NJ, you know as well as I do that right-wing newspapers regularly publish articles relating to Mr Bair's wealth, invariably designed to put him in a bad light. What they absolutely always include is a sentence which reads, "There is no suggestion that Mr Blair has done anything illegal" or words to that effect. Clearly, this is done solely to cover them from any legal comeback, given that the whole tenor of the articles suggest the exact opposite.
You yourself write, "Nobody knows by how much or little Mr Blair benefited from his time in post as the "envoy". Obviously, in your mind, there is no doubt but that he DID personally benefit. What evidence have you got of any such thing? Even a shred? He may have done, but I don't know that and neither do you.
If the investigative reporters of The Sun, Mail and Telegraph, with all their resources, have regularly and consistently failed to find a piece of financial mud that will stick, why do people like yourself persist in believing that it is there to be found?
Yes, he has taken payment from people these papers might "claim" to disapprove of, but why wouldn't he, if he performed the service which he contracted to povide?
Anyway, this site has many clearly right-wing contributors who - unlike yourself - are clueless about what Mr Blair was expected to do from his office in Jerusalem, but still continue to imagine they can use it against him!