Tony Blair's 'Involvement with Rwanda must remain secret'

[mjw47]

On the front page of today's Times there is an article headlined Censored: Blair's links with Rwanda.

 

The first paragraph reads ' The activities of Tony Blair within one of the world's most feared regimes must remain secret because he is a "former Prime Minister".

 

The Government are refusing to release information on his activities regarding involvement with this country.

 

Cards on the table, I regard all politicians with an equal amount of skepticism, my dislike and mistrust of Thatcher being equal to my dislike and mistrust of Blair.

 

What I find somewhat weird about this situation is that according to the Times it is the first time that Britain has 'granted constitutional status to a former Premier'.

 

Now I may be looking at this from the wrong angle but it seems to me that a former Premier ought to be under at least the same constraints over their actions as the rest of us, if not more.

 

After all, former Prime Ministers have their names inextricable linked with the country forevermore, shouldn't they be expected to behave in a way that will not embarrass the country?

 

Moreover, they are on a very generous pension paid from the public purse.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-161502%2FStorm-Blairs-3-19m-pension.html&ei=CcbLVMfiBIas7Aao14HwDg&usg=AFQjCNECjUB34vCIcxTb5kC8Yi2bMrm4Og

 

Tony Blair has made multi millions since leaving office, good luck to him, we would probably all do the same given the opportunity, but shouldn't there be some rules as to how he, or any other ex PM behaves in order to try not to embarrass the the office and the country?

[Mecky]

I don't know what you said but you need to stop reading the Azan Inspire magazine and go and see your Channel Officer

[mjw47]

I don't know what you said but you need to stop reading the Azan Inspire magazine and go and see your Channel Officer

 

Have you posted this on the wrong thread?

 

It makes no sense whatsoever, whats an Azan inspire magazine and what or who is a Channel officer?

 

Blair's a wrong un so was Thatcher why is the government which is not Labour covering his back for him?

 

don't bother to reply if all you can come out with is nonsense.

[Anna B]

On the front page of today's Times there is an article headlined Censored: Blair's links with Rwanda.

 

The first paragraph reads ' The activities of Tony Blair within one of the world's most feared regimes must remain secret because he is a "former Prime Minister".

 

The Government are refusing to release information on his activities regarding involvement with this country.

 

Cards on the table, I regard all politicians with an equal amount of skepticism, my dislike and mistrust of Thatcher being equal to my dislike and mistrust of Blair.

 

What I find somewhat weird about this situation is that according to the Times it is the first time that Britain has 'granted constitutional status to a former Premier'.

 

Now I may be looking at this from the wrong angle but it seems to me that a former Premier ought to be under at least the same constraints over their actions as the rest of us, if not more.

 

After all, former Prime Ministers have their names inextricable linked with the country forevermore, shouldn't they be expected to behave in a way that will not embarrass the country?

 

Moreover, they are on a very generous pension paid from the public purse.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-161502%2FStorm-Blairs-3-19m-pension.html&ei=CcbLVMfiBIas7Aao14HwDg&usg=AFQjCNECjUB34vCIcxTb5kC8Yi2bMrm4Og

 

Tony Blair has made multi millions since leaving office, good luck to him, we would probably all do the same given the opportunity, but shouldn't there be some rules as to how he, or any other ex PM behaves in order to try not to embarrass the the office and the country?

 

Tony Blair was / is a public servant. Why that gives him some sort of immunity I can't imagine. Everything he does in public life (in our name) should surely be open to public scrutiny?

[mjw47]

Tony Blair was / is a public servant. Why that gives him some sort of immunity I can't imagine. Everything he does in public life (in our name) should surely be open to public scrutiny?

 

I would have thought so, and previous PMs have been expected to return to being ordinary citizens once they leave politics with no special concessions.

 

Blair has kept a high profile which has no doubt enriched him, and to a point I have no problem with that, but does he not owe some continued allegiance to both his country and the Office he held?

 

It would appear that he is getting special treatment over and above that to which he's entitled.

 

And as we're talking about a Conservative and Liberal coalition providing him with it I can't help wondering why.

