Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Tony Blair's blood money
Quote by Mr-Powers
I am still not entirely sure how we came to be involved in the Afghanistan thing.
You will never make a history teacher!
Sometimes I think you say the things you do purely for effect.
:grin:Care to give us a history lesson?
Do you know Mr P? I thought I did.......then when this thread came up I realised I didn't have a fecking clue why we are over there or even when we went.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
I am still not entirely sure how we came to be involved in the Afghanistan thing.
You will never make a history teacher!
Sometimes I think you say the things you do purely for effect.
:grin:Care to give us a history lesson?
Do you know Mr P? I thought I did.......then when this thread came up I realised I didn't have a fecking clue why we are over there or even when we went.
Dave_Notts
tell me about it, one minute we are illegaly invading Iraq, next we're in Afghanistan, go figure!
Quote by Dave__Notts
Well I know your easily duped then Davey.
The evidence that Blair put before the House seemed overwhelming, hence why all the flak now about Blair telling porkies.
The opposition only has the evidence that was put before it and nothing else? And you think I am easily duped :lol:
I think a huge ammount of people supported the war based on the evidence put on the table, yes we now know that was bollocks but we did not think so at the time, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
At the time there were people saying the evidence was flawed. There were people who were protesting against any violent act.
Yes there are 650 MP's and not the figure someone spouted of 700, unless we have grown a few more constituences overnight somewhere.
This is the intersting bit. The Commons is not Parliament. So we may have 650 people in the Commons but Parliament is a lot more than 700.
Parliament is made up of the Commons, Lords and Monarchy.
Dave_Notts
Ben mentioned MP's, not Parliamentarians. The total numbers are for those that are interested.
Quote by Mr-Powers
I am still not entirely sure how we came to be involved in the Afghanistan thing.
You will never make a history teacher!
Sometimes I think you say the things you do purely for effect.
:grin:Care to give us a history lesson?
Ermmmm not really but these are the facts as far as I know them.
Iraq we invaded because apparently he had WMD....well that is what Blair told Parliament and the country. We now know that not to be true.
Afghanistan.............
In particular.... " It is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain a stable Afghanistan ... It is only by supporting the Afghan government and its security forces to bring stability that we can prevent Afghanistan becoming the haven for terrorists it once was, protecting Britain from attack and promoting peace across the region."
That is the main reason I thought we was there?
It is true that a lot of the objectives will never be met, but us and the USA, will not now just walk away from it. Unless someone knows better than me as to why we went there to start with?
That will be 15 quid for the lesson tyvw.
Quote by GnV
Ben mentioned MP's, not Parliamentarians.
This is where it gets confusing as Parliament and Government and Commons has been interchanged in this thread. Even you said the Tories were duped in Parliament.....or did you just mean the Commons?
When someone is not specific then people can get confused or be wrong in substance but right in how they were thinking. So he got the figures wrong, it is no big deal as 700 or 650 is still a lot of people being duped.
Dave_Notts
Quote by kentswingers777
snip... (for reasons of brevity)
Ermmmm not really but these are the facts as far as I know them.
Iraq we invaded because apparently he had WMD....well that is what Blair told Parliament and the country. We now know that not to be true.
add to that, that he said Saddam could deploy them on UK citizens with extreme speed.... (also untrue)
Quote by GnV
add to that, that he could deploy them on UK citizens with extreme speed.... (also untrue)
Depends where the British citizen was stood. If back in the UK then not a chance. If they were within range of the scuds then it was true.
WMD were sold to Iraq by us so the government knew they had them. They just never found them. Either sold on, buried or a water container for a camel.
Dave_Notts
Tony Blair could have handled this differently
He could have donated money from the fortune of circa £20,000,000 which he has earned since leaving Downing Street in the last 3 years from his speeches around the world and other activities to the RBL rather than the book money
If you do have a problem with this book perhaps for those it would be better to donate the to the RBL directly and gift aid it so that they would receive circa and nothing ending up within the Blair bank accounts
Now onto the book signings he is to do at places like Waterstones guess what, who is picking up the costs of the private protection yes you the taxpayer
He could have donated money from the fortune of circa £20,000,000 which he has earned since leaving Downing Street in the last 3 years from his speeches around the world and other activities to the RBL rather than the book money
If you do have a problem with this book perhaps for those it would be better to donate the to the RBL directly and gift aid it so that they would receive circa and nothing ending up within the Blair bank accounts
Now onto the book signings he is to do at places like Waterstones guess what, who is picking up the costs of the private protection yes you the taxpayer
Quote by kentswingers777
Ben mentioned MP's, not Parliamentarians
It is just Davey being extra extra extra picky GNV.....he knows exactly what was said.
Awwwww Kenny boy
don't get huffy.......just join in, smile and stop stamping feet then you'll feel much happier.You'll find GnV can debate and talk around the subject without trying to flame the thread by talking about being picky. His and my points have both been valid in our own way (minds).
