Without honour...?

Question

Given that Blair will soon be interviewed by the police, under caution which treats him as a suspect, a position I have always held him in, is it right that the AG should be his close advisor and, at the same time, advise for or against proscecution, based upon the grounds that lack of faith in the two main political parties may not be deemed to be in the public interest.

Though proved corrupt and unfit for public office, should they just get off, and if so, what authority will the Government have as an example to others.

While this is my question, just let me add, to get you going, as it were, given that the murder and mayhem in Iraq will escalate far beyond the control of any authority if Saddam Hussain is found guilty and hanged, will it be, therefore, deemed not in the public interest to proscecute him further ???

We shall, I fear, see the two faces of justice here, one for him and one for myself.

Answer 1

Blair is as slippery as an eel. He seems to get away with everything by blaming other people. This whole government are a load of slime balls who are full of sleaze and spin. There is too much cronyism in government as well that should be routed out. That Blair is involved in any illegal or dubious shenanigans, should be by determined by a legal body not connected with government, and the full might of the law be brought to bear if found guilty. Just as they would do with any ordinary citizen.

Answer 2

i understand that the authority the government of the day has, is, that it the democratically elected government of the day, and the next general election in this country will determine it,s demise or its further rule. i tend to never never underestimate the vast majority of the british people, when enough is enough, the baloon generallly goes up, make no bones about that.had we not intervened in iraq, i do not know a great deal about the place, but i do know that thoughts of the abuse of world war 11 camps still horrify some, we now know that although things are bad, maybe it is something a democratically elected arab government can deal with.you have all those arab states, why can,t they talk, do pow wow.and that is their business now. as for the government of the day, at the next election, i shall with the greatest confidence go along with the majority vote.

Answer 3

Saddam's trial is an obvious farce. They would have done better just shooting him when he was found and not even pretending that they were going to treat him fairly. The lie gives more power to evil than the truth would have.

The same goes for Blair. The pretense that he will he treated impartially is an obvious lie. He should just pardon himself (the obvious outcome) instead of wasting time and effort with this one. Then everyone can move on to how they feel about that instead of worrying at the concept of WHETHER it was fair or not.

Answer 4

Manforall: You have managed to cloud the issue by suggesting that he is being questioned about Iraq whilst in fact he will be interviewed in relation to Titles for Cash, a totally different subject and one which the Tory Party played a significant part in past years. As for Iraq, if the Coalition had not taken action, are you suggesting that there would be less problems than there are now for if so, I think that you are being naive............

Answer 5

No point in having the investigation then is there , just phone em up and tell em what you think should happen , coz you obviously know it all , while you'r at it put your name down for P.M. and let's see if you can do any better !

Answer 6

not being harsh but saddem should have been taken out?
but not the why we and the tw ats amaicans did it!
even thow saddam was a complete git!