Should Blair Stand Trial

[Binnman]

Okay Greg, let's see if I can deal with several points that you have raised.

I read the treaty and I do not believe the preamble to be other than preamble

You cannot just dismiss what is said out of hand Greg, it (the preamble) lays down the facts, circumstances, framework and contributing factors on which the subsequent Resolution rests.

So let's examine that paragraph again;

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

1. "Recalling that it's resolution 678 (1990)" - meaning that it is still 'on the books' and still applicable.

2. "authorised Member States to use all and necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990)" - not much doubt to the meaning here........this clearly refers to military action

3. "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)" - Resolution 1441 is relevant and is subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990), therefore the provisions as outlined at 2 must also apply.

So there you have it, in black and white.......................until, of course you reach the para which you quoted from, which appears to be a complete and utter contradiction of the points agreed in the preamble. Let's face it Greg, it's a fudge and it leaves member states open to decide whether they apply the authority of the preamble or item 4 (which you highlight).


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I question - NO in fact I dispute your contentions AND your conclusion

You can question or dispute it all you want Greg, but it does not alter the law. Opinions/advice given by lawyers to clients are not law, they are not legally binding. Only opinions given by judges in previous cases (Case Law in England/Stated Case in Scotland) are given such weight. In these circumstances there are no such previous cases.

Before any case gets to a court, the facts and circumstances must be sufficient for the prosecutor (be it the DPP, the CPS or the International Criminal Court) to be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction. These circumstances don't even get as far as being considered under such terms. Because of the 2 contradictions I outlined above, it cannot be demonstrated that a prima facie case exists. Let's say that the ICC decided to charge Blair - the thrust of the prosecution case would be that a second determination by the Sec Council would be required (as per item 4 Resolution 1441). Blair's lawyers need only submit a motion to the court pointing out the provisions outlined in the preamble to 1441, for the case to be thrown out, because the very resolution which (if you will) makes it an offence to invade Iraq, also makes such an invasion legal.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

If it pleases you to believe that.

G.L-W.

I believe your unwillingness to answer a perfectly straightforward question speaks volumes about you and your character. I guess we'll have to leave it for others to draw their own conclusions as to why you mention that bit-part players are Jews in a thread that has nothing to do with Jews or Zionism and then refuse to explain why you did so.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

I believe your unwillingness to answer a perfectly straightforward question speaks volumes about you and your character.

As ever - but who cares if you draw utterly unfounded conclusions - you have done so regularly and lack the ability to discuss merely jump to conclusions using only items that prop up your false assumptions. You have proved your dishonesty and shown your habitual misrepresentation as shown in your next quote:

I guess we'll have to leave it for others to draw their own conclusions as to why you mention that bit-part players are Jews in a thread that has nothing to do with Jews or Zionism and then refuse to explain why you did so.

So now you TRY to claim Jack Straw and Peter Godsmith were mere bit part players - how dishonest is that!

I made my comment regarding differentiation between Judaism and Zionism abundantly clear and also clarified for you the historic enmity between judaism and islam. I also stated that I WONDERED whether there was a relationship to their dishonest stance and weael worded claims of legitimacy for their war crimes.

You believe whatever you like - I care not since you have been all too willing to dishonestly misrepresent the facts for your personalised stance. In this instance your behaviour has been duplicitous, ungentlemanly and contemptible - refrain from putting words in my mouth and your malign interpretation on my freedom of speech.

Indeed the honest will judge your behaviour and like I find it greatly remiss.

G.L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Okay Greg, let's see if I can deal with several points that you have raised.

I will try my best to respond but so that it doesn't turn into a book I trust you will find it acceptable that I split your questions/comments into separate sections:

You cannot just dismiss what is said out of hand Greg, it (the preamble) lays down the facts, circumstances, framework and contributing factors on which the subsequent Resolution rests.

Indeed but all that is in the 'preamble' must surely be considered as background and it does seem to me that nowhere does it say that the history is extant nor other than background history - thus I question revivication of such arcane material - especially as it pertained to an invaded territory and restoration of borders, liberty and peace.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

PART 2:

So let's examine that paragraph again;
1. "Recalling that it's resolution 678 (1990)" - meaning that it is still 'on the books' and still applicable.

I would postulate that ANY resolution is 'still on the books' as 'the books' are not subject to a revisionist correction - though they may be currently re-interpreted in the light of current events. No where does the document seem to claim 678 is still applicable as that would imply that it had not historically occurres which it clearly did.

There is no reasonable grounds on which to imply 678 is extant - though 12 years earlier as a one off reolution it HAD BEEN enacted and acted upon.

2. "authorised Member States to use all and necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990)" - not much doubt to the meaning here........this clearly refers to military action

Clearly and it HAD BEEN enacted and acted upon 12 years earlier to a resolution and implementation in full.

3. "and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)" - Resolution 1441 is relevant and is subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990), therefore the provisions as outlined at 2 must also apply.

I believe you have drawn an erroneous conclusion - nowhere does it say in 1441 go back and implement 670 &/or 660 of 12 years ago which clearly pertained to different circumstances.

So there you have it, in black and white.......................until, of course you reach the para which you quoted from, which appears to be a complete and utter contradiction of the points agreed in the preamble. Let's face it Greg, it's a fudge and it leaves member states open to decide whether they apply the authority of the preamble or item 4 (which you highlight).

Indeed in black and white we have the 'preamble' which is an outline of the history quite literally ambling through the period pre 1441.

I see no contradiction in article 4 of 1441 - it is a part of the Resolution in its own right and inserted for clarity and not obfuscation.

I see no part of 1441 to be a fudge - it makes it clear that the signators thereto will go so far and no further as of the signators 2 or more demanded that if 1441 proved inadequate they would wish to enact a further resolution as they were striving for a peacefull outcome NOT an instrument of war.

That this was known and accepted by Straw, Goldsmith and Blair was self evident in that each in their own words confirmed to Chilcott's panel that they did not seek another further resolution of greater clarity as an instrument of war as they did not believe that to be feasible/possible. ie. they did not believe they could obtain adequate signatures.

They therefore, in the case of Jack Straw outright lied about the intel. to Colin Powell and in the case of Goldsmith opted dishonestly to find a method of words to 'revivify' the long past earlier and spent resolutions that had already been implemented.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Part 3

You can question or dispute it all you want Greg, but it does not alter the law.

I have neither desire nor intent so to do - I believe as did every International Lawyer of the FCO that the situation was unequivocal that there was absolutely no mandate for war granted in 1441 nor was there a mandate granted by resurrection of long spent and enacted upon earlier resolutions.

Opinions/advice given by lawyers to clients are not law, they are not legally binding.

You are correct - the law is legally binding and bereft of any mandate for war to enjoin in war without a mandate is a war crime and a crime against humanity.

It was also clearly known and openly stated that there were no legal grounds for war.

