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 2 3 5
  • Attackcat

    If Blair and the cowboy were to put a value on his life as they must have done before deciding to bomb other people, would the protection be justifiable? I doubt it.

  • John

    Is he having protection from a citizen’s arrest?

    Protecting this creature is obscene, and an affront to those, made complicit in his murderous wars.

    Sedgefield constituency Nulabour should be ashamed of itself, for receiving this misbegotten Pied-Piper of international corporate murder.

    If Britain is to recover, in any way at all, it needs to settle accounts with those who have abused the power of government and usurped the conscionable mandate of the British people.

  • anno

    The police protect against trouble, and those of their ranks who are involved in Blair’s security probably dislike him just as much as you. They are after all the thin blue line of the law, and most of them probably can tell a criminal when they see one. They are just as powerless as you or I to do anything about it. And money talks, without funds being transferred.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Same reason, I suspect, that when the Bilderbergs come to town the entire state security apparatus of police, military and spooks are co-opted to provide security for them.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    This is what happened at the last Bilderberg meeting in Athens, 2009:

    ‘The surroundings of the Astir Palace, a luxury hotel in the suburban resort of Vouliagmeni, where the group is holding its annual meeting, were protected by dozens of policemen, who were keeping the press and public at bay, an AFP journalist said.

    A Greek navy launch and boats carrying elite divers could be seen a few meters off the coast of the peninsula where the hotel stands. Greek newspapers said the group had also asked for the protection of two F-16 warplanes and a police helicopter.

    http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200905140722dowjonesdjonline000365

    Two F-16s? Who paid for all that?

  • stephen

    Given your labelling of Blair as a “war criminal” can we presume that you no longer believe in the presumption of innocence? Very Liberal (democrat)? How long before you statrt calling for a fatwa?

  • MJ

    “when the Bilderbergs come to town the entire state security apparatus of police, military and spooks are co-opted to provide security for them”

    But the Bilderbergers do at least pay for the extra policing themselves.

  • Gideon

    @ Stephen

    Anyone is entitled to hold the view that Blair is a war criminal. There’s plenty of evidence that supports that view. Indeed it’s a view I hold myself.

    One is entitled to a presumption of innocence when one is appearing before a court, but no one is entitled to be presumed innocent when they will never be appearing before a court, particularly when the evidence against them is so damning.

    I hope that clears it up for you.

  • Fulano

    The large police presence isolates Blair from the non-adoring public. Thanks to ArrestBlair.org, The Great Statesman has already been subject to 2 attempts at a citizen’s arrest. This must be incredibly irritating for someone who has done so much for the cause of “democracy and freedom” in the world. He has probably spun it as a “security threat” to justify beefed-up protection. But what happens when he travels overseas? What if some “super-judge” like Garcon issues an arrest warrant? Maybe this is why Blair refuses to retreat from public view. The moment he becomes yesterday’s man, he is danger of being scooped up just like Pinochet and no one will give a damn.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    ‘But the Bilderbergers do at least pay for the extra policing themselves.’

    Really? They pay for the jet fighter patrol? Even if they did, what the hell right do they as private individuals have to hire the Greek air force for the weekend?

  • gideon naya aguh

    Blair haven’t been the prime minister before, deserves to be protected. You know the role he played in the Iraqi war. If he is not protected adequately and something happens to him would you be happy?

  • MJ

    “If he is not protected adequately and something happens to him would you be happy?”

    Blissfully so.

  • stephen

    Anyone is entitled to hold the view that Blair is a war criminal.

    Of course they are – but they cannot also believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.

  • Anonymous

    Nice I dislike Blair as much as the next man, but hes not a war criminal!

    he went to war based on the legal opinion of Lord Goldsmith, which sorta gives him a get out of jail card…..

  • tony_opmoc

    Oldham Athletic have to pay the Police for the security and protection of everyone involved, even if Manchester United turn up and get beaten. Its not a case of winner takes all, and whoever lost has got to pay the bill.

    With regards to our Scottish Arch War Criminal, I think it completely appropriate that the State – ie us Taxpayers pay for his incarceration, security and prosecution costs, after he has been arrested, and if his trial results in him spending the rest of his life in jail, then we should pay for that as well.

    However, there is absolutely no reason, if he is found guilty of War Crimes Against Humanity, that the judge should not also impose a fine, that would confiscate all his (and his family’s) assets to the State. Our Prosecution and Incarcerations costs as Taxpayers would then be refunded.

    The judge could not however, in any way impose a penalty that would recompense the entire World for the damage that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair has done.

    I simply do not understand why he has not already been arrested.

    What exactly is the problem in preventing this from happenning?

    Tony

  • brian

    If everyone believed that everyone else was innocent until proven guilty who would carry out prosecutions?

  • Gideon

    @ Stephen

    “Anyone is entitled to hold the view that Blair is a war criminal.

    Of course they are – but they cannot also believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.”

    Of course they can.

    They’re two different things. One is a view and the other is a court procedure. Otherwise, according to you, no one could hold a view about anyone or any thing unless the matter had been determined by a court.

    So what you’re arguing is in fact quite silly.

  • Gideon

    “he went to war based on the legal opinion of Lord Goldsmith, which sorta gives him a get out of jail card…..”

    Not quite. There’s compelling evidence that Goldsmith was leaned on.

  • Jon

    I think Gideon nails it well. Liberals, and most visitors here, do believe in the presumption of innocence. But this approach requires that the person in question is put forward for prosecution or stands a good chance of being put forward, on the strength of the available evidence.

    There is the temptation to want something bad to happen to Blair, which I think liberals must not succumb to. I was disappointed that we were not recently able to prevent a convicted killer from being stabbed in prison, and if that rule is to be applied, we must apply it fairly.

  • Roderick Russell

    KingofWelshNoir ?” When one hears that prominent in-groups have paid for a government service, one always has to ask did they pay the full (real) cost of the services or just a token cost for PR purposes.

  • MJ

    All I want is that Blair is given the opportunity to establish his innocence before a court of law rather than a vapid, powerless inquiry.

  • Arsalan

    Blair isn’t just a war criminal, he is a traitor. While acting as head of state he served Israel and only Israel.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Similarly, when Charlie Skelton spent a week reporting for the Guardian at the last Bilderberg conference he was repeatedly harassed, threatened, followed and intimidated by the police – both in uniform and plain clothes. His was basically a ‘humorous’ piece – at least it started off as one. He wasn’t laughing by the end of the week. If the Bilderbergers paid for the ‘extra policing’ they obviously received special rates.

  • Craig

    “Nice I dislike Blair as much as the next man, but hes not a war criminal!

    he went to war based on the legal opinion of Lord Goldsmith, which sorta gives him a get out of jail card…..”

    Don’t be silly. Hitler had his government lawyers who said the invasion of Poland was legal and in self defence.

    All it shows is that Goldsmith is a war criminal too.

  • Richard Robinson

    Gideon, John, MJ – yes.

    Whether Blair “is” a criminal is a thing that there are procedures for establishing; our opinions as to the possible outcome of such a process are just that (and worth every penny we paid for them, as they say).

    The opinion that such a trial is necessary, is something else rather more meaningful.

    “Conspiracy to commit a breach of the peace”, for example …

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.