Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 28th, 2009 #1
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default What Tony Blair didn't want you to know about immigration.

Quote:
Important parts of a 2001 Home Office report linking immigration and rising crime were deliberately censored by the Labour Party regime in order to hide the truth from the public.

The report — which should have been made public in full, funded as it was by the taxpayer — was titled “Migration, A Social and Economic Analysis” and submitted to the Prime Minister’s office prior to being released.

Terrified of its contents, which specifically linked organised criminality with higher immigration, the Labour regime ordered the relevant parts of the report cut out before publication.

The entire section headed “Criminal behaviour” was removed. It said, amongst other things, that “Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.”

The report went on to say that foreign nationals formed a higher proportion of the prison population than of the general population because so many were caught smuggling drugs at ports and airports.

Furthermore, it said that there is “emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.”

The exact parts which were censored were the following:

“Criminal Behaviour

There are three ways in which migrant criminality may differ from that of the general population:

* The international criminal who travels across borders to pursue criminal activity, for whom screening at ports of entry is increasingly the focus of international cooperation between police forces to detect on entry.

* Organised crime identified with a particular migrant group, including commercial fraud and trafficking in drugs, in illegal migrants and in women — also the focus of attention by police and immigration staff.

* Crime associated with conditions of migration and reception, including recovery of debts by migrant-smugglers, marriage rackets, breaches of immigration control and crime associated with the migrant’s circumstances (lack of work, hostel living conditions).


Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime. Data is necessarily tentative, but it is estimated that the global profit from trafficking illegal migrants is $5-7 billion.

We have no data on trafficking to the UK (the Home Office estimates “thousands”) but examples from abroad are illustrative. Some 750,000 migrants from the former USSR entered Israel in the Nineties and £2-5 billion of Russian organised crime money is estimated by police to have been invested in Israel between 1991 and 1998.

The illegal migration of 600,000 Fukienese Chinese to the USA yielded an estimated $3.2 billion profit to the criminal gangs and was followed by “institutionalised Fukienese crime with its services and predation.”

This extract is taken from the “Preliminary Report on Migration”, 11 July 2000, written by officials in Tony Blair’s Performance and Innovation Unit. This section was omitted from the public version of the report, “Migration, A Social and Economic Analysis”, published by the Cabinet Office in 2001.
This is a preliminary report. Bliar and Labour KNEW what would happen but still unleashed their hell on us anyway.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old October 29th, 2009 #2
sammy bowe
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Default

Tony Blair is one of the biggest traitors against the white race and hopefully one day will face the conciquencies, he passes himself of as a white guy but he's a jew serving jewish interests and his looks alone give him away, just look at the similarity between him and another kike Kevin Costner.
 
Old October 29th, 2009 #3
Gibson
.
 
Gibson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,718
Default

Looks like McBlair will be president of Europe soon, then he can tell even bigger lies.
 
Old October 30th, 2009 #4
fyc
fine young casuals
 
fyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: oldham
Posts: 7,558
Default

only one chance left to stop it. just got to hope they hold out until after the election in britain, and that jewboy cameron upholds his honour by giving the british people the referendum they were promised.
 
Old November 1st, 2009 #5
Mr Murray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,284
Default EU: Thumbs Down For Blair Apparently

Mr Who for EU president? EU seeks anyone but Blair

Quote:
Who will be the first president of the European Council of EU leaders? Anyone but Tony Blair. That is the only clear message to emerge from a European Union summit, where the appointments of the EU’s two new senior office-holders is not on the agenda but is on everyone’s mind.

The appointment process is typical of the surreal way in which the 27-nation bloc does business. The job is poorly defined in the Lisbon treaty reforming the EU’s institutions, which is expected to come into force in the next few weeks. But it is clear that most leaders are looking for a consensus-building summit chairman rather than a high-profile president of Europe.

There are no officially declared candidates. But Blair has been the front-runner for months, with the public backing of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and of the British government. He was not in Brussels on Thursday, but his name was at the centre of debate in the summit corridors, with many people determined to kill his phantom candidacy off.