It was also an absolute certainty that there was neither proof of WMDs nor any ability to deliver WMDs in 45 weeks let alone 45 minutes as dishonestly stated by Blair to Parliament.

Further it was catagorically and undeniably established by me that the Drowning Street dossier used as the causus belli was a fake - factual information which I passed to Channel 4 and subsequently Newsnight and then the today programme which featured in many papers the following day and was the subject of discourse in Parliament.

The document was a plagiarised fraud from UCLA-Berkley and fully sourced to 10 plus years earlier a total fake allegedly promulgated by John Scarlett for Blair - interestingly despite the known dishonesty that had led to war John Scarlett was rewarded with a knighthood for his betrayal of Britain.

Only opinions given by judges in previous cases (Case Law in England/Stated Case in Scotland) are given such weight. In these circumstances there are no such previous cases.

This is why the authority of International Lawyers was sought and without exception they clearly and unequivocally stated there was no mandate for war granted by the UN.

Before any case gets to a court, the facts and circumstances must be sufficient for the prosecutor (be it the DPP, the CPS or the International Criminal Court) to be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction. These circumstances don't even get as far as being considered under such terms. Because of the 2 contradictions I outlined above, it cannot be demonstrated that a prima facie case exists. Let's say that the ICC decided to charge Blair - the thrust of the prosecution case would be that a second determination by the Sec Council would be required (as per item 4 Resolution 1441). Blair's lawyers need only submit a motion to the court pointing out the provisions outlined in the preamble to 1441, for the case to be thrown out, because the very resolution which (if you will) makes it an offence to invade Iraq, also makes such an invasion legal.

I believe your conclusion to be fanciful and false as of course did every International Lawyer or independent lawyer of repute.

Resolution 1441 shows it to be illegal and thus unlawful to invade Iraq and nowhere therein does it at any time legitimise invasion and neither Straw, Blair nor Goldsmith claim it does and they claimed they did not believe they would get a mandate at a second meeting of the UN Security Council so they cobbled together the wholly unacceptable nonsense of using the spent resolutions as a fig leaf of cover for their crimes.

The content of the preamble is in no way germane to resolution 1441 itself, which grants no mandate in any stanza thereof - such that ONLY Peter Goldsmith saw fit at the last moment to pretend to legitimacy by the dishonest recourse to the historic and spent unrelated instance of the invasion of Kuwait founded on the intent to remove an invading army from an independent state and restore that state's integrity within its own borders.

I believe you have failed item by item to not only make your case but that there may be the slightest hint of a case to be made.

I believe that Blair and his claque should be arrested and bailed to represent to face charges in one years time and in the interim the case assembled to ensure the deserved Guilty verdict for Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes also for trial for having abused his office and the trust placed in that office by having clearly and provably lied to Her Majesty, Her Government, The people and OUR Parliament in which Her Majesty is Sovereign.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

PS - an interesting marathon! I am always happy to discuss serious items in depth to the limit of my ability +1!!
I'll never duck a qestion phrased in an adult and acceptable manner - as you will have noted. If I was not willing to discuss material in full I would not have joined the various forums I have.

I hope this makes clear my position on this issue and thank you for your reasoned opinions - even if I did not agree with it your points were well made

[DC]

Considering he himself ordered no violations of human rights, no, he should not. We cannot try every politician for their mistakes, if we did every elected member would serve time when they stepped down.

[uncon]

Hi,

that was neither the intent nor how I tried to present it.

Res 1441 seemed pretty clear to me and it seems was pretty clear to the International Lawyers and thus the FCO.

Not a matter of how anyone LOOKED - merely the fact that Blair just kept looking for opinions until he found a dodgy one from Goldsmith - or so it seemed when one reads the resolution.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

do you feel that goldsmith was pressured?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

do you feel that goldsmith was pressured?

Hi,

his evidence and the facts of which I was aware at the time lead me to the certain understanding that he was.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Considering he himself ordered no violations of human rights, no, he should not. We cannot try every politician for their mistakes, if we did every elected member would serve time when they stepped down.

Hi,

I find your contention utterly unacceptable when it comes to indisputable dishonesty, fabricated evidence, war crimes, abuse of privilege, lies to Parliament, crimes against humanity.

Do you believe that the trials at Nurenberg or those at The Hague should not have taken place? Did Adolph Eichmann merely make a mistake!

Watching about 20 hours of evidence led on the Chilcot enquiry this week alone I do not believe there is one shred of honesty, integrity, morality or ethics that one could note in the presentations led by Straw, Goldsmith or Blair that would lead me to believe even without the factual information I put forward and that which I know.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[uncon]

along the lines of 'we are going in so find me a legal reason'?


so what did you do at the time Greg?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

along the lines of 'we are going in so find me a legal reason'?
so what did you do at the time Greg?

Hi,

nora lot beyond that which I have already enumerated on this Forum. Main points - identified date and reason for war almost a year before. Exposed the lies of WMD/45 min delivery speech of Blair's within 24hrs. Identified the $/€ status beginning December Iraq/China/N.Korea + France. Exposed tthe dodgey dossier/intel. lies on Drowning St. web site. + a few other things.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Kiwi 1691]

Do you believe that the trials at Nurenberg or those at The Hague should not have taken place? Did Adolph Eichmann merely make a mistake!

Wait are you seriously comparing Blair to Adolph Eichmann "the architect of the holocaust"? That holocaust that killed potentially 11-17 million people.

There is no way you can compare Blair to the leaders of Nazi Germany.

[DC]

Hi,

I find your contention utterly unacceptable when it comes to indisputable dishonesty, fabricated evidence, war crimes, abuse of privilege, lies to Parliament, crimes against humanity.

Do you believe that the trials at Nurenberg or those at The Hague should not have taken place? Did Adolph Eichmann merely make a mistake!

Watching about 20 hours of evidence led on the Chilcot enquiry this week alone I do not believe there is one shred of honesty, integrity, morality or ethics that one could note in the presentations led by Straw, Goldsmith or Blair that would lead me to believe even without the factual information I put forward and that which I know.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Wait, wait, a politician was dishonest!!?? That's simply not possible.

And no, he didn't commit neither war crimes or crimes against humanity and nor did he order them or was in a capacity to prevent any from occuring (like many of those tried at Nuremburg or the Hague, however I would consider Nuremburg merely a political stunt rather than any real attempt at justice). Furthermore, my understanding was that the evidence fabrication occurred prior to Blair recieving this infomation, and not carried out either by him or under his orders. IMO the American intelligence agencies have far more to answer for than any politician.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Wait, wait, a politician was dishonest!!?? That's simply not possible.

And no, he didn't commit neither war crimes or crimes against humanity and nor did he order them or was in a capacity to prevent any from occuring (like many of those tried at Nuremburg or the Hague, however I would consider Nuremburg merely a political stunt rather than any real attempt at justice). Furthermore, my understanding was that the evidence fabrication occurred prior to Blair recieving this infomation, and not carried out either by him or under his orders. IMO the American intelligence agencies have far more to answer for than any politician.

