Whilst it is clear that a decline in personal standards of morality and decency has been in effect since the Left started to take control in the Sixties, it was greatly accelerated during the Blair years. When a government is led by people who openly espouse selfishness and are obviously committed to personal gain through abuse of power and corruption, then society will follow that lead.
Too many people just want the OK, direct or subtle, to do the easy thing not the hard thing. Standards maintained by peer pressure and a 'do unto others' culture will always have higher levels of decency and society than the Left ideal of personal aggrandisement at a cost to others.
But even in this reduced state of common courtesy, I still find announcements from 'authority' figures confusing. Take Keir Starmer, the DPP. This communist wants things done that are downright dangerous to a democracy, but he nevertheless has been given a position of authority. Recently he said Tweets about Tom Daley were just personal opinion, even if the personal opinion was, to most people, idiotic.
That was a fair and correct assessment that you get the impression Starmer must have got from someone else. There is far too much concern these days on people calling you names. The Tweets about the murdered policewomen are, when mocking, grossly offensive to public decency and the mindless cretins that write them should be dealt with severely. Again Starmer seems to get it (or is helped to).
But then we have the big real problems, the murders. Here, the organisation of 'justice' in this country loses the plot. A man murders someone and is arrested. He is released on bail as the case is 'complex' and they wouldn't be able to detain him until they have a full case against him. Eh? Which means the pensioner, refusing to pay council tax because the council don't provide the service paid for, goes to jail and stays there, because the case 'isn't complex'.
Whilst 'quite properly' out on bail, Dale Cregan goes on to commit at least three more murders, two of whom are the policewomen. Now, presumably because there is instant evidence or an admission he can be charged and detained.
However, the confusing bit is, when Cregan was on bail and went missing, the police started looking for him and offered a £50,000 reward. If they found him presumably they could lock him up as he breached his bail conditions, but not because he murdered someone. I think that is how the police see it.
Then, there is some outrage amongst the police that Cregan was living openly on a council estate and yet no-one informed them. That would be no-one informed the police who a) let him out when they had him, b) couldn't find him whilst he was 'openly' living on the estate and c) the police who give every impression that they are not there to protect the public. Yet the expectation is that an ordinary member of the public should turn in a violent, vindictive murderer.
It is this fundamental and supremely dense attitude among senior police officers that puts so much of society at risk, not just the poor foot soldiers who do their ignorant bidding. And if the guidelines say that Cregan had to be let out on bail, then Starmer and his organisation are also culpable in the abandonment of the public to the criminals.
Why is it that these over-paid, stuffed shirts who run the 'authorities' seem able to make good decisions about Tweeting, but struggle with the really important issues? If we actually had any real, effective and caring leadership in this country, these people would be sacked immediately. Instead, as we saw with the officers involved with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menedes and Raul Moat, they are invariably promoted.
And Hillsborough not only shows up their incompetence, but what they do when they are found wanting. Not the investigation and sacking they insist on for the ordinary officers, but cover-up, lies and smears of other, innocent people. Lions led by donkeys? That isn't the half of it.
Friday, 21 September 2012
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
Been Busy
I've been busy, so no ramblings for a while. But looking at the news I still get quite confused. Like, in politics, is anything actually happening? We are, apparently in a major financial crisis currently (certainly if someone has a quality job they need doing, I'm up for it! My 'busyness' isn't that fulfilling), yet there doesn't seem anything concrete or dynamic coming out of government at present.
Labour seem less able to come up with competing ideas than the Lib Dems (coalition partners though they be), who are relentlessly suggesting ways to accelerate disaster in a variety of areas. It is clear each party, without regard to national emergency or well being, are instead searching for some magic formula, perhaps one that has worked before to win an election.
Not anything of substance, or a policy they actually intend to follow up, just some story, or 'narrative' that wins votes. A bit J K Rowling, with 1984 potential.
The same confusion reigns with education. Firstly, kids and teachers were wailing about exams being marked in a way that required the child to have done well. It did seem strange at first, but then we found it was only English exams and that some had benefited by some work getting soft marks back in December. So a tiny issue.
Then we hear that Gove wants to introduce formal, more difficult exams with no coursework and the teachers (unions) are up in arms. And what is the complaint? Er, that it comes from a Tory government it seems and that's it. Otherwise the objection is to educating children properly, or teachers to do their job properly, or just raising standards.
I appreciate these are all things that were safe under the union's pet, Labour, where teachers were excluded from criticism, exams were relentlessly made easier so teachers could crow about 'achievement' without actually doing anything and overall standards dropped like a stone. At no point then or now, you should notice, do the teachers unions mention the children.
