Should the taxpayer pay for Blairs security?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/36cukyz

It is estimated that the security bill for Blair's book signing will cost the British taxpayer £250.000.

Taking into account that Blair stands to gain a substantial amount of money from the sale of his book, shouldn't he pay for his own security.

[Davethedog]

Hmmm is he worth it now?

http://www.thisislond...-5m-to-war-wounded.do

The words foot in mouth seem to work here

[joggerjayne]

Well, he can't be expected to pay for his OWN security.

He only earned £20million last year.

It's only fair that the rest of us should help help him out with the cost of his marketing exercises.

[Davethedog]

JJ did you read what this says?

[BertiWooster]

It would be interesting , would it not , to see which former prime minsters have given away any of their wealth , ( made on the back of being a prime minister ) and if so , what percentage .

I suspect philanthropy has not been a favourite word in their vocabulary , in most cases .

[joggerjayne]

Hi, Dave ...

Yes, I did read it.

But would it not have been better if the cost of marketing the book had also been paid out of the profits (or by Mr Blair) ...

... so that there was NO cost to the taxpayer?

As it is, the only person to whom there has been NO cost is Mr Blair.

[jno]

Blair's a taxpayer too, jj (unless you know anything about his Swiss bank accounts). So he's contributing to any security for Major or Brown as needed, same as we all are.