Hi,

on the one hand you state you know nothing about the matter, which is clearly so, then you promote your uninformed opinion as if it has some relevance!!

You are wrong - and I have led a body of evidence and data to show that fact.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Wait are you seriously comparing Blair to Adolph Eichmann "the architect of the holocaust"? That holocaust that killed potentially 11-17 million people.

There is no way you can compare Blair to the leaders of Nazi Germany.

Hi,

I just did and I showed in what way I was comparing him - since he is so consumate an act and relatively well scripted should that be compere?

Eichman was far from being the architect of the holocaust and where you get your fanciful figures from I know not they are such an exageration they would make even a Zionist blush. It is hard enough for them to justify a figure of 6 Million and that includes Gypsies, Germans, homosexuals the disabled and many others and is still legitimately questionable - that is not to gainsay the holoucaust for one second - I have hda too many friends and associates from Ravensbrook, Treblinka, Bergen Belsen, Auchwitz etc. to tollerate any denialist scum but that the Zionists have befouled Judaism as 'children of the holocaust' is hard to deny.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DC]

Hi,

on the one hand you state you know nothing about the matter, which is clearly so, then you promote your uninformed opinion as if it has some relevance!!

You are wrong - and I have led a body of evidence and data to show that fact.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

What evidence? Blair never ordered massacres, torture or other such human rights abuses, and as such is not a war criminal. In fact all Blair is guilty of is perhaps exaggerating evidence provided to him by British and American intelligence, the validity of this evidence was not his responsability, rather that of the intelligence agencies.

And yes Kiwi, you've greatly over exaggerated holocaust numbers. Roughly 6 million Jews died, 10 million total including homosexuals, gypsies and other 'undesirables'.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

What evidence? Blair never ordered massacres, torture or other such human rights abuses, and as such is not a war criminal.

Ill informed twaddle.

What part of war he lied, distorted, bullied and abused to achieve was he expecting to be fought with feather dusters?

In fact all Blair is guilty of is perhaps exaggerating evidence provided to him by British and American intelligence, the validity of this evidence was not his responsability, rather that of the intelligence agencies.

Rubbish - he wittingly and deliberately lied and misled.

He bullied and abused to ensure disent was suppressed, he brought undue pressure to get his results and there is clear evidence that he knew every step of the way and acted dishonourably and despicably.

He lacked even the humility to appologise or regret the killings he caused.

He went on in one of history's most revoltingly self congratulatory and obscene self justifications in history to cover his trail of shame and slaughter.

Do tell which parts of the English language you have failed to comprehend!

You clearly did not note the FACTS led as evidence by witness after witness.

Did you listen or watch todays evidence? BANGED TO REIGHTS!

And yes Kiwi, you've greatly over exaggerated holocaust numbers. Roughly 6 million Jews died, 10 million total including homosexuals, gypsies and other 'undesirables'.

Despite the fact that the normally presented figure of 6Million is known to be unsound as a total there is every reason to believe a higher proportion of that 6M were homosexuals, gypsies, disabled, German non Jewish, etc. than had previously been believed just as the figures for Auschwitz were dramatically reduced a few years ago.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DC]

Ill informed twaddle.

What part of war he lied, distorted, bullied and abused to achieve was he expecting to be fought with feather dusters?

War in and of itself is not a war crime. And in War people, including innocent people, die. Blair, however, did nothing to increase the rate of deaths of innocent people in the course of that war.

Rubbish - he wittingly and deliberately lied and misled.

He bullied and abused to ensure disent was suppressed, he brought undue pressure to get his results and there is clear evidence that he knew every step of the way and acted dishonourably and despicably.

He lacked even the humility to appologise or regret the killings he caused.

He went on in one of history's most revoltingly self congratulatory and obscene self justifications in history to cover his trail of shame and slaughter.

Do tell which parts of the English language you have failed to comprehend!

You clearly did not note the FACTS led as evidence by witness after witness.

Did you listen or watch todays evidence? BANGED TO REIGHTS!

So, in a nutshell, he was a politician attempting to achieve an agenda?

[Opinionated]

War in and of itself is not a war crime.

I think all wars are crimes myself.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

War in and of itself is not a war crime. And in War people, including innocent people, die. Blair, however, did nothing to increase the rate of deaths of innocent people in the course of that war.


So, in a nutshell, he was a politician attempting to achieve an agenda?

Hi,

have you no moral compass?

That Anthony Charles Lynton Blair lied to the people, lied to parliament, lied to our Monarch, lied to the military, lied to our allies and enjoned in an unlawful war based on his own lies leading to the death of some 1.4Million people so far - YOU call a Politician working to an agenda - I and right minded people the Courts included consider his actions to be criminal, beneath contempt, a war crime and a crime against humanity - but I guess we all have our own standards. I would hope for mankind that mine prevail.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DC]

Hi,

have you no moral compass?

That Anthony Charles Lynton Blair lied to the people, lied to parliament, lied to our Monarch, lied to the military, lied to our allies and enjoned in an unlawful war based on his own lies leading to the death of some 1.4Million people so far - YOU call a Politician working to an agenda - I and right minded people the Courts included consider his actions to be criminal, beneath contempt, a war crime and a crime against humanity - but I guess we all have our own standards. I would hope for mankind that mine prevail.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

What would have done if there were weapons of mass destruction? 1.4 million people would have still died. The war would have still been technically illegal under international law (which doesn't really matter anyway). The intelligence would have still been just as shoddy. But I sure as hell bet you wouldn't be calling him a criminal.
First of all, if you're refferring to Claire Short's allegations, her allegations are in criticism of how Tony Blair ran Government and how it was set up. Not of his reasoning (however questionable) leading to the war. While it is clear Blair had an agenda to go to war, what the inquiry must establish is if he ever outright lied about to parliament, rather than merely overeaggerating the evidence. In reference to legality of the war itself, the Attorney general advised Blair it was legal, therefore from the PM's perspective it's irrelavent if it actually was, because he did not make the mistake, teh Attorney general did.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

What would have done if there were weapons of mass destruction?

What if there were pink fairies?

There was absolutely no doubt there were no viable EMDs so don't just invent a hypothetical what if.

1.4 million people would have still died.

on what do you base your fantasy?

The war would have still been technically illegal under international law (which doesn't really matter anyway).

That you don't value the rule of law speaks volumes of you AND Blair.

The intelligence would have still been just as shoddy.

It WAS deliberately mispresented which I proved at Government level at the time and published.

But I sure as hell bet you wouldn't be calling him a criminal.

Anthony Charles Lynton Balir, was is and continues to be a liar, a cheat, evil and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt.

First of all, if you're refferring to Claire Short's allegations, her allegations are in criticism of how Tony Blair ran Government and how it was set up.

I wasn't but she was right on those points also which confirm my statements and the facts I led at the lime.

