As the Chilcot inquiry rolls on we should not forget to look in on how things are panning out for the people of Iraq.
2 March 2004: Suicide bombers strike Shia shrines in Karbala and in Baghdad, killing at least 181 people.
14 September 2005: Co-ordinated bombings in Baghdad kill 178 people.
23 November 2006: Car bombs kill 215 people in Baghdad's Sadr City.
3 February 2007: Truck bomber at Baghdad market kills 137.
18 April 2007: 183 killed in attack on Shia locations of Baghdad.
7 July 2007: Suicide truck bomb kills 160 in south of Kirkuk.
14 August 2007: Truck bombs kill over 500 Yazidis, a Kurdish-speaking religious minority.
19 August 2009: Suicide bombers hit the finance and foreign ministries, killing more than 100 people.
25 October 2009: Car bombs kill at least 155 people in attacks on government offices.
8 December 2009: Baghdad bombs kill at least 112 and wounded more than 190
Tony Blair and George W Bush must be very proud of the Iraq that they created.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Monday, 7 December 2009
The Lost Copenhagen Post
Day 1 of the Copenhagen climate Change Summit and i had prepared a sparkling witty, thought provoking and altogether smashing post. Then didn't save it and lost it when my computer froze whilst trying to download AVG updates. It's too much to try and remember what i said but i know i began by stating that people who said the World wasn't flat and that the Earth went around the sun were probably disbelieved at first and even after they were proved right, there were some who still refused to believe them.
The term 'useful idiot' was thrown in here because it just seemed to sum up exactly what i think of people who blindly follow the likes of Richard Lindzen who get well remunerated by those with an interest in denying climate change. He gets a back pocket full of dead presidents, you get wet feet and asthma for all your misguided simpering.
I then linked these strange folks to climate change deniers who, despite all the evidence, continue to shake their heads and think it's all some convoluted Government scam.
Next up was the science bit as L'Oreal say with 800,000 year old ice cores that show that at no point in the past 800,000 years did levels approach today's carbon dioxide concentrations of around 387 parts per million (ppm) and that the fastest increase seen was 30 ppm over a period of approximately 1,000 years which we have seen in just under two decades.
Then i went through the proof of what we are seeing now with desertification, changing weather patterns, the rise in sea temperature, polar ice melts, warmer summers, spread of disease, crop failure, raising sea levels and the loss of eco systems.
It was starting to get a bit long by now so i ended with a short and snappy sentence that went along the lines of if you can look at all this evidence and still say that the climate is not changing, then you are either Richard Lindzen, an employee of Exxon Mobil or just painfully ignorant.
Shame i lost it all, it was quite a good post so i suppose i will have to write about something else instead.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Amanda Knox Guilty
Much said about the conviction of Amanda Knox for her part in the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Italy. I watched the announcement of her guilty verdict and the 26 year sentence and the analysis afterwards on the BBC where the summing up seemed to go along the lines of going by the evidence, she was as guilty as hell and got what she deserved, echoing my own feelings of the case.
Around 1am, as usual, the channel flicks over to the American news channel CBS for an hour or so.
Interestingly, the Knox conviction was being discussed on there also but they had a very different view of events and the question was posed, was Knox a victim of anti-Americanism?
Searching around the Internet, i found American sites that posed this question and it reminded me of the 1997 conviction of the British nanny Louise Woodward who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter when an eight month old baby died whilst in her care.
The British media was incredulous that a British girl had been convicted of murdering a baby by an American Court. Woodward's sentence was reduced to time served (279 days) and she was freed to return back to Britain where she now works as a dance teacher.
Now it seems that Italian justice is being questioned by some people in America although in this case, the imprisonment of Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend seem a safe conviction.
The change of alibi halfway through the case was the most damning evidence. From being in the other room to 'remembering' that actually she stayed at her boyfriends house that night was probably what sealed it along with the DNA evidence on the knife and Meredith's bra, the confession later withdrawn and the bloody footprint.
Knox always came across as an arrogant woman, a view supported by the Police testimony that she was performing cartwheels, doing the splits and giggling with her ex-boyfriend when she was first brought in for interview.
