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

An exercise in PR I'd say.

Nice gesture considering he could have kept the cash. Have you got an opinion on the matter?

Shitting hell he's a scumbag…

'I'll send you off to an illegal war in a far away land where you run a high risk of getting blown to bits, and just to show you what a nice guy I am, I'll donate a small proportion of my vast wealth to a rehab centre designed to help you cope with the injuries you sustained during said spurious war. Call me Tone'.

Nice.

Nice gesture

Yeah, lovely. I'm sure they're ecstatic.

What a ****.

Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

And it may be in some way an act to attempt to clear his conscience, but is that such a bad thing? Would you rather:
– he felt bad about having sent troops into battle and did nothing about it?
– he didn't give a f*** about having sent troops into battle?
– he did what he's done as some form of recompense?

Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

And it may be in some way an act to attempt to clear his conscience, but is that such a bad thing? Would you rather:…

I think most people would have preferred him not to have gone to war in the first place.

It's like a drunk driver killing your child and then offering to pay for the coffin.

It's like a drunk driver killing your child and then offering to pay for the coffin.

Is not like that drunk driver coming into a large amount of money and, knowing the harm that his actions have caused, donating it to a charity that aims to support the victims of drink driving?

He could easily have donated anonymously. He didn't.

That is a very fair point.

This man held a badly paid but very powerful job for 10 years. When he left that job he was a millionaire. lots of very big foreign companies made a fortune out of our taxes and his decisions.

Under legislation he introduced he ought to be in the dock accounting for his assets.Instead he promises to give a pittance that he has not yet urned to a small charity that deals with one small corner of the harm his actions have done.

It's like a drunk driver killing your child pleading not guilty at court giving a false alibi, getting off then selling his story to the news of the world and sending flowers to the child's funeral with some of the proceeds.

Call me vindictive but i hate the man.

This man held a badly paid but very powerful job for 10 years. When he left that job he was a millionaire. lots of very big foreign companies made a fortune out of our taxes and his decisions.

Apart from the 10 years bit, couldn't you say that about most PMs we've had?

Under legislation he introduced he ought to be in the dock accounting for his assets.

I doubt I'm the only person interested in the thinking that leads to this somewhat surprising legal conclusion.

his decision was terrible initially over the war.
This is a better decision but he is stll morally bankrupt imho.
It in no way absolves him from the war and blood on hishands but I doubt Bush /cheeney ae giving away any of their wealth/profit.
I doubt Dave and Gideon are giving some of their vast personal wealth to the poor or needy via the big society in need that they are busy creating.
Utterly unforgivable decision by him on the war and i wish ther was maker for him to account for this too.

BIGDUMMY The thinking that leads to this is based around the proceeds of crime act 2002 and money laundering regulations.These essentially allow seizure of anyone's assets and place the onus on the suspect to account for them in order to recover them. Obviously grounds for suspicion must exist but if my client who runs a car wash can have £1000 in cash seized when Christmas shopping and have to jump through hoops to get it back then I'd like the same rules applied to Tony and his millions. Based on no evidence what so ever i think Tony's money is the proceeds of misfeasance in a public office.

I detest Tony Blair and the Labour party in general, but…

That is a hell of a lot of money and it will help a group of people who really deserve it. Credit where credit is due, he could have just kept the money to himself.

Arguing over the rights and wrongs of recent British foreign policy is all well and good, but ultimately pointless. Far better to focus on assisting those in this country who paid the blood price for the mistakes of their far better remunerated political masters.

Double figure post and no TJ yet 😕

Once again, it's PR – he could have done it anonymously otherwise.

Self serving smug ****, this changes nothing imo. I'd like to see him donate every single penny he has earned over the last few years in fees for speeches etc to injured civilians in Iraq, or the families of those killed. That might start to amend for his actions.

Far better to focus on assisting those in this country who paid the blood price for the mistakes of their far better remunerated political masters.

Far better tp hold the political master to account.
Does anyone , not in the labour party, believe the dossier was anything other than fabrication? The decision illegal and the war for regime change and oil? Surely we should want justice for the decisions as well as help to patch theinjured up? Please note as Grum diod noting for te hundreds of thousands of dead /injured Iraqi's
If i come round your house and break your legs because of some spurious dossier of lies I have producde and then buy the crutches will that be us even?