Not of his reasoning (however questionable) leading to the war.

His reasoning was dishonest, corrupt and self serving in their criminality.

While it is clear Blair had an agenda to go to war, what the inquiry must establish is if he ever outright lied about to parliament,

He did - it is a proven fact - which part did you miss?

rather than merely overeaggerating the evidence.

He did not - he deliberately lied and forced others to also.

In reference to legality of the war itself, the Attorney general advised Blair it was legal,

Unsound, invalid and dishonest - based on pressure that changed one venal little lawyer's mind when EVERY British International lawyer unequivocally stated a war of invasive aggression would be unlawful and thus a crime - a WAR crime and a crime against humanity.

Have you read ANT of the facts? Watched ANY of the evidence? Studied ANY of the contemporary information? I'd stick to judging Big Brother - you can vote in that without need of knowing what you are talking about!

therefore from the PM's perspective it's irrelavent if it actually was, because he did not make the mistake, teh Attorney general did.

Your contention is dishonest, misleading and bereft of factual foundation.

Stick to Spiderman!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DC]

What if there were pink fairies?

There was absolutely no doubt there were no viable EMDs so don't just invent a hypothetical what if.

Not according to several intellience reports from the Americans. You can question the validity of these reports, and whether or not Blair should have, but teh fact remains that from Blair's perspective their was a distinct possibility, in fact he was advised there was, that there were WMDs in Iraq, so no, this isn't just an invention.

on what do you base your fantasy?

The fact that the Republican Guard would have still fought back, there would have still been an insugency and the post-war planning would have still been just as bad. The lack of WMDs never actually killed anyone, so at the very least the presence of WMDs wouldn't have killed anyone, in fact they might have killed people if Saddam had been inclined to use them. So the the death toll would have either increased or remained the same.

That you don't value the rule of law speaks volumes of you AND Blair.

Please, if you believe anybody in real power really gives a **** about international law then your sadly mistaken and terribly naive.

It WAS deliberately mispresented which I proved at Government level at the time and published.

Irrelavent, it would have been the same intelligence, therefore just as shoddy (we now know) irrelavent of whether or not WMDs were real.

Anthony Charles Lynton Balir, was is and continues to be a liar, a cheat, evil and guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt.

But what if he was right?

I wasn't but she was right on those points also which confirm my statements and the facts I led at the lime.

That he ran his Government poorly? Because I don't think that's a criminal offence, even if the outcome was war.

His reasoning was dishonest, corrupt and self serving in their criminality.

Probably, but again, I fail to see how this differs from any other politician.

He did - it is a proven fact - which part did you miss?

No, it isn't. His motives questionable yes, but it hasn't yet been proven he directly lied about or forged evidence. Exaggerated and misinterpreted perhaps, but never outright lied.

He did not - he deliberately lied and forced others to also.

Again, not proven.

Unsound, invalid and dishonest - based on pressure that changed one venal little lawyer's mind when EVERY British International lawyer unequivocally stated a war of invasive aggression would be unlawful and thus a crime - a WAR crime and a crime against humanity.

Have you read ANT of the facts? Watched ANY of the evidence? Studied ANY of the contemporary information? I'd stick to judging Big Brother - you can vote in that without need of knowing what you are talking about!

That 'venal little lawyer' was the chief legal adviser to the PM, he provided the adivice, if that was incorrect that is his fault, not the PM's. We do not want a leader second guessing the advice of his advisors.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Not according to several intellience reports from the Americans. You can question the validity of these reports, and whether or not Blair should have, but teh fact remains that from Blair's perspective their was a distinct possibility, in fact he was advised there was, that there were WMDs in Iraq, so no, this isn't just an invention.

Do you not appreciate the oxymoronic status of 'American intelligence' - pray tell me which intel from America which supported the lies about WMDs and 45 minute delivery - can you identify ONE such - I believe not and do not forget that the British claimed intel. was proven to be worse than unsound it was shown to be deliberately dishonest on the instruction of Blair. You will of course remember that Hans Blix was ORDERED not to complete his report.

Sorry as ever you show yourself to be ill informed.

The fact that the Republican Guard would have still fought back, there would have still been an insugency and the post-war planning would have still been just as bad. The lack of WMDs never actually killed anyone, so at the very least the presence of WMDs wouldn't have killed anyone, in fact they might have killed people if Saddam had been inclined to use them. So the the death toll would have either increased or remained the same.

The Republican Guard was broken on the Basra Road - what are you talking about? Who might the residue have attacked had there been no illegal invasion?

You are publishing fantasy as if it was founded on fact!

Please, if you believe anybody in real power really gives a **** about international law then your sadly mistaken and terribly naive.

No but it disgusts me when people turn a blind eye to their criminal behaviour.

Irrelavent, it would have been the same intelligence, therefore just as shoddy (we now know) irrelavent of whether or not WMDs were real.

Do YOU find such dishonesty and resultant murders in your name acceptable for I sure to hell don't.

But what if he was right?

But it was known beyond doubt that he was not and the International Lawyers to a man gave evidence that it would be a crime to invade Iraq.

That he ran his Government poorly?

No sir he ran MY Government dishonestly corruptly and criminally in my name - you may put no value on YOUR name that is entirely your choice as we all have our own standards.

Because I don't think that's a criminal offence, even if the outcome was war.

Just what morality do you found your life upon because I do NOT respect such values nor advocate evil!

Probably, but again, I fail to see how this differs from any other politician.

I can understand your point of view as you have made it clear you haven't a clue what your talking about or have no moral compass!

No, it isn't. His motives questionable yes, but it hasn't yet been proven he directly lied about or forged evidence. Exaggerated and misinterpreted perhaps, but never outright lied.

Yet again may I correct you as clearly you have no knowledge of the matter.

Again, not proven.

You are wrong again - it has been proven and shown beyond all reasonable doubt.

That 'venal little lawyer' was the chief legal adviser to the PM, he provided the adivice, if that was incorrect that is his fault, not the PM's. We do not want a leader second guessing the advice of his advisors.

No sir that venal little man was a weak and shameless little man put into position by Blair to provide the corrupt, dishonest and criminal so called advice Blair demanded - thus Goldsmith completely changed his position to suit Blair 3 days from invasion against ALL the advice of ALL of the International Lawyers of the FCO.

You are not just struggling but palpably failing to defend the indefensible criminality of Blair and his claque as all the evidence showed at the time and has been shown at John Chilcot's fudge enquiry.

It is clear you haven't even worked out what this farce, fantasy and froth is all about.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Binnman]

Hi Greg,

Can I ask you to expand on this part of your previous;

was proven to be worse than unsound it was shown to be deliberately dishonest on the instruction of Blair

I cannot recall any documentary evidence, nor (to my memory) any testimony at the inquiry, which proves that Blair instructed the insertion of the 45 minutes line, nor anything proving that he instructed anyone to lie on that matter.

