Tony Blair is to donate the profits from his memoirs to a sports centre for badly injured soldiers.
A spokeman said Mr Blair would hand over the reported £4.6m advance payment plus all royalties to honour "their courage and sacrifice".
The money will go to the Legion's Battle Back Challenge Centre, which is due to open in summer 2012.
There's a name for this, isn't there?
Posts
60 comments:
Hi Rosie,
I almost said 'guilt' but it's probably more like 'public relations'.
Alex
Blood Money - the timing stinks.
still not enough!
I think B.Liar has spent too long with his Middle Eastern friends if he thinks that paying any amount of blood money will absolve him of his guilt for the wars he started.
Charitable giving can be exempt from UK taxes.
It's called charity.
I daresay it would have been better if Blair didn't donate the profits. This would have allowed the lazy pub barrack of 'well, him and his wife have always been money grabbers, British soldiers are dying, y'know.'
It's a classic example of people confusing tired cynicism with sober, rational analysis to the extent that no course of action can possibly please them.
It will be interesting to see the final amount of profit if anyone actually buys his book in the first place?
I prefer to donate directly, as I do, to military charities without contaminating my money or the charity by association with arch shysters.
There's two:'shameless calculation'...
I notice the newspapers haven't mentioned the fact that the RBL isn't a National Charity, that it covers, England, Wales and more recently NI, but not Scotland. Many in Scotland will give without realising RBL Scotland is a separate & distinct charity, supported by PoppyScotland.
This money is to be spent on the rehabilitation of troops, something that should be publicly funded rather than delegated to Charity.
By all means take his blood money and use it to get him before the Hague where he'll learn that it didn't wash the blood from his hands.
It's probably shameless publicity. A sort of "I'll get back at them for calling me a greedy bastard".
Or because so many people, like me, have said that they wouldn’t give this murderer a penny piece, and he thinks it will boost his position in the best sellers’ lists if he is not to profit from it.
Whatever his motive, it will be money that can better be used by the charity than by him and his greedy wife. However, if he thinks this expunges his war crimes... well.....think on Tone!
As for the book...well, I suppose, like Peter Mandelson's, I'd like to read it one day, so I can compare lies, but it will be a borrowed copy.
"....has been paid ...wait for it...£4.5 million in advances for this load of self serving shite, which by rights belongs not to the fucker himself but to the service personnel who have been damaged in his illegal war enterprises."
What I said here
http://indyspareings.blogspot.com/2010/08/phoney-journey.html
on the 3rd August,Does this mean I am getting through to the two faced lying backstabbing piece of sh....Sorry Rosa , thought I was at mine for a minute there....
Funny, no-one seems to have mentioned: blackmail to stop questions, hush money, pay-off, consience-money, insurance against questions.
Like most present day politicians, Blair has used our country to advance his own personal career agenda. Unlike present day politicians he has been upfront about it!
Like Hollywood, it's accountants who calculate 'profit', and after all B-Liar's expenses have been deducted, there won't be that much left.
Too much money.
It just shows you how much money he's made if he can give this amount away.
I just hope the death of Dr David Kelly comes back to haunt him...no amount of money can wash that grubby little stain away.
Hi Alex. It was something a little less polite which sprung to my mind.
That's it Irene. The very words.
It will perhaps with certain friends John R, don't you think.
Oh indeed Mrs R. Something else which sprang to my mind.
I'm surprised that he didn't give it to the Pope to make sure he buys a place upstairs!
He would have paid 60% tax on that anyway, so actually the tax payer is donating 2.5 million quid of it not Mr Blair. It's called tax avoidance.
Perhaps he thinks that by doing this he can buy his way out of the Kelly affair. Too late for that Tone!
He really is a cynical little shit, isn't he?
Ah charity William. I see. It perhaps would have been better to have given the money to childrens charities, since he didn't manage to make any dent in his proclamation that no children would be in poverty by the end of his 'reign'.
Me too Clarinda.
Well said Julia.
Now there's a thing vc. I hadn't thought of that because it's common knowledge here.
