FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Blair to face Contempt charges?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It seems senior MPs from across the House are looking to have Blair brought to the House and tried for Contempt and possibly other 'misdemeanours'. It seems that Teflon Tony isn't so Teflon after all ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

wont happen..

same as there wont be any redress for Cameron and his Anglo French intervention in Libya..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It seems senior MPs from across the House are looking to have Blair brought to the House and tried for Contempt and possibly other 'misdemeanours'. It seems that Teflon Tony isn't so Teflon after all ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878"

He cannot be forced to appear and it is not a trial. It is a motion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Should all the politicians who hacked the motion to go to war be punished too?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Pfft.

Never happen

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Teflon tony won,t be going to prison, that?s for sure. So what if he's found in contempt.. He's got his umpteen millions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"It seems senior MPs from across the House are looking to have Blair brought to the House and tried for Contempt and possibly other 'misdemeanours'. It seems that Teflon Tony isn't so Teflon after all ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

He cannot be forced to appear and it is not a trial. It is a motion."

Actually he can, and so we all understand the true power of parliament he can be sentenced to death.

It is all about the the supremacy of parliament (they can do whatever they like).

And parliament can sit as a court (remember Charles 1, head chopped of on 29 Jan 1649).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It seems senior MPs from across the House are looking to have Blair brought to the House and tried for Contempt and possibly other 'misdemeanours'. It seems that Teflon Tony isn't so Teflon after all ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

He cannot be forced to appear and it is not a trial. It is a motion.

Actually he can, and so we all understand the true power of parliament he can be sentenced to death.

It is all about the the supremacy of parliament (they can do whatever they like).

And parliament can sit as a court (remember Charles 1, head chopped of on 29 Jan 1649)."

and who in Parliament would carry this through lol

everyone of them are pc pansy's , bunch of wimps the lot of them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"and who in Parliament would carry this through lol

everyone of them are pc pansy's , bunch of wimps the lot of them"

I seem to remember (from my English history) that that was sort of the position of the Earl of Manchester right up to the point where the death warrant was put in front of him and he was given the choice of sign or face the mob.

Guess what he did...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It seems senior MPs from across the House are looking to have Blair brought to the House and tried for Contempt and possibly other 'misdemeanours'. It seems that Teflon Tony isn't so Teflon after all ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

He cannot be forced to appear and it is not a trial. It is a motion.

Actually he can, and so we all understand the true power of parliament he can be sentenced to death.

It is all about the the supremacy of parliament (they can do whatever they like).

And parliament can sit as a court (remember Charles 1, head chopped of on 29 Jan 1649)."

A procedure last used in 1806...

The MPs planning to lodge the petition on Thursday have already said that what they might seek is stripping him of his privy council status.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

(I said)

Actually he can, and so we all understand the true power of parliament he can be sentenced to death.

It is all about the the supremacy of parliament (they can do whatever they like).

And parliament can sit as a court (remember Charles 1, head chopped of on 29 Jan 1649).


"A procedure last used in 1806...

The MPs planning to lodge the petition on Thursday have already said that what they might seek is stripping him of his privy council status."

And your point is?

Just to be clear, they might strip him of his Privy Council status (or of his head). If it happens it is Parliament sat as a court and it can do as it likes! Does not matter when it last exercised its power it is still its power!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

Blair wanted war for regime change.

That was and is against international law.

He denied that was the reason to parliament many times, that is contempt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Blair wanted war for regime change.

That was and is against international law.

He denied that was the reason to parliament many times, that is contempt"

yip off with his head dirty liying warmongering bstrd

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Teflon tony won,t be going to prison, that?s for sure. So what if he's found in contempt.. He's got his umpteen millions."

Hopefully not for long once the families start suing him

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"(I said)

Actually he can, and so we all understand the true power of parliament he can be sentenced to death.

It is all about the the supremacy of parliament (they can do whatever they like).

And parliament can sit as a court (remember Charles 1, head chopped of on 29 Jan 1649).

A procedure last used in 1806...

The MPs planning to lodge the petition on Thursday have already said that what they might seek is stripping him of his privy council status.

And your point is?

Just to be clear, they might strip him of his Privy Council status (or of his head). If it happens it is Parliament sat as a court and it can do as it likes! Does not matter when it last exercised its power it is still its power! "

My point? That you are exagerating the result of a contempt vote. Even those tabling it are only seeking a possible stripping of his status.

Capital punishment has been abolished.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Capital punishment has been abolished."

Again. No it has not!

Capital punishment as a punishment handed down by a court of law has been abolished.

But no court has sovereignty over parliament. Therefore when Parliament sits as a court it can hand down any sentence it sees fit, That includes a capital sentence.

You or I or anyone else may not like or agree with this but that does not change Parliaments power should it decide to use it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Teflon tony won,t be going to prison, that?s for sure. So what if he's found in contempt.. He's got his umpteen millions.

Hopefully not for long once the families start suing him "

So now it's all about money ? What a sad world we live in

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Capital punishment has been abolished.

Again. No it has not!

Capital punishment as a punishment handed down by a court of law has been abolished.

But no court has sovereignty over parliament. Therefore when Parliament sits as a court it can hand down any sentence it sees fit, That includes a capital sentence.

You or I or anyone else may not like or agree with this but that does not change Parliaments power should it decide to use it."

Not while we are part of the ECHJ. It has been abolished as a punishment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Capital punishment has been abolished.

Again. No it has not!

Capital punishment as a punishment handed down by a court of law has been abolished.

