Have you seen this from the Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/01/mystery-tony-blair-finances

They have issued a request for people (especially tax lawyers and accountants) to help unravel Tony Blair's finances. I think it's a fantastic idea but a little surprising from a broadsheet. They have said there's no suggestion of wrongdoing, though I'm sure they'd be delighted if something juicy came up.

If I was Blair id be more worried about washing the blood off my hands – its going to take him years.

I blame fatcher…

Having seen the multiple expensive houses etc that modern Labour politicians own (it used to be expected more from members of the political parties of the rich) I find myself wondering where a lot of thier money is coming from? It cant all be from expenses claims, there must be other huge sources of money.

No wonder there is no political representation for poor people, most of new Labour have solid gold spoons in thier mouths.

That's an interesting structure certainly. I shall have a look. Finding something quite complex going on in the vicinity of large amounts of money is not really surprising however. 🙂

Be nice to see him get done for something wouldn't it.

Bircham Dyson Bell aren't mentalists, there won't be anything. It'll be the same frustrating business of it all being entirely above-board, just leaving a slightly queasy feeling that something isn't quite right and he's revolting. 🙂

I would have called an alert for our resident tax lawyer, but BD's already here 🙂

TBH, none of this strikes me as massively complex or deliberately obfuscatory.

Blair is a rich man. Rich men can afford decent financial and legal advice.

If we are to be concerned with anything, it should be the sources of his various incomes, not the means by which he then manages and funnels that cash once he has it.

It'll be the same frustrating business of it all being entirely above-board

Yeah I know – just vainly hoping. 🙁

The Trial of Tony Blair…if only it could be a reality, and he was convicted war crimes. One can only dream about such a thing.

Tony "Only God can judge me…Blair?

Err, Mr Blair your after dinner speech for £2million is about to start in 5…

I think this is one of those many stories that can be summed up in two words

'So what?'

I would take great pleasure in processing him and his ghastly wife through the eye of a needle.

Anyone else notice that he and his wife aren't seen together much any more? I wonder…

What ever you think of him (not alot in my case) Tony Blair must be one of the most "wanted" men in the world. I would be very interested to know who pays for his security now he has stepped down, and just how much it costs.

Does he foot the bill himself or does it come from the public purse somehow?

I think this is one of those many stories that can be summed up in two words
'So what?'

Not the 2 words I was thinking of

billyboulders – Member
What ever you think of him

I've trodden in things I think more of.

The man waited until he'd stopped being PM to become a Catholic.

Never mind anything that he ever did in power, that single sentence makes him the most stupid dick in the world.

VeryNormal Activity: The Bliars.

Inwhich a young(ish) couple are possessed by the spirit of money, with hideous consequences. Untold numbers of cinema-goers are scared witless by the wife's face.

Captain Flash- our (me and you) political views are worlds apart but I agree fully with you there.

Would be interested to know who does pay to keep the @@@@ alive though.

I think this is one of those many stories that can be summed up in two words

'So what?'

I don't believe this is the sort of story which deserves no more than a "so what?" comment.

Because unlike Blair, I think it is 'the people' who should pass judgement on him – he was after all British Prime Minister. If he had wanted only God to be his judge, then perhaps it wasn't very wise of him to put himself forward for the highest office in the land.

I reckon in fact, that everything about Tony Blair should be dissected. So that his legacy can be fully understood. And not only his foreign policy legacy, but also the legacy he left to the Labour Party – earlier this year support for the Labour Party totally collapsed, in both the European Elections and Local Elections. The Labour Party received it's worst election results ever.

I believe that Tony Blair should be exposed for the liar, the fraud, the charlatan, and the cheat, which he truly is.
He didn't join the Labour Party because of a burning desire to fight for the founding principles of the Party.
He joined the Party because he saw it as a useful vehicle to achieve his personal ambitions of self-fulfilment.

He didn't become Prime Minister because he was a conviction politician who saw the Office as one way in which he could provide a political contribution to British politics. He became PM because of the potential it provided for power and wealth. He made that very clear when he simultaneously resigned his parliamentary seat at the same time as he resigned as Party Leader – he could at least have waited until the next general election. Like just about every other former leader of all the political parties have.

