Should Tony Blair be stripped of his Knighthood

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • As reported by GB News should Blair be stripped of his Knighthood

    Sir Tony Blair should be stripped of his knighthood as a result of his decision to take the UK to war in Iraq, MPs have heard.

    The Alba Party’s Neale Hanvey described the former prime minister’s accolade as “an insult to every single life lost” during the war.

    Mr Hanvey claimed declassified documents from 1998 show Sir Tony was determined to take military action, contrary to legal advice

    Speaking during a debate on UK military action in Iraq, Mr Hanvey said: “How can it be that a prime minister who prosecuted two wars against lawful advice and instruction has been rewarded with a knighthood?

    “This is an insult to every single life lost and it should be withdrawn forthwith and a path to full justice secure

    “Governments should not lie to go to war and the truth must now be told.”

    My Opinion

    Many did sign a petition calling for him not to be given that title as they think he did lie not only to Parliament but to the entire UK , personally I think the truth should come out and if as many do think he lied and it is proved he did lie he should be stripped of that title.

  • Anthony Lynton Bliar has blood on his hands. He sent those young military personnel to their deaths knowing that there were no WMD's..... Bliar should not just lose his Knighthood but after a proper trial as a war criminal he should be sentenced to death.

    The Voice of Reason

  • Anthony Lynton Bliar has blood on his hands. He sent those young military personnel to their deaths knowing that there were no WMD's..... Bliar should not just lose his Knighthood but after a proper trial as a war criminal he should be sentenced to death.

    Gets my vote.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

  • I do not place any integrity in the honours system. Especially Knighthoods. When actors get knighted and "insiders" get knighted it seems to me the whole system is devalued. If one does not place any value on the honours it becomes very easy to regard them as a game.

    Most are exceptionally well-paid - rich people. Already well rewarded for what they do.

    Mind you - Sir Jimmy Saville - pervert and sexual abuser - has a ring to it.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • There are psycho politicians - Blair - Clinton - to name but two, who master the use of semantics t a new level.

    Blair lied about WMDs but did not lie about the possibility of WMDs (existing in his head) reaching British soil.

    Clinton did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman. His definition of "RELATIONS" existed in his head, and was another matter altogether.

    People did not care that much because their £90,000 house shot up to £140,000 thanks to Blair.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • Anthony Lynton Bliar has blood on his hands. He sent those young military personnel to their deaths knowing that there were no WMD's..... Bliar should not just lose his Knighthood but after a proper trial as a war criminal he should be sentenced to death.

    I agree 100%

  • As I understand it it is a tradition that all former Prime Ministers are elevated to the Lords once they leave office ,they have kept his on the back burner for some years now but have done so for as along as possiblely could

    The Speaker when they step down and retire as tradition dictates is awarded a Peerage, Bercow has not been awarded it yet I hope he never gets one either

  • For as much as I dislike the prick, I'd like to see the contents of said documents before I condemn a man on the basis of there contents.

    Middle age is when your old classmates are so grey and wrinkled and bald they don't recognise you.

  • It is the offense of murder that Blair committed. It is written in our law. He fits the definition of a murderer.

    If its good enough for Saddam its good enough for Blair.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • It is the offense of murder that Blair committed. It is written in our law. He fits the definition of a murderer.

    If its good enough for Saddam its good enough for Blair.

    he might fit "your" definition of a murderer but that doesn't mean that he's a murderer or even a war criminal. What "rules of war" did he break? His justification for going into Iraq might have been a sham, but that's a different matter altogether.

  • Gets my vote.

    And mine.

    I'd like to see the contents of said documents before I condemn a man on the basis of there contents

    I suggest you read up on Katharine Gun. The only reason the gov backed down on the trial of treason is because of a so called national security threat, in other words putting the PM on the stand would have incriminated him. Her legal team had them backed into a corner. You could also watch the following which contains lots of factual info.

    My Sonar is picking up an Echo around here

  • Surely tried in Wembley stadium? Seats sold at £25. I'd pay. 80,000 sell out crowd. Televised with commentary. Must be a winner for the BBC..It could improve their ratings and win a new audience. GG for the prosecution,or any member of the armed forces who has had their offspring killed or put in wheechairs by the messiah of Fettes.

    Willing to attend subsequent crucifixtion at no cost.

    Jack Straw to follow.

    Then others.

  • he might fit "your" definition of a murderer but that doesn't mean that he's a murderer or even a war criminal. What "rules of war" did he break? His justification for going into Iraq might have been a sham, but that's a different matter altogether.

    I can tell you exactly. It fits exactly the offence/definition of murder. But first, there must be an understanding - understand, I am not talking of feelings or opinions. Law never includes feelings and likes/dislikes. This is why we have the Rule Of Law.

    Any person who causes other people or a person to enter into a situation - KNOWING - the likely outcome is death or serious harm - based upon a falsehood - commits the offence of murder. Blair, with his power of the Crown, ordered military personnel to enter Iraq, based on a falsehood - in the full knowledge the outcome would lead to death or serious harm. That is his offence. Thousands of troops died in Iraq and Blair knew there were no WMDs. The soldiers obeyed the order. They understood the threat was WMDs present in Iraq which could "reach British soil in 45 minutes" (Blair)

    Many people construed this to mean REACH BRITAIN. This was the belief. But Blair new this "British soil" was a tiny island or land base in the middle of nowhere belonging to Britain. No residents.

    To put it simply:

    If I tell you my 3-year-old entered an unsafe building and I knew he did not enter at all, but I wanted to test the safety to see if you have some harm come to you - if you are killed because of the unsafe state of the building - that is murder. Not my opinion, it is literally an act of murder defined in law.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • Shite.

    Murder is committed when a person of sound mind unlawfully kills another person and they have the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. A number of complete defences to murder exist, including self-defence, as well as partial defences, including diminished responsibility and loss of control.

    Tony Blair and his wife are both lawyers, neither are stupid enough to go down route if they could ever be subject to such action.

    I agree with Rusty, leave the feeling on the shelf look at the definition, these give you your points to prove.

    Nowhere in that definition does it say causes another person. Murder is iirc an individual and personal act. If we are talking about war crimes then you enter a whole new world. Even then at no time I guarantee did Blair order his military commanders to go kill.

    Murder is about premeditation, the planning even if that planning was half an hour, however if two men are fighting and one pushes the other back, he stumbled and cracks his head on a table corner and dies it's manslaughter. It was never his intention to kill.

    Likewise, the manager of a bus company who orders his driver to take out an bus with faulty brakes. The bus crashes killing the driver and 5 passengers. It is corporate manslaughter not murder as it was never his intention to kill.

    But in fairness guys I did gulf 1 where we kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait, people die in war it's a fact and so I believe any such offences relating to deaths in war are decided in The Haig and not the UK courts.

    Middle age is when your old classmates are so grey and wrinkled and bald they don't recognise you.

  • Premeditation is not necessary to commit murder. Intention to kill is not a requirement either.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • Vincent Bugliosi - one of the most successful lawyers in US history. Won 26 murder trials - prosecutor. Lost none.

    He ascribed the meaning of murder - in law - vowing he could successfully prosecute Bush and Blair (they are both culpable) for murder based upon KNOWINGLY causing the death of a person upon a falsehood.

    Sending troops into a war footing based upon a lie - thousands are killed - that is murder. (knowingly)

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!