But no court has sovereignty over parliament. Therefore when Parliament sits as a court it can hand down any sentence it sees fit, That includes a capital sentence.

You or I or anyone else may not like or agree with this but that does not change Parliaments power should it decide to use it.

Not while we are part of the ECHJ. It has been abolished as a punishment."

Again, what part of sovereignty do you not understand?

Miss May even we should withdraw from the ECHR.

The only way to do that is by exercising our Sovereignty which is held by parliament...

So here we are again! parliament is sovereign and can do as it will.

It does not matter what you I or any other person or power says or does until parliament is supplanted, parliament is the ultimate authority and law in this country.

That is the law!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I am not sure I was looking for Blair's head on a pikestaff outside Parliament but the comments on here have truth in them. It is 'Contempt' to ignore the will of Parliament when you are summonsed to appear before it. Parliament itself has any rights it wishes to grant to itself. So if Blair did appear before the House and was found to have misled or in some other way shown 'Contempt' it could apply any penalty it felt necessary including imprisonment.

All conjecture of course but it IS significant that the first Parliamentary moves are now taking place against Blair. I am sure as the lawyers digest 2.5 million words more will follow

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the thread is starting to go in a "silly" direction - off with his head and things

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Capital punishment has been abolished.

Again. No it has not!

Capital punishment as a punishment handed down by a court of law has been abolished.

But no court has sovereignty over parliament. Therefore when Parliament sits as a court it can hand down any sentence it sees fit, That includes a capital sentence.

You or I or anyone else may not like or agree with this but that does not change Parliaments power should it decide to use it.

Not while we are part of the ECHJ. It has been abolished as a punishment.

Again, what part of sovereignty do you not understand?

Miss May even we should withdraw from the ECHR.

The only way to do that is by exercising our Sovereignty which is held by parliament...

So here we are again! parliament is sovereign and can do as it will.

It does not matter what you I or any other person or power says or does until parliament is supplanted, parliament is the ultimate authority and law in this country.

That is the law! "

I do agree that this is a bit of a peripheral argument - and rather silly, bearing in mind that, no matter how hateful Mr Blair's actions may have been, no one is going to try to invoke the death sentence.

We are a member of the ECHJ. A condition of that is not to impose a death sentence. (We are, by the way, still a member of the EU). In that respect, parliament is not sovereign.

That is the part of your sovereignty argument that I do not understand.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem is that descisions were made on the basis of the intelegance that was provided.

So who provided the itelegance ? Also it is hard enough to make such descisions when you have some dickhead dictator playing mind games with inspectors who were there to find out about weapons supposed to be there.

If the inspections had been allowed the access that was needed at the time things would not have got so out with for hand in the first place.

That part of the world will never know peace because you have so many factions all wanting to be in charge and not will to be told what to do by any of the others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

It's all hot air and wanting to be seen to appear to be doing something by some of those who supported the war at the time..

Political washing the taint away..

Makes them look tawdry..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"the thread is starting to go in a "silly" direction - off with his head and things"

Again you misunderstand...

I am not saying 'off with his head'

I am pointing out that there re no restrictions on Parliament no matter what people may think.

So when invoking parliamentary privilege as a court of law people need to understand the powers being taken.

It is not potentially a slap on the wrist, it could be the mans life. Once Parliament is convened as a court it sits until it pro rogues itself.

A thought well worth thinking about!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


" I do agree that this is a bit of a peripheral argument - and rather silly, bearing in mind that, no matter how hateful Mr Blair's actions may have been, no one is going to try to invoke the death sentence. "

Well yes it did make me smile ...


" We are a member of the ECHJ. A condition of that is not to impose a death sentence. (We are, by the way, still a member of the EU). In that respect, parliament is not sovereign.

That is the part of your sovereignty argument that I do not understand. "

Well the EU has nothing to do with the ECHR. The Sovereignty issue is about Laws being dictated by a foreign organisation (the EU) that our Parliament has to enact.

The ECHR is a treaty freely entered into (or in our case created) and can be left at any time. To be in the EU a country must adhere to the ECHR. We have decided to leave the EU but we may well remain a signatory to the ECHR. That is until Mrs May cannot deport another criminal because he owns a dog in the UK and then we will just convert it to British Jurisdiction and that will grant supremacy to our Supreme Court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" I do agree that this is a bit of a peripheral argument - and rather silly, bearing in mind that, no matter how hateful Mr Blair's actions may have been, no one is going to try to invoke the death sentence.

Well yes it did make me smile ...

We are a member of the ECHJ. A condition of that is not to impose a death sentence. (We are, by the way, still a member of the EU). In that respect, parliament is not sovereign.

That is the part of your sovereignty argument that I do not understand.

Well the EU has nothing to do with the ECHR. The Sovereignty issue is about Laws being dictated by a foreign organisation (the EU) that our Parliament has to enact.

The ECHR is a treaty freely entered into (or in our case created) and can be left at any time. To be in the EU a country must adhere to the ECHR. We have decided to leave the EU but we may well remain a signatory to the ECHR. That is until Mrs May cannot deport another criminal because he owns a dog in the UK and then we will just convert it to British Jurisdiction and that will grant supremacy to our Supreme Court."

I am quite aware of the distinction between the EU and the ECHR.

We are currently a signatory to the ECHR and cannot therefore impose a death sentence.

Ms May, if she wished to exit the ECHR, would have to gain enough support to do so.

That is beyond the bounds of possibility.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 12/07/16 14:42:29]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Blair wanted war for regime change.

That was and is against international law.

"

Better report him to the international police then. Good luck finding them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top