But of course if he wasn't going to be PM, then he simply wasn't interested in British politics any more. 'Politics' was no longer a useful tool for him personally. Concentrating on making vast amounts of money was now far more important for him – so **** parliament, and **** the voters of his Sedgefield constituency.

Of course we all know that the self-serving egomaniac did toy with the idea of becoming 'President of Europe'
(but naturally, only if the job was sufficiently prestigious and powerful enough for him)

Yup, I welcome anything that exposes what I consider, to be the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had, for what he really is.

Quote : There is no suggestion Blair is doing anything illegal. But he refuses to explain the purpose of the secretive partnerships.

So nothing 'illegal' then (apart from wars) just something which is obviously hugely morally embarrassing for him.

Well said Ernie – may i be so cheeky as to ask if i can cut-&-paste your post for use on an American forum (with authors reference of course)?

ernie – i dont think you've gone far enough in your description of how much of a low life that guy really is. feel free to expand some more. 😀 I agree with it all btw.

Yep no problem muddydwarf. And no need for 'author reference' as far as I'm concerned.

The part where I said

There is no suggestion Blair is doing anything illegal.

only related to this particular item about his financial arrangements.

I would not use this statement about his time as PM.

How times have changed on STW. Where have all the must-support-our-troops, Saddam-is-a-threat-that-must-be-removed posters from the gulf war days gone?

When I quoted Hans Blix the day before Blair and Bush went to war "we have had access to all the sites we have asked to see and foung nothing" I got flamed.

When I quoted Dominique de Villepin at the ONU I got flamed too.

Wherever all those posters have gone it's nice to see they've gone or at least wised up and changed their minds.

billyboulders – Member
Does he foot the bill himself or does it come from the public purse somehow?

Afaik his security is still paid for by the public. I remember a recent interview with major where he said he still has a special branch escort everywhere he goes.

Edukator – maybe your memory is better than mine.

Saddam-is-a-threat-that-must-be-removed

IIRC the STW opinion was split pretty much 50/50, and probably still would be if it was debated now.
(We)

must-support-our-troops

I don't really see how anyone could not agree with this. For better or worse they have chosen to fight "for us" as their career. I have to do stuff I don't necessarily agree with every day in my working life luckily what I do is very trivial and I'm not likely to get killed while I do it.

(We) must-support-our-troops

I don't see there is any contradiction between supporting our troops and fundamentality disagreeing with the decision to start an illegal war.

Equating disagreement with Blair with a lack of support of the troops is the sort of simple minded thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

The troops never were fighting for you, they were fighting for Blair and Bush. You were duped. It was spin, ploy to discredit anti-war protest and you all fell for it. You should have been out on the streets and blocking the gates of the army bases.

If you'd really been backing the troops you'd have protested against them being sent to be killed in an illegal war, George Bush and Cherry Blair's personal crusade.

For nearly a hundred years British troops had fought on the side of right and good and in defence. Blair changed that. The troops shouldn't have had our support to fight an aggressive, unwinable, unjust action.

Anybody else watch the news? A soldier that was ordered to murder about 27 000 people did just that. He's now being wheeled into court to answer for his crime. Should he have our support? Should British troops have had your support for killing 100 000* Iraqui civilians?

* I'll accept any number here you think plausible.

If you'd really been backing the troops you'd have protested against them being sent to be killed in an illegal war, George Bush and Cherry Blair's personal crusade.

I did. Trafalgar square Feb 2003.(did you? and no offence meant, it's a genuine question.)
Blair/Bush are war criminals IMO.
My brother Dan is a Marine in Afganistan at the mo. He agrees with me re Bush/Blair being war criminals. He also thinks our way of life is worth protecting even if some of the people he's protecting are your Tony Blair "grab what you can f@k every one else" types. Every time I hear on the news another soldier has died my heart sinks in case it's him.

My best mate Graham is a bit f'kd up 'cos he knows for a fact some of the shells he personally loaded in the breach of his tank probably (more than likely) actually killed some guys in the first (1991) gulf war, people who apart from their "bosses" were no different to him.