Before the summit began, his erstwhile European Socialist comrades agreed, according to Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, that they would prefer the EU foreign policy chief job to go to a socialist. That effectively ruled out the presidency for Blair, since the Socialists have no chance of getting both jobs.

Veteran Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker meanwhile announced he is available for the top post even though he acknowledged he had little chance of getting it. Juncker’s kamikaze candidacy looks like a suicide mission to blow Blair out of the race. The two have been engaged in a long personal vendetta fuelled by Blair’s blocking of Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt’s bid for the European Commission presidency in 2004, and his veto of an EU budget deal brokered by Juncker in 2005.

In British eyes, Juncker personfies “old Europe” — a federalist from a tiny country which prospers as a sort of giant safe-deposit box at the heart of a Franco-German Europe. For Juncker, Blair embodies London’s arrogant detachment from the EU. Despite his pro-European rhetoric, the founder of New Labour never brought his country into the euro single currency or the Schengen zone of passport-free travel in 10 years in power. “This is not about personal glory or an extended ego trip,” Juncker told the daily Luxembourg Wort in a clear swipe at Blair’s undeclared bid.

The likelihood is that neither Blair nor Juncker will find broad enough support among EU leaders, effectively cancelling each other out. That will open the way for a more consensual, insipid figure without either Blair’s globe-trotting stardom or Juncker’s federalist outlook. Several such potential candidates were preeening themselves at the summit.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, a centre-right Harry Potter look-alike devoid of charisma, was doing his best to charm Sarkozy and Merkel during the public photo opportunities. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, whose second-fiddle role to Sarkozy means he rarely attends EU summits, was seated beaming in the limelight at the summit table in place of the French foreign minister.

Away from the summit, former Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen published a timely article in the Financial Times saying the president’s job should be about interrnal consensus-building rather than external representation (in other words – “me, not Blair”). The Baltic prime ministers agreed to seeksupport for former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga as EU president.

In reality, the choice is likely to boil down to one of a handful of leaders sitting in the room. My money is on Balkenende as the grey man with the fewest sworn enemies. Under his premiership, the Netherlands has turned increasingly Eurosceptical and voted against ratifying the EU constitution in a referendum in 2005. But unlike Britain, it is a full member of all EU policies.

That may seem a pretty thin qualification to be the first president of the European Council, but curiously, no one in Brussels seems to hold Dutch Euroscepticism against Balkenende the way they hold British Euroscepticism against Blair.
From the comment section:

Quote:
We dutch people said ‘NO’ to the new European treaty. Then Balkenende decided, that we should not be allowed to vote again after the politicians made same cosmetic changes to the treaty. Then Balkenende said ‘YES’ to giving away our rights and our sovereignty against our explicit will. So the people of the Netherlands said ‘NO’. And Balkenende is guilty of High Treason.

Europe and the USA have a very big mouth about democracy, elections, honesty, human rights. But is there democracy in the Netherlands? Have the people a say in their own affairs? Or do we need to go to The Hague with a guillotine, before somebody listens?

The voters are running away from traditional parties towards new extremist parties. They have very good reasons for doing so. The traditional politicians have betrayed us so many times, that nobody takes them serious anymore.

I am from the Netherlands. And I know that Balkenende would be a very wrong choice. In the Netherlands he has been absent in each and every crisis. Only when the opposition forces him to an opinion, he comes up with some kind of statement. He gives the impression of someone suffering from a clinical depression.

Beside this, he is a child! When he first met Bush jr., the former president of the USA, he behaved like a small boy that got a compliment of a headmaster. When he was patted on his shoulder by mister president, he was out of his wits from joy. In the Netherlands we made jokes about this, but we were extremely embarrassed. To please this Bush, he dragged us in an illegal war with Iraq. When the new coalition for his present government was formed, he demanded, that there would be no interrogation about this war. So we, the people, are not allowed to know what really let to this war.

