Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear, The Left In It Up To Their Necks

[youngmafbog]

Any labour supporters got anything to say?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3542877/Did-Tony-Blair-consult-Britain-s-taxman-secret-trust-fortune-set-manage-riches.html

[Svejk]

Don't hold your breath. ;)

[douglas9401]

Tony Blair - the left? Are you drunk?

[jno]

"Did Tony Blair consult Britain's top taxman over a secret trust fortune he set up to manage his riches?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

[Old_Geezer]

If you are going after embarrassing Labour you could at least choose a socialist rather than a Tory fifth columnist.

[bednobs]

he's not an mp ant more is he?

[dannyk13]

A self serving parasite who used the Labour party as a cloak for his avaricious nature.

[lindapalmara]

//A self serving parasite who used the Labour party as a cloak for his avaricious nature//

couldn't have put it better myself!!

[Peter Pedant]

oh dear oh dear

wasnt your best fren' and boozum buddy 3T loud in his opinion that anyone who can dodge tax should do so ?

Perhaps Bliar asked 3T's advice .....

[Quizmonster]

Just the usual garbage about Mr Blair's finances that appears about once a year in one or other of the right-wing papers, this time originating in The Times but copied to The Mail in this case.
All anyone rational has to do is study the actual language employed. Here are a few samples…
“DID Tony Blair…” That’s a question, not a statement; if they had genuine evidence, they’d say so.
“Advisers ALLEGE…”
“inquiry into ALLEGATIONS…”
“CLAIMED head of HMRC was approached…”
“CLAIMED they had access…”
…and so it goes on.
The opposite, of course, is to offer the counter-statements, but in a low-key manner…
“IIP trusts are legal…”
“The Times was not able to verify…”
“There is no suggestion that he (Head of HMRC) offered such a deal to Mr Blair…”
In the Times’ own article yesterday, the usual disclaimer was offered word-for-word, as follows:
“There is no suggestion Mr Blair has behaved illegally.”
It’s perfectly plain that this has appeared now simply as an attempted - but failed - ‘antidote’, as it were, to the recent revelations about Cameron. However, it fails to take account of the fact that Mr Blair is a private citizen, not the Prime Minister.
So what’s the fuss about? Even TTT must thoroughly approve, as PP suggests above!

[Quizmonster]

Sorry, Jno, I overlooked your Betteridge's Law link. Good to see that he, you and I are in agreement!