They want to meddle in the formation of education policy and delivery and yet are only an organisation to represent the working conditions of their members. While they refuse to stick to their remit they should be ignored as a noisy rabble of no substance.
In the East, we continue to lose soldiers in Afghanistan, not just to violent murderers posing as religious people, but also Afghan forces. And yet we still haven't heard why we went there or what we are there to achieve. But Blair continues to accrue wealth apparently, from despots and tyrants around the world, immune to the consequences of his misrule, the financial chaos or the deaths attributable to him.
The 'convenient' Catholic might find that the man with no morals has no soul. If he does in fact have an ounce of belief in his body, then he will be more than aware that the master that awaits him has brimstone aplenty.
Labour seem less able to come up with competing ideas than the Lib Dems (coalition partners though they be), who are relentlessly suggesting ways to accelerate disaster in a variety of areas. It is clear each party, without regard to national emergency or well being, are instead searching for some magic formula, perhaps one that has worked before to win an election.
Not anything of substance, or a policy they actually intend to follow up, just some story, or 'narrative' that wins votes. A bit J K Rowling, with 1984 potential.
The same confusion reigns with education. Firstly, kids and teachers were wailing about exams being marked in a way that required the child to have done well. It did seem strange at first, but then we found it was only English exams and that some had benefited by some work getting soft marks back in December. So a tiny issue.
Then we hear that Gove wants to introduce formal, more difficult exams with no coursework and the teachers (unions) are up in arms. And what is the complaint? Er, that it comes from a Tory government it seems and that's it. Otherwise the objection is to educating children properly, or teachers to do their job properly, or just raising standards.
I appreciate these are all things that were safe under the union's pet, Labour, where teachers were excluded from criticism, exams were relentlessly made easier so teachers could crow about 'achievement' without actually doing anything and overall standards dropped like a stone. At no point then or now, you should notice, do the teachers unions mention the children.
They want to meddle in the formation of education policy and delivery and yet are only an organisation to represent the working conditions of their members. While they refuse to stick to their remit they should be ignored as a noisy rabble of no substance.
In the East, we continue to lose soldiers in Afghanistan, not just to violent murderers posing as religious people, but also Afghan forces. And yet we still haven't heard why we went there or what we are there to achieve. But Blair continues to accrue wealth apparently, from despots and tyrants around the world, immune to the consequences of his misrule, the financial chaos or the deaths attributable to him.
The 'convenient' Catholic might find that the man with no morals has no soul. If he does in fact have an ounce of belief in his body, then he will be more than aware that the master that awaits him has brimstone aplenty.
Thursday, 6 September 2012
Shooting In Annecy
We have heard before of the incompetent approach of the French authorities to crime detection and investigation, but the eight hour delay in rescuing a four year old girl from a scene of carnage is despicable. The press conference clearly shows up the ridiculous nature of the way the French police proceed with their investigations. It seems that to them, the most important thing was the preservation of the scene, so I guess we have to accept that the people were actually dead, because the suggestion would appear to be that they didn't check the occupants of the car too closely.
A self excusing twerp in uniform explained that they 'couldn't' open the doors of the car as they would 'lose forensic details if they did so'. They did at least have the decency to stumble over the rambling explanation of why the little girl wasn't found. Apparently they used a heat camera, but didn't see her, she was 'hidden'.
Where the girl was and her not crying or making herself known to police is unusual, but it was still a combination of misguided policy and a lackadaisical approach to policing that allowed her discovery to be delayed. As we have seen, British police are striving for this level of incompetence and are encouraged by the EU, of course.
A self excusing twerp in uniform explained that they 'couldn't' open the doors of the car as they would 'lose forensic details if they did so'. They did at least have the decency to stumble over the rambling explanation of why the little girl wasn't found. Apparently they used a heat camera, but didn't see her, she was 'hidden'.
Where the girl was and her not crying or making herself known to police is unusual, but it was still a combination of misguided policy and a lackadaisical approach to policing that allowed her discovery to be delayed. As we have seen, British police are striving for this level of incompetence and are encouraged by the EU, of course.
Nasty Tories
Recently senior Tories have been booed at the Paralympics and the Chancellor is much hated polls suggest. Now, whilst I'm sure a good part of this is due to a public that isn't grown up enough to realise they have to pay for past follies, a greater part is the success of the Left in demonising, well anyone that isn't them.
