The Chilcot report and Tony Blair - Panorama 29th June 2016 - THE FINAL JUDGEMENT

Prescott blaming Blair.....

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/159996

Parliament should hold Tony Blair to account for the war in Iraq

The Chilcot Report has presented a range of evidence that demonstrates that Parliament and the country were misled by Tony Blair in the run up to the war in Iraq. Parliament should now agree a process by which it can hold the former Prime Minister to account.

Over 5,000 signatures in 2 days.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jul/21/chilcots-6000-page-report-an-edinburgh-festival-fringe-event

Snipped:

We may have waited an anguished seven years for it to be published, at a public cost of £10.3m, but how many people have had all 12 volumes of the Chilcot report as their bedtime reading recently?

Well, put your guilt aside. An Edinburgh festival fringe show – which is pushing the boundaries of entertainment to its limit – could take the task off your hands.

From 8 August, a host of comedians, authors and politicians, including Stewart Lee, Omid Djalili and Ian Rankin, are to stage a complete reading of Sir John Chilcot’s 6,000-page report on the Iraq war, invasion and occupation.

The non-stop performance, which will take about two weeks to complete, will involve a rolling line-up of volunteers reading aloud the 12 volumes of the report that was finally released in July after a seven-year wait. At 2.6m words, it is three times the length of the complete works of William Shakespeare.

The comedian Bob Slayer, who masterminded the idea, said he hoped the reading would persuade people to fully engage with the report, as well as spark discussions about the role of the former prime minister Tony Blair and his government’s actions in the build-up to military action in Iraq.

Cant imagine this would ever happen Imsure he would have plenty of help from those that DO.Ofcourse ,I think that many would like to see action taken .joyce1938

I'll stick this one here as it was the first one in the search wotsit when I typed in Tony Blair:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4384328/Tony-Blair-says-social-media-killed-career.html

Tony Blair says he would never have been PM if social media had been around when he was younger to expose his 'highly embarrassing' behaviour
Tony Blair spoke about his time in band Ugly Rumours while studying at Oxford
Said if band's exploits were posted on social media it would have killed his career
He referenced a picture of his 21-year-old self making a rude hand gesture


Highly embarrassing as well when he had to go to court and gave his middle names (Charles Lynton).

(google C L if you don't know what I mean)

Hmmm




UK attorney general in bid to block case against Tony Blair over Iraq war



Jeremy Wright QC argues crime of aggression does not exist in English law, even though his predecessor reportedly claimed otherwise

The government’s top law officer is going to court to demand the rejection of an attempt to prosecute Tony Blair over the Iraq war, the Guardian has learned.
The planned intervention by the attorney general comes after a judge ruled the former Labour prime minister had immunity from the attempt to bring a criminal charge against him and that pursuing a prosecution could “involve details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act”.
The private prosecution relates to the 2003 Iraq war and seeks the trial in a British court of then prime minister Tony Blair, the foreign secretary Jack Straw, and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time.

            


It seeks their conviction for the crime of “aggression” and is based on the damning findings of last year’s Chilcot report into the British decision to join the invasion of Iraq, under the false pretext that the Saddam Hussein regime had weapons of mass destruction.
Legal documents seen by the Guardian show the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, who is the Tory MP for Kenilworth and Southam, has formally asked to join future hearings and for the attempt to prosecute Blair and his top aides to be rejected.
In November 2016, a court ruled the prosecution could not go ahead. But lawyers behind the private prosecution are seeking a fresh hearing to challenge that refusal and access to legal aid funding. The attorney general’s intervention is supported by the three Labour former senior ministers.
The attorney general claims the case is hopeless, in part because the crime of aggression does not exist in English law, even though it does exist in international law. But that argument appears to be undermined in a document written by Goldsmith himself.
In his 2003 memo on the legality of the Iraq war, Goldsmith, then attorney general, appeared to concede the key point of those now seeking his prosecution. “Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law,” he wrote.

After the Chilcot report publication, some families of British service personnel who died in the war called for Blair to face criminal charges.
The latest attempt at a private prosecution comes in the name of Gen Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat, former chief of staff of the Iraqi army and now living in exile, according to legal papers.
An application was made to Westminster magistrates court late last year for a summons to be issued against Blair but it was refused. The district judge, Michael Snow,said: “Implied immunity as former head of state and government ministers, therefore offence not made out … Allegations involve potential details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act for which attorney general and director of public prosecutions consent are required.”
The lawyers behind the private prosecution attempt include Michael Mansfield QC and Imran Khan, who both battled for decades for justice on behalf of the family of Stephen Lawrence.
In their pleadings, the lawyers say: “If ever there was a case which required the actions of public officials to account for their alleged criminality, we cannot conceive of any better one than this. There is no doubt that there is significant public interest in these present proceedings and there should have been the concomitant application of the law to all decisions relating to it by the district judge. It would appear that there was not.”

           
                             
           


They claim the judge was wrong to say because Blair was prime minister he and the former senior ministers cannot face prosecution: “It should be noted that, in any event, Tony Blair et al do not enjoy immunity from prosecution in the UK whether ‘implied’ or not.”
The lawyers add: “There are overwhelming grounds to challenge the decision of district judge Snow in refusing to issue the summons and it is highly likely that the administrative court will quash the decision … We would assess a greater than 80% chance of success as district judge Snow has made glaring errors of law.”