10/27 2005 there was a fire in a prison for persons seeking asylum. One asylum-seeker smoked a cigarette and the building burned down. Eleven people burned to death, many were severely burned. The person who smoked a cigarette was prosecuted for murder and found guilty. But who was to blame? The fire brigade previously tried to close down the facility because it was a fire-hazard. The council of the town were it was located agreed and made a decision to close it down. This council decision then was overruled by the minister of justice, Piet Hein Donner. For this, he had to resign and new elections were held. In the next government Balkenende choose this same Donner as minister of social affairs.

It is quite easy to put all the blame on a person seeking asylum. He can not defend himself and it is easy to kick him around. But the truth is: Piet Hein Donner is guilty of eleven counts of burn-murder. He should be in jail. But in the Netherlands he is minister of Social Affairs. With many thanks to his associate Balkenende.

This same Balkenende demanded, that the christian god should be put in the European constitution. He wanted to turn the European constitution into a gross violation of our constitution and of human rights. That is one of the reasons why we, the dutch, said ‘NO’. And that is why we don’t trust Balkenende. The Netherlands signed a treaty about the human rights. Religious discrimination is a violation of our human rights. Balkenende is just an oath breaker, a Christian bigot that violates our human rights and who wants to impose his dirty superstition upon us.

Keep in mind that we did not elect Balkenende. A vast majority of the dutch doesn’t want him. He is the leader of the Christian Democrats, not of the Netherlands. Politicians made him the unwanted head of state. And we do despise the whole political system for it.

Now there are speculations that European politicians will give him an important position in Europe. If these politicians want to take another step towards a European revolution, this would be a great step. If I were one of them, I would make sure that my head is still firmly attached to my shoulders. Two centuries ago there was a famous French surgeon, who invented an instrument to cure ‘Mad Human Disease’. We have an outbreak of this awful disease in The Hague among politicians and civil servants. The name of this surgeon? Monseigneur de Guillotine. His surgical instrument cures everything.

Of course I write this tongue in cheek. But make no mistake. Politicians in many European countries seem to be in a hurry to reach the end of the road towards a very bloody revolution.
- Posted by Andreas Firewolf
 
Old July 7th, 2010 #6
alex revision
Senior Member
 
alex revision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 27,577
Default Britons spend thousands to protect ex-PMs

Britons spend thousands to protect ex-PMs

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:02:25 GMT

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351021809

The taxpayer money spent on protecting former British prime ministers has been called into question after it was disclosed that Tony Blair's bodyguards spent £250,000 annually.

The money which is being allocated within the public spending frameworks is given to protect the former prime minister during private holidays and international business trips.

Amid signs that that the British economy is moving towards a second recession, Foreign Secretary William Hague said the "public must not be forced to pay more than is absolutely necessary for police protection".

His comments came after it was disclosed that Blair's Metropolitan Police protection squad ran up a £5,000-a-week expenses bill over the past year.

The officers, who guard the former prime minister around the clock, claimed for costs ranging from five-star hotel stays and fine dining to a £1.19 packet of sweets.

It comes in addition to the basic cost to the public of protecting Blair and his family over a year, including officers' wages, which is estimated at £6 million.

"Clearly former prime ministers, whoever they are, whichever party they are from, do need to be protected," Hague said.

"But we have to make sure that is as cost effective as possible, that it doesn't cost any more to the taxpayer than is absolutely necessary.

"I am sure that the departments that deal with that will make sure that it is subject to the right level of scrutiny."

The figures emerged as ministers prepared to slash public spending in an attempt to clear the record £155 billion budget deficit left by Blair and Brown governments.

They prompted calls for Blair, who is thought to have boosted his personal fortune to £20 million since leaving office, to pay for his own security.

He has charged up to £80,000 an hour for public speaking engagements, meaning he could cover the annual expenses bill for his protection team with a few hours' work.
 