[UncleVanya]

Should Blair stand trial..... how... and why? Blair is a Lawyer, and knows many clever-dick fellows who will get him off if it ever cames to trial? His wife is a QC, and a 'Uming Rites ' Lawyer. So he has plenty of scope to 'fiddle' if he ever is put in the dock, which I doubt. Iraq will always be Blair's 'Suez'. If Blair is guilty of anything, then so is Gordoom McClown, Jeffrey Hoony, Lord Meddlesome and many more who were in the T B'Liar's Cabinet at the time.

[DC]

Do you not appreciate the oxymoronic status of 'American intelligence' - pray tell me which intel from America which supported the lies about WMDs and 45 minute delivery - can you identify ONE such - I believe not and do not forget that the British claimed intel. was proven to be worse than unsound it was shown to be deliberately dishonest on the instruction of Blair. You will of course remember that Hans Blix was ORDERED not to complete his report.

Sorry as ever you show yourself to be ill informed.

So what you're saying is is that the intelligence was bad? Of course it bloody was! However it was provided to Blair on the assumption it was correct, and he had to make a decision based on that intelligence.

The Republican Guard was broken on the Basra Road - what are you talking about? Who might the residue have attacked had there been no illegal invasion?

A lot of the Republican Guard formed the initial insurgent groups, and they still killed people, which was my point, which you neatly tried to dodge.

No but it disgusts me when people turn a blind eye to their criminal behaviour.

It might, but in teh real world, it doesn't really matter.

Do YOU find such dishonesty and resultant murders in your name acceptable for I sure to hell don't.

My point was merely that the intelligence would have been just as questionable and shoddy had there actually been weapons...so I think you tried to dodge a point there as well...or something.

But it was known beyond doubt that he was not and the International Lawyers to a man gave evidence that it would be a crime to invade Iraq.

But it isn't the international lawyers who advise the PM, it's the attorney general.

No sir he ran MY Government dishonestly corruptly and criminally in my name - you may put no value on YOUR name that is entirely your choice as we all have our own standards.

Again, that isn't a triable offence.

Just what morality do you found your life upon because I do NOT respect such values nor advocate evil!

Err..politicians are bastards? My point was that he ran his Government poorly, and again, not a triable offence, whatever the outcome of this poor running was. And Evil? Really?

I can understand your point of view as you have made it clear you haven't a clue what your talking about or have no moral compass!

I'm not condoning the war or the way Blair ran his Government, I find both appalling. However, I am questioning the logic of putting a politician on trial for making poor policy choices.

Yet again may I correct you as clearly you have no knowledge of the matter.

Show me where he outright lied, show me the forged evidence. If Blair was provided with advice that weapons could be deployed in 45 minutes, then for all he knew that was true and as such did not lie to parliament.

No sir that venal little man was a weak and shameless little man put into position by Blair to provide the corrupt, dishonest and criminal so called advice Blair demanded - thus Goldsmith completely changed his position to suit Blair 3 days from invasion against ALL the advice of ALL of the International Lawyers of the FCO.

Again, IRRELEVENT. He was paid to provide advice to the PM, he did, it was wrong, it's his fault it was wrong, not the PM's.

You are not just struggling but palpably failing to defend the indefensible criminality of Blair and his claque as all the evidence showed at the time and has been shown at John Chilcot's fudge enquiry.

I'm not trying to defend Blair's actions, merely asking why he should face trial for making a poor policy choice.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi Greg,

Can I ask you to expand on this part of your previous;

I cannot recall any documentary evidence, nor (to my memory) any testimony at the inquiry, which proves that Blair instructed the insertion of the 45 minutes line, nor anything proving that he instructed anyone to lie on that matter.

Hi,

certainly - I have stated on THIS Forum that I provided factual data to Oliver Letwin & Bernard Jenkin that Blair was not only telling Parliament lies but in what way and why. There is published information to that effect at the time.

It was also clear from the evidence that Peter Goldsmith gave that there was no legal case for entering Iraq.

The introduction to the intel report presented by John Scarlett was altered in Drowning Street prior to presentation to the Parliament.

The Drowning Street web site carried known false intel. and when I provided the facts to Channel 4, Newsnight and The Today Prog. the matter ran and ran.

I could go on and would be happy to if called to the trial of Blair!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

CLICK HERE

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

I'm not trying to defend Blair's actions, merely asking why he should face trial for making a poor policy choice.

Hi,

I am glad to note you are not trying to defend the indiffensible.

I will be only too happy to respond to intelligent and informed cross examination when Blair is called to trial.

In the interin to answer all your questions.

Anthony Charles Lynton BLAIR was NOT guilty of purely bad policy choices.

Blair should be on trial on the grounds of the prima facie evidence of systematic and intentional dishonesty, deliberate lies to Parliament, manipulation and dishonesty, bullying and abuse of Cabinet, lies aout intel, deliberate misrepresentation of known facts, lies and deliberate misrepresentation to allies, criminal invasion of a foreign Country under the terms and conditions of The EU, no legal variance under international law acceptable to international lawyers, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Which fact do you not understand.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DC]

Blair should be on trial on the grounds of the prima facie evidence of systematic and intentional dishonesty, deliberate lies to Parliament, manipulation and dishonesty,

Yet to be proven.

bullying and abuse of Cabinet,

If he did, then it is not the disgression of the Judicary to bring charges, rather one of the Cabinet members would have to sue him, and it's pretty unlikely they'd win.

lies aout intel, deliberate misrepresentation of known facts, lies and deliberate misrepresentation to allies,

Again, yet to be proven. And in all honesty they probably couldn't until the Government releases documents in 30 years time.

criminal invasion of a foreign Country under the terms and conditions of The EU, no legal variance under international law acceptable to international lawyers

Actually however illegal the War may have been, the advice given to Blair by the man employed to do so was that it was legal, so Blair is at no fault for taking this advice (as he is meant to do).

war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Blair never actually ordered the slaughter of innocents or deliberate targeting of civilians, so no, he's not a war criminal.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Yet to be proven.

NO - absolutely certain there is a prima facie case to answer to.

The aim of his trial is to prove!

If he did, then it is not the disgression of the Judicary to bring charges, rather one of the Cabinet members would have to sue him, and it's pretty unlikely they'd win.

Displays you have a fundamental misunderstanding of criminality.

Again, yet to be proven. And in all honesty they probably couldn't until the Government releases documents in 30 years time.

Documents can be subpoenaed - the facts are known and have been shown that he deliberately lied.

Actually however illegal the War may have been, the advice given to Blair by the man employed to do so was that it was legal, so Blair is at no fault for taking this advice (as he is meant to do).

Hunting around to find one individual who you appointed who hoped for preferrment or gain to provide the fantasy you want to heart is no defence. The FCO International Lawyers had without exception advised that to enjoin war against Iraq would be ultra vires - a crime - thus a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Blair never actually ordered the slaughter of innocents or deliberate targeting of civilians, so no, he's not a war criminal.

