Ban Blair baiting

By Stephen Pollard
August 26, 2009

Via John Rentoul's unmissable site, I came across this petition, which of course has to be signed by all decent folk:

We, the undersigned agree that Blair-baiting should NOT be allowed to
prejudice the outcome of the Iraq war inquiry. We therefore call upon
the media and other interested parties to refrain from such activity
for the duration of the inquiry.

As the organisers write:

Bear-baiting, whereby a tethered bear was attacked by a pack of dogs,
was outlawed in this country in 1835. It is now time to stop
BLAIR-baiting, i.e. attacks on our former Prime Minister by the dogs of
anti-war. Less metaphorically it can be defined as the constant
incitement of hatred against Tony Blair for taking us to war in Iraq.

This year's Blair-baiting season will reach its peak when the Iraq war
inquiry starts to call witnesses. Parts of the media, the anti-Iraq war
lobby and some families of soldiers killed in the war are already
calling for this to be a TRIAL of Tony Blair with a view to gathering
as much evidence as possible to send him to The Hague for "war crimes".
Except that unlike a normal trial, Tony Blair has been presumed guilty
in advance.

The organisers of this petition do not belong to any one party but are
united in our belief in "innocent until proved guilty" and that Mr
Blair should be given a fair hearing at the inquiry. To this end we
demand that if the Blair-baiters want to turn the inquiry into a trial
they should follow the same rules as a trial and not be allowed to make
any public comment on the proceedings until they are over.

Please show your support for Tony Blair through this period of "trial"
by signing this petition. If you would like to be more actively
involved in the campaign associated with it could you please leave your
contact details in the "contact author" box that accompanies this



Wed, 08/26/2009 - 15:04

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you for signing this petition, Mr Pollard, and for airing it here. Alongside your journalist colleagues John Rentoul and Oliver Kamm you are (at present) the Three Journo Musketeers of Banning Blair-Baiting at the Iraq Inquiry.

You only have to read the first comment at Rentoul's blog to get a glimpse of how polluted politicans' reputations are. So polluted that it is acceptable to offer to kill them. Why on earth do people in free societies feel they need to literally DO AWAY with politicians in this way? A violent society? To "up" their "respect"? To make them feel powerful?

Whatever - the mind boggles. The Mail and other such rags have a lot to answer for in this muddying of the political waters, imho.

My own blog - search "Keep Tony Blair" shows that not all nasties contribute to just the British press.

The url of my latest post at the blog:

Stephen Frears is a disgrace to the arts, to liberty and to humanity.


Thu, 11/26/2009 - 15:13

Rate this:

0 points

The bigger politician you are the higher the standards and the more eyes are on your moves. This obviously Blair's case. He got involved in Irak issues and now people demand explanations. I am not a big fan of Blair but I can give him the credit for what he did well. Blair rewards is just a simple example but there are other too. So was he wrong in sending solders to Irak? What would you have done if you were him?


You must be logged in to post a comment.