Old July 7th, 2010 #7
Darius Appleby
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high rainfall coastal strip of the White Continent nation
Posts: 3,602
Default

The mudslimes in the UK would love to butcher Blair halal style.
 
Old August 17th, 2010 #8
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default Tony Blair's blood money hypocrisy

Quote:
Tony Blair, who as prime minister led Britain into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, announced yesterday that he will give all the profits of his upcoming biography to help fund a rehabilitation centre for injured soldiers.

The former prime minister's £4 million advance, plus all future royalties, will be donated to the Royal British Legion, which is building a sports centre for wounded personnel.

It is the single largest donation received by the Legion in its 89 years as a charity for Britain's armed forces. In a short statement announcing the donation, Mr Blair's office said yesterday that he was motivated by a desire to honour the “courage and sacrifice” shown by British troops. But the donation received criticism from anti-war activists, some soldiers and a number of families who lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan with them accusing Mr Blair of using his donation to assuage guilt over taking Britain into a highly unpopular war in Iraq.

Other critics also pointed out that none of the profits from the book would go to charities in Afghanistan or Iraq where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been wounded.

The book will be published on September 1 and is one of the most anticipated political memoirs of recent years. It is also an opportunity for Mr Blair to influence the historical debate on his 10-year premiership which came to be dominated by the controversy decision to commit British troops in Iraq. The final size of his donation will depend on book sales but it is thought that it will be at least £6m — even though Mr Blair has had to pay back an undisclosed portion of his advance because he chose not to serialise the book.

His office would not confirm whether the Royal British Legion were approached before or after the former prime minister's appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry in January where he remained defiant over Iraq and said he had “no regrets” in removing Saddam Hussein. “The decision was made a long time ago,” he said. “A number of different charities were suggested and he chose the Royal British Legion.”

Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British legion, said the money would be put towards the £12m they need to raise to build the Battle Back Challenge Centre — a rehabilitation sports complex for wounded soldiers.
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...#ixzz0wqxne0Ca


I personally think the British Legion should have told him to shove his money - what a hypocrite.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old August 17th, 2010 #9
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
His critics are calling it 'blood money' and the smartest PR stunt of the year. Parents of soldiers who died in Iraq are saying it will make no difference - they still hold him to blame. But the big question this morning is how much money Tony Blair is actually donating to the Royal British Legion in pledging to hand over the receipts from his upcoming memoir, A Journey.

Crucially, does the donation announced yesterday include the £4.6m advance he received for the book or not?

Most media reports overnight have made the assumption that Blair is giving the Legion all his advance plus any further money he might make from the book if and when it is translated and sold around the world following next month's publication in Britain and the States.

But inquiries by the Daily Telegraph to Blair's office have received no confirmation that this is the case.

The Telegraph claims to have put detailed questions to Blair's people about the donation, its value and its nature and received no direct answers.

A spokesman told the paper: "It is absolutely everything he would have made from the book" and confirmed that the gift covered all editions published in all countries "in perpetuity".

But he refused to explain what "would have made" means. Does the offer to the British Legion include the £4.6m advance or does it apply to the money expected on top of the advance? That could still be several thousands of pounds - but not millions, unless Blair turns out to have written a masterpiece.

"There are also questions over whether the eventual profits will be donated before they are taxed," says the Telegraph report, "and whether the entire donation will be set against the tax liabilities of the complex web of companies and trusts involved in Mr Blair¹s finances."

Finally, will the donation include the proceeds from any speaking engagements Blair takes on to publicise the book? Again, no one knows.


Pressure to come clean on the actual amount the Royal British Legion can hope to receive for its Battle Back rehabilitation centre will grow as the former PM's critics make it clear his act of charity will never excuse his wrong-headed decision to take Britain to war against Saddam Hussein.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING:

Peter Brierley, whose 28-year-old son Shaun was killed in Iraq in 2003: "This gift is absolutely fantastic, but it doesn't alter my aim that one day we will see Tony Blair in court for the crimes he committed."

