Possibly a bigger arse than either blair or brown

[Fungus]

But I reckon it's best to to leave discredited leaders and their regimes until the bitter end, like a festering boil coming to a head, so their abject incompetence and failure becomes obvious to all, like Adolph in his bunker.

Do you think Gordon and Tony will get married in the last hours of the Nu Liar Reich, shoot faithful old Jack Straw and then take cyanide? One can but dream. I certainly look forward to news footage of a civil servant burning the corpses in the garden.

[Mailman]

Those lies & the deception were exposed before the last General Election.

What you mean they were exposed by being voted back in to power?

And the rest of your rant is all bowlacks!

Mailman

[BobTheCrate]

What you mean they were exposed by being voted back in to power?

How do you deduce that ? Are you joking or is your basic comprehension that bad ?

[hyperD]

It is stepping over the line as it will be interpreted by some as encouraging them to murder Blair.

That in itself is no reason to say it's wrong. Unless of course, you change the law again and call it "incitement to harm the PM".

[Mailman]

How do you deduce that ? Are you joking or is your basic comprehension that bad ?

Lets see, labour was in power BEFORE the election and in power AFTER the election.

Now, if Labour had been voted OUT of office then yes I would agree with the notion that the electorate exposed labour for the bunch of girls they are.

However, you and I know that isnt the case (although without a doubt labour is a bunch of whinging tits ).

Mailman

[Fungus]

That in itself is no reason to say it's wrong. Unless of course, you change the law again and call it "incitement to harm the PM".

There's a difference between saying that it is wrong for an MP to make a certain statement, and making it illegal to make that statement. Enoch Powell was wrong to make the rivers of blood speech, but it was not illegal.

However, I'm not sure that he couldn't be done under current incitement to violence laws.

[wendigo100]

Enoch Powell was wrong to make the rivers of blood speech, but it was not illegal.

Why was he wrong? He was warning that violence would happen. He wasn't advocating it.

[BobTheCrate]

Now, if Labour had been voted OUT of office then yes I would agree with the notion that the electorate exposed labour for the bunch of girls they are.

The point I'm making is that on the one hand the electorate decry Blair for the Iraq war and what led up to it. But come the general election buried their so called 'deep moral objections' in the belief Bliar's bunch were best placed to fill their pockets.

The term 'crocodile tears' comes to mind.

If we then complain that our politicians are grubby, maybe, just maybe, it is because we the electorate are equally grubby.

[Bitbucket]

I think that this is just another one of thoes people fortunate enough to find themselves in a position of power but has not understood the fundamental idea of public perception.

The papers usually have a field day with these individuals , asking loaded questions and knowing that they will deliver a good story for the next days news.

This guy will always be a target , and even if his local electorate keep voting him back in , you cant blame the press they will do whatever is necessary to make money and at any cost.

[Fungus]

Why was he wrong? He was warning that violence would happen. He wasn't advocating it.

Because Powell was in effect stirring up trouble. Even if you think there was something in what he said it was unwise to say it. It also gave the impression to the unwashed that he was a racist. He wasn't.

If you don't believe that saying "There may be trouble ahead" is unwise, ask Equitable Life pension holders.