on PM.

 

We'll never get to the bottom of this conspiracy theory I'm afraid, same as JFK and Diana.

Piece in the Guardian about Dr Kelly's death:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/16/david-kelly-inquest-hutton-inquiry

It was a (state) convent grammar school but, given her age, there probably was an 11+ selection system in force at the time. It wouldn't have been an 'advantage' that was paid for. If there was 11+ selection, there wouldn't have been comprehensive schools at that time.

 

She was raised by her grandmother, a devout Catholic, and CB is a catholic so it's understandable she went to a catholic school. Her school was amalgamated with another and is now a state secondary school.

Oh, I see.

So it's not good to pay for an advantage out of your own pocket - despite the fact that you pay taxes for local schools

But, it's absolutely fine for the church to pay for advantages for your children

Oh, I see.

 

So it's not good to pay for an advantage out of your own pocket - despite the fact that you pay taxes for local schools

 

But, it's absolutely fine for the church to pay for advantages for your children

A regular reader of my posts will know that I've said many times that I think faith schools should be phased out. Education should be secular.

I went to a grammar school because there was selection in Southampton at the time. It didn't cost anyone any more to educate me there than at the local secondary school (there weren't comprehensives then because you don't get comprehensive schools where there's a selection process, obviously).

What any church does with its money is of no concern to me. I'm an aetheist so have no reason to have an opinion on any church's finances. I don't pay into them.

A regular reader of my posts will know that I've said many times that I think faith schools should be phased out. Education should be secular.

 

I went to a grammar school because there was selection in Southampton at the time. It didn't cost anyone any more to educate me there than at the local secondary school (there weren't comprehensives then because you don't get comprehensive schools where there's a selection process, obviously).

 

What any church does with its money is of no concern to me. I'm an aetheist so have no reason to have an opinion on any church's finances. I don't pay into them.

Wasn't the 11+ elitist and i suggest more costly to run as I think you will find class sizes were smaller and facilities better

Human Rights legislation is Europe wide - it's not the perogative of a British PM to 'tailor make' them.

 

It's silly to equate QCs with ambulance chasers. That's like comparing a heart surgeon to a school nurse, or a chief constable to a wheel clamper

Yes it was Europe wide but some of it we could have opted out of, but it was to Blairs advantage not to.

Yes it was Europe wide but some of it we could have opted out of, but it was to Blairs advantage not to.

The ECHR was established in 1950 - before CB was born Here's the Wiki entry:

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe,[1] the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity

The protocol (i.e. the potential re-writing of part of the legislation) was not established until 2009.

So either Tony Blair was clever enough to draft the legislation before he was born to the potential advantage to his future wife who also hadn't been born, or your assertion that somehow he manipulated things to suit his wife is just plain wrong

Again from Wiki: She specialises in employment, discrimination and public law and in this capacity has occasionally represented claimants taking cases against the UK government

Her chambers specialises in Human Rights matters but, no doubt, will have other QCs specialising in other aspects of HR law.

The ECHR was established in 1950 - before CB was born Here's the Wiki entry:

 

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe,[1] the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity

 

The protocol (i.e. the potential re-writing of part of the legislation) was not established until 2009.

 

So either Tony Blair was clever enough to draft the legislation before he was born to the potential advantage to his future wife who also hadn't been born, or your assertion that somehow he manipulated things to suit his wife is just plain wrong

 

Again from Wiki: She specialises in employment, discrimination and public law and in this capacity has occasionally represented claimants taking cases against the UK government

 

Her chambers specialises in Human Rights matters but, no doubt, will have other QCs specialising in other aspects of HR law.

The original Human Rights legislation would be far removed from what has evolved including the discrimination laws. You are saying that the law was not changed/amended during Blairs premiership?

Of course it's changed. All laws evolve as society evolves. I'm going to post below a link to an interesting history of ECHR. You may be interested to see that the original legislation was drafted very much influenced by the UK. That was in the late 40s and early 50s. We joined the EU in 1961 under Harold MacMillan's Conservative government.

No one country or Prime Minister has the power to change the law (to suit his wife LOL). Changes to the legislation are voted on by all member countries. The laws have changed whilst a number of UK Prime Ministers have been in power.

Your 'argument' is not holding water, Nick

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm

Of course it's changed. All laws evolve as society evolves. I'm going to post below a link to an interesting history of ECHR. You may be interested to see that the original legislation was drafted very much influenced by the UK. That was in the late 40s and early 50s. We joined the EU in 1961 under Harold MacMillan's Conservative government.

 

No one country or Prime Minister has the power to change the law (to suit his wife LOL). Changes to the legislation are voted on by all member countries. The laws have changed whilst a number of UK Prime Ministers have been in power.

 

Your 'argument' is not holding water, Nick

 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm

Amazing Harold Macmillan has a lot to answer for, he managed to get us into the European Community years before Ted heath did, very forward thinking in fact did he let anyone else know we had joined at the time?