Rose Gentle, anti-Iraq war campaigner whose 19-year-old son was killed in Basra in 2004: "I have spoken to other parents and everyone is agreed that this doesn't make any difference. It is OK doing this now, but it was decisions Blair made when he was prime minister that got us into this situation. I still hold him responsible for the death of my son."

Chris Simpkins, director-general of the Royal British Legion: "Mr Blair's generosity is much appreciated and will help us to make a real and lasting difference to the lives of hundreds of injured personnel."

Clare Short, former Labour Cabinet minister: "It's good to know that he feels guilty. In the Chilcot Inquiry he defended robustly what he has done. This indicates a different tune... It suggests he is haunted, and that is good to know."

Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War Coalition: "It would have been much better for everyone if he hadn't taken us into these wars in the first place. His attempt to save his conscience will be little comfort to those injured or who have lost their loved ones."

Denis MacShane, Labour MP and former Europe minister: "Not for the first time, Tony Blair trumps his critics. A bold act of generosity from a bold politician."
Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/67288,...#ixzz0wqzRTWAl
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old August 17th, 2010 #10
fyc
fine young casuals
 
fyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: oldham
Posts: 7,558
Default

deffinately guilt money
 
Old August 17th, 2010 #11
heretic
Senior Member
 
heretic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...#ixzz0wqxne0Ca


I personally think the British Legion should have told him to shove his money - what a hypocrite.
i agree, the legion have allowed themselves to be boughtb off......cheaply.
i have lost the already dwindling respect i had for them.
 
Old August 17th, 2010 #12
MarkP
.
 
MarkP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: England
Posts: 764
Default

Restoring Britain back to where it was before the mudslime invasion would be better.
 
Old September 4th, 2010 #13
alex revision
Senior Member
 
alex revision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 27,577
Default Blair defends distorting the truth

Blair defends distorting the truth

http://www.presstv.com/detail/141212.html

The former prime minister who is accused of pushing Britain to the unwanted war in Iraq based on the sexed up dossier claimed that distortion of truth by a politician and concealing a part of it for a greater good is a common sense .

In his interview with the Irish Times Mr. Blair said on Saturday : “I actually think that with normal people, when you go to them and ask: do you think a politician should ever be obliged to, you know, stretch the truth in order to achieve a greater national objective, they would look at you as if you were bonkers for asking the question. There's no walk of professional life that you can exist in where you literally open up everything to everybody.”

Tony Blair has also admitted in his autobiography “ The Journey “ that he had stretched the truth to a breaking point in his telephone conversation with Sinn Féin officials during a critical moment in power-sharing negotiations.
 
Old September 4th, 2010 #14
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
The former prime minister who is accused of pushing Britain to the unwanted war in Iraq based on the sexed up dossier claimed that distortion of truth by a politician and concealing a part of it for a greater good is a common sense .
It seems that ZOG's "greater good" always involves killing off as many young White men as possible; Wilson, FDR, Churchill, Truman, LBJ, W., et al. The usual gang of warmongering psychopaths.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old September 11th, 2010 #15
alex revision
Senior Member
 
alex revision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 27,577
Default 'Blair steals lines for his book to sell'

'Blair steals lines for his book to sell'

Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:53PM

http://www.presstv.com/detail/142090.html

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has stolen lines from the 2006 film 'The Queen' for his book, 'A Journey, My Political Life', the screenwriter of the film says.

Peter Morgan, the screenwriter of the film starring Helen Mirror and Michael Sheen, said a particular moment described in Blair's book was actually totally made up for the movie.

Blair claims in his book that Queen Elizabeth II told him after Labor's landslide victory in 1997: “You are my 10th Prime Minister. The first was Winston [Churchill]. That was before you were born”.

This passage in Blair's book has sparked angry reaction from the Monarch as private encounters with the Royal Family are not usually disclosed to the general public.

This is while Morgan has now claimed the exchange may not have actually taken place at all.

