elrond

We Caused The London Riots

46 posts in this topic

I regard anything uttered by Tony Bliar to be deeply suspicious. How he can continue to spout public utterances, after taking our country into an unwinnable war, against the clearly stated wishes of the majority of the population and using evidence he knew was false defeats me. The man should be arraigned before the court of justice at the Hague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if tory blair is trying to divert attention away from his close friendship with the murdoch press in the wake of the hacking scandal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears Tony Blair blames prostitutes for the London riots, and by implication punters for supporting the lifestyle of prostitutes. Saw this on the IUSW website.

http://www.iusw.org/...ays-tony-blair/

Does ANYONE care what Blairs views on anything are, he has about as much gravitas as mickey mouse. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does ANYONE care what Blairs views on anything are, he has about as much gravitas as mickey mouse. :D

I care, because his utterances are not seen in isolation, and consequently cast a bad light on the whole religious industry :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair he refers to alcoholics, drug addicts and prostitutes, ie what are classed as 'problem families'. I'm mailing from Salford which has plenty of 'problem families', a lot of whom the rioting / looting families came from, Often with Mum and Dad joining in too. I don't think prostitutes make up a great deal of Salfords families, however in Greater Manchester there are a lot of 'problem familes', a lot of whom's older generations will be a mixture of all three, (the prostitutes will usually be street workers), such a family history will hardly be the ideal one to bring up kids with a decent moral compass when it comes to things like opportunistic theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the london rioter's were rightly named and shamed I do not recall any of them having the tag line "son/daughter of a prostitute" on them. The press usually leap at the chance to bang that one out! The man is ridiculous. Didnt he bang on about how he is from a working class back ground and grew up on a council estate or something? If so there is a good chance that half his mums best mates were on the game at some point or other if you take into account that a lot of women do go into prostitution because of economic reasons...his mother could well be cringing at this very moment thinking back to her young mum coffee morning gossips.

Have i got the right guy here...sorry, politicians who drone on about the greater good when spouting their own bubble headed opinions tend not to keep my attention for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember just as many parents of rioters and rioters themselves turning up to court well dressed and fully employed as there were nasty little urchins with beer swilling parents...if you believe what you see in the papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son took just enough time out to call Mr Bliar a cheeky twat and then went back to planning the next ram raid studying for his highers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What??!! I wasn't even in the country :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical from the Labour: Blame the drug addicts, travellers, emigrants, whores, Jam Rolles, muslims, non tax payers, benifit scoundrels, Bench weareres, Tottenham supporters, Doughnut shoplifters, 99pence Cider drinkers, Mathew Wright show callers, Jimmy Oliver haters - all EVIL comes from them.

Edited by Xenia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I regard anything uttered by Tony Bliar to be deeply suspicious. How he can continue to spout public utterances, after taking our country into an unwinnable war, against the clearly stated wishes of the majority of the population and using evidence he knew was false defeats me. The man should be arraigned before the court of justice at the Hague.

I am not sure what war you are talking about, but the Iraq war had the support of all parties in parliament, only one mp resigned. The war in Afghanistan had and still has all party support. I didnt vote for Blair, but at the time, he enjoyed overwhelming support in the country, Saddam himself claimed on numerous occassions that he had weapons of mass destruction, was certainly trying to build up an arsenal, had started various wars, most notably the invasion of Kuwait. He had to go, simple as, the only debate is to the method used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair is a liar and a cunt. He and his establishment killed David Kelly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blair is a liar and a cunt. He and his establishment killed David Kelly.

Short, simple, direct and accurate! Whether it was any business of the UK & US to move Saddam, however genuinely unpleasant he was, on, I'm dubious, but the "sexed up" dossier on which Blair got his approval from a docile Commons was certainly, and to his certain knowlege, dishonest.

He should be disbarred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I think he may have been right.

I saw a load of scantily clad rioters running out of La Zenza then into Boots. The fake tan shelf was decimated !!!

However the police were very clever, they had an evidence gathering officer produce a camera and shout, "Give me sexy babe" whereby the 'looter' all bent over, put an index finger to their pouting lips and winked at the camera shortly before a Tactical Support Group coaxed them into the waiting riot van with some fake Louis Vuitton handbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what war you are talking about, but the Iraq war had the support of all parties in parliament, only one mp resigned. The war in Afghanistan had and still has all party support. I didnt vote for Blair, but at the time, he enjoyed overwhelming support in the country, Saddam himself claimed on numerous occassions that he had weapons of mass destruction, was certainly trying to build up an arsenal, had started various wars, most notably the invasion of Kuwait. He had to go, simple as, the only debate is to the method used.

Having the support of MPs is hardly the same as having the support of the country. Do you remember the rather large and numerous protest marches? If Blair had enjoyed some support in the country before the war (I would never have described it as overwhelming), he certainly lost it after the event, and his lies were exposed.