[skinz]

 

Blair's a wrong un so was Thatcher why is the government which is not Labour covering his back for him?

 

 

Because they cover their home base..it's in their interest to cover each others back because no one knows when they are next in position.

 

Blair on Rwanda, Thatcher on Apartheid..They wont be the first or last to have dirty hands.

 

[Longcol]

I find it a little odd - it's not as if Blair and his involvement with Rwanda is a secret.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/business/international/tony-blair-has-used-his-connections-to-change-the-world-and-to-get-rich.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8885987/Tony-Blair-trips-to-Africa-and-an-intriguing-friendship.html

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/04/tony-blair-s-latest-intervention

 

http://www.africagovernance.org/africa/pages/rwanda/

[mjw47]

I find it a little odd - it's not as if Blair and his involvement with Rwanda is a secret.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/business/international/tony-blair-has-used-his-connections-to-change-the-world-and-to-get-rich.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8885987/Tony-Blair-trips-to-Africa-and-an-intriguing-friendship.html

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/04/tony-blair-s-latest-intervention

 

http://www.africagovernance.org/africa/pages/rwanda/

 

The Times used the Freedom of Information act to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth office to disclose it's communications with Blair about Rwanda.

 

The rule is that when so requested they have 20 days to reply.

 

They took 5 months, and then declined the request.

 

When in office Blair passed the Freedom of Information act but said in his memoirs that he regrets it. I bet he does, but he has no need to worry if they keep covering up for him like this.

[biotechpete]

There are no doubt reciprocal benefits for the help the UK is giving to countries in Africa through this sort of arrangement. Be they security, business, intelligence etc. Sometimes I think there are secrets that are best kept secret.

[paulvcassidy]

All the way to Sheffield to find a cyber link to this article just one day after it's been posted. The Times direct link is down too so someone is plainly real ****** off. Having praised Tony Blair for his roll in the Irish Peace Process (despite him stealing Mo Mowlan's crown) I fell out of empathy with him slowly. Plainly he is by now trading on the 'Tony Blair', brand which as you state was earned as a British PM and therefore remains of legitimate public interest. I was thinking this article might be better titled "The Office of Tony Blair is Highly Unaware'. The idea of an 'Office of Tony Blair', is odd in the first inst but the tendency of notaries to refer to themselves in third person parlance is not unusual. This paragraph is near laughable though:

 

"We do raise these issues", Mr Blair said, "but it's important to understand that the UN report is obviously heavily contested by the Rwandan government", Did Mr. Blair believe the UN? "I don't know", he said.

 

Hence my title "The Office of Tony Blair is Highly Unaware". Just visiting Ange.I. Kagame's Twitter page to find a rather hot pic of same along with this Twitter header: "For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway". Now that's wise stuff. She posts today, "found the perfect way to describe me: A bipolar indecisive premature old lady". I replied that perhaps she might regard herself as a 'mature bi-decisive, African lady'. Anyway I'm interested. The mind is shaped and shifted in various ways and you'd be surprised how wisdom arises. She's not without wit though plainly Blair and Kagame are a tad wit-deficient. As for murdering people in the streets it seems to be all the rage these days with articles in relation to Vladimir Putin and his direct roll in managing Russian criminal networks and contract assassinations from the Kremlin increasing. But then they're just aping the Allies and their machinations which somehow always seem to get viewed and relativised via the soft lens of our own balls of bull****.

 

As for destabilising the DRC surely these people have it bad enough? What really gets to me about all this is that the (Positions) Missionaries in their time did their best to raise standards but the MNC's with the brightest and the best the world has to offer - not to mention the resources and powers - are making matters worse. Now how can that be? Just plain vice is the answer I'd imagine: Power, greed, corruption, wantonness, licentiousness (sexual exploitation lets say) etc.

 

Life certainly isn't losing it's entertainment value. Now to look at the President's 19K Flickr selfies. Vanity, narcissism of just a form of existential reaffirmation? Who knows. Trouble with pinching yourself is it's viewed as self-harming these days. Hopefully it's porn-free.

@paulvcassidy

Edited January 31, 2015 by paulvcassidy
Typos