If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Party Politics
72 Answers
Can't help but think we'd be better served by people with integrity and intelligence. Not a Part-political point but Tony Blair and Michael Howard, William Hague and John Smith could out-perform these pygmies in an instant.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Paigntonian. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Despite being ex Forces I never once blamed Blair, he didn’t ‘take us to war on a lie’, he followed the evidence that was presented to Coalition Forces.
Other pacts and treaties dictated that we went with our US Allies in such instances.
None of my colleagues ever laid any blame at his door, as Servicemen and women you go where you’re told, simple as.
That aside, the standard of politicians but especially the government front benches is in comparison to a couple of decades ago, dire.
There’s a lack of integrity, honesty and they look as if they’re literally in it for what they can get, not yo-yo serve their electorate, country and government, they’re all very much disingenuous.
That is patently obvious when you look at the fact that a former PM who resigned only weeks ago after not one but a culmination of scandals is now lined up as a possible candidate.
What an absolute s***-show of unimaginable proportions, have we really sunk so low that this is the best we can produce?
Reducing ourselves to the object of absolute ridicule throughout the world? Seriously??
Other pacts and treaties dictated that we went with our US Allies in such instances.
None of my colleagues ever laid any blame at his door, as Servicemen and women you go where you’re told, simple as.
That aside, the standard of politicians but especially the government front benches is in comparison to a couple of decades ago, dire.
There’s a lack of integrity, honesty and they look as if they’re literally in it for what they can get, not yo-yo serve their electorate, country and government, they’re all very much disingenuous.
That is patently obvious when you look at the fact that a former PM who resigned only weeks ago after not one but a culmination of scandals is now lined up as a possible candidate.
What an absolute s***-show of unimaginable proportions, have we really sunk so low that this is the best we can produce?
Reducing ourselves to the object of absolute ridicule throughout the world? Seriously??
Gromit, I haven't forgotten that. They took him at his word - until they didn't. His crime wasn't petty - or a mistake - it was huge - but he was never vilified and hounded mercilessly to account for himself before a kangaroo court made up of a motley assortment of MPs and chaired by someone on the opposing team. He carried on for another four years until HE decided to walk away.
The Tories on here will always look to blame Blair as a point scoring exercise whilst conveniently forgetting Thatcher’s highly questionable support of Pinochet.
No PM will ever come out smelling of roses whenever HM Forces become engaged in conflict, yet ironically you’ll very rarely if ever hear said Servicemen/women complain, we’ve always treated such events as an occupational hazard, nobody press-ganged us.
No PM will ever come out smelling of roses whenever HM Forces become engaged in conflict, yet ironically you’ll very rarely if ever hear said Servicemen/women complain, we’ve always treated such events as an occupational hazard, nobody press-ganged us.
// I just don’t recall that when [Blair] was leader evidence of lying to parliament carried a penalty of automatic dismissal from the job, emmie. //
Then you don't recall correctly, as it has been a standard convention going back centuries that "knowingly misleading the House" -- emphasis here on "knowingly", I should add -- is one of the worst offences to commit in Parliament. This is why, for example, whenever one MP accuses another of misleading the House, they either do so in carefully-worded terms, along the lines of (to take a silly example) "is it possible for the Honourable Member for Chipping Norton to clarify that, when he said to the House that pigs can fly, he was speaking metaphorically", rather than something more direct. Or they can adopt another approach, and say what they mean, but then the Speaker will ask them to withdraw the remark. And, if they don't, and continue to accuse another member directly of misleading the House, they get summarily dismissed.
Returning to Blair specifically, then, it would be quite reasonable to ask if he *knew* that what he was saying as regards the 'dodgy dossier' was in fact incorrect. If he did know, then he was knowingly misleading the House and should have lost his seat and his job. If he did not, then, at least in the narrow terms of not *knowingly* misleading the House, he'd committed no offence.
