Blair comes clean

Paddydou

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 June 2010
Messages
2,154
Sorry Carreg - I have to disagree.

Blair will never be "clean".

He only did it to gain votes. He had no intention of a ban, he jumped on a badly made band wagon to get what he wanted then found that actually what he wanted was not quite what he thought it would be! So now we are stuck with very poor "laws" that can't be enforced, are an infringement on liberty and make no sense to anyone involved.

Typical of Labour in government, waste as much time and money as possible then be grumpy when you pass it back.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,591
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
I am absolutely astonished not only by Mr Blair's revelations but by the fact the LACS is having to sell property in the West Country.

Did the LACS contribute to Labour Party funds?

IF THEY DID, WERE THEY IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO REASONABLY GIVE MONEY TO THE LABOUR PARTY UNDER REASONABLE TRADING PROTOCOLS?

Perhaps they can enter this forum and state their case?

Coupled to the fact the LACS have two limited companies both of which have Debentures Registered.

League Against Cruel Sports (UK) Ltd Company number: 02880406

A Debenture was registered against the company on 5 January 2009

The League Against Cruel Sports Company number: 04037610

A Debenture was registered against the company on 21 July 2009.

The definition of a DEBENTURE: AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEBTNESS OR A BOND OF A COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGING A DEBT AND PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT FIXED TERM INTERVALS
 
Last edited:

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
J-M,

these interesting thoughts are now being split into 3 separate threads. I'm at some risk of loosing hounds!

Alec.

ETS, "IF" the LACS did in fact offer funds to the Labour party, and Blair knowingly (thanks for that CARREG) sabotaged the process, then perhaps they (the LACS) should ask for their money back. Hunting comes in many forms, doesn't it? What fun! At least the peerage debacle gave value for money - to some. a.
 
Last edited:
Joined
23 August 2010
Messages
3
What a weasle. This guy invoked the Parliament Act, remember.

He's using his book to ingratiate himself with the public at large and try to make them forget what a complete ************** he is.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
URBAce,

but could Blair have managed it unaided? The thing that I find myself totally at odds with, is that Blair was appointed as the Middle East Peace Envoy. Am I the only one who sees this as a monstrous insult to those who we have damaged, and possibly irrevocably? It's beyond being funny.

Alec.
 

Countryside

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 September 2009
Messages
55
The Countryside Alliance blog on this subject can be read here:

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/blog/blair-and-hunting-the-truth/

I will try to copy and paste the content...

Tony Blair’s reputation for not being wholly wedded to the truth has been supported by more important evidence than his behaviour over the Hunting Act, but that issue and his re-writing of history in his memoir ‘A Journey’ typifies his delusion. In it he says that the hunting ban is “one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret”, but claims he ensured that the Hunting Act was “a masterly British compromise” that left enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue “provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed.”

To anyone with the most limited understanding of the Parliamentary process that put the Act on the Statute Book this is complete and utter nonsense. Blair’s Government, after a Government Inquiry and years of public and political debate published a Hunting Bill in December 2002. That Bill did not seek to ban hunting. It would have allowed fox hunting and other activities to continue if they could persuade a tribunal they could meet twin tests based on ‘utility’ and ‘cruelty’. The Bill would, however, have banned stag hunting and coursing outright. In defiance of all logic, but to no one’s surprise, Labour MPs in the House of Commons rejected the Government’s proposals for licensing and, led by Gerald Kaufman and the late Tony Banks, turned the bill into a complete ban on all hunting.

The House of Lords, however, was ready to compromise and instead of rejecting the ban entirely it turned the Bill back into its original ‘licensing’ form. Although, after Defra Minister Alun Michael’s claim that there was incontrovertible evidence that staghunting was cruel was condemned as ‘scientifically illiterate’ by the scientist who carried out the definitive study of staghunting, the Lords did amend the original licensing Bill to allow the tribunal to consider applications for a licence from all types of hunts. It also introduced a conservation element into the tests so that hunts could support license applications on the grounds of environmental benefits.



With only 20% of even Labour peers supporting it there was quite obviously no way that the House of Lords was ever going to support a total ban on hunting. Without the support of peers a ban could only be passed using the mighty constitutional hammer of the Parliament Acts (the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords) which put Blair in a remarkably strong position to push through a classic New Labour ‘middle way’ resolution.