In the 2006 film, directed by Stephan Frears, Helen Mirren, playing the Queen, tells Michael Sheen, playing Tony Blair: “You are my 10th Prime Minister, Mr Blair. My first was Winston Churchill.”

Morgan said he had fabricated the entire conversation himself, expressing surprise to see the quote in Mr. Blair's book.

He told the Daily Telegraph: “I wish I could pretend that I had inside knowledge, but I made up those lines.

“No minutes are taken of meetings between prime ministers and monarchs and the convention is that no one ever speaks about them, so I didn't even attempt to find out what had been said”.

“Now, the gin and tonic reference is a nod to Mr Blair's admission in his memoirs that he became increasingly dependant on alcohol during his time in Downing Street”.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #16
alex revision
Senior Member
 
alex revision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 27,577
Default Analysis: Blair,a Capitalist or a Socialist?

Analysis: Blair,a Capitalist or a Socialist?

Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:18PM

PressTV - Analysis: Blair,a Capitalist or a Socialist?




'I am a socialist it stands for equality'. These were the words uttered by the Rt Hon Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his maiden speech at the House of Commons on July 6 1983.

But Mr. Blair today is a living proof of a capitalist man. Indulging in the luxuries provided by a capitalist society for the few upper class figures. The current salary for the british PM is £197,689, a near abouts the sum Tony Blair was earning while he was in power.

Since leaving office Mr. Blair has earned an estimated of over £12m since leaving Number 10.

He currently holds a post as a senior advisor at investment bank JP Morgan earning a large annual sum. He advises the Swiss insurance firm Zurich Financial Services on climate change issues for a reputed £1m a year.

He is said to have been paid an estimated £1m for writing a report for the government of Kuwait on the future of the oil-rich state. Following this he has launched a commercial consultancy firm, Tony Blair Associates, which has banked at least £2m advising foreign countries and businesses.

The former Prime Minster is also active on after-dinner speech circuits, commanding a substantial for a 90-minute speech. Last year he earned almost £400,000 for two seperate 30 minute speeches in the Philippines. But his golden life does not end there, Tony Blair receives £84,000 of taxpayers' money to run a private office, and holds the option of drawing a pension of up to £63,468.

Mr. Blairs assests include properties and shares. Most recently, the Blairs paid £1m for a mortgage free house for a three-bedroom maisonette in a Georgian townhouse in central London for their daughter. It becomes the eighth home in the Blairs' seemingly ever-expanding portfolio.

The total sum of Mr Blair's wealth is impossible to pin down. He has set up a complicated web of companies, through which he channels his earnings, without having to declare them publicly. This public servant has moved from the field of politics to the world of business.

With his new book predicted to be the next bestseller worldwide who knows how many extra zeros will comfortably appear on his next account balance.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #17
Charlie-Horse
Elusive Pimpernel
 
Charlie-Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Incognito
Posts: 5,170
Default

Judging by the picture I'd say Antichrist.
__________________
The ugly Hun.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #18
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
Default

Britain isn't a capitalist society because it doesn't produce anything other than debt.

It's an exploitative, usurious, society, that employs the trickery and diktats of Jewish Law, which is an ancient instrument forged and refined over time to anaesthetise the minds and breasts of western peoples, so that they are unaware that their hearts are being ripped from their chests in the name of ''freedom'' and ''liberty''.

The long suffering folk of the British Isles, who have unwittingly given their all in the service of Yahweh [sic] are now being put out to pasture and replaced by the many new breeds of beast now pouring into the more fertile fields, just as the mills, the coal mines, and the sweatshops, are about to spring forth once more, as if by magic.
 
Old September 13th, 2010 #19
Ted Maul
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 630
Default

Blair is a pure example of hypocritical champagne socialism. He's repsonsible for the misery of millions and is now living the highlife. You wouldn't believe the number of people I encounter who still think he just "made a mistake" regarding the Iraq war.