Maybe that catholic guilt kicking in?
It's obviously weighing heavy in him and rightly so. Nevertheless, the money doesn't know where it's come from and if it helps our wounded then it's OK with me.

to injured civilians in Iraq, or the families of those killed

None to our injured, grum?

I'm waiting to see if the first 2 paragraphs of his memoirs are:

I'm just an aging drummer boy
And in the wars I used to play
And I've called the tune
To many a torture session
Now they say I am a war criminal
And I'm fading away
Father please hear my confession

I have legalised robbery
Called it belief
I have run with the money
I have hid like a thief
I have re-written history
With my armies of my crooks
Invented memories
I did burn all the books

( NOTE: these lyrics may have been lifted off the internet without checking to see if they are accurate, just like the evidence used to send our troops into battle )

None to our injured, grum?

Maybe yes but the Iraqis have suffered far worse. Our injured also signed up for the army voluntarily knowing the risks involved…

Our injured also signed up for the army voluntarily knowing the risks involved…

So do police, firemen, nurses etc. Do they get what they deserve when injured/killed?
What if people had taken this attitude in the 1941? or 1914? Just because we are lucky enough to have brave people who aren't risk averse, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look after them becuase we'd be a right state without them.
There are soldiers returning with 1 leg who get less than someone who has suffered "hurt feelings" at work.
I don't disagree that the civilians should be compensated BTW but the forces should also be well covered.

The war in Iraq wasn't right, but it's hard to be totally at ease with the consequences of the previous containment and sanctions policy either, or indeed of the effect on Iraq of Saddam Hussein's government.

Soldiers volunteer and ought to know the risks, but it's impossible not to feel that they ought to be looked after as well as we can manage when the risks come along.

Blair ought to have quite a lot on his conscience, but that's quite a large amount of money.

I think I'll applaud this, while by no means cleaning his slate. 😐

Soldiers volunteer and ought to know the risks, but it's impossible not to feel that they ought to be looked after as well as we can manage when the risks come along.

Of course you're right. The problem is that if not looked after, we get less volunteers. The positive of this would be that dodgy politicians can't lead us into questionable wars, the negatives are that if another nutter comes along and wants to dominate europe; we're f*****. Also, no more humanitarian missions (of which we've done many). No help for the bosnias, sierra leones, kosovos, pakistans etc etc.

Just because we are lucky enough to have brave people who aren't risk averse, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look after them becuase we'd be a right state without them.

Really most squaddies I have meet/known have a love of guns/violence/fighting rather than being brave folk doing a job because they believe whole heartedly in defending the civil liberties of the weak/cowardly citizens of their country.
They tend to be a bit rght wing love royalty respect authority and were probably a bit more keen on this war that the people they claimed to represent.

Clearly I generalise many are bright and wise , many are brave but I cannot support everything the do bcause they claim it is done to protect m/us or in my name as it is and was not.

EDIT: another nutter to overthrown Europe given Nato the EU and Nuclear weapons.Oshat seem cedible? Even the neo cons had the sense to use an ill defined threat like Islam and the ex ally ofthe CIA Osama to scare us into supporting defence spennding now the threat of communism has gone. Where would they be without a threat to our very way of life however tenous?

Really most squaddies I have meet/known have a love of guns/violence/fighting rather than being brave folk doing a job because they believe whole heartedly in defending the civil liberties of the weak/cowardly citizens of their country.

Don't bother commenting on things you clearly don't understand. Love of violence, guns? A soldier will view his rifle as you would a hammer or screwdriver.

They tend to be a bit rght wing love royalty respect authority and were probably a bit more keen on this war that the people they claimed to represent.

SOME are right wing, but then so are some civilians. The police TEND to be right wing IME. Your claim about them being keen on war is utter rubbish (why bother?).

Clearly I generalise many are bright and wise , many are brave but I cannot support everything the do bcause they claim it is done to protect m/us or in my name as it is and was not.

Fair enough, you have the labour party and its voters to blame for that, not the military. If you are one of those then you owe the injured soldiers dear.