It's a drop in the ocean for him Tris. He won't miss it. It would possibly have gone to the taxman anyway.
There are two names for those who negatively label Tony Blair's decision to donate the money from his book to a sports centre for injured soldiers. Liars because they blame Tony Blair for those injuries when Islamic extremists caused most of the injuries, and hypocrites because they take their freedom to criticise Tony Blair's government for granted, but oppose his decision to give Iraqis the freedom to criticise their government.
SS
You may donate your life for Iraqi's freedom if you choose to. Neither you nor B-Liar will dictate to me or my family what sacrifices we should make on your behalf, when you yourselves are safe at home taking no risk.
there is one name for anyone who defends any action by the slimeball Bliar,no matter how seemingly charitable it may be...gullible!
Now if only he falls upon his sword, the sales and revenues will skyrocket.
We can but hope and pray: and urge him on his way.
WFW, possibly because, like me, nobody ever thought an ex-PM could stoop so low.
Oh Joe, don't get me started on accountancy!
Of course it is and a tax scam it is too JJ.
There does need to be a public inquiry into Dr Kelly. It could come about but I wouldn't bet on it. Too many have far too much to lose.
Here's another theory - he really does believe in God and he's scared shitless.
"chutzpah".
I think. Although I agree with Jim B that terror probably comes in to it.
It's all one-way traffic here (apart from SS) so I've been racking my brain for some sort of defence, but I can't think of any.
SR
As you know I have no time for Bliar and served my time; his behaviour when I witnessed it in Iraq demonstrated to me that for him it was a joke, an opportunity to let the twisted MSM to use it as a photocall.
I can reveal over 2000 people have been physically maimed in the last few years serving "their country" and will struggle to lead normal lives. This does not account for those that will suffer in due cause with PTSD.
The £4.6M is indeed guilt money soaked in blood of those that do the Bilderberger's bidding in the name of democracy.
We would be better served if Bliar submitted himself to the Hague for war crimes and the death of Dr David Kelly. It was not MI6 for the record. Too many private companies run by boards which include MPs that had interests in him dying.
I for one will not be reading Bliar or Meddlesomes lies.
That's enough for one night, The Legion should take the money it will go towards the rehabilitation of those that Bliar's actions damaged.....
Oh, sorry,
"In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has over-stepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame."
Not the more modern, Woody Alan, context.
Reminds me of this story.
"http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/2010/04/25/paedophile-s-will-is-last-slap-in-the-face-for-daughters-he-abused-86908-22210921/"
"TWO sisters who were brutally abused by their paedophile dad have described their horror after he left a £400,000 legacy to an organisation for young girls."
Oh Dioclese I'm sure the Vatican's coffers have erm... been enhanced by our ex- PM.
Thank you for your comment seniorspeaks, however you will know I disagree with you.
Islamic extremists you say caused the injuries of out troops in Afghanistan. That's war, whether it's legal or not is another question.
Our military honour the country by promising to go to war to defend this island. Mr Blair betrayed that honour.
Auch you're too kind Indyan, gullible is too polite.
As Alex said in his first post it could be a good Pr exercise. If people think, by buying his book, that the profits are going towards the military, then they may be more tempted to buy it RA.
Are well all so stupid?
Jim, I really do think you're being far too benevolent, but I appreciate your alternative point.
You too are being far too kind SE. If he had any intention of charity, one thing he could do was stop charging the taxpayers for his protection and insist that we only pay for one home and his business trips.
Sadly neither can I Andrew.
CD, I do hope others read your comment. It's written from knowledge instead of MSM propaganda. We heard, and still hear, so much of that where our armed forces are concerned.
I certainly will never read his book and I agree with you that the Legion should take the money towards those whom Blair mus tale for physically and mentally maiming.
Jings Sheila, I'd forgotten about that and it wasn't long ago. Thanks for reminding me and other readers. Really appreciated.
First, SR: will you please desist from putting up posts that acquire so many damn responses that it takes all my time to keep up with them! Only joking - wish I had your expertise!
