No, he is not NOW offering advice. He offered the advice in 2011.

Please keep up.

 

What ever, for an Ex British PM to be offering advice or even communicating with people who have clearly been involved in some form of phone-hacking is a disgrace TBH.

 

Lol, you can't trust anyone in power,blair,Murdoch,brooks!
Phone hacking is the least of Blair's worrys, blair knew about the hacking anyway. It's only when a whistleblower broke the news about hacking that blair distanced himself, the whistleblower in question mysteriously died just after!
Hacking information,conversations,emails etc = power!!

 

Which is why he most probably offered advice on how to get out of it, But because of what she is, what she has and who she knows she will walk away.

 

Is that true did Blair know about this?

I'd like to see some evidence

 

Blair advised her to set up an independant inquiry,suggesting it could have outside council(wink wink)
He said the enquiry would be "Hutton style" in reference to lord buttons inquiry in to the death of David Kelly and would clear her, also stating it would be a bumpy ride.
Any sane thinking man with a couple of brain cells knows David Kelly was murdered to silence him after he found certain documents involving blair and WMD.

 

Its in Blair's best interests that Rebecca brooks,murdoch had help/advice on the matter.

 

Is it?

Sorry but you made an unequivocal statement, now you are using supposition

 

What was it Leveson said about the relationship between politicians and the press being a little too cosy? Scum attracts scum it would seem!

 

Supposition or fact,who really knows.
Certainly not the likes of us.

 

Only problem with this line of thinking is that there is no evidence, and it's illogical to kill someone AFTER they have already spilt the beans

Kelly killed himself after being brutally outed by over zealous journalists

There was a great programme on Radio 4 a year ago on this where all the main protagonists debated the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death, Campbell and Dyke be the ones I remember. As you can imagine there was a fairly robust debate about who outed who and precise timelines. There was absolutely no suggestion from anyone that Kelly's death was anything other than tragic and self inflicted.

 

Alternatively you could say that politicians need the press on-side, and the press revel in that influence

If you want a world without spin, I suggest you first look at the press, they are primary source and reason for political spin

 

Source yes, reason no! As long as they are selling their crap to the moronic majority they don't care what they say. It's the politicians who need them to say the right things.... why else do you think the Leveson conclusion was watered down to a Royal Charter that as yet no paper has signed up to?

 

I thought Blair was supposed to be the middle east peace envoy. I don't know how he can manage to hold down that post with all of the after dinner speeches earning him millions.


Not bad for a socialist...

 

Blair knew saddam didn't have WMD. The dodgy dossier!!
This led the UK into an illegal war in Iraq.
Dr David Kelly was then assassinated by security forces for his part in uncovering the fraudulent document and knowing too much.
Middle East peace envoy.......anything but!!!!!
The man along with bush is responsible for mass atrocities and should be serving life in prison. A true terrorist.

 

Well that's quite an in depth theory.

 

 

In attacking Iraq, Blair committed a crime against peace, defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”.
The Iraq war was waged for a reason other than self-defence, which made it a crime of aggression.

Before the invasion, the British government’s most senior legal adviser wrote to Blair and advised him that an attack on Iraq would be a serious breach of international law, an invasion launched on the premise of self defence would be illegal because Britain was not under threat by Iraq.

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith’s letter, but banned him from attending cabinet meetings and gagged him so that he could not speak out publicly.

 

Speaking of which, when is the Chilcott report due out?

Although it does seem a waste of time given that you are apparently in full possession of the facts - why didn't he just ask you

Oh and 'your' comments are just a cut & paste from some conspiracy nutters website - come on you're a smart open-minded chap, you can do better than that

 

Anytime now, should of been early new year.

 

It won't be worth the paper it's written on anyway.
The US won't participate and won't disclose certain information regarding bush/blair.

 

What if it validates your view?

 

Then lots of people need to apologise for calling me a fruitcake lol.
Unfortunately I don't think we will ever no the complete truth, not in our life times anyway.
Blair has plenty of gagging orders and D-notices under his belt.

 

Not sure gagging orders are much use in this case.

I do get frustrated with this kind of discussion though, you say we'll never know the truth, but maybe we already do?

There's no point even having an enquiry if people will only believe the outcome if it supports their views

 

Maybe???
I personally think it's important to debate on very serious topics such as this, over 100.000 Iraqi civilians including women and children were killed, millions injured, over 500 uk/Us soldiers killed as a result of Blair's decision to invade Iraq for right or for wrong.
That potentially makes blair a war criminal.

 

My anger with Blair on Iraq is not the decision to attack, but the utter mess they made of the situation once Saddam had been defeated

 

The biggest problem I have with the Iraq war being described as 'illegal' is the complete lack of any internation condemnation of the action at the time. That and the fact a large multi-national force was involved. Granted the fact a large number of countries doesn't make it truly legal (only by proxy) but the fact none of the powers that be really condemed it says a lot I think.

 

At the time of the invasion the world was led to believe that saddam had a stockpile of WMD and could use them against us on a countdown of 45minutes.
9/11 made the threat seem real so nations of people at the time could understand a war against saddam/osama and invading Iraq/Afghanistan.
In reality, Iraq had no WMDs and, despite massive intelligence efforts, no connection could be found between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden.
People are now asking questions that can't be answered.

While Iraq was obviously a war designed to protect America’s petrodollar system, the war in Afghanistan at least appeared to be slightly more justifiable. Why?
Because it was a known fact that Afghanistan harbored and supported members of Islamic terrorist groups. Yet hardly anyone was aware that the U.S. spent billions of dollars funding the Afghan mujahideen through the 1980s and into the 1990s.
This funding of Afghan radicals and Islamic militants occurred under a covert CIA program, known as Operation Cyclone.

 

Back on topic then....


Politician involved in telling the truth scandal!!

For all those that accuse him of lying about the recovery, he quite clearly states what lots of people know. In other words that the recovery is not secure and is led by consumer spending.

He has a check on reality unlike ***** and Milliband who live in la la land.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...e-Osborne.html

 

More bad news!

Apparently business investment is now also up 8.5%, so the recovery seems to be broadening and not just consumer led.

Manufacturing not up as much as hoped, that's a shame. Lots more work for my mate George to do.

But I'm just not sure how the chronic depressives on SN will cope with these bits of good news

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ta-growth-live