Of course it's changed. All laws evolve as society evolves. I'm going to post below a link to an interesting history of ECHR. You may be interested to see that the original legislation was drafted very much influenced by the UK. That was in the late 40s and early 50s. We joined the EU in 1961 under Harold MacMillan's Conservative government.

 

No one country or Prime Minister has the power to change the law (to suit his wife LOL). Changes to the legislation are voted on by all member countries. The laws have changed whilst a number of UK Prime Ministers have been in power.

 

Only a dictator would be able to change the laws to suit but a PM has the power to encourage that the nation takes on legislation, some was very much to the advantage of his wife

Of course it's changed. All laws evolve as society evolves. I'm going to post below a link to an interesting history of ECHR. You may be interested to see that the original legislation was drafted very much influenced by the UK. That was in the late 40s and early 50s. We joined the EU in 1961 under Harold MacMillan's Conservative government.

 

No one country or Prime Minister has the power to change the law (to suit his wife LOL). Changes to the legislation are voted on by all member countries. The laws have changed whilst a number of UK Prime Ministers have been in power.

 

Only a dictator would be able to change the laws to suit but a PM has the power to encourage that the nation takes on legislation, some was very much to the advantage of his wife

 

You really are scraping the barrel here aren't you . Changes to the law are voted on by ALL member countries. Not just the UK. Tony Blair or any other PM before or since could not and cannot DICTATE changes to the law.

 

The legislation is Europe-wide. In fact, it could be argued that the opt-out could deliver the situation you envisage as the opt-out declares that, in some areas, UK legislation takes precedence where there is a conflict with EU legislation.

 

However, the opt-out did not come into force until 2009 - after TB left office.

 

So, to summarise, TB drafted legislation before he was born, to benefit the woman who was going to be his wife before she was born.

 

We entered the EEC as it was then, under a Tory government, in 1961, when Cherie Blair was 19. She didn't become a barrister until 1976. Of course she knew, in 1976 that this bloke TB (also a pupil in the same chambers) was going to be PM and have an inordinate influence over the passage of Human Rights legislation by becoming PM in 1997

 

Get real, sunshine. But thank you for an amusing interlude this afternoon

Of course it's changed. All laws evolve as society evolves. I'm going to post below a link to an interesting history of ECHR. You may be interested to see that the original legislation was drafted very much influenced by the UK. That was in the late 40s and early 50s. We joined the EU in 1961 under Harold MacMillan's Conservative government.

 

No one country or Prime Minister has the power to change the law (to suit his wife LOL). Changes to the legislation are voted on by all member countries. The laws have changed whilst a number of UK Prime Ministers have been in power.

 

 

 

You really are scraping the barrel here aren't you . Changes to the law are voted on by ALL member countries. Not just the UK. Tony Blair or any other PM before or since could not and cannot DICTATE changes to the law.

 

The legislation is Europe-wide. In fact, it could be argued that the opt-out could deliver the situation you envisage as the opt-out declares that, in some areas, UK legislation takes precedence where there is a conflict with EU legislation.

 

However, the opt-out did not come into force until 2009 - after TB left office.

 

So, to summarise, TB drafted legislation before he was born, to benefit the woman who was going to be his wife before she was born.

 

We entered the EEC as it was then, under a Tory government, in 1961, when Cherie Blair was 19. She didn't become a barrister until 1976. Of course she knew, in 1976 that this bloke TB (also a pupil in the same chambers) was going to be PM and have an inordinate influence over the passage of Human Rights legislation by becoming PM in 1997

 

Get real, sunshine. But thank you for an amusing interlude this afternoon

So you are saying that the UK's opt out in the EU started in 2009 and that we joined the EU in 1961.

As far as Im aware we have had the power to veto legislations from day one and that we didn't join the EEC until the late 1960's under Ted Heath

So you are saying that the UK's opt out in the EU started in 2009 and that we joined the EU in 1961.

As far as Im aware we have had the power to veto legislations from day one and that we didn't join the EEC until the late 1960's under Ted Heath

 

My bad - we APPLIED to join in 1961 but our application was vetoed by the French. We actually joined in 1975 (now I remember because I was pregnant at the time and, ironically, was out campaigning for a 'no' vote whilst very very large).

 

All members of the EU have to sign up to the ECHR - it's a condition of membership. However, they're two separate bodies. Do read the link I posted above because it explains the correlation between the two bodies better than I ever could.

 

OK here's the link again:

 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm

 

My bad - we APPLIED to join in 1961 but our application was vetoed by the French. We actually joined in 1975 (now I remember because I was pregnant at the time and, ironically, was out campaigning for a 'no' vote whilst very very large).

 

All members of the EU have to sign up to the ECHR - it's a condition of membership. However, they're two separate bodies. Do read the link I posted above because it explains the correlation between the two bodies better than I ever could.