Seriously I have to take exception to your response to SE. Why should we pay for one home, let alone his business trips? He has a 'Foundation' earning bloody money hand over fist! Let that foot the bill! Plus if he had not behaved like Genghis Khan he would not need protection - his choice, let him reap the bloody consequences!
After revisiting, I note that his deeds are not forgotten or forgiven, nor should they be. This website has the right idea http://www.arrestblair.org/ and with similar funding I'm sure it wouldn't take long to bring him to book.
VC, I think he's too well protected at present by his pals. After all, he was the one who ensured his mates made their billions.
Was trying hard to be restrained after inadvertantly leaving a nasty word gracing/defacing your comments , in a quote of mine, and to think I removed the first part of the paragraph concerned because of another nasty word, should have read through the rest, sorry Rosie!
No apologies necessary Indyan, I'm sure my readers understand your frustration.
Shows you who are vulnerable to the propaganda that the war was about fighting Islamic terrorists. There were no Islamic terrorists in Iraq - Saddam's regime was secular and Al Quaida and Saddam despised each other. There certainly are Islamic terrorists there now thanks to geopolitical thugs like Tony Blair and George Bush who have done more to benefit Islamic terrorists than even Brzezinski* whose brainchild Islamic terrorism was. He developed this force to bring down the Soviet Union by bogging it down in war with Afghanistan.
The Americans trained terrorists and sent them to Afghanistan to organise resistance against the Kremlin. When those same people then turned on the US on Sept 11 their connections to Bush, Rumsfeld and so on were so extensive that you will not be able to have a proper investigation into the Twin Towers disaster.
Inside the intelligence community they call suffering from your own original schemes 'blowback'.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
Very interesting link, thanks Alex. I've heard to Brzezinski some time ago early in the Iraq war I think it was. His name was mentioned in an article about how the American and Brits hadn't thought to close the borders and now Islamic terrorists were flooding in.
"It perhaps would have been better to have given the money to childrens charities, since he didn't manage to make any dent in his proclamation that no children would be in poverty by the end of his 'reign"
Yet no less an authority than SubRosa stated on 15 August that "I was tempted to say 'in poverty' but I don't consider any child lives in poverty these day."
Go figure, as our Yankee cousins would say.
OK William here's the figuration.
Tony Blair's definition of children in poverty is different to mine.
That clear enough?
I've seen children in poverty yet none in recent years in the UK.
Right.
It still boils to the same thing - you're criticising Tony Blair for not getting rid of child poverty whilst also claiming no child is in poverty. It's incoherent.
The bottom line is that someone you don't respect has done something that you don't respect and now you want to act shocked by it. Pull the other one.
Come on William,
Poverty is a relative term. The official definition is related to how far below average income a family is. That's the UN definition and according to it Blair failed. Now, Rosie is entitled to use the official definition as was used by Blair whilst at the same time disagreeing with that definition.
I happen to think that poverty does exist in Britain and that's according to my definition which is similar to Rosie's.
Dealing with definitions like this is all part of normal debate so let it go..
It's not incoherent William. I'll say it again. My definition of child poverty is children who don't wear shoes or at least shoes which fit, are malnourished and perhaps have some sort of illness to which no adult has given attention. Yes I know I don't live in a large city these days and these situations are more prevalent there, but I'm comparing poverty with my own childhood. There is far more money around today. We can argue the distribution of it until the cows come home but that's a fact.
I'm not in the least shocked. No idea why you think that. Why should I respect Tony Blair? He did nothing for me, in fact he allowed his chancellor to rob my pension which has caused me serious problems in very recent years.
Alex, I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist I'm saying there's little evidence of child poverty although according to government figures it continues at a considerable level.
I see poverty here every day. Elderly people, standing in supermarkets, pondering about buying something which would be a basic food to you and me. The same elderly wander round the supermarket in winter for perhaps an hour, all to avoid going home because they can't afford to heat the place. Sadly many don't have family close at hand I don't think. Maybe part of this is because the family structure is no longer the norm.
Did you have the words "pecksniffianism" or pecksniffery" in mind?
No muddpaws, but I do now. :)
Post a Comment