Dave_Notts
surprised really that we seem to forget so quickly.
The afghan conflict was before the iraq invasion. It was a responce to the 9/11 attacks. Mr Bin Laden had been involved in many terrorist plots before. He was very anti western, and was actively training, and financing terrorist attacks. He was quite open about this, and was almost taunting the west to do something. The atack on the twin towers on 9/11 was spectacular, and left the whole of the western world in fear. These attacks would have continued and grown in frequency, had we not done something. The shadow of terrorism was growing and being cultivated openly in Afghanistan.
In my opinion we had to act. We could not allow this man and this regime to continue. We have not eridicated the threat, but we cetainly have reduced it, by our actions. Bin laden is believed to be holed up in caves in pakistan/afghan border area. His influence has certainly been muted. I do realy believe that had we not taken this action, more and more innocent people would have died, as islamic terrorism would have grown, and gone for even more spectacular shows of their strengh.
Once again I add....Iraq is totally differant. This was simply a revenge mission by Mr Bush on Saddam Hussian. The world and Iraq is better for Saddam's demise. Question has to be, is the loss of life and the financial cost worth it ?? Persoanlly with hindsight...I would say no.
Getting back to the orginal point of the post, as the British Legion said this morning....mr Blair is a private individual giving to their cause. He will himself still pay tax on this income, as well, even though reduced. Surely he has a right to spend his money in whatever way he wishes.
The afghan conflict was before the iraq invasion. It was a responce to the 9/11 attacks. Mr Bin Laden had been involved in many terrorist plots before. He was very anti western, and was actively training, and financing terrorist attacks. He was quite open about this, and was almost taunting the west to do something. The atack on the twin towers on 9/11 was spectacular, and left the whole of the western world in fear. These attacks would have continued and grown in frequency, had we not done something. The shadow of terrorism was growing and being cultivated openly in Afghanistan.
In my opinion we had to act. We could not allow this man and this regime to continue. We have not eridicated the threat, but we cetainly have reduced it, by our actions. Bin laden is believed to be holed up in caves in pakistan/afghan border area. His influence has certainly been muted. I do realy believe that had we not taken this action, more and more innocent people would have died, as islamic terrorism would have grown, and gone for even more spectacular shows of their strengh.
Once again I add....Iraq is totally differant. This was simply a revenge mission by Mr Bush on Saddam Hussian. The world and Iraq is better for Saddam's demise. Question has to be, is the loss of life and the financial cost worth it ?? Persoanlly with hindsight...I would say no.
Getting back to the orginal point of the post, as the British Legion said this morning....mr Blair is a private individual giving to their cause. He will himself still pay tax on this income, as well, even though reduced. Surely he has a right to spend his money in whatever way he wishes.
Had I been involved in either the Iraq or Afghanistan decisions and maybe had regrets about the course of action chosen I would probably choose to make such a gesture myself although not being a politician I wouldn't have done it publicly.
Being a politician does of course prevent the noble path, an admittance of mistakes.
Being a politician does of course prevent the noble path, an admittance of mistakes.
Sex God
As to how things work......constitutional monarchy....that I assume would require a constitution in some form or other, we don't have one ...we have a system based on tradition and precident little is written in stone.....the queen like it or not still ultimately holds the reigns of power....she doesn't use them because she wishes to remain queen..not because of some imagined constitutional restraint
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
As to how things work......constitutional monarchy....that I assume would require a constitution in some form or other, we don't have one ...we have a system based on tradition and precident little is written in stone.....the queen like it or not still ultimately holds the reigns of power....she doesn't use them because she wishes to remain queen..not because of some imagined constitutional restraint
Ermmm not really.....
Have a gander at this and all will become clear to you...
It clearly states.... " The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn through regular audiences with her ministers.
As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Government ministers. The Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707 ".
The royal Assent is....
Makes for interesting reading don't you think?
So no she does not hold the reigns of power, unless of course you want to go back 300 years.:giggle:
Oh yes and to answer your question...there is a constitution but not used today in the running of Parlaiment.
As the French would say..."La Reyne le veult". Also completly irrelevant!
Quote by kentswingers777
As to how things work......constitutional monarchy....that I assume would require a constitution in some form or other, we don't have one ...we have a system based on tradition and precident little is written in stone.....the queen like it or not still ultimately holds the reigns of power....she doesn't use them because she wishes to remain queen..not because of some imagined constitutional restraint
Ermmm not really.....
Have a gander at this and all will become clear to you...
It clearly states.... " The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn through regular audiences with her ministers.
As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Government ministers. The Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707 ".
The royal Assent is....
Makes for interesting reading don't you think?
So no she does not hold the reigns of power, unless of course you want to go back 300 years.:giggle:
Oh yes and to answer your question...there is a constitution but not used today in the running of Parlaiment.