Being arrogant doesn't make her a cold hearted killer, and being American doesn't make her any more or less guilty but refusing to accept the verdict of a court just because of the murderers nationality is wrong on every level whether they are a British nanny or a pretty American student.
Around 1am, as usual, the channel flicks over to the American news channel CBS for an hour or so.
Interestingly, the Knox conviction was being discussed on there also but they had a very different view of events and the question was posed, was Knox a victim of anti-Americanism?
Searching around the Internet, i found American sites that posed this question and it reminded me of the 1997 conviction of the British nanny Louise Woodward who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter when an eight month old baby died whilst in her care.
The British media was incredulous that a British girl had been convicted of murdering a baby by an American Court. Woodward's sentence was reduced to time served (279 days) and she was freed to return back to Britain where she now works as a dance teacher.
Now it seems that Italian justice is being questioned by some people in America although in this case, the imprisonment of Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend seem a safe conviction.
The change of alibi halfway through the case was the most damning evidence. From being in the other room to 'remembering' that actually she stayed at her boyfriends house that night was probably what sealed it along with the DNA evidence on the knife and Meredith's bra, the confession later withdrawn and the bloody footprint.
Knox always came across as an arrogant woman, a view supported by the Police testimony that she was performing cartwheels, doing the splits and giggling with her ex-boyfriend when she was first brought in for interview.
Being arrogant doesn't make her a cold hearted killer, and being American doesn't make her any more or less guilty but refusing to accept the verdict of a court just because of the murderers nationality is wrong on every level whether they are a British nanny or a pretty American student.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Tiger Woods Is Fair Game
It's an old debate but it's one that crops up all the time in the world of journalism and here it is again with the news that Tiger Woods has been up to no good.
The debate splits down the lines of whether the media should be reporting the twists and turns of Tigers marital affairs or the counter argument that his private life should be kept out of the newspapers.
To me there is a very simplistic answer. If a person chooses to put themselves in the spotlight, then they are fair game. You can't only play the publicity game when it suits so that means the whole package of good, bad and ugly.
Tiger makes millions out his 'nice guy' persona through advertising. For years he has been handsomely paid to get his picture taken wearing a certain make of clothes or appearing on television selling razors so he has actively gone out of his way to make himself visible.
Now that he has been caught out playing around on another ladies fairway, he wants to pull down the shutters and asks for privacy.
For me, Tiger Woods is a completely legitimate target and journalists have every right to report the who, when, how and why of the reasons behind his late night fire hydrant crash.
Woods is the villain of this particular piece, not the people reporting it.
The debate splits down the lines of whether the media should be reporting the twists and turns of Tigers marital affairs or the counter argument that his private life should be kept out of the newspapers.
To me there is a very simplistic answer. If a person chooses to put themselves in the spotlight, then they are fair game. You can't only play the publicity game when it suits so that means the whole package of good, bad and ugly.
Tiger makes millions out his 'nice guy' persona through advertising. For years he has been handsomely paid to get his picture taken wearing a certain make of clothes or appearing on television selling razors so he has actively gone out of his way to make himself visible.
Now that he has been caught out playing around on another ladies fairway, he wants to pull down the shutters and asks for privacy.
For me, Tiger Woods is a completely legitimate target and journalists have every right to report the who, when, how and why of the reasons behind his late night fire hydrant crash.
Woods is the villain of this particular piece, not the people reporting it.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
Where's The Change Obama?
It has been a tough week for us pacifists and environmentalist. Hopes for an International agreement to save the planet in Copenhagen next week seem to be dwindling before it even starts and Obama, in his wisdom, seems intent on ramping up things in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I once had high hopes for Barack Obama. He isn't my President but after the devastating International effect of George W Bush's policies, i thought and hoped Obama would come in and right a few wrongs.
Almost a year on we still have prisoners locked up in Guantanamo Bay, troops continue to occupy Iraq, the Environment is put on the back burner, Israel continues to ride roughshod over the Palestinians, the threats to level Iran continue and he has just expanded Bush's war in Afghanistan.
Obama came to power promising change but i can't help looking at his record so far and thinking we are in exactly the same position as we were under Bush.
