Let Blair Pay For His Own Protection 130


The newspapers today carry the unsurprising news that Blair’s business affairs are routed through a multiplicity of companies operating in tax havens. He is raking in over £5 million per year, aside from his official job of chief Zionist – sorry, I mean Middle East Peace Envoy.

But I was more struck by the information in Michael White’s Blair puff piece that, before his arrival in the Sedgefield constituency yesterday, six policemen blocked off the roads around the venue with trafic cones.

Why? I am not making a petty or petulant point, I mean it. Why? This was a Labour Party event, not a government event. Blair holds no executive office in this country. The election has not been called. Even if it had been, he is not a candidate. Why do the police cone off the roads for a Blair New Labour speech?

How much did the six policemen cost? And they were just the bottom of the pile, the road coning bobbies. Blair arrived in a huge entourage of cars, at least some of which were taxpayer provided. There was a large police car and motorcycle escort. Not to mention the close protection officers. How much did all that cost?

Thatcher and Major move around with no blues and twos and a single close protection officer when required. The Duke of Edinburgh moves around privately with much less security than Blair. As a taxpayer I object fundamentally to footing the bill for protecting this war criminal. He should get a single close protection officer and fund anything else himself. He can certainly afford it.


130 thoughts on “Let Blair Pay For His Own Protection

1 3 4 5
  • arsalan

    As I said before, your two state solution is apartheid south Africa at best. The same words you use to describe the creation of a Palestinian state, is the words they used to describe the creation of Black homelands.

    And yes there are some on our side who are willing to settle for that, because South African style Apartheid is much better than what the Palestinians are going through now.

    And yes, your point maybe valid that people like me opposing your apartheid solution may be extending the suffering of the Palestinians if Israel was honest

    About a two state solution(Which I find it very hard to believe).

    But whatever words you use to make it seem nice, my answer will always be, stuff your apartheid up your arse!

    We do not recognise the right of the British invader to bestow someone else’s lands on you.

    We will reverse the British French carve up of the Middle East, and then we will reverse the creation of Israel.

    We will not beg the thieves to get back what is ours.

    If we are unable to take the land back by force, we will not be able to defend it by force in the event of another invasion. So there is no point in negotiations.

    So we have to do what is necessary to take back Palestine and defend it.

    Then people like me are willing to negotiate with people like you, to come to compromises to share the land and decide how much autonomy will be given.

    You have recognised that their are people on your side unwilling to make compromises, you will find there are those on my side who are less willing to make them then me, so just pray it is us who invade you and not them.

    But what you scare each other with is a myth, we are working to gain our rights, not take away yours.

    I don’t think you believe me. So you will just have to wait till after the reunification that we will treat you better than you treat us. And some amongst you will recognise that we will treat you better than you are treated by each other.

  • Arsalan

    As far as I can see there are three solutions to Palestine.

    One is what you are proposing. The two state solution. Which has been negotiated with no success ever since the Gaza And west bank came under Zionist rule.

    The two state solution would require Hundreds of thousands(and rising) of Jews to be expelled from the west bank, or the west bank being divided in to a patch work of Palestinian ghettos.

    The negotiation between Israel and the PLO is where in the middle of a patch work and a complete expulsion does the compromise lie.

    The other is the one state solution. This is supported by the left.

    It involves no one being expelled, with the added bonus of negotiating justice for Palestinians who were expelled from Palestine, which may result in some or all of them regaining citizenship and the possibility of regaining their homes or compensation for their homes.

    My one state solution for the entire middle east, not just Palestine, would not just reverse Palestinians who lost their homes due to the creation of Israel, but also Jews. the Ancient Jewish communities through out the middle east would be recreated. Communities which had existed for thousands of years up till the creation of Israel would be recreated.

    My solution is better for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Better for the people inside Palestine and outside. Better for Jews who want to remain inside Palestine, and better for Jews who want to return to their homes in the wider middle east. And it requires no one being expelled or excluded. A lasting peace acceptable to everyone based on what was there before Zionism and the post WW1 Anglo French Middle East Carve up.

  • Stephen

    “We do not recognise the right of the British invader to bestow someone else’s lands on you.”

    I think you will find that there was also a UN mandate.

    The one state solutions you suggest are just not going to happen with the bset will in the world. As for the former being supported by the left – I think you will find that you are referring to very small section of what is usually thought of as the left.

    As for a one state solution for the entire Middle East – I have made my views on this crystal clear already – but I would like to point out your fallacy that this existed before 1914. If anyone wants to look at a map at the time they will see that there were many areas where the writ of the Ottoman Empire (and what a fine model of corruption, ineptness and despotism that was – so much so that even the Turks threw it out) either did not apply or its influence was insigificant or partial. Your solution is based on an historical myth – and although you may think that it is better for Jews, Christians and Muslims – you will find that nearly all the Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle East would not support such a solution.