Both those guys are braver than me, I went on the march because I didn't want to see them and many others like them killed. I'm proud to say they both have said to me they appreciate that. And I'm more proud of them

Edukator – you would be interested in my mates uni dissertation, "defending the indefensible" examing how Ze(sic) Germerm soldiers justified their actions. It was all a bit much for me after 6 months and countless amounts of beer.

When I quoted Hans Blix the day before Blair and Bush went to war "we have had access to all the sites we have asked to see and found nothing" I got flamed.

When I quoted Dominique de Villepin at the ONU I got flamed too.

Wherever all those posters have gone it's nice to see they've gone or at least wised up and changed their minds.

Changed their minds ? That's a bit unfair. The situation isn't the same now, as it was in 2003 ….. you can't expect people to still argue that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction – even Tony Blair doesn't do that now.

I was never under any illusion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and with which as they claimed, they had the ability to deliver. It was clear to me that Blair would never have agreed to attack Iraq if he had thought there was any chance at all of Iraq responding with chemical and biological weapons – the inevitable deaths of tens of thousands British service men and women which the WMD would have undoubtedly have caused, would have been political suicide for Blair.

I agreed with the former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook when he claimed that Iraq was not attacked because it posed a threat, but precisely because after years of crippling sanctions and almost daily bombings, it was extremely weak and powerless. Presumably Blair believed that the British people would forget the reasons for going into Iraq as quickly as they forgot the reasons for going into Afghanistan – and who can blame him for
that ?

However, although it might have seemed clear to many that the WMD claim was simply nonsense, many people like to believe they can trust their Prime Minister when it comes to issues as important as the decision to go to war. Certainly no Prime Minister had previously lied to the British people to quite that extent in living memory.

For that reason, many people felt they could trust the man who liked to describe himself as a "pretty straight sort of guy"……. even the Labour Party trusted him ffs. I suspect that Blair has done some lasting damage in the trust between the people and future governments, when it comes comes to foreign policy issues.

And whilst I wasn't on STW in 2003 so I can't comment on what the level of opposition to the war was, I would be very surprised if it was wildly different to the general public's opposition. And that was pretty huge – the largest demonstration in British history occurred in opposition to the Iraq war. So I very much doubt that your posts represented the views of a tiny elite minority.

Afaik his security is still paid for by the public.

If that is the case then I would like to know how much it costs the UK taxpayer, it must be one hell of alot of money and I strongly object to paying toward it. A special branch escort would IMO be fair enough, but that level of security wouldn't keep Blair alive I reckon, John Majors "guards" probably all fit in a discreet black car that follow him about. With the money Blair apparently is raking in he should foot the bill him-self, I'm sure the "risk" to his life is far greater than any other ex PM (even Fatch)

Never has the phrase "he dug his own grave" been more apt. Let him fend for himself.

I've no objection to paying an extra few pence on my taxes toward the cost of his trial and eventual (just) punishment when it does come though. (and it will IMO)

Should he have our support? Should British troops have had your support for killing 100 000* Iraqui civilians?

If I thought he could mentally handle it I'd love to pass that on to Graham. Sadly I think he bears enough of a burden as it is.

I try very hard not to fall out with people on STW, we're all riders and share a good thing.

You however seem to be a bit of a w'nker.
(sorry if that's a bit harsh)

"Changed their minds" was a compliment. There's even a saying:

Il n'y a que des imbéciles qui ne changent pas d'avis. Only fools don't change their mind.

I agree with much of what you say ernie_lynch, I wasn't the only one to opose the war on STW and not the only one flamed. Why "elite minority" and not just minority? Two post above suggest there are still those who will support British troops whatever atrocities they are ordered to commit – Billyboulders and Mathewjb.

Proud to support them.
Ashamed of the people who are sending them to war in "our name"
Thanks for your opinion

Why "elite minority" and not just minority?

Because that's how it came across to me ……….you argued from a superior analysis of the situation – and everybody else argued against you.

I'm glad to hear that it wasn't quite like that 8)

What has masturbation got do do with this subject Billy? You are of course correct, I do, as do most men of healthy body and sound mind.