Our injured also signed up for the army voluntarily knowing the risks involved, not believing they would be involved in illegal wars but rather that their service would be to their country and not to pander to the PM's ego…

Felt the need to fix that for you.

Arguing over the rights and wrongs of recent British foreign policy is all well and good, but ultimately pointless.

It is not "pointless" …….. it is in fact, absolutely vital.

Nothing, just nothing, is more important than accountability in a democracy.

Personally I believe Blair isn't quite as convinced as some on here are, that he won't perhaps in years to come, be hauled before the courts to answer for his role in an illegal war……and not necessarily in the UK.

That thought at the back of his mind, plus guilt ridden sleepless nights, I'm sure contribute to his need to make some sort of "amends". Therefore the offer to be Middle East "Peace" Envoy, and large donations from a huge fortune which he was able to accumulate as a direct result of his warmongering past ……..he would not have made millions from his speech circuit in the US, if his premiership had been marked by 10 years of uninterrupted peace.

It is not an exercise in PR ……..he is not standing for election. It is imo, designed to cover his arse and, save his soul. Still, he should have thought about that when he made a pact with the Devil.

Well said ernie.

Interesting thoughts, ernie, well put and succinct.

When they have finished with Charles Taylor in the Hague, perhaps they might be looking around for something else to do…

his money so his decision …

I don't buy into any of this celebrity, tv personality, politicians, saints, rich people, famous people, stars, tv critique rubbish, etc.

🙂

Trying to buy his way into Heaven.

Dirty bastard. I'd advocate his public execution.

Catholic guilt? Well, the Pope is visiting soon…

Good point on making the donation anonymously.

I don't support the Blair government's decision to go to war in Iraq but I do wonder if any UK government would be able to say thanks but no thanks if the Americans wanted our active support in a similar situation?

He can buy what he likes …

😆

Guilt money – trying to buy absolution.

Scum bag through and through.

The multi millionaire Tony Blaire does not need the money. However, I believe he would love for his memoires to sell very very well indeed. Just like winning an election he will do whatever necessary to win people over.

The publication is pure vanity. I will give to charity directly when I wish, I will never buy his book.

Don't bother commenting on things you clearly don't understand. Love of violence, guns? A soldier will view his rifle as you would a hammer or screwdriver.

I am not sure that having a view different from you is the definition of lacking understanding bit arrogant that dont you think?.
I view my hammer and screwdriver with utter indiffernece and am not really sure where either of them are. Surely they are more professional than that and you claimed I have no understanding. I bet they clean it and practice shooting as well. I rarely pactice hammering and sadly dont practice screwing as much as I would like.

SOME are right wing, but then so are some civilians. The police TEND to be right wing IME. Your claim about them being keen on war is utter rubbish (why bother?).

I agree I accepted that I generalised in my post and said most not all. If they are so anti war and violence why join the army ? Are they thick? Clearly many soldiers want to do a tour and see the theatre of war it is after all what they are trained to do and is their job…bit like firefighters want to put out fires,coppers nick criminals or say doctors treat patients. Not really a controversial point to suggest people want to do their job is it?

I do wonder if any UK government would be able to say thanks but no thanks if the Americans wanted our active support in a similar situation?

Well a UK government has said "thanks but no thanks".

In 1964 the Americans wanted 'our active support' through the provision of troops for the Vietnam War. The then Prime Minister Harold Wilson responded by saying "thanks but no thanks".

Few people would argue today that that decision was incorrect.

Of course the situation in 1964 was somewhat different to 2003.

By 2003 Tony Blair/New Labour had completely destroyed all inner-party democracy within the Labour Party.

On the other hand the Labour Party in 1964 was still very much a democratic organisation in which decisions were democratically arrived at, and in which the leader was held accountable.

So whilst Harold Wilson strongly supported the US government's War in Vietnam, he simply couldn't ignore the opinions of the Labour Party and the wider British general public……..both of which were strongly opposed to the Vietnam War. He was therefore unable to provide troops for Vietnam.

In contrast Tony Blair was able to completely ignore both public opinion, and any possible dissent within the Labour Party.