So the question is entirely whether or not Blair (and, by extension, Johnson in the present case) *knew* that was he was saying was false. That is true then, it is true now; no rules in this regard have changed. You may well believe that Blair got away with one, and you may even be correct -- I believe the Chilcot Inquiry is at least ambiguous on this point, and I certainly have no intention here to defend Blair.
But, just because someone got away with "knowingly misleading the House" back then is no excuse for being lax with the rules now. Lying to the House is Lying to the House; it is, was, and always has been a serious offence.
Then you don't recall correctly, as it has been a standard convention going back centuries that "knowingly misleading the House" -- emphasis here on "knowingly", I should add -- is one of the worst offences to commit in Parliament. This is why, for example, whenever one MP accuses another of misleading the House, they either do so in carefully-worded terms, along the lines of (to take a silly example) "is it possible for the Honourable Member for Chipping Norton to clarify that, when he said to the House that pigs can fly, he was speaking metaphorically", rather than something more direct. Or they can adopt another approach, and say what they mean, but then the Speaker will ask them to withdraw the remark. And, if they don't, and continue to accuse another member directly of misleading the House, they get summarily dismissed.
Returning to Blair specifically, then, it would be quite reasonable to ask if he *knew* that what he was saying as regards the 'dodgy dossier' was in fact incorrect. If he did know, then he was knowingly misleading the House and should have lost his seat and his job. If he did not, then, at least in the narrow terms of not *knowingly* misleading the House, he'd committed no offence.
So the question is entirely whether or not Blair (and, by extension, Johnson in the present case) *knew* that was he was saying was false. That is true then, it is true now; no rules in this regard have changed. You may well believe that Blair got away with one, and you may even be correct -- I believe the Chilcot Inquiry is at least ambiguous on this point, and I certainly have no intention here to defend Blair.
But, just because someone got away with "knowingly misleading the House" back then is no excuse for being lax with the rules now. Lying to the House is Lying to the House; it is, was, and always has been a serious offence.
davebro
//yet ironically you’ll very rarely if ever hear said Servicemen/women complain//
/Isn't war what you were there for. No point otherwise/
No, war is not what we’re there for.
We’re there as a deterrent and to serve the UK’s interests throughout the world and to defend democracy or to help out in times of humanitarian crises or domestic industrial actions, poor attempt at a dig though it is.
As I’ve told you before, not everyone portrays themselves as some machine-gun toting homicidal maniac aka keyboard warrior, you might want to take note.
//yet ironically you’ll very rarely if ever hear said Servicemen/women complain//
/Isn't war what you were there for. No point otherwise/
No, war is not what we’re there for.
We’re there as a deterrent and to serve the UK’s interests throughout the world and to defend democracy or to help out in times of humanitarian crises or domestic industrial actions, poor attempt at a dig though it is.
As I’ve told you before, not everyone portrays themselves as some machine-gun toting homicidal maniac aka keyboard warrior, you might want to take note.
Spicerack
//A member of the British Armed Forces criticizing our relationship with Pinochet? Mmmm.//
No, I pointed out the comparison between Blair and Thatcher if you look at it correctly.
In your various guises on here you’ll always question my service in HM Forces, that’s how sad you are.
Never mind.
To divert slightly, did anyone watching the BBC news yesterday see the footage of Mordaunt shaking hands with a highly decorated Royal Marines officer?
That’s Gordon Messenger, he was a Close Observation Troop commander when I last saw him back in 1988.
One of the nicest and most professional soldiers it was ever my pleasure to meet.
//A member of the British Armed Forces criticizing our relationship with Pinochet? Mmmm.//
No, I pointed out the comparison between Blair and Thatcher if you look at it correctly.
In your various guises on here you’ll always question my service in HM Forces, that’s how sad you are.
Never mind.
To divert slightly, did anyone watching the BBC news yesterday see the footage of Mordaunt shaking hands with a highly decorated Royal Marines officer?
That’s Gordon Messenger, he was a Close Observation Troop commander when I last saw him back in 1988.
One of the nicest and most professional soldiers it was ever my pleasure to meet.