But by the summer of 2004 things were not going well for Blair in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Iraq, Foundation Hospitals and any number of other unpopular policies were causing dissent in the ranks and at every PLP meeting one issue was at the top of backbenchers’ agenda: they wanted the Hunting Act back in its banning form in a timescale that would engage the Parliament Act. Gerald Kaufman even wrote a comment piece in the Guardian stating that he would vote against the Government on Foundation Hospitals for the first time in his long, long parliamentary career if it did not give him a hunting ban. By July Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Leader of the House Peter Hain, never shy of trying to endear himself to his colleagues, went to Blair and told him that they could not hold the PLP unless he gave them their hunting ban, and he agreed in the full knowledge of exactly what he was doing.

For the first and only time in 13 years of Labour Government Parliament was recalled in September. The Hunting Bill was brought back as a total ban and on September 15th 2004 it passed all stages in the Commons in one day despite massive demonstrations. Blair emerged from Downing Street to vote against the ban, but this act, like the denials in his book, was completely duplicitous. By bringing back the Bill and engaging the Parliament Act he had sabotaged a carefully crafted position which should have allowed the Government and parliament to agree a workable licensing regime.



The law that was passed does not allow hunting to continue “provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed”. It bans nearly all hunting of nearly all species. This was not “a masterly British compromise”, it was a craven retreat from evidence and logic for short term political ends. If there is any compromise it is in the enforcement of the law, and Blair can claim no credit for passing an Act which is both so illogical and so reviled by every single person that it is meant to affect that the police take the view that they have better things to do than try and make it work.

Tony Blair’s re-writing of history is not going to fool anyone. He, and he alone, was responsible for the rejection of the ‘middle way’ proposals for licensed hunting and the passing of a complete ban on all hunting. A compromise was on the table, but by bringing back the Hunting Bill as a complete ban in a timetable that allowed the Parliament Acts to be used he created one of the most illiberal, ineffective and wasteful laws of modern times. The fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong makes his actions more reprehensible, not less.
 

Simsar

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 December 2008
Messages
3,714
Location
Surrey
LOL! So when Simon and I in Brighton outside the conference all them years ago started the whole pro hunt demo of by shouting TONY BLAIRS A ******, we were kinda right then! That was before I was handcuffed to scaffolding by the nice policeman!!!!
 

Paddydou

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 June 2010
Messages
2,154
LOL! So when Simon and I in Brighton outside the conference all them years ago started the whole pro hunt demo of by shouting TONY BLAIRS A ******, we were kinda right then! That was before I was handcuffed to scaffolding by the nice policeman!!!!
Some girls have all the fun...
 

Simsar

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 December 2008
Messages
3,714
Location
Surrey
Oh it was great! Trying to rip the arse of an anti but got handcuffed! I wish I knew someone in the press the photo's would have been amazing but never published. The same in Parliament square but I made front page then.
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
7,006
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
is anyone gonna buy his wretched book?
It was released yesterday, became Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever, and shot to the top of Amazon.co.uk's best-seller list. It's already the 12th best-seller inthe USA and 9thon the Canadian list!

So yes, the wretched book will make millions for Tony Blair and his publishers, despite the lies (or even because of them!):rolleyes:
 

rosie fronfelen

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 February 2009
Messages
2,430
Location
welsh hills!
It was released yesterday, became Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever, and shot to the top of Amazon.co.uk's best-seller list. It's already the 12th best-seller inthe USA and 9thon the Canadian list!

So yes, the wretched book will make millions for Tony Blair and his publishers, despite the lies (or even because of them!):rolleyes:
so they are lovers of fairy stories!
 

Sanolly

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 May 2010
Messages
2,971
Location
The wrong side of Hadrian's Wall!
Simsar - That sounds really kinky - I just got nicked! LOL

On a slightly different note of the same topic on the radio it said that TB (!!) admitted to "crying in private about the deaths of British soldiers"... Well I should hope so too, what are we supposed to feel sorry for you?! If you hadn't crawled so far up GB's arse and invaded Iraq in the first place those soldiers wouldn't be dead! Sorry mini rant!
 

Paddydou

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 June 2010
Messages
2,154
It was released yesterday, became Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever, and shot to the top of Amazon.co.uk's best-seller list. It's already the 12th best-seller inthe USA and 9thon the Canadian list!

So yes, the wretched book will make millions for Tony Blair and his publishers, despite the lies (or even because of them!):rolleyes:
There really are no words to discribe how much I dispise that man. Just the thought of him leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Why oh why are people buying it?? It seems so pointless! We all know he lied he has admitted to being shaddy in his dealings and we are effectivly paying him for it when we should be banging him up!

