http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6533789.stm
Would be enough for me to hold a grudge against the odious git who sent our forces to this mess.
Reckon Brown has no wedding invite as it was the only way to make it look non personal.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Tony Blair snubbed...is this why?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
i'd say it has more to do with bliar defecting from c of e to catholocism the moment he stepped down from power.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ah, that's credible also. Telegraph thinks it's because of the way Blair used Dianas death to his political advantage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Who is this bliar you speak of , a little hasbeen man, who wrote a book and nobody bought,
Posted 1 year ago # -
who wrote a book and nobody bought
He's still laughing all the way to the bank unfortunately with that £4.6m advance he got for it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Didn't he give his advance and profits to the British Legion or Help for Heroes?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Can't it just be because there's no reason to invite ex prime ministers from a protocol point of view and so they didn't bother?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Oops. It wasn't until after I'd gone back and hit send post again that I realised this may be the double post 'bug' I've read about!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Maybe he's too busy being our Middle East Peace Envoy....
Posted 1 year ago # -
markie....I thought that might be the case, but when you look at some of the representatives from tinpot dictatorships that ARE attending, not to invite two prominent recent prime ministers can't be accidental in my view.
Posted 1 year ago # -
CHB - I haven't seen the list but would guess they're tinpot dictators from countries the UK has diplomatic relations with ('I did not have diplomatic relations with that...) and so are only there for the sake of protocol. Begs the question of what's protocol worth, though!
And no, I wouldn't see it at accidental either - but nor would I see it as malicious. Figuring the bride and groom chose their guests (friends and family) and then said to a courtier "and anyone else who has to come along...".
Posted 1 year ago # -
Teh offical excuse is
"Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher were invited as they are both Knights of the Garter, along with Prince William," a spokesman said.
"Furthermore, Sir John Major has a personal connection to Prince William, as he was appointed guardian to Prince William and Prince Harry following the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
"This is a private wedding and not a state occasion, unlike [the Queen's wedding] in 1947 or 1981, so there is no protocol reason to invite former prime ministers."
Posted 1 year ago # -
Blair is a war criminal and one day I hope to see him tried at the Hague(sp?) for what he and Bush have done.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Agreed. I imagine if it's because he's a war criminal?
EDIT: Hot damn! Too slow!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cameron will be joining him for Libya - bombing civilians
Posted 1 year ago # -
Didn't Blair as PM say he wouldn’t be updating the Queen every Thursday (?) as per tradition if he didn't want to? I don't think he holds Royalty in very high regard (I’m quite sure that’s mutual), so they saved him the embarrassment of having to turn down the invite (what with him being a man of such high principles).
He's also a war criminal, and he supported Shrub (little Bush) and the outlaw US (outlaw after the US refused to recognise the UN World Court including its earlier conviction for illegal use of force in Nicaragua).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cameron deliberately bombed civilians in Libya?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The UK force are acting in obvious breach of UN resolution and they killed a load of civilians the other day. Tthey are acting under Camerons instruction - "the buck stops here"
If you believe Blair is a war criminal for Iraq ( as I do) then judged by the same standards Cameron is certainly heading that way if not there already
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks for explaining your view, appreciated.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If we are talking war criminals, how about Thatcher for the belgrano.
Posted 1 year ago # -
considering invites have gone out to zimbabwe and bahrain i think blair would be in good company
Posted 1 year ago # -
AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
You invite someone with an invitation. You do not send, or receive an invite.
FFS!
This has been bugging me for days, as everyone and his dog on the news keep saying things like "invites were sent".
Posted 1 year ago # -
That'll learn him!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago # -
capitain....wait till the Olympics when you have to tolerate all the joggers and jumpists and stuff "medalling".... and not in the catholic priest sense. Reckon you might bludgeon someone to death with your leather bound copy of the OED.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@TJ
The UK force are acting in obvious breach of UN resolution
From resolution 1973:
the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory
So, what are we doing in breach of the resolution? We're taking all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack, short of sending in ground troops.
Baffled.
Posted 1 year ago # -
just chillax there tj we dont all speak the queens english
Posted 1 year ago # -
CHB, I am going to my quiet place to escape your horrors....
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would think Blair was primarily snubbed for being a **** and Brown for being a boring ****
Anything else is just embellishment
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm glad that grinning buffoon isn't going to be there, otherwise my television might not survive having something thrown at it.
I do hope he gets ebola soon.
Posted 1 year ago # -
oldnpastit. The actions of the UK forces are far beyond that and are not impartial. the rebels have killed civilians by indiscriminate fire - have we bombed the rebel side?
We have bombed Gadaffis compound in tripoli - hardly protecting civilians. We are complicit in the arming of the rebels.
It is very clear that the UK forces are not acting to protect civilians but to support the rebel side. We have caused directly and indirectly significant numbers of civilian deaths.
If we wanted to stop civilian deaths we would be telling both sides that any aggressive move gets them bombed - but no - we are supporting the rebel side to attack their legitimate government.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If we are talking war criminals, how about Thatcher for the belgrano.
Feel free to explain how an Argentinean warship wasn't a legitimate target when we were at war with Argentina?Posted 1 year ago # -
Feel free to explain how an Argentinean warship wasn't a legitimate target when we were at war with Argentina?
Oh dear Lord above, you had to ask, didn't you? They'll be frothing away for days now.
Posted 1 year ago # -
well apart from the signs of mission creep ie sending in 'advisors' arming the rebels (directly or via arab intermediaries we sell the weapons to)
theres the obvious fact that dropping bombs on any country will lead to civillian casualties, dont let the myth of surgical strikes fool youPosted 1 year ago # -
CFH - I typed an answer but thought better of it.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