RUBBISH No commander has EVER sent troops into battle in a war of aggression with orders to fight with yellow dusters and feather mops and be sure not to hurt anyone!

There is substantive prima facie evidence sufficient that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair should stand trial, together with others for his criminal actions.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

As ever - but who cares if you draw utterly unfounded conclusions - you have done so regularly and lack the ability to discuss merely jump to conclusions using only items that prop up your false assumptions. You have proved your dishonesty and shown your habitual misrepresentation as shown in your next quote:



So now you TRY to claim Jack Straw and Peter Godsmith were mere bit part players - how dishonest is that!

I made my comment regarding differentiation between Judaism and Zionism abundantly clear and also clarified for you the historic enmity between judaism and islam. I also stated that I WONDERED whether there was a relationship to their dishonest stance and weael worded claims of legitimacy for their war crimes.

You believe whatever you like - I care not since you have been all too willing to dishonestly misrepresent the facts for your personalised stance. In this instance your behaviour has been duplicitous, ungentlemanly and contemptible - refrain from putting words in my mouth and your malign interpretation on my freedom of speech.

Indeed the honest will judge your behaviour and like I find it greatly remiss.

G.L-W.

Oh, when it comes to dishonesty Greg, you have us all beaten hands down. Also, I appreciate you suffer from some form of ego-mania, but why am I dishonest if I beleive that Straw and Goldsmith are bit part players? Does my apparent dishonesty stem from from my possessing the audacity to hold an opinion that differs from your own, how ungentlemanly of me. Get over it.

Again, you identify that certain politicians (not the main players Greg, I think if you check facts - assuming you can identify them - you'll find Blair and Bush are the two main players, Rumsfeld as well) are Jews, yet the Heads of State for the two leading nations who invaded Iraq are longstanding practising Christians. No mention of this, strange really, particularly given the extent to which Islamic groups have cited the invasion of Islamic Iraq by the Christian USA and UK constitute new crusades.

Loving regards

TUMR

[DC]

NO - absolutely certain there is a prima facie case to answer to.

The aim of his trial is to prove!

No, the aim of any trial is never 'prove' someone is guilty, merely to ascertain whether or not they are, if anything it should be to defend their innocence. In any case, you have yet to show me evidence that Blair either lied or forged evidence in parliament. Not just exaggerated the facts, as long as anything he said could reasonably be concluded from the evidence provided, then he has no case to answer for.

Displays you have a fundamental misunderstanding of criminality.

No, because I'm right. One of the cabinet members would have to sue for abuse or bullying, and because of the restricted amount of infomation as well as the time passing it's unlikely any conviction could be made, and even less likely it would be criminal. However it is also irrelevent to this discussion.

Documents can be subpoenaed - the facts are known and have been shown that he deliberately lied.

Show me the facts then!

Hunting around to find one individual who you appointed who hoped for preferrment or gain to provide the fantasy you want to heart is no defence. The FCO International Lawyers had without exception advised that to enjoin war against Iraq would be ultra vires - a crime - thus a war crime and a crime against humanity.

How are you not getting this? It doesn't matter what International lawyers said! or what any other lawyer said, all Blair was required to do was follow the advice given to him by his Attorney General, which he did. He is in no way obligated to go hunting for second opinions.

RUBBISH No commander has EVER sent troops into battle in a war of aggression with orders to fight with yellow dusters and feather mops and be sure not to hurt anyone!

Again, he can't actually be brought before the Hague for merely making war. War Crimes and Crimes against humanity are classifed only by cases where the Commander or soldiers have deliberately gone out of their way to harm civilians or POWs. Blair did neither of those things, ergo, not a war criminal.

There is substantive prima facie evidence sufficient that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair should stand trial, together with others for his criminal actions.

Any trial would not be over the war, it would merely be procedural or misleading parliament. In fact the war itself is irrelevent in real terms, Blair could have misrepresented education or labor reform and it still be the same issues discussed. The fact remains that until we are provided with the actual advice and evidence provided to Blair at the time of the Iraq War, there is no evidence he lied.

[Tacitus]

BTW, you tactics of insulting me might have stood a better chance if you weren't such a dillusional crank,

Ahh. If only Lord Nelson and Nicholas were still around here. THEY could tell you entire VOLUMES about "Mr Greg Lance-Watkins'" dillusional crankiness.

[Binnman]

I find it somewhat alarming that we have a member (Greg) clamouring for legal action against Blair.

After all, this is the same Greg, who in 2003 told the Daily Telegraph;

"Yes, I do support the execution of elected politicians when they seek to betray the electorate and their country"

So in Greg's wee world, Blair would be tried, found guilty and given the Saddam route out.

Be careful what you wish for folks.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

I find it somewhat alarming that we have a member (Greg) clamouring for legal action against Blair.

After all, this is the same Greg, who in 2003 told the Daily Telegraph;

"Yes, I do support the execution of elected politicians when they seek to betray the electorate and their country"

So in Greg's wee world, Blair would be tried, found guilty and given the Saddam route out.

Be careful what you wish for folks.

Could have been worse; it could have the News of the World.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Oh, when it comes to dishonesty Greg, you have us all beaten hands down.

Well I guess you know yourself better than most and it was after all you who chose the name to hide behind! Interesting that again you make an accusation but can not back it with an example.

Also, I appreciate you suffer from some form of ego-mania,

Again no evidence merely insult. At least I have the integrity to put my name to my comments not libel in cowardice behind a silly name.

but why am I dishonest if I beleive that Straw and Goldsmith are bit part players?

Because their pivotal roles have been shown and discussed and to re-position them as bit players to suit an argument rather than the facts is fundamentally dishonest.

Does my apparent dishonesty stem from from my possessing the audacity to hold an opinion that differs from your own,

No merely from your dishonesty - you may hold any opinion you wish and you can of course present it and provide evidence to support it, if you choose then to distort the facts or misrepresent the position of others THAT is dishonest.

how ungentlemanly of me. Get over it.

As I said earlier - you know yourself but in this instance I would agree with your assessment of yourself.

Again, you identify that certain politicians (not the main players Greg, I think if you check facts - assuming you can identify them - you'll find Blair and Bush are the two main players, Rumsfeld as well)

insult and abuse for lack of facts, details or constructive comment again I note.

are Jews,

A point you make much of whereas I made only a transient comment of as Judaism and Islam have long been enemies in some areas - a situation which I presented as POTENTIAL for influence. Do you have sufficient understanding of the two beliefs to make the connection?

yet the Heads of State for the two leading nations who invaded Iraq are longstanding practising Christians.

And so they claim and shelter their actions behind their claim.

No mention of this, strange really,

What is so strange? Do you see some significance? If so why have you not raised the point for debate?

particularly given the extent to which Islamic groups have cited the invasion of Islamic Iraq by the Christian USA and UK constitute new crusades.