 

OK here's the link again:

 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm

i read that link, but it was not relevant as it is not about the starting date., but how Blair was in power when legislation was passed that helped his wife.

i think you should look up the dates of when we entered the EEC, decimal came in in 1971 and so we would have joined earlier than that

i read that link, but it was not relevant as it is not about the starting date., but how Blair was in power when legislation was passed that helped his wife.

i think you should look up the dates of when we entered the EEC, decimal came in in 1971 and so we would have joined earlier than that

 

Here's the timeline:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3583801.stm

 

Our adoption of decimal currency was not predicated by joining the EU. It may, however, at the time, have been considered a 'declaration of intent' perhaps.

 

And the link, as I said, was to explain how the EU and the ECHR are two separate organisations. However, a requirement of membership of the EU is signature to the ECHR.

 

What legislation specifically was passed when Blair was in power that would have 'helped' his wife?

I know it's from the Mail, but here's a link explaining some of the stuff Nick was alluding to before you went off on a bizarre EU membership tangent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051548/Cherie-Blairs-law-chambers-lost-business-Tony-left-No10.html

Mrs Blair's chambers experienced six years of boom after it was established in 2001 with the aim of providing lawyers expert in human rights law and Labour's 1998 Human Rights Act, which had just come into force.

What a bizarre article that is, a 0.7% drop in earnings in these times in hardly worth the speculation they link it to. I hate the Daily Mail.

What a bizarre article that is, a 0.7% drop in earnings in these times in hardly worth the speculation they link it to. I hate the Daily Mail.

Hmm and the bit implying that her Chambers gained significantly from the 1998 Human Rights Act is also bizarre. All that Act did was to reinforce the ECHR apart from allowing UK law to be declared 'incompatible' with ECHR laws where there is a conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

I'm sure loads of other Chambers benefited too - indeed the Mail article says as much.

This thread deviated because Nick suggested that, somehow, Tony Blair was instrumental in getting ECHR laws changed to suit his wife.

Hmm and the bit implying that her Chambers gained significantly from the 1998 Human Rights Act is also bizarre. All that Act did was to reinforce the ECHR apart from allowing UK law to be declared 'incompatible' with ECHR laws where there is a conflict.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

 

I'm sure loads of other Chambers benefited too - indeed the Mail article says as much.

 

This thread deviated because Nick suggested that, somehow, Tony Blair was instrumental in getting ECHR laws changed to suit his wife.

Tony Blair made mistakes, but the length to which some people think he lies and schemes is beyond me. On a Daily Mail article I was reading the other day about this donation someone had commented something along the lines of 'Don't believe him, he's lying' and it had been liked hundreds of times. Some people are just dumb.

Hmm and the bit implying that her Chambers gained significantly from the 1998 Human Rights Act is also bizarre. All that Act did was to reinforce the ECHR apart from allowing UK law to be declared 'incompatible' with ECHR laws where there is a conflict.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

 

I'm sure loads of other Chambers benefited too - indeed the Mail article says as much.

 

This thread deviated because Nick suggested that, somehow, Tony Blair was instrumental in getting ECHR laws changed to suit his wife.

news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/.../2459167.stm - i can't be ar### to find these things normally BTF but on this occasion as it's you.

If you don't think that self interest never is used in power then you are naive

I also point to your wording in this sentence to underline that indeed you know that Blairs decision was to her gain. 'I'm sure loads of other Chambers benefited too - indeed the Mail article says as much.' other Chambers benifited TOO

news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/.../2459167.stm - i can't be ar### to find these things normally BTF but on this occasion as it's you.

If you don't think that self interest never is used in power then you are naive

 

I also point to your wording in this sentence to underline that indeed you know that Blairs decision was to her gain. 'I'm sure loads of other Chambers benefited too - indeed the Mail article says as much.' other Chambers benifited TOO

Sorry Nick - I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. The actual sentence doesn't make sense.

I think you're implying that he deliberately introduced an Act of Parliament with the sole purpose of benefiting his wife. Any legal firm will benefit from ANY new laws passed - of course they will. It's their job to analyse,interpret and apply any new law. Even the Mail climbed out of its bunker to recognise that.

If she had been a heart surgeon and he'd introduced a law to say that heart surgery has to increase by 50%, no doubt you'd say that he did that deliberately too - to benefit her.

He is making mega money already from his time as PM - without the book profits.

As usual, his PR people have told him he needs to pull this stunt in an attempt at damage limitation.

He couldn't wait to ditch politics and England to get on the gravy train of 'world statesman'.

Most former PM's stay on in Parliament as a backbencher.

I am so pleased that finally most people see him for what he really is.

Fair play to him for doing it. Doesn't really matter why, a good charity gets a load of money.

i read that link, but it was not relevant as it is not about the starting date., but how Blair was in power when legislation was passed that helped his wife.

i think you should look up the dates of when we entered the EEC, decimal came in in 1971 and so we would have joined earlier than that

 

 

We joined in 1973