For all i know he may be doing wonders in America for his own people, although judging by his figures it seems his popularity is waning dangerously, but looking at him from the outside, he is proving to be yet another in a long list of big disappointments.
I should put it down to him being just another politician who talked the talk to get into office but altered his sights once he got there but that seems a bit harsh when he still has 75% of this presidency term still to go.
Hopefully he will up his game in his second year and show us that he isn't just rehashing the policies of George W Bush and wrapping them up in fancy speeches. I do have a growing sense that the gulf we thought existed between Bush and Obama, is not as wide or as deep as we first thought and the only change i can see is that Obama is more eloquent at explaining his disastrous policies.
I once had high hopes for Barack Obama. He isn't my President but after the devastating International effect of George W Bush's policies, i thought and hoped Obama would come in and right a few wrongs.
Almost a year on we still have prisoners locked up in Guantanamo Bay, troops continue to occupy Iraq, the Environment is put on the back burner, Israel continues to ride roughshod over the Palestinians, the threats to level Iran continue and he has just expanded Bush's war in Afghanistan.
Obama came to power promising change but i can't help looking at his record so far and thinking we are in exactly the same position as we were under Bush.
For all i know he may be doing wonders in America for his own people, although judging by his figures it seems his popularity is waning dangerously, but looking at him from the outside, he is proving to be yet another in a long list of big disappointments.
I should put it down to him being just another politician who talked the talk to get into office but altered his sights once he got there but that seems a bit harsh when he still has 75% of this presidency term still to go.
Hopefully he will up his game in his second year and show us that he isn't just rehashing the policies of George W Bush and wrapping them up in fancy speeches. I do have a growing sense that the gulf we thought existed between Bush and Obama, is not as wide or as deep as we first thought and the only change i can see is that Obama is more eloquent at explaining his disastrous policies.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Scottish Independence Not Happening
The story of William Wallace was based on a poem by a man named Blind Harry which may explain why he is depicted as having a blue face. Whether the line 'they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom' was added later by Deaf Billy is not known but i'm almost certain Mr Wallace would approve of the latest push by the Scots for their independence from England.
First Minister Alex Salmond has launched a White Paper for a vote on constitutional reform and declared: "It's time for the people to have their say on Scotland's future".
Damn straight i say, shame he didn't say that before Tony Blair and Gordon Brown got their hands on the seat of power, they could have messed up their own country rather than ours.
I don't particularly want to see the United Kingdom broken up but i wouldn't lose any sleep over it if it was. I do think that Mr Salmond has not run through his sums though because i don't think they would last long without all the money they get off England, £11bn a year at the last count, and a skint Scotland coming hand in cap to its wealthy neighbour is how the Union came about in the first place.
The general feeling is that the Scottish National Party doesn't have a snowballs chance of actually gaining the required number of votes to even kick start the referendum process and the whole thing will die a death until the next time some Scot hits upon the wheeze of breaking away from England.
You can still come and pick up Gordon Brown anytime you want though.
First Minister Alex Salmond has launched a White Paper for a vote on constitutional reform and declared: "It's time for the people to have their say on Scotland's future".
Damn straight i say, shame he didn't say that before Tony Blair and Gordon Brown got their hands on the seat of power, they could have messed up their own country rather than ours.
I don't particularly want to see the United Kingdom broken up but i wouldn't lose any sleep over it if it was. I do think that Mr Salmond has not run through his sums though because i don't think they would last long without all the money they get off England, £11bn a year at the last count, and a skint Scotland coming hand in cap to its wealthy neighbour is how the Union came about in the first place.
The general feeling is that the Scottish National Party doesn't have a snowballs chance of actually gaining the required number of votes to even kick start the referendum process and the whole thing will die a death until the next time some Scot hits upon the wheeze of breaking away from England.
You can still come and pick up Gordon Brown anytime you want though.
Another Dog Attack
It is with frightening regularity that the news has a story about a child being mauled by a dog.
A four year old boy was killed today by a 'pit-bull type' dog and the arguments start up again about it could have been any type of dog etc etc.
My argument is that whilst it is true that any breed of dog is capable of turning and i also agree to an extent that it is how a dog is raised that is a major factor, but the truth is that it is a certain breed of dog that seems to crop up as the killers.