AFTER THE EVENT - not very relevant to the period under discussion is it!

Loving regards

TUMR

Your sneering serves the offensive idiocy of your contentions ill. No wonder you are too ashamed to put an identity to your position.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

I find it somewhat alarming that we have a member (Greg) clamouring for legal action against Blair.
After all, this is the same Greg, who in 2003 told the Daily Telegraph;
"Yes, I do support the execution of elected politicians when they seek to betray the electorate and their country"
So in Greg's wee world, Blair would be tried, found guilty and given the Saddam route out.
Be careful what you wish for folks.

Hi,

Firstly it was The Sunday Telegraph and as I recall it was at the beginning of September in 2003 regarding what, on the time line you will note, was reported as the attack by a No Campaigner on a Swedish Minister campaigning for a Yes vote re the removal of the Swedish currency and Sovereignty over their own economy.

The statement I made was 'Yes I do support a treason law and death penalty after due process including for elected politicians'. You may by all means check with the journalist concerned Daniel Foggo who is an award winning journalist now a lead investigative journalist with The Sunday Times.

I stand by the article in its context and time line relative to the details and facts in the public domain at the time. That subsequent to my being interviewed it was announced that Anna Lindh (the politician) had not been attacked in any way in the manner the BBC had presented the situation, where the inferrence was that as in British politics she had been 'egged' or similar she had in fact been stabbed and it was NOT in regard to the currency debate as she was stabbed by a Sami who had been dispossessed of his land and birthright by legislation passed by Anna Lindh that granted mineral tights in the Sami territory to international concerns and logging rights to others meanwhile imposing travel restrictions on the Sami reindeer herdsmen.

The aim of the interview was to elevate the reportage relative to the widespread imposition of the EUro on previously independent free nation states to the front pages of the broadsheets from a NO perspective. In that we were 100% successful as shown by your quotation - however disingenuous it may have been..

To reiterate for your convenience:
I believe in a death sentence in certain circumstances.
I consider Grand Treason to be such a circumstance also certain war crimes and certain crimes against humanity. I also believe in the death sentence for pre meditated killing for pecunniary gain, torture leading to death, violent rape on a second count, paedophile aggrivated rape, second offence rape of a minor, recidivist murder, murder for gain, going armed to commit a crime leading to death - no doubt other situations subject to due process and democratic will of the people NOT self serving politicians.

I trust this adequately clarifies your out of context selective quote.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Binnman]

Well Greg, there are two questions that come to mind;

1) Did you (or did you not) circulate an email stating, "I do hope there will be patriots in Britain with the courage to deal with traitors that has been shown in Sweden."

2) Did you then and do you now, still believe that the death of another human being is something that should be glorified for political points scoring purposes, giving no regard whatsoever to the hurt and distress that such glorification may cause relatives of the victim?

[Tacitus]

stabbed by a Sami who had been dispossessed of his land and birthright by legislation passed by Anna Lindh that granted mineral tights in the Sami territory to international concerns and logging rights to others meanwhile imposing travel restrictions on the Sami reindeer herdsmen.

Oh really? When was that?

Because my Grandmother and her daughters are saami reindeer herders. And THEY have never been restricted in their movements. ANY where in Sapmi.

Lying again Watkins?

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Well I guess you know yourself better than most and it was after all you who chose the name to hide behind! Interesting that again you make an accusation but can not back it with an example.

I "hide" behind a name...what, you mean I use a forum name like everyone else, well other than those whose ego couldn't get through the Blackwall Tunnel that is. I find it hugely amusing that you accuse me of making an accusation and not backing it up with an example: look at your musings on this thread Greg, essentially you accuse me of dishonesty and lying when clearly I have not and you have been unable to demonstrate otherwise, other than employing your usual and somewhat tired whine of "you've misrepresented me".....oh dear, do you find that "your wife doesn't understand you" as well?

Again no evidence merely insult. At least I have the integrity to put my name to my comments not libel in cowardice behind a silly name.

Boo hoo. How cowardly of me to use a name on an internet forum, like everyone else....well, with one obvious exception Greg.

insult and abuse for lack of facts, details or constructive comment again I note.

Yes, how abusive of me and lacking in fact or detail or indeed constructive comment for me to have pointed out that Bush and Blair (and lets not forget Rumsfeld) were the main players in the Iraq war. I'll write this very slowly so you have a chance of understanding: in comparison to Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld, Straw and Goldsmith are bit-part players. Oh course it is crossly dishonest of me to hold such a belief; dishonest because you do not share the same opinion - thats how it works isn't it Greg?

A point you make much of whereas I made only a transient comment of as Judaism and Islam have long been enemies in some areas - a situation which I presented as POTENTIAL for influence. Do you have sufficient understanding of the two beliefs to make the connection?

I don't believe for one moment that was the point you were making Greg, not for one moment. You raise the ethnicity / religious membership of two bit-part policitians and in the same breath mention dishonesty. The Jews, Zionism and Israel had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq and, as I have repeatedly commented, you cite Straw and Goldsmith as being Jews yet make no mention of the religious believes of the main players in the invasion of Iraq, namely Blair and Bush. As for enemies, it may have passed you by Greg, but the war on terror was effective a war on Islamic terrorists, the main reason given for the USA's role in invading Iraq was 9/11, you know where ISLAMIC terrorists murdered 3,000 people. You wriggle and squirm, yet fail to offer any convincing or even plausilbe explaination for why you single out two Jewish policitians. Others will no doubt draw their own conclusions on this matter.

What is so strange? Do you see some significance? If so why have you not raised the point for debate?

I have. Repeatedly.

AFTER THE EVENT - not very relevant to the period under discussion is it!

What, so its relevant to highlight that Straw and Goldsmith are Jews, and dishonest to boot (a pretty common allegation of yours Greg) yet not relevant to mention how many in the Muslim world view that actions of the Christian West as constituting new crusades........sigh.

Your sneering serves the offensive idiocy of your contentions ill. No wonder you are too ashamed to put an identity to your position.

Sneer, sneer! I like your new tactic Greg...you know, that 'you are dishonest, cowardly and intellectually inferior because you use a forum name', I don't think that will really work, do you?

Loving regards

TUMR

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Well Greg, there are two questions that come to mind;

I believe I have fully answered both but let me see if you can understand it this time.

1) Did you (or did you not) circulate an email stating, "I do hope there will be patriots in Britain with the courage to deal with traitors that has been shown in Sweden."

I did - as clearly stated and anyone who has a copy of it is requested to post it here for you to read - together with the time at which I made the posting.

You will note the 'e'Mail was based on the facts presented by the BBC at the time.

The BBC made absolutely no indication that the attack in question was more severe than that which politicians experience in Britain ie. egged or similar. It is also noteworthy that even long after the killer was arrested and in fact until after the vote was completed the attacker was portrayed by the Swedish authorities as a violent NO campaigner opposed to surrender of the Swedish economy to the ECB. This does rather seem to have been a dishonest propaganda ploy exploiting the death of a Swedish government minister for the advantage of the YES campaign when it was known the attacker was a displaced and dispossed Sami.