Whatever Saddam may, or may not, have claimed, no-one who knew anything of him and Iraq could have thought that the whole WMD thing was anything nonsense. It was widely reported to be nonsense before the war, and proved to be so after it. We chose that as our excuse for war. The States used a non existent, and frankly laughable, 'link' between Saddam and al Qaeda. The war in Iraq was all about oil, and who controls it.

The USA has an appalling arsenal of WMDs and has started more wars than anybody else in recent history. Do you think we should invade them, to safeguard our nation, and liberate their people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the support of MPs is hardly the same as having the support of the country. Do you remember the rather large and numerous protest marches? If Blair had enjoyed some support in the country before the war (I would never have described it as overwhelming), he certainly lost it after the event, and his lies were exposed.

Whatever Saddam may, or may not, have claimed, no-one who knew anything of him and Iraq could have thought that the whole WMD thing was anything nonsense. It was widely reported to be nonsense before the war, and proved to be so after it. We chose that as our excuse for war. The States used a non existent, and frankly laughable, 'link' between Saddam and al Qaeda. The war in Iraq was all about oil, and who controls it.

The USA has an appalling arsenal of WMDs and has started more wars than anybody else in recent history. Do you think we should invade them, to safeguard our nation, and liberate their people?

Mossad regularly bumped off scientists and specialists that sadam was recruiting to build weapons of mass destruction. There are regular demonstrations in this country, one just last week, the real indication of peoples views, will always be elections. You may recall that in a blatant attempt to start a middle east war, and hopefully a third world war, Sadam fired scuds at israel, a neutral county. We should have left the iraqis to get rid of Sadam on their own, as we have left the Libyans to get rid of Gadafi. That my view, but the point is Blair had the support of parliament, and thats good enough for me. As for Kelly, he was another middle-aged man, with a tangled love life, every office has one. If you want to believe he was bumped off by mi5, thats your business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear, dear me. Since when did any of us believe a word Tony Bliar had so say. He shot his bolt with weapons of mass destruction, the cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear, dear me. Since when did any of us believe a word Tony Bliar had so say. He shot his bolt with weapons of mass destruction, the cunt.

Sorry, strongly disagree with this - a cunt is useful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bliar is a cumstain of the fabric of humanity and an odious pile of rat faeces to boot. As far as I'm concerned he should be sent to clear mines aided by nothing but his feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a strange thing how the politicians who were the most successful with the public in elections are also the ones who attract the most hatred. Thatcher gets the same reaction. Without Blair, Labour would never have got into power, but there is no doubt he is an odd fellow and these comments seem a bit odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a strange thing how the politicians who were the most successful with the public in elections are also the ones who attract the most hatred. Thatcher gets the same reaction. Without Blair, Labour would never have got into power, but there is no doubt he is an odd fellow and these comments seem a bit odd.

Is he not a fervent Catholic? May explain his viewpoint on prostitutes if he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blair is a liar and a cunt. He and his establishment killed David Kelly.

Oh yes, and the Duke Of Edinburgh killed Diana, 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA, Area 51 etc. Etc......yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is he not a fervent Catholic? May explain his viewpoint on prostitutes if he is.

He make a pragmatic decision to legalise R18 certificated pornography though, so was prepared to allow the viewing of sex but not the selling of it. Apparently he is a devout believer in God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mossad regularly bumped off scientists and specialists that sadam was recruiting to build weapons of mass destruction. There are regular demonstrations in this country, one just last week, the real indication of peoples views, will always be elections. You may recall that in a blatant attempt to start a middle east war, and hopefully a third world war, Sadam fired scuds at israel, a neutral county. We should have left the iraqis to get rid of Sadam on their own, as we have left the Libyans to get rid of Gadafi. That my view, but the point is Blair had the support of parliament, and thats good enough for me. As for Kelly, he was another middle-aged man, with a tangled love life, every office has one. If you want to believe he was bumped off by mi5, thats your business.

Saddam was never any real threat to the West. Those are just scare stories, designed to make people vote for a war, and to believe that we were right to attack Iraq. Saddam was originally a client of the US, who supported him during the Iran-Iraq war, and during is vicious and violent reign, until he overstepped the mark and invaded Kuwait, another client of the US. Gadafi is another ex-client of the West, though he has always been a very troublesome one, and the US has always hoped for someone better to replace him with, but he was better than the alternatives for a long while.

The war against Saddam had nothing to do with ridding the world of a tyrant, or preventing world war three. It had everything to do with protecting and bolstering Western, especially American, interests in the middle east. It all comes down to oil. It always comes down to US power, prestige and money in the end.

Personally, I have very little faith in parliament, in the morals, or even sense, of the majority of its members. Whatever our views on that, the US and UK did not have the backing of the UN to invade Iraq. The war was an act of illegal aggression, whatever MPs, senators and congressmen did.

I have no view myself on how Kelly died. However, I believe Blair is a born liar and Kelly was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now