Whilst a Chihuahua will obviously do less damage to a child than a German Shepherd if it attacked, it just emphasises the point that it is crazy to have a powerful dog around young children.
An American study conducted into dog attacks from 1982 to 2006 showed that pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of all attacks in the States, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. The conclusion they reached is: 'Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.'
A large, powerful dog bought to protect and guard property is one thing. A lovable, family dog is another but mixing the two is a tragedy waiting to happen. Why would anyone want to have an animal around their loved ones that 'poses a risk' and has to be 'handled with special precautions'.
I dare say that there are many owners of these breed of dogs who will argue the point that theirs would not attack and it is the fault of irresponsible owners and they may be right but how many times do we hear those exact words from the owners after the event and then it's too late.
A four year old boy was killed today by a 'pit-bull type' dog and the arguments start up again about it could have been any type of dog etc etc.
My argument is that whilst it is true that any breed of dog is capable of turning and i also agree to an extent that it is how a dog is raised that is a major factor, but the truth is that it is a certain breed of dog that seems to crop up as the killers.
Whilst a Chihuahua will obviously do less damage to a child than a German Shepherd if it attacked, it just emphasises the point that it is crazy to have a powerful dog around young children.
An American study conducted into dog attacks from 1982 to 2006 showed that pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of all attacks in the States, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. The conclusion they reached is: 'Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.'
A large, powerful dog bought to protect and guard property is one thing. A lovable, family dog is another but mixing the two is a tragedy waiting to happen. Why would anyone want to have an animal around their loved ones that 'poses a risk' and has to be 'handled with special precautions'.
I dare say that there are many owners of these breed of dogs who will argue the point that theirs would not attack and it is the fault of irresponsible owners and they may be right but how many times do we hear those exact words from the owners after the event and then it's too late.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Consequences Of Attacking Iran
Worrying developments over the Iran nuclear issue with today's UN resolution demanding Tehran heed UN Security Council resolutions calling on it to stop uranium enrichment.
Of course nobody wants to see a nuclear armed Iran but then the idea of anybody with nuclear weapons in their arsenal is a frightening thought.
Just as frightening is the track we seem to be on which ends with Iran being the recipient of a massive amount of Ordnance courtesy of our armed forces.
There was already a growing clamour for this from some countries showing that we have learnt nothing from Iraq.
I do expect the Nuclear armed Israel to strike at Iran's Nuclear installations at some point in 2010 and they will do it with the tacit approval of the West, very likely using Western supplied weaponry.
I have written previously on the blatant hypocrisy and of the lack of evidence of Iran building a nuclear arsenal which resonates with the Iraq WMD fiasco only this time the American intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have stated loud and clear that they have no evidence.
What is also being overlooked by the foolhardy armchair generals and leaders of countries that seem hell bent on bombing yet another Middle Eastern country are the repercussions a campaign against Iran would bring.
Iran has a huge military capability and a strike would see massive rocketing of Israel's cities not only by the Iranians but without a shadow of a doubt, also from Lebanon and from Gaza. This would trigger Israeli fighting on 3 fronts with a catastrophic death count all around.
Internationally, terrorism by Iranian agents against Israeli and Western targets would spiral and oil prices would rise steeply. American troops in Iraq and the NATO forces in Afghanistan would face renewed hostilities against an even wider ranging and wilder uprising.
These are the facts, and they are not the whinings of a pacifist or an Ahmadinejad fanatic hyping up an imaginary threat, these are the stone cold certainties of how it will unfold.
So what are the alternatives? Maybe we should think about making peace with Iran rather than threatening it with war, or is such an obvious solution too far-fetched for those who see dropping bombs on people and to hell with the consequences as the only answer to our problems?
Of course nobody wants to see a nuclear armed Iran but then the idea of anybody with nuclear weapons in their arsenal is a frightening thought.
Just as frightening is the track we seem to be on which ends with Iran being the recipient of a massive amount of Ordnance courtesy of our armed forces.
There was already a growing clamour for this from some countries showing that we have learnt nothing from Iraq.