A spokesperson for Wright said: “It’s not unusual for the attorney general to intervene in cases in order to represent the public interest. He has sought to intervene in this case because it raises important issues about the scope of the criminal law.In his pleadings, the attorney general says he does not want courts making criminal laws, rather than parliamentand “the basis on which this claim for judicial review is mounted is hopeless”, adding: “It is established by clear and unanimous authority at the highest level, the crime of aggression is not known to English law”. In a previous case, the law lords backed this view.
Wright says it is for parliament to decide what will count as a criminal offence under English law, and not the courts nor ministers.
The attorney general says he reserves the right to make other arguments as to why the attempted private prosecution should be stopped. In his arguments sent to the court so far, he does not make any comment on the assertion of his predecessor, Goldsmith, in 2003 that the crime of aggression exists under English law, nor whether Snow was correct in saying the former prime minister had implied immunity and thus could not be prosecuted.

                    
            


Khan said: “My client wants those responsible held to account and prosecuted using the full force of the law. He is baffled as to why it is that despite the Chilcot report making it very clear that the war was illegal, attempts are now being made to prevent those responsible from entering a court, let alone being prosecuted for what they did.
“Everybody, including the attorney general should welcome this court case. It is an opportunity for many millions of people to get justice for something which caused immeasurable damage not just to the people of Iraq but all those others that were affected by these events around the world.”
Through a spokesperson, Snow declined comment.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/16/uk-attorney-general-in-bid-to-block-case-against-tony-blair-over-iraq-war

My goodness - that`s like an O level English precis question !

I can`t get my head around who said what and why, who wants TB prosecuted and why and who says he can`t be prosecuted and why. And what`s the conclusion ?

Anybody good at precis ?

Iraq war: judge to review Tony Blair prosecution ban






Private criminal prosecution against former PM was blocked last year by courts giving Blair immunity against criminal charges

Wednesday 5 July 2017 06.00 BST Last modified on Wednesday 5 July 2017 07.57 BST 

 

The most senior judge in England and Wales will hear a case attempting to overturn a ban on prosecuting Tony Blair over the Iraq war, the Guardian has learned.


A private criminal prosecution against the former Labour prime minister was blocked in 2016 by Westminster magistrates court when it was ruled Blair would have immunity from any criminal charges.

But that ruling by the district judge, Michael Snow, will be reviewed on Wednesday before the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Mr Justice Ouseley.

The current attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, wants the block on proceedings upheld. He will have a barrister in court to try to stop the attempted private prosecution.

The hearing follows a decision by the high court in May, which has not previously been reported. Then a high court judge said those wanting to prosecute Blair could have a hearing to seek permission for a court order allowing their case to go to the next stage. The judge in that case also said the attorney general could formally join in the case.
Blair caused controversy when prime minister in deciding to take Britain into the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was led by the US and sparked huge opposition.

The private prosecution seeks a war crimes trial in a British court of Blair, the foreign secretary in 2003, Jack Straw, and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time the government was deciding to join the invasion of Iraq.
The case seeks their prosecution for the crime of aggression. The attorney general in written submissions for Wednesday’s hearing says such an offence does not exist in English law, a claim which is disputed.

The private prosecution attempt is based on the findings of last year’s Chilcot report into the decision by Blair to join the invasion of Iraq, which is criticised, under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction.
After the Chilcot report was released some families of British service personnel who lost their lives in Iraq said they wanted Blair prosecuted in the courts.

This attempt at a private prosecution is brought by Gen Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat, former chief of staff of the Iraqi army who is now living in exile. His lawyers are Michael Mansfield QC and Imran Khan, who acted for the family of Stephen Lawrence.
In November 2016, a British court ruled against an application to bring a private prosecution. A district judge at Westminster magistrates court ruled Blair had immunity from prosecution over the Iraq war and that any case could also “involve details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act”.


At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, lawyers for the attorney general will argue that the crime of aggression, while existing in international law, has never been included into English law by parliament.

But the government’s stance appears to be undermined by Goldsmith. In his 2003 memo on the legality of the Iraq war, Goldsmith appeared to concede the key point of those now seeking his prosecution. “Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law,” he wrote.
At this stage Blair, Straw and Goldsmith are not making an arguments in court against the private prosecution, instead hoping the attorney general’s efforts will see it killed off.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/iraq-war-judge-to-review-tony-blair-prosecution-ban

Sir John Chilcot accuses Tony Blair of not being 'straight with the nation' over Iraq War

6 July 2017 • 7:09am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/sir-john-chilcot-accuses-tony-blair-not-straight-nation-iraq/

I`m sure we`ve always known he`s a little weed and Bush was an `important` guy he was trying to impress.

For that 179 of our service men died, each with wives, children, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends - the ripples go far and wide.

Stupid little man.

Well that's it.........

Tony Blair prosecution bid over Iraq war is blocked by High Court

31 July 2017



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/31/tony-blair-cannot-prosecuted-iraq-war-high-court-rules/

Hardly a surprise is it. The establishment is hardly going to let an ex prime minister be prosecuted. Anyway a brave man for trying.

Apparently all because `aggression is not a crime`.

Wonder why he didn`t prosecute him for murder.

You beat me to it, Mimi.

No chance of anyone being knocked over by a feather in surprise over the decision.