Any country whose people are capable of electing Blair is doomed. It amuses me how everyone loved him in 1997 and now most of those hate him. I knew he'd somehow do something for which the public would eventually hate him. It's best to expect every LibLabCon politician to be corrupt and never elect them than to be surprised and let down every time.
 
Old September 14th, 2010 #20
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default No, it's not April 1st - Blair gets medal for services to peace

Quote:
He took Britain into the ill-fated conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But last night Tony Blair was honoured in America with a medal, £64,000 prize and a banquet - for his services to peace.

The former Prime Minister was given the prestigious Liberty Medal in Philadelphia for his role in 'bringing liberty to people around the world'.

He joins the likes of Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who have all been awarded the medal, which has been given out every year since 1989.


Mr Blair was honoured for his work with the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which promotes religious tolerance, and for his initiative to improve governance in Africa.

He cancelled a planned book signing in London last week after eggs and shoes were thrown at him at an earlier book signing in Dublin. Protesters were angered over his role in launching the Iraq War.

There were no protests at the Philadelphia ceremony, which featured a performance by The Irish Tenors and a video tribute from U2 lead singer Bono, a 2007 recipient.

Mr Blair was given a glowing tribute by former U.S. president Bill Clinton who called him a 'wonderful citizen of the world' and a personal friend.


'This is in recognition of his work as prime minister and after putting peace and prosperity at the the forefront of his life in the uk and far beyond it's borders, he said.

Mr Clinton also praised Blair's 'extraordinary political skill' and said should he bring peace to the Middle East it would 'do more to drain the swamp of terror... and undermine the siren song if terrorists' than anything else.

Mr Clinton also defended the former prime minister from his critics: 'The best you can ever hope for is to have had a positive record, because everybody makes mistakes'.

Mr Blair said: 'Freedom, liberty and justice are the values by which this medal is struck.

'Freedom, liberty and justice are the values which I try to apply to my work on governance in Africa and on preparing the Palestinians for statehood.'
Friends reunited: The two former heads of state were in good spirits as they discussed Blair's contribution to freedom in the world


Mr Blair, who gave away the £64,000 prize money to two of his charities, said: 'When I receive this medal, I receive it with a great sense of privilege and a deep sense of honour but also in a spirit of optimism for the future.'

Mr Blair will donate the money to his faith foundation and African Governance Initiative. Six winners have subsequently received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Since leaving office Mr Blair has become an envoy to the Middle East. He has said that he sees bringing peace to Israel and Palestine as a way of making up for the errors of Iraq.

The ceremony kicks off nearly a week of events leading to Constitution Day on Friday. The U.S. Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787.

Meanwhile, the former PM has today laughed off suggestions that he plagiarised his account of his first audience with the Queen from a movie version of the event.

In his memoirs, entitled A Journey, Mr Blair recounts how the Queen said to him: 'You are my tenth prime minister. The first was Winston. That was before you were born.'
Protesters in in Dublin, Ireland, accused Blair of being a war criminal when he attended a book signing for his memoirs


The words are almost exactly the same as those used in the 2006 Oscar-winning film, The Queen.

Scriptwriter Peter Morgan insisted he had made up the words and suggested that Mr Blair had either chosen to endorse the film version, or had had 'one gin and tonic too many and confused the scene in the film with what had actually happened'.

However Mr Blair - who said that he never seen the film - dismissed the suggestion and rejected the idea that it was an 'odd coincidence'.

'I hope Peter Morgan is being tongue in cheek about this.

'I can't believe that they would have written the movie without talking to somebody,' he told BBC Radio 2's Simon Mayo Drivetime.

'I have told this story many times because I always think its quite a funny story.'

He added laughingly: 'Are you suggesting I plagarised it from the film?'

He went on: 'I don't think that it is terribly odd because, as I say, it is a story that I have often told so maybe someone heard it and said it to him, but it is what happened.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...#ixzz0zVMydCG2



__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, blair, cherie, impeachment, iraq war, labour, tony blair, tony blair immigration, un peace envoy

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Page generated in 0.31440 seconds.