I do expect the Nuclear armed Israel to strike at Iran's Nuclear installations at some point in 2010 and they will do it with the tacit approval of the West, very likely using Western supplied weaponry.
I have written previously on the blatant hypocrisy and of the lack of evidence of Iran building a nuclear arsenal which resonates with the Iraq WMD fiasco only this time the American intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have stated loud and clear that they have no evidence.
What is also being overlooked by the foolhardy armchair generals and leaders of countries that seem hell bent on bombing yet another Middle Eastern country are the repercussions a campaign against Iran would bring.
Iran has a huge military capability and a strike would see massive rocketing of Israel's cities not only by the Iranians but without a shadow of a doubt, also from Lebanon and from Gaza. This would trigger Israeli fighting on 3 fronts with a catastrophic death count all around.
Internationally, terrorism by Iranian agents against Israeli and Western targets would spiral and oil prices would rise steeply. American troops in Iraq and the NATO forces in Afghanistan would face renewed hostilities against an even wider ranging and wilder uprising.
These are the facts, and they are not the whinings of a pacifist or an Ahmadinejad fanatic hyping up an imaginary threat, these are the stone cold certainties of how it will unfold.
So what are the alternatives? Maybe we should think about making peace with Iran rather than threatening it with war, or is such an obvious solution too far-fetched for those who see dropping bombs on people and to hell with the consequences as the only answer to our problems?
Thursday, 26 November 2009
The All New, New Model Army
Despite having one of the coolest names for an army ever, life under Oliver Cromwell was not a barrel of laughs. Not only did he close down inns, theaters and ban the majority of sports, but the Puritan nut job also banned Christmas because it was more about the eating, drinking, dancing and having fun rather than the birth of Jesus. He did inspire Elvis Costello to sing a cracking song about him though.
Cromwell said that he talked to God directly and discussed his plans for battles with the big man personally although we now find it hard to think that any country today could be ruled over by a warmongering leader who talked to God directly about his plans to send his troops into battle. Ahem.
Although Cromwell was a sandwich short of a picnic he did have a point about Christmas because despite its origins, it's all about Santa, snowmen and reindeer now. Try finding anything related to Christmas now with a picture of Jesus on it and you will be disappointed.
The problem is that Jesus is just not cool. When you have magicians nowadays who can make the Statue of Liberty disappear or catch a bullet in their teeth, then turning water into wine just seems a bit, well, crap.
What Jesus needs is a professional PR job done on him because the other fictional character, Santa, is what Christmas is all about and the Churchy types know it. As an atheist, i'm more than happy to see Jesus and all his disciples pushed aside and a jolly fat man hauled wheezing into his place but in an unexplainable twist, i dislike the way it has turned into a grubby, money spinning commercial exercise where it isn't the thought that counts but how much you spent.
Cromwell began putting together the New Model Army by firstly rounding up all his relatives to form the core of his own regiment to take on the King's army so Auntie Freda, Uncle George, cancel your bingo night next week because we got a revolution to perform. Better not mention it to Auntie Lesley though, you know what she's like around men in uniform. We'd never get her out of the barracks.
Cromwell said that he talked to God directly and discussed his plans for battles with the big man personally although we now find it hard to think that any country today could be ruled over by a warmongering leader who talked to God directly about his plans to send his troops into battle. Ahem.
Although Cromwell was a sandwich short of a picnic he did have a point about Christmas because despite its origins, it's all about Santa, snowmen and reindeer now. Try finding anything related to Christmas now with a picture of Jesus on it and you will be disappointed.
The problem is that Jesus is just not cool. When you have magicians nowadays who can make the Statue of Liberty disappear or catch a bullet in their teeth, then turning water into wine just seems a bit, well, crap.
What Jesus needs is a professional PR job done on him because the other fictional character, Santa, is what Christmas is all about and the Churchy types know it. As an atheist, i'm more than happy to see Jesus and all his disciples pushed aside and a jolly fat man hauled wheezing into his place but in an unexplainable twist, i dislike the way it has turned into a grubby, money spinning commercial exercise where it isn't the thought that counts but how much you spent.