    And solutions cannot be seen solely in terms of state boundaries – there has to be mutual recognition and reconciliation as well.

  • Arsalan

    Firstly, I will say **** the UN, America and Israel make a regular habit of doing so.

    **** it, it is just an organisation created by the colonialists victors of ww2.

    I don’t recognise the right of the UK to invade Palestine and declare that it belongs to others.

    Whether the UK sets up an organisation with 4 other colonialist countries which legitimises it or not.

    And it is really rich, for a Zionist to come up with the UN as a justification, really rich indeed considering Israels history of abiding by UN resolutions? And this would go double coming from you, someone who supports the Iraq invasion.

    So what is it, UN resolutions are for us lot, but not you lot?

    I have a word for that, I call it talking out off two arse holes.

    Speaking of talking out of two butt holes, I’m sorry but I’m going to have to accuse you of doing so again!

    On this thread:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/pentagon_gives.html

    You indicated to Craig that removing the mountains of Aid America and the UK give Karimov to continue boiling people alive will result in a Khilfah replacing him.

    And now you are stating to me, that Khilafah is not possible and didn’t really exist before anyway?

    So which is it then?

    Where were you lying and where were you telling the truth?

    Did you indicate to me that Khilafah isn’t going to happen because you know it is the only way to stop Israel?

    Or did you lie to craig because you like people being boiled alive?

    There is no point asking you, because I have spoken to enough Zionists to know that they give different answers to different people. They just state whatever they assume is most fruitful.

    That is one of the reason it is impassible to negotiate with the Zionism.

    Finally you know as well as I do, that the Turkish and other regimes are secularised by force of arms. The people want to be united under one Khilafah, but the dictators use military might to prevent it.

    No Muslim voted for the middle east carve up, it was imposed by the UK and France.

    But we will reverse it.

    It is very strange that you will assume the two state solution will be acceptable. You are basically stating that Israel doing two wrongs makes a right?

    That is Zionist logic. the Zionist stole most of Palestine in 1948 which we say is unacceptable, and you assume stealing the rest and giving part of it back will make it all OK?

    You assume settling a hundreds of thousands of Jews on the West bank, then kicking them out again will make expelling or killing 80% of the Palestinian population in 1948 OK?

    Your so called two state solution is a two wrongs makes a right solution, or the talking out of two arse holes solution.

    Mine is the two rights solution. reuniting the middle east would allow any Arab kicked out of his house or land in Palestine to regain it, it would allow any Jew move back to their homes in the whole of the middle east if they wanted.

    While your apartheid takes it away from everyone.

  • Stephen

    Arsalan

    I am trying to work out if your constant misreprensenation of my position, and of history in general for that matter, is either because you don’t understand what I said in the first place or because you just want to wilfully misrepresent the views of your opponents.

    Basically are you stupid or are you evil? You see it is very easy to play such games?

    You and your ilk will never achieve peace in the Middle East or elsewhere for that matter – fortunately you only represent a very small minority.

    Where is your evidence that the people of the Middle East wish to be united in a Calaphinate – you can assert all you want but where is the evidence???

    Love and kisses

  • Arsalan

    The evidence is the length that you and yours go to, to try and stop it.

    And again, I am going to accuse you of talking out of two butt holes, when it comes to peddling your Zionism to non-Muslims it is, “the consequence of this being the establishment of Islamist states in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan”, with Muslims it is the Islamic it is “fortunately you only represent a very small minorit”

    As I have said before, Larry you are a liar and I believe all Zionists are evil not just you.

    I make no distinction between your ideology and Nazism. they are the same.

  • technicolour

    hello boys 😉

    arsalan, just thought I’d point out that Hamas have actually been prepared to settle along the June 1967 border.

  • arsalan

    Tech that’s hamas and not me.

    And even though they were willing to settle, Israel wasn’t.

    The PLO were willing to settle too, nothing came of it.

    When anyone settles to Israeli demands Israel changes the goal posts.

    Israel is part of a bigger problem. Which is the carve up of the middle east by the British after ww1.

    If that is resolved, the Zionist problem will be resolved. As well as most of the other problems in the middle east.

  • technicolour

    Yes but, arsalan, with all due respect, you’re not actually living there. So who who are you to disagree with the people who are?

    Just in case you think I’m taking sides, I’m off to make the same point to Stephen on another post…

  • Arsalan

    Yes I am not living there. But where do you live?

    Don’t tell me. But let’s say it is Essex.

    If Essex was invaded by France, Eskimos. Who kicked out 80% of the people. Would the right to get it back be on the 20% left inside essex? or the 80% who were kicked out + the 20% who remain?

    Or all citizens of the UK?

    Or all citizens of the world who think what happened was wrong?

    The UK had no business creating Israel.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.