As the French would say..."La Reyne le veult". Also completly irrelevant!
Well done. You said the same as Staggers. If the monarch does not give assent then the law is not passed. So the power is still there theoretically. However, as she wants to remain Queen she has never stopped one, nor have her relatives since 1707.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
Well done. You said the same as Staggers. If the monarch does not give assent then the law is not passed. So the power is still there theoretically. However, as she wants to remain Queen she has never stopped one, nor have her relatives since 1707.
Dave_Notts
Well, being entirely mischievous here, doesn't that in itself just prove the point about how flaky the British Constitution is? A Constitutional Monarch frightened shitless about not signing into law legislation created by the Statutory Legislature just to prolong its (the Sovereign's) continued existence?
"The Mother of all Parliaments" was how Saddam once described the British Constitution (or rather lack of it).
Is the British Parliament now losing credibility worldwide? Are the Aussies right to suggest that on the demise of HM QEII, they should seek to become a Republic?
Apologies for going off topic, but it seems a natural progression of the thread at this point...
Quote by GnV
Well done. You said the same as Staggers. If the monarch does not give assent then the law is not passed. So the power is still there theoretically. However, as she wants to remain Queen she has never stopped one, nor have her relatives since 1707.
Dave_Notts
Well, being entirely mischievous here, doesn't that in itself just prove the point about how flaky the British Constitution is? A Constitutional Monarch frightened shitless about not signing into law legislation created by the Statutory Legislature just to prolong its (the Sovereign's) continued existence?
"The Mother of all Parliaments" was how Saddam once described the British Constitution (or rather lack of it).
Is the British Parliament now losing credibility worldwide? Are the Aussies right to suggest that on the demise of HM QEII, they should seek to become a Republic?
Apologies for going off topic, but it seems a natural progression of the thread at this point...
What a thought provoking observation and new tangent for this thread
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Sod the Aussies WE should become a republic
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Long may she rule, and long live the monarchy.
Well the King or Queen anyway....fuck all the other scroungers.
At least you seem to recognise that she's a dole scrounger....they just don't like to put it like that
How did I know you would be anti Monarchist?
Check the figures as to how much money she brings into the country, what we pay her pales into insignificance.
Our Monarchy is steeped in history, yet that history is being eroded by the day.
In twenty years time they will be teaching all sorts of history in schools but it won't be English history, or certainly not as it was when I was a kid.
It will be bloody European history.....
" The Queen and the Royal Family have cost the taxpayer £40m during the last financial year - up £2m on the previous 12 months, official accounts show.
The total is equivalent to 66p per person in the UK - an increase of 4p ".
I wonder how much of the taxpayers money goes to benefit crooks? Oh yes 1.5 billion quid a year. A bit more than the 66p it costs each of us for the Royals. I know which one I would rather pay my money too.
I don't know why some people don't naff off to Cuba....
Check the figures as to how much money she brings into the country, what we pay her pales into insignificance.
Our Monarchy is steeped in history, yet that history is being eroded by the day.
In twenty years time they will be teaching all sorts of history in schools but it won't be English history, or certainly not as it was when I was a kid.
It will be bloody European history.....
" The Queen and the Royal Family have cost the taxpayer £40m during the last financial year - up £2m on the previous 12 months, official accounts show.
The total is equivalent to 66p per person in the UK - an increase of 4p ".
I wonder how much of the taxpayers money goes to benefit crooks? Oh yes 1.5 billion quid a year. A bit more than the 66p it costs each of us for the Royals. I know which one I would rather pay my money too.
I don't know why some people don't naff off to Cuba....
Sex God
Why do you think it's about money ??......I don't care about the cost of the royal family...I object to being a subject rather than a citizen....I object to the idea of 'birthright'.....I object to the concept of a non elected head of state....I object to the inequality a monarchy represents.....
Cuba...at least you've moved into this century
Cuba...at least you've moved into this century
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Why do you think it's about money ??......I don't care about the cost of the royal family...I object to being a subject rather than a citizen....I object to the idea of 'birthright'.....I object to the concept of a non elected head of state....I object to the inequality a monarchy represents.....
Cuba...at least you've moved into this century
P.S. I'm moved that you see that bunch of Germans as the last bastion of the British way of life....idiosyncratic now there's a word
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Why do you think it's about money ??......I don't care about the cost of the royal family...I object to being a subject rather than a citizen....I object to the idea of 'birthright'.....I object to the concept of a non elected head of state....I object to the inequality a monarchy represents.....
Cuba...at least you've moved into this century
P.S. I'm moved that you see that bunch of Germans as the last bastion of the British way of life....idiosyncraticnow there's a word
"A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group".
Sort of makes perfect sense.
I understand where you are coming from perfectly.
Sex God
See this..... .....it's all true ,it really is ,no honest,it must be,I read it