Gah. Too much typing already wasted on a sniveling slimey disgusting excuse for a human being...
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
the Americans thrive on this British drivel-
I take it from that, that you are referring to the book, and not our collective prose?!

I'm not too sure about this thread title, either. CLEAN? you're kidding me, the man wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I have a deep and well founded distrust of all politicians, which explains why I don't vote. Voting only serves to encourage them.

The idea of it should be that politicians serve us, and not the other way around.

Alec.
 

Simsar

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 December 2008
Messages
3,714
Location
Surrey
I take it from that, that you are referring to the book, and not our collective prose?!

I'm not too sure about this thread title, either. CLEAN? you're kidding me, the man wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I have a deep and well founded distrust of all politicians, which explains why I don't vote. Voting only serves to encourage them.

The idea of it should be that politicians serve us, and not the other way around.

Alec.
Absolutely! 100% agree.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,591
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Absolutely! 100% agree.
What do Tony Blair and Adolf Hitler have in common?

Answer: They both conducted illegal invasions of another country's sovereign territory and they both banned hunting.

The lady who tried to make a Citizen's Arrest in Dublin yesterday for Blair's crimes against humanity, was outstanding.

Tony Blair and his government committed a crime against the country folk of this nation.

In his so called book he has admitted that he and his government knew .... all about hunting.

That in my opinion is a crime, because there has been an abuse of process by the State against a section of rural society - what are we all going to do about this situation?

Don't think his other half is too happy about her friend formerly Mrs Prescott now being called Lady Prescott and she is still plain Mrs!
 
Last edited:

Holly831

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 March 2008
Messages
1,513
Location
North Yorkshire
''Blair said he initially agreed to a ban without properly understanding the issue''


I think the same can be said about virtually every decision him and his lot made.

I wasn't pro or anti hunting but while all this was going on I (gasp) spoke to people that hunted and then....actually went on a hunt...I am now staunchly PRO hunting and proud :D:D
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,591
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Jm what would you like us to do.
This is a very rare situation, indeed in my opinion wholly unique.

The former Prime Minister who presided over the government that enacted the Hunting Act 2004 has said, "it was a mistake and he knew nothing about hunting and the effect upon those effected".

What we can do? Within the law of course - it seems to me some serious e-mailing of MPs' is required. It's not hard to get your MP's e-mail address normally something along the lines of .mp@parliament.uk i.e first name with. and then surname. Some don't put MP in but all of them have Websites. Make sure you cc to their constiuency e-mail address as well.

Make sure you click the Read Receipt box too.

All that has to be done is that you point out to your MP that the former Prime Minister has admitted the Hunting Act 2004 is illegal.

No hunting person has to go any further than their desk and computer.

What should happen fundamentally is, when such a situation arises, the Government Law Officers have to advise the Minister, who should say, "things cannot continue as they are" and use his powers under the Statutory Instrument embodied in the act.

Of course in my opinion, it seems Blair is eager to be enobled and is doing everything to issue 'comfortable words' to the powers that be, but somehow I don't think we will ever see Tony Blair in the house of Lords.
 
Last edited:

rosie fronfelen

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 February 2009
Messages
2,430
Location
welsh hills!
I take it from that, that you are referring to the book, and not our collective prose?!

I'm not too sure about this thread title, either. CLEAN? you're kidding me, the man wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I have a deep and well founded distrust of all politicians, which explains why I don't vote. Voting only serves to encourage them.

The idea of it should be that politicians serve us, and not the other way around.

Alec.
was it necessary to ask that Alec, of course i was referring to this wretched book. i have nothing against Americans or Canadians, just repling to a comment made by Mrs Janet George.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,591
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
This is a deadly serious situation.

I believe Tony Blair has, either wittingly or unwittingly, bearing in mind both he and his wife are barristers, created what I believe is referred to in Parliamentary and Legal parliance as an UNTENABLE SITUATION.

Where an Untenable situation is discouvered by the government of the day the Minister is legally empowered to make necessay changes.

Here I refer to the act: Section 14:

Subordinate legislation. An order of the Secretary of State under this Act—

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,.
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,.
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,.
(d)may make different provision for different circumstances or purposes, and.
(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision..

You don't have to be a lawyer, MP or minister of the crown to work this out, it's so simple.
 
Top