During every sojourn of dalliance with socialist government, the country has suffered. The British sense of fair play eventually says, 'let Labour have a go'. After a couple of years it becomes apparent that Labour can't deliver. They are a confused mish-mash of socialist ideas, corrupt, wealth seeking politicians and communists within and pushing from the Unions.
It makes it difficult for them to achieve anything useful. The country begins to decline (remember the strikes of the Seventies, the piles of rubbish in the streets?) and the incoming administration (obviously Conservative, as the only other major party is formed of hopeless dreamers) has the difficult job of putting things right, which can be painful and creating a properly functioning country again.
This was what Maggie did from 1979 and even Major continued, once his determination to get us into the Euro had been sunk by reality. This was when people still took their personal responsibilities seriously and felt, instinctively that the country was theirs, run by politicians of their choosing. But then a snake-oil salesman came along, under the guise of Labour, just as the country became ready to give them a try, again.
Blair was a very different politician. He wanted power in the same way a North Korean leader does and he wanted a spin off from that power, in the form of personal wealth. His government quickly established it was open for business, accepting bribes from the very outset. His cabal of incompetent, but like-minded charlatans, heading the government had absolutely no interest in policy, or law making, they just wanted the power and the money.
Hence the most ridiculous and un-British laws crept in as vested interests sought advantage. Foreign companies were allowed free rein to create near monopolies all the better to extort the British people. All manner of scams (renewable energy) were permitted, because the government and its carefully politicised civil servants were careless and conflicted, often gaining financially from decisions they made.
Blair installed a madman in the Treasury who talked about his achievements before he could have created any and proceeded to evolve policies of the most lunatic variety. He was covered from exposure by the sophisticated lying machine in No10 run by Alistair Campbell and the complicity of bankers, to whom he turned his blind eye.
The result, as we now know was the moral and economic collapse of this country. And yet, somehow it is the fault of the Tories and they are now vilified for even mentioning ways to put things right. People are still listening to Labour mouthpieces even when they are as stupid, politically as Ed Miliband and proven destroyers such as Ed Balls. It is true Cameron is an extremely weak leader, who knows what needs to be done and sometimes actually announces it, only to come away from the microphone saying 'was that a bit much?' He constantly claims his dithering is because he is being held back by the Lib Dems and whilst there is some truth in this (look at how boundary changes were denied by the bunch of petulant children that makes up the Lib Dems, for personal reasons to the detriment of the country), it is not the whole story.
The traditional British resolve has been undermined both by immigration bringing in weaker cultural influences quite often and by the emasculation of the population by the nanny state of the Left. People no longer think for themselves, they wait for the state to 'do something' and are unwilling or incapable of taking responsibility for their own situation.
Cameron is claiming to have strengthened the traditional part of conservatism with recent personnel changes, but he still needs to realise how deep the problem is. Green energy is a scam. To prove it, take away the subsidies and see how many companies stay on track, with a proper, functioning product. The answer is none.
It is a form of communism that seeks to order the world and must be stopped. Instead, why not incentivise companies to develop real and new technologies to replace the poison emitting internal combustion engines of our cars? Because currently no-one is seriously attempting to do so. The manufacturers are too aware of constant changes of policy by government and more concerned with earnings today, subsidies and grants.
And the EU, another communist project also delights our 'Conservative' Prime Minister. These are the real challenges, the things we need to put right, not go along with because the children's books, called Labour policy documents hold sway with a childish, ill-educated (and how did that happen?) population.
During every sojourn of dalliance with socialist government, the country has suffered. The British sense of fair play eventually says, 'let Labour have a go'. After a couple of years it becomes apparent that Labour can't deliver. They are a confused mish-mash of socialist ideas, corrupt, wealth seeking politicians and communists within and pushing from the Unions.
It makes it difficult for them to achieve anything useful. The country begins to decline (remember the strikes of the Seventies, the piles of rubbish in the streets?) and the incoming administration (obviously Conservative, as the only other major party is formed of hopeless dreamers) has the difficult job of putting things right, which can be painful and creating a properly functioning country again.
This was what Maggie did from 1979 and even Major continued, once his determination to get us into the Euro had been sunk by reality. This was when people still took their personal responsibilities seriously and felt, instinctively that the country was theirs, run by politicians of their choosing. But then a snake-oil salesman came along, under the guise of Labour, just as the country became ready to give them a try, again.
Blair was a very different politician. He wanted power in the same way a North Korean leader does and he wanted a spin off from that power, in the form of personal wealth. His government quickly established it was open for business, accepting bribes from the very outset. His cabal of incompetent, but like-minded charlatans, heading the government had absolutely no interest in policy, or law making, they just wanted the power and the money.
Hence the most ridiculous and un-British laws crept in as vested interests sought advantage. Foreign companies were allowed free rein to create near monopolies all the better to extort the British people. All manner of scams (renewable energy) were permitted, because the government and its carefully politicised civil servants were careless and conflicted, often gaining financially from decisions they made.
Blair installed a madman in the Treasury who talked about his achievements before he could have created any and proceeded to evolve policies of the most lunatic variety. He was covered from exposure by the sophisticated lying machine in No10 run by Alistair Campbell and the complicity of bankers, to whom he turned his blind eye.
The result, as we now know was the moral and economic collapse of this country. And yet, somehow it is the fault of the Tories and they are now vilified for even mentioning ways to put things right. People are still listening to Labour mouthpieces even when they are as stupid, politically as Ed Miliband and proven destroyers such as Ed Balls. It is true Cameron is an extremely weak leader, who knows what needs to be done and sometimes actually announces it, only to come away from the microphone saying 'was that a bit much?' He constantly claims his dithering is because he is being held back by the Lib Dems and whilst there is some truth in this (look at how boundary changes were denied by the bunch of petulant children that makes up the Lib Dems, for personal reasons to the detriment of the country), it is not the whole story.
The traditional British resolve has been undermined both by immigration bringing in weaker cultural influences quite often and by the emasculation of the population by the nanny state of the Left. People no longer think for themselves, they wait for the state to 'do something' and are unwilling or incapable of taking responsibility for their own situation.
Cameron is claiming to have strengthened the traditional part of conservatism with recent personnel changes, but he still needs to realise how deep the problem is. Green energy is a scam. To prove it, take away the subsidies and see how many companies stay on track, with a proper, functioning product. The answer is none.
It is a form of communism that seeks to order the world and must be stopped. Instead, why not incentivise companies to develop real and new technologies to replace the poison emitting internal combustion engines of our cars? Because currently no-one is seriously attempting to do so. The manufacturers are too aware of constant changes of policy by government and more concerned with earnings today, subsidies and grants.
And the EU, another communist project also delights our 'Conservative' Prime Minister. These are the real challenges, the things we need to put right, not go along with because the children's books, called Labour policy documents hold sway with a childish, ill-educated (and how did that happen?) population.
Sunday, 2 September 2012
Creationists - Stupid Or What?
I have a bit of a problem with the Theory of Evolution as it currently stands; it doesn't seem very credible. It might just need a bit of polishing up or it might be a bit of a blind alley and something more sophisticated is responsible. The latter represents my view, that evolution is not blind and random, but the result of responses to powerful stimuli.
We are, as I write being subjected to a politically correct pile of dross on BBC 4, that cannot, as is the way of the BBC stick to a point but must stick a knife in what it sees as the enemy. Here, under the guise of the collision of Darwin's scientific views and his wife's faith, the BBC are attempting to show how ridiculous the alternative is; Creationism.
For the zealots there can only be one alternative to their proven case and that is a stupid one. That theirs is proven and the other wrong is entirely their view of course. As is the vogue today, science is right on everything. We require no investigation on anything, scientists understand it all.
Strangely, the hysterical rantings of the Evolutionists is similar to their espousal of Man Made Global Warming. This theory also cannot be wrong and no further investigation is needed, or indeed should be allowed. The lack of scientific foundation for MMGW is very similar to the faith based beliefs of the Creationists.
When you don't know something it is noble to attempt to discover the truth. But stopping when you find a theory that fits your politics is about as unscientific as it gets. Trying to stop any discussion shouts loud that even you don't believe your own output.
We are, as I write being subjected to a politically correct pile of dross on BBC 4, that cannot, as is the way of the BBC stick to a point but must stick a knife in what it sees as the enemy. Here, under the guise of the collision of Darwin's scientific views and his wife's faith, the BBC are attempting to show how ridiculous the alternative is; Creationism.
For the zealots there can only be one alternative to their proven case and that is a stupid one. That theirs is proven and the other wrong is entirely their view of course. As is the vogue today, science is right on everything. We require no investigation on anything, scientists understand it all.
Strangely, the hysterical rantings of the Evolutionists is similar to their espousal of Man Made Global Warming. This theory also cannot be wrong and no further investigation is needed, or indeed should be allowed. The lack of scientific foundation for MMGW is very similar to the faith based beliefs of the Creationists.
When you don't know something it is noble to attempt to discover the truth. But stopping when you find a theory that fits your politics is about as unscientific as it gets. Trying to stop any discussion shouts loud that even you don't believe your own output.
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Gove And Clegg
Teachers are incensed that the scheme to dumb down exams, resulting in ever better grades for the children they 'taught', is being challenged. The first upset has been the 'harsh' marking of exam papers, though it is highly likely that it was just the result of marking, as opposed to teacher oriented marking.
There appears to be some truth though that the edict arrived recently and didn't allow the teachers to get their story straight and their grade predictions accurate. In other words trivial stuff. But the teachers are incensed and on the streets protesting.
Except they aren't are they? Sure a rally organised by the NUT is loudly shouting down the Gove changes that threaten their stranglehold on the education system. A rally of North Korean standards, based not on anything real, but the wild imaginings of the party leaders.
The NUT are against private schools, Grammers or anything that looks like them because they claim, these systems are elitist. Certainly they achieve high standards. But the reason education in this country is so poor is not because some pupils are encouraged to do well, but that the people who want everyone reduced to a kind of lowest common denominator standard, currently run the comprehensive system.
The NUT and all Left organisations like them, want schooling to be of a very low level to turn out factory proles who will do the state's bidding unquestioningly. It is the aim of all communists.
Education should provide opportunity and children should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Not everyone will be a genius, but their potential should only be hamstrung by their own ability and level of desire, not by Christine Blower.
Clegg seems to have caught a Labour disease in that he opposes everything the Conservatives propose. It seems to have escaped his notice that he is part of a coalition, or maybe the nature of such politics is beyond him. Whatever, he is currently less popular than the EU, which is some achievement.
He doesn't want a third runway at Heathrow. He hasn't any proposals, just objections. Britain needs increased air travel capacity somewhere in the South without a doubt, but he isn't addressing that, just opposing something. He would have gained some respect if he had pointed out that the fairly aggressive attack on Cameron over a new runway came from Tim Yeo, simply because one of the many companies he makes money from has just signed a deal in China,
Hence his dismay at the paucity of flights between London and Chinese cities. Had Clegg attacked Yeo he would have been on solid ground; Yeo is a corrupt embarrassment to the Conservative party, a shameless advantage seeker at taxpayers expense. He wouldn't set off any alarms on a scanner looking for morals.
But Clegg, being a true Lib Dem is drifting around in a cloud of confusion and spouting contrary things from time to time. Both he and Yeo should be put out of our misery.
There appears to be some truth though that the edict arrived recently and didn't allow the teachers to get their story straight and their grade predictions accurate. In other words trivial stuff. But the teachers are incensed and on the streets protesting.
Except they aren't are they? Sure a rally organised by the NUT is loudly shouting down the Gove changes that threaten their stranglehold on the education system. A rally of North Korean standards, based not on anything real, but the wild imaginings of the party leaders.
The NUT are against private schools, Grammers or anything that looks like them because they claim, these systems are elitist. Certainly they achieve high standards. But the reason education in this country is so poor is not because some pupils are encouraged to do well, but that the people who want everyone reduced to a kind of lowest common denominator standard, currently run the comprehensive system.
The NUT and all Left organisations like them, want schooling to be of a very low level to turn out factory proles who will do the state's bidding unquestioningly. It is the aim of all communists.
Education should provide opportunity and children should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Not everyone will be a genius, but their potential should only be hamstrung by their own ability and level of desire, not by Christine Blower.
Clegg seems to have caught a Labour disease in that he opposes everything the Conservatives propose. It seems to have escaped his notice that he is part of a coalition, or maybe the nature of such politics is beyond him. Whatever, he is currently less popular than the EU, which is some achievement.
He doesn't want a third runway at Heathrow. He hasn't any proposals, just objections. Britain needs increased air travel capacity somewhere in the South without a doubt, but he isn't addressing that, just opposing something. He would have gained some respect if he had pointed out that the fairly aggressive attack on Cameron over a new runway came from Tim Yeo, simply because one of the many companies he makes money from has just signed a deal in China,
Hence his dismay at the paucity of flights between London and Chinese cities. Had Clegg attacked Yeo he would have been on solid ground; Yeo is a corrupt embarrassment to the Conservative party, a shameless advantage seeker at taxpayers expense. He wouldn't set off any alarms on a scanner looking for morals.
But Clegg, being a true Lib Dem is drifting around in a cloud of confusion and spouting contrary things from time to time. Both he and Yeo should be put out of our misery.
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Just How Bad Is Tony Blair?
I was thinking the other day about how people would see Tony Blair in future times. It seemed to me he was akin to Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Hitler and Stalin in the way he thinks. But I quickly corrected myself that he was not that extreme. But isn't he? Or was he just not quite so successful as some, in his destructive mania? He gets on so well with so many tyrants around the world and actively seeks their company (and money).
Of course, what separates the above from Blair you may think is their attitude to killing and this is where I came up against a hard wall. Blair sent our forces to war on a whim of his own, lying to parliament and the country to gain a chance of international glory. He wanted the fame that could be bought with their lives.
His total indifference to the deaths caused by his games, was demonstrated quite clearly by his refusal to meet any of the returning bodies of soldiers who died doing his bidding. The pointlessness was shown by the complete lack of a strategy in Iraq, his personal carelessness by the constant promises of 'whatever the troops need' that were then reneged on.
But it wasn't just this gambit that showed how different he is. Many think that he is directly responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, the man who could have seriously embarrassed him over Iraq (though nothing more than embarrassment). When you ask 'who benefits' from his murder, then the list is quite small, probably just one or two names.
But there is no proof, no matter what circumstances might suggest. What we do know is the supreme efforts made to ensure that a whitewash of an enquiry ensued. Indeed a blatantly obvious whitewash, such was the arrogance of the regime at the time. Except for one moment. When the murder occurred (it has been established beyond doubt that it couldn't have been the suicide suggested by Hutton), Blair was flying back from Japan. I have never seen him looking so shocked and drawn as when he was leaving that aircraft on his return.
I am sure it took quite a bit of reassurance from those around him, that their loud protestations to distract attention, as they had done from the outset when the Gilligan accusations broke, would be successful. Why would a Prime Minister take such a risk with a cover up, unless it was of great importance? In his otherwise excellent book, 'The Strange Death of David Kelly', the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, cops out at the end, veering away from his own evidence and suggests Iraqi's killed him. Had they done so, surely Blair would have pursued them relentlessly, supporting as it would, his war.
I think we are probably lucky that Blair didn't try to turn Britain totally into a totalitarian state, his personal fiefdom, though he set many of the structures in place to achieve it. Maybe he did lack the resolve, the absolute killer instinct to carry it through or maybe his wife's love of money demanded he move in other directions. Who can know. But he represents a truly low point for Britain, for which we are still, literally paying.
Of course, what separates the above from Blair you may think is their attitude to killing and this is where I came up against a hard wall. Blair sent our forces to war on a whim of his own, lying to parliament and the country to gain a chance of international glory. He wanted the fame that could be bought with their lives.
His total indifference to the deaths caused by his games, was demonstrated quite clearly by his refusal to meet any of the returning bodies of soldiers who died doing his bidding. The pointlessness was shown by the complete lack of a strategy in Iraq, his personal carelessness by the constant promises of 'whatever the troops need' that were then reneged on.
But it wasn't just this gambit that showed how different he is. Many think that he is directly responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, the man who could have seriously embarrassed him over Iraq (though nothing more than embarrassment). When you ask 'who benefits' from his murder, then the list is quite small, probably just one or two names.
But there is no proof, no matter what circumstances might suggest. What we do know is the supreme efforts made to ensure that a whitewash of an enquiry ensued. Indeed a blatantly obvious whitewash, such was the arrogance of the regime at the time. Except for one moment. When the murder occurred (it has been established beyond doubt that it couldn't have been the suicide suggested by Hutton), Blair was flying back from Japan. I have never seen him looking so shocked and drawn as when he was leaving that aircraft on his return.
I am sure it took quite a bit of reassurance from those around him, that their loud protestations to distract attention, as they had done from the outset when the Gilligan accusations broke, would be successful. Why would a Prime Minister take such a risk with a cover up, unless it was of great importance? In his otherwise excellent book, 'The Strange Death of David Kelly', the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, cops out at the end, veering away from his own evidence and suggests Iraqi's killed him. Had they done so, surely Blair would have pursued them relentlessly, supporting as it would, his war.
I think we are probably lucky that Blair didn't try to turn Britain totally into a totalitarian state, his personal fiefdom, though he set many of the structures in place to achieve it. Maybe he did lack the resolve, the absolute killer instinct to carry it through or maybe his wife's love of money demanded he move in other directions. Who can know. But he represents a truly low point for Britain, for which we are still, literally paying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)