Cromwell began putting together the New Model Army by firstly rounding up all his relatives to form the core of his own regiment to take on the King's army so Auntie Freda, Uncle George, cancel your bingo night next week because we got a revolution to perform. Better not mention it to Auntie Lesley though, you know what she's like around men in uniform. We'd never get her out of the barracks.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
The Chilcot Inquiry
What normally happens with Government inquires is that a 'safe' senior Civil Servant is chosen and he dodders around a bit before coming back later to say that actually everything was fine and above board and the carpet is lifted and everything is swiftly brushed beneath it.
As shown by the Kelly inquiry into MP's expenses, sometimes they refuse to play the game and actually get the bit between their teeth and make things very uncomfortable for the people who appointed them.
As the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq launches tomorrow, there are already signs that Sir John Chilcot is prepared to lob a few hand grenades of his own to make the Government, and especially Tony Blair, very nervous.
He has already stated that Blair, Brown and the cabinet ministers at the time must speak in public when they were demanding they give evidence in private. Leaks have been circulating in the media this weekend including senior military commanders telling that preparations for the War were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.
Other papers point to Blair promising George W Bush that he would join the US led invasion while denying to the country that preparations were being made for military action.
We already have facts from the Butler and Hutton inquires where the remit was so narrow and disjointed that it was impossible for them to join up all the dots. These need to be drawn together and placed alongside the new facts due to be unearthed to produce a time-line of what happened, when and why so an official stamp can be given to the truths, or untruths, that the we know already. The missing WMDs, the yellow cake, Dr Kelly's death, Saddam's Nuclear aspirations, the 45 minute claim, the changing legal advice, the missing United Nation Resolution, the dodgy dossier fiasco and the role of the intelligence departments.
Tony Blair seems to be keen to drift off into other spheres, leaving behind the mess of Iraq and the million Iraqi dead. Chilcot says he and his team would not shrink from making criticisms of individuals and he would provide a "full and insightful" account of the events leading up to, during and after the invasion but what the British public want to know is did Blair and his Government take us to war under false pretences and did we kill lots of people for no good reason.
If the answer is yes, then prosecutions have to follow. If Chilcot finds that despite all the evidence to the contrary that he is able to hand Blair, Brown, Straw and the rest of the Cabinet a clean bill of health then it could sound the starting bell of something volatile for a public already outraged by our political leaders self-interest.
As shown by the Kelly inquiry into MP's expenses, sometimes they refuse to play the game and actually get the bit between their teeth and make things very uncomfortable for the people who appointed them.
As the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq launches tomorrow, there are already signs that Sir John Chilcot is prepared to lob a few hand grenades of his own to make the Government, and especially Tony Blair, very nervous.
He has already stated that Blair, Brown and the cabinet ministers at the time must speak in public when they were demanding they give evidence in private. Leaks have been circulating in the media this weekend including senior military commanders telling that preparations for the War were sabotaged by Tony Blair's government's attempts to mislead the public.
Other papers point to Blair promising George W Bush that he would join the US led invasion while denying to the country that preparations were being made for military action.
We already have facts from the Butler and Hutton inquires where the remit was so narrow and disjointed that it was impossible for them to join up all the dots. These need to be drawn together and placed alongside the new facts due to be unearthed to produce a time-line of what happened, when and why so an official stamp can be given to the truths, or untruths, that the we know already. The missing WMDs, the yellow cake, Dr Kelly's death, Saddam's Nuclear aspirations, the 45 minute claim, the changing legal advice, the missing United Nation Resolution, the dodgy dossier fiasco and the role of the intelligence departments.
Tony Blair seems to be keen to drift off into other spheres, leaving behind the mess of Iraq and the million Iraqi dead. Chilcot says he and his team would not shrink from making criticisms of individuals and he would provide a "full and insightful" account of the events leading up to, during and after the invasion but what the British public want to know is did Blair and his Government take us to war under false pretences and did we kill lots of people for no good reason.
If the answer is yes, then prosecutions have to follow. If Chilcot finds that despite all the evidence to the contrary that he is able to hand Blair, Brown, Straw and the rest of the Cabinet a clean bill of health then it could sound the starting bell of something volatile for a public already outraged by our political leaders self-interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)