// I remember distinctly that he was never hounded and hauled before a kangaroo court in order to ascertain whether he was aware that what he was telling parliament was not the whole truth. It never happened. //
In the first place, there's a distinction here to be drawn between what *did* happen and what probably *should* have happened. My point was addressed entirely toward your suggestion that the rules now and then are different. At the very least, in this regard, my point is merely that two wrongs don't make a right.
In the second place, the specific circumstances of the Iraq War seem to have acted to protect Blair from immediate consequences. For example, there's this inquiry from 2003: https:/
Note that it's the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than the Privileges Committee, and note that they are careful so say explicitly that they are judging "whether the available intelligence... was adequate and properly assessed, and whether it was accurately reflected in Goverment publications". Still, it's clear that if they found the Intelligence to be obviously inaccurate, and to have been in any case obviously misrepresented, then even back in 2003 Parliament would have been able to draw a clear inference that Blair had lied, and that Blair had lied knowingly.
The problem is, it doesn't. The Report I cite above finds for example that,
// Based on the intelligence and the JIC Assessments that we have seen [prior to 2002], we accept that there was convincing intelligence that Iraq had active chemical,
biological and nuclear programmes and the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons ...
The [24th September, 2002] dossier was founded on the assessments then available.
... the Prime Minister was correct to describe the [February 2003 dossier, aka 'dodgy dossier'] as containing “further intelligence… about the infrastructure of concealment.… It is the intelligence that they [the Agencies] are receiving, and we are passing on to people.”//
The problem, then, is that Parliament in 2003-07 did not know it had been lied to, and indeed actively seemed to agree that it had not been lied to. If it didn't know this, then how could it have agreed to investigate Blair for doing so? It clearly could not have.
In short, then, there was no Parliamentary inquiry into Blair's possibly having knowingly misled the House over Iraq, because the House (or, at least, most of them) didn't even seem to consider the possibility. Clearly, this was a serious failing, and they got it horribly wrong (see also the Hutton Inquiry, which was equally flawed). As it happens, too, some MPs *did* suggest that Blair had misled the House anyway. There just weren't enough of them, and they weren't listened to.
In the first place, there's a distinction here to be drawn between what *did* happen and what probably *should* have happened. My point was addressed entirely toward your suggestion that the rules now and then are different. At the very least, in this regard, my point is merely that two wrongs don't make a right.
In the second place, the specific circumstances of the Iraq War seem to have acted to protect Blair from immediate consequences. For example, there's this inquiry from 2003: https:/
Note that it's the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than the Privileges Committee, and note that they are careful so say explicitly that they are judging "whether the available intelligence... was adequate and properly assessed, and whether it was accurately reflected in Goverment publications". Still, it's clear that if they found the Intelligence to be obviously inaccurate, and to have been in any case obviously misrepresented, then even back in 2003 Parliament would have been able to draw a clear inference that Blair had lied, and that Blair had lied knowingly.
The problem is, it doesn't. The Report I cite above finds for example that,
// Based on the intelligence and the JIC Assessments that we have seen [prior to 2002], we accept that there was convincing intelligence that Iraq had active chemical,
biological and nuclear programmes and the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons ...
The [24th September, 2002] dossier was founded on the assessments then available.
... the Prime Minister was correct to describe the [February 2003 dossier, aka 'dodgy dossier'] as containing “further intelligence… about the infrastructure of concealment.… It is the intelligence that they [the Agencies] are receiving, and we are passing on to people.”//
The problem, then, is that Parliament in 2003-07 did not know it had been lied to, and indeed actively seemed to agree that it had not been lied to. If it didn't know this, then how could it have agreed to investigate Blair for doing so? It clearly could not have.
In short, then, there was no Parliamentary inquiry into Blair's possibly having knowingly misled the House over Iraq, because the House (or, at least, most of them) didn't even seem to consider the possibility. Clearly, this was a serious failing, and they got it horribly wrong (see also the Hutton Inquiry, which was equally flawed). As it happens, too, some MPs *did* suggest that Blair had misled the House anyway. There just weren't enough of them, and they weren't listened to.
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |