Petition: Arrest Tony Blair for war crimes........

[Buzzer]

I agree, it is sloppy, but I agree with the sentiment and intention. The main part is Arrest Tony Blair for war crimes in the middle east and misleading the public.

If it goes to parliament it is only the petition title that will be debated, not the sloppyness or phrasing of it. That is best left to NSC

If you want to be taken seriously and if you intend to bring a former Prime Minister to a War Crimes Tribunal then I suggest that the wording should be spot on. Are you seriously saying that MPs should hold a debate this serious with woolly and inaccurate wording and to kind of go along with the sentiment of what you meant to write?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I wonder how many lawyers will sign it ..... ££££££££££££££

 

[symyjym]

I didn't go off piste. Your first post mentioned social media and clearly using it as a political weapon.I was pointing out that it doesn't work. And are you aware what sort of debate it will be? It will undoubtedly be fitted in the graveyard shift. I can guarantee it will not be a full-blown blood and thunder debate with a Robin Cook type leading the charge.

This is the debate on changes to the disability benefits a few years back that got over 100,000 votes.

It's a talking shop. A sop to fool people into thinking that they are participating in direct action. And there is absolutely no way that Blair will be tried for war crimes even if you get 100,000 votes. You know that. So yes, excuse my cynicism.

And this is the most important point that you really need to understand. The House of Commons has absolutely no power to instruct an arrest. We have clear separation of duties between Legislature and the Judiciary in the UK and for a very good reason. So yeah, once again excuse my cynicism.

I am actually expecting the Keystone Cops to arrest and take Blair down to the local nick for questioning the next day.

I understand your cynicism but it is more about a public statement and throwing rotten fruit at him than sending him to the gallows. It's a legal public document of disapproval for historical purposes when generations look back to this time.

 

[drew]

I didn't go off piste. Your first post mentioned social media and clearly using it as a political weapon.I was pointing out that it doesn't work. And are you aware what sort of debate it will be? It will undoubtedly be fitted in the graveyard shift. I can guarantee it will not be a full-blown blood and thunder debate with a Robin Cook type leading the charge.

This is the debate on changes to the disability benefits a few years back that got over 100,000 votes.

It's a talking shop. A sop to fool people into thinking that they are participating in direct action. And there is absolutely no way that Blair will be tried for war crimes even if you get 100,000 votes. You know that. So yes, excuse my cynicism.

And this is the most important point that you really need to understand. The House of Commons has absolutely no power to instruct an arrest. We have clear separation of duties between Legislature and the Judiciary in the UK and for a very good reason. So yeah, once again excuse my cynicism.

Well put. A few numpties getting excited about an online petition. Would be interested to see the track record of petitions that reach the so called magic 100,000 and go on to get a proper debate in the chamber. As for a response at 10,000, how many petitions have reached this over the years and got the response 'thanks but no thanks'.

 

[symyjym]

If you want to be taken seriously and if you intend to bring a former Prime Minister to a War Crimes Tribunal then I suggest that the wording should be spot on. Are you seriously saying that MPs should hold a debate this serious with woolly and inaccurate wording and to kind of go along with the sentiment of what you meant to write?

I would prefer it to be spot on too, and I have hinted to this many times on here. If I had written it, and could be bothered, it would be different and may have gone with Crime Against Peace.

It was a petition that seemed to be doing quite well at 9,300 when I saw it, many don't get beyond 50, and it's now on 14,000. It is harmless and it really seems a waste of time arguing on how it is phrased.

If anyone wants to complain about the wording I think this is his twitter page https://twitter.com/anonysmith82

 

[symyjym]

Well put. A few numpties getting excited about an online petition. Would be interested to see the track record of petitions that reach the so called magic 100,000 and go on to get a proper debate in the chamber. As for a response at 10,000, how many petitions have reached this over the years and got the response 'thanks but no thanks'.

Who's getting excited You couldn't contain yourself when you first jumped on this thread.

My suggestion to you is get over it and don't sign the bloody thing.

 

[drew]

It doesn't make any difference at all to the petition. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were slaughtered and the country was razed to the ground. Is that not bad enough?

Clearly you were not going to sign anyway no matter how it was worded, and were more intent on critisising the phrasing the person used. The one word that you zoomed in on was the word our. The sentiment and intention stays the same with or without that word.

I can see that you don't have a problem with Blair exaggerating, lying and giving false information and doing a disservice to our soldiers, but you are happy to get irate over the use of one word the petition starter used

This is the type of petition that everyone who signs or doesn't sign has already formed an opinion. It's certainly not going to convince anyone who believes Blair was right to go to war and it is quite obvious that this is your view anyway.

Of course it makes a difference. If you (or more correctly the petitioner) want to be taken seriously then how hard is it to correctly word the petition in the first place. By trying to imply that thousands of our troops were killed they are appealing to the emotions of those that they want to sign. A large proportion of those that sign will probably do so without even checking the facts. You see it all the time on social media. Some moron posts a scare story then loads of people just share it and it gathers momentum yet in so many cases they are just made up stories. It's the mob mentality at work.

 

[symyjym]

Of course it makes a difference. If you (or more correctly the petitioner) want to be taken seriously then how hard is it to correctly word the petition in the first place. By trying to imply that thousands of our troops were killed they are appealing to the emotions of those that they want to sign. A large proportion of those that sign will probably do so without even checking the facts. You see it all the time on social media. Some moron posts a scare story then loads of people just share it and it gathers momentum yet in so many cases they are just made up stories. It's the mob mentality at work.

You are taking this far too seriously. It's hardly a scare story, just unfortunate sloppy wording. He hasn’t gone to the lengths of sexing up his document to scare us into going to war and invading another country.

If you have a problem with his wording you can contact him here https://twitter.com/anonysmith82

 

[drew]

Who's getting excited You couldn't contain yourself when you first jumped on this thread.

My suggestion to you is get over it and don't sign the bloody thing.

You are living in a parallel universe? Couldn't contain myself! I just pointed out the inaccuracy of the petition's statement. You seem to be the one getting excited about it and the anticipation of the Government having to respond because you have got 14k signatures (that's 14k out of about 65m people!!). Only 14k in 6 days. Wow. Have you had a look at the petition website to see what sort of response some of the petitions actually get. Also, a quick cursory look will see that over 500 people have in the last hour signed a petition for a vote of no confidence in Cameron against only 137 for this petition that you seem so concerned with.

 

[symyjym]

You are living in a parallel universe? Couldn't contain myself! I just pointed out the inaccuracy of the petition's statement. You seem to be the one getting excited about it and the anticipation of the Government having to respond because you have got 14k signatures (that's 14k out of about 65m people!!). Only 14k in 6 days. Wow. Have you had a look at the petition website to see what sort of response some of the petitions actually get. Also, a quick cursory look will see that over 500 people have in the last hour signed a petition for a vote of no confidence in Cameron against only 137 for this petition that you seem so concerned with.

Calm down Drew, I would say that calling someone a pig ignorant imbecile is certainly getting excited and unable to contain themselves.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Has he been arrested yet?

 

[drew]

Calm down Drew, I would say that calling someone a pig ignorant imbecile is certainly getting excited and unable to contain themselves.

You have a strange perception of the world! Sitting in front of the tv calmly typing on a laptop is not what I would call 'being unable to contain myself'. Watching a 94th minute winning penalty or an 82nd Zamora winner, now that's a different story.

 

[BadFish]

You should see my video strolling around on the roof of the WTC South Tower a few days before 911 - it's amazingly poignant. Now that was without doubt a crime.

Weren't most of the terrorist from Saudi Arabia?

Best invade Afghanistan and Iraq then.

 

[BadFish]

After last night's fiasco the petition has probably been sponsored by the Tory party to deflect attention from Cameron and Osborne's (potential) "misleading" of the electorate.

My god if we signed a petition every time a politician mislead the electorate we would do little else.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

At any time there are many bad men in charge of countries. Why Iraq ? Why then ? It is the most important of decisions to send your countrymen into war when some will come back in coffins or maimed so a leader better have a sound case and be sure.

Politics is a peculiar (and horrible) thing, and I'm quite glad I'm no good at it. The 'greater good' is a very subjective concept, and having power is always a hot potato of a possession. If Blair hadn't supported the US he would have been crucified by the British media (or would have had good reason to expect it). The tories would have done exactly the same. And there would have been reprisals from the US had we stuck two fingers up. He could have done all this holding his nose, and working a bit harder to get some 'return' for his support, mind. If it hadn't been for the WMD fiasco, his reputation would still be intact. Blair was a silly bugger. Why on earth did he cave in to Brown and not sack him for his disloyalty (and complete unsuitability to be leader) I wonder? Its not as if he had a shining legacy to protect. Sometimes it seems to me that Blair was a bit like a cross between Richard Branson, and Peter Sellars in 'being there'.

This of course has nothing to do with the actual real reasons for the war. Wasit it just oil? Does the US own the oil now? It seems to me its all in the hands of the barbarians running riot out there now . . . . altogether an amazing cock up.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

If Blair hadn't supported the US he would have been crucified by the British media (or would have had good reason to expect it). The tories would have done exactly the same. And there would have been reprisals from the US had we stuck two fingers up.

That all sounds like justification after the event. The US seemed quite content to go it alone, and there was a large popular movement concerned about us joining in. Blair seemed intent on risking the lives of his countrymen (not his own kin mind) for what were obscure reasons once you got beyond the deliberate WMD exaggerations.

And there were plenty warning that an invasion would be a massive recruiting opportunity for terrorists and other gangsters. And then to find out no planning had been done for post-invasion ......... mind-bogglingly stupid. And he still won another election.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That all sounds like justification after the event. The US seemed quite content to go it alone, and there was a large popular movement concerned about us joining in. Blair seemed intent on risking the lives of his countrymen (not his own kin mind) for what were obscure reasons once you got beyond the deliberate WMD exaggerations.

And there were plenty warning that an invasion would be a massive recruiting opportunity for terrorists and other gangsters. And then to find out no planning had been done for post-invasion ......... mind-bogglingly stupid. And he still won another election.

I don't disagree. Just a little nuance here and there.

All the best.

 

[OzMike]

Just a thought but if you're going to go around accusing people of being ignorant, you might want to make sure that you don't make an arse of yourself by confusing 'legible' with 'eligible'.

Could have been a typo.
Didn't say I was perfect, just a thought.

 

[Buzzer]

Could have been a typo.
Didn't say I was perfect, just a thought.

Could have been, I don't think so and you've no way of proving one way or the other so the end result is that people are left thinking that you're not as clever as you think you are.

 

[Hampster Gull]

FREE Blair