2) Did you then and do you now, still believe that the death of another human being is something that should be glorified for political points scoring purposes, giving no regard whatsoever to the hurt and distress that such glorification may cause relatives of the victim?

I did not and I do not as I have made very clear. That you would seem to imply I might yet hide your implication behind a false identity I consider cowardly and contemptible.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Oh really? When was that?

Because my Grandmother and her daughters are saami reindeer herders. And THEY have never been restricted in their movements. ANY where in Sapmi.

Lying again Watkins?

Hi,

no - not for a moment lying merely reiterating the information supplied by a Swedish newspaper reporter who interviewed me at the time. My knowledge of the Sammi people is much limited but by all means correct me if the Swedish journalist misled me.

Are you claiming that the attacker who killed the Swedish politician was NOT Sammi?

Is it untrue that Sammi peoples who were largely nomadic were permitted to rove their natural homeland across Northern Sweden, Finland and into Russia which they did without let or hinderance and without papers. I was given to understand the politician in question presented a law which was enacted that insisted on the carrying of passports and some kind of trade off of their land rights for the right to roam.

In passing is the word spelt Sammi or Saami? and surely as a people do they not earn a capital for their name. Perhaps you happen, being I take it 1/4 Saami or Saami, able to advise the root stem of their ethnicity and language, has the word itself a meaning? Also I note you imply the territory over which they roam is Sapmi. Thanks for the info. Regarding the restrictions are you sure that the Swerdish journalist was wrong as the law would seem to have changed after about 2001/2

I look forward to your apology for the accusation of lying and if I have unwittingly misled anyone I look forward to your accurate correction.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

an interesting article on the matter of people's religious beliefs when it comes to political decisions:
*Britain, You Better Wake Up******* : Information Clearing House -* ICH

This may help those who try to present any mention of religion as some 'anti semetic' as an accusation whilst they hide their identity, too cowardly to put their name to the accusations and inferences.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Hi,

an interesting article on the matter of people's religious beliefs when it comes to political decisions:
Britain, You Better Wake Up : Information Clearing House - ICH

This may help those who try to present any mention of religion as some 'anti semetic' as an accusation whilst they hide their identity, too cowardly to put their name to the accusations and inferences.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Does it help those who merely point out that you identify bit-part players as being Jewish whilst chosing not to mention that the main players happen to be Christian?

As for not using our actual names on an internet forum, well who would....lets face it there are a lot of crackpots, fruitcakes and wierdos out there on the internet you know.

[Binnman]

I did not and I do not as I have made very clear. That you would seem to imply I might yet hide your implication behind a false identity I consider cowardly and contemptible

Funnily enough, I find that having spent around 3 years working on Prevention of Terrorism jobs (during the IRA crisis) it's better for me and my family that my identity is not broadcast, and is neither cowardly nor contemptable, but absolute common blo*dy sense.

Of course it does help that I do not have some pathological need to see my name splashed all over the internet........................unlike others.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Does it help those who merely point out that you identify bit-part players as being Jewish whilst chosing not to mention that the main players happen to be Christian?

Did you read it and watch the video?
Britain, You Better Wake Up : Information Clearing House - ICH - I hope it helped you, but you must be the judge of that.

Clearly I did not deal with the religion of the other bit part characters as although I am indifferent to peoples' religions I am aware this is a fundamentally christian country thus naturally that someone is a christian is usually a given save when their other religion is known. Further I am unaware of historic animus between Islam and christianity in modern times though I appreciate the interest in Jerusalem shown by the Cathars leading to the Crusades.

I am however all too personally aware of the rivalry and sporadic violence of both Judaism and Zionism towards Islam. That the rise of Wahabe has recently, in historic terms, exacerbated the problem is undeniable.

I would rather hope that you are not using a fake identity merely to make mischief by your persistent inferences.

As for not using our actual names on an internet forum, well who would....lets face it there are a lot of crackpots, fruitcakes and wierdos out there on the internet you know.

Indeed there are - mostly sheltering their identities, and then acting offensively, dishonestly and disingenuously - often eventually identified as trolls as they promote views and aims they would not be prepared to put their identity to and all too ofetn using needless foul language and gratuitous snearing when they have run out of reasoned facts.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Funnily enough, I find that having spent around 3 years working on Prevention of Terrorism jobs (during the IRA crisis) it's better for me and my family that my identity is not broadcast, and is neither cowardly nor contemptable, but absolute common blo*dy sense.

I suggest you stay off the web if you are that concerned.

None of my many friends who have served in Ireland find any need to hide their identities, having done nothing they were ashamed of.

Further I have made a point of standing by my name in every action I have taken during my life. However I never carried out an order, or gave one in military terms that required the defence of 'I was only carrying out orders'.

Today alone I have spoken to 3 people who were officers in N.Ireland who use their own names on the internet, as do I, one was a Green Jacket and one was RAF helecopter pilot and the third The Regiment.

Of course it does help that I do not have some pathological need to see my name splashed all over the internet........................unlike others.

My name has been with me for 64 years I have never felt a need to hide it - nor the sad insecurity to troll in an assumed identity........unlike others.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

since the thread title is:

Should Blair Stand Trial

It could be a good idea to return to it! It is an interesting point to note the ease with which those who would seem to have run out of argument can as Barry points out lead the subject off topic by personalised attacks and fulsome nonsense when they hide behind false identities.

Returning to the topic it would seem that none of the bit players however big the bit they played as with Straw or Goldsmith, John Scarlett or Gordon Brown, Blair or Geoff Hoon or however small Short and similar! There would seem to be more than enough evidence for people of morality to be calling for a full trial of certain of those who played a bit in the unlawfull invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq with no legitimate mandate under international law should face charges for their unlawful act of war and the resultant crimes against humanity and some 1.39 Million deaths.

Such a case could utilise the unequivocal evidence that is readily available, subpoena such further evidence as is required and face the facts known at the time that the intelligence was not just unsound but dishonest.

I believe that several of those around Blair, including Blair himself will be found guilty based on the evidence that can be led. I believe that the Court will clearly show justice as being done with a guilty verdict. It is then upto the Courts to comply with our democracy, such that it is left, and impose the appropriate sentence.

At this stage when many believe that there is a case to answer and as many believe has been shown by the Chilcot inquiry by witness after witness even under the most tolerant of investigation. I believe that if the bit players concerned believe they are innocent they should present to the courts to clear their name.

I believe they will fail so to do.

Thus on the thread topic 'Should Blair Stand Trial' - I have absolutely no doubt and the failure of anyone in the preceding 148 postings of anyone to put their name to a sound and reasoned rebuttal of my view has strengthened my conviction based on the facts and details and my own personal involvement such that I can not answer any way but YES.

Regards,
Greg L-W.