Blair: 24ours in the life or death of a premiership

[emad]

'Hutton report to go under armed guard - maybe - to printers on Monday':


Snip from:

Michael White and David Hencke
Friday January 16, 2004
The Guardian

Tony Blair was last night presented with the prospect of 24 concentrated hours of nail-biting that may decide the fate of his premiership when Lord Hutton announced he will unveil his report on the Kelly affair the day after MPs vote on student grants and fees.
The law lord ended weeks of speculation and delay when he confirmed that he will publish his findings - still unfinished - at lunchtime on January 28, giving the six main players in the drama, including Downing Street, the BBC and the family of David Kelly, copies in strict confidence 24 hours before.

Though the 72-year-old Lord Hutton's fierce independence of the machinery of government is not contested, it was authoritatively said that he brought forward plans to publish on February 4 because of persistent speculation about his intentions by MPs and the media. Michael Howard has made Mr Blair's "lies" a major issue.

The Hutton report will go, possibly under armed guard, to unidentified printers on Monday. Not even the security services will know where, since they are one of the interested parties in last summer's conflict over the events leading to Dr Kelly's suicide.

The timing means the prime minister will spend the afternoon of January 27 absorbing the details of Lord Hutton's judgment as the debate on top-up fees rages at Westminster, culminating in a vote he is far from certain to win.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1124404,00.html


What many are wondering is, is the Hutton report and the Commons vote on student fees more terrifying than the investigation into how sex offender Ian Huntley was able to get away with having his police records wiped so he could get a job as a school caretaker, murder two innocent 10 year old girls and eventually get life in jail for that crime?

[Spentastic]

1. Blair is safe as houses

He knows he is, that's why he'll lead the debate and why he's been challenging Howard to put up or shut up.

Unless Mr Blair pulled a televised Huntley type killing he's essentially untouchable.

He's also a complete wanker.

[emad]

2. Mrs Blair is a walking liability

watch the BCCI lawsuit space

[dolgoruky]

3. You are absoutely right, Spentastic

The whole Hutton Report will be a whitewash. My guess is that the Guardian is trying to make the report look so tough and hard-hitting so that when it finally does fudge blame, Blair will be able to say he was grilled and they found nothing. Pure PR. Pure wank.

And yes, Blair is a fucking wanker. A fuckin toad, to boot.

[Oggy]

4. More cryptic comments

I love the way the way you always leave me grasping as to what you are on about. It took at least 10 mins to find out what Mrs Blair had to do with BCCI - it's not exactly public knowledge is it? Anyway as I found a couple of useful sites on the way I thought I'd dedicate my 200th post to you.

[RainDog]

5. belated welcome to DU

Since January of last year, some of us have tried to follow the Bank of England/BCCI case, so maybe the assumption was that you would know that Cheri Blair is representing the plantiffs in their suit.

If you search the DU site with "BCCI" you'll find some long threads which mention various six degrees of separation between BCCI and current and past public figures.

the current vague accusations are too speculative for me, and I have to set aside the wilder claims and focus on those things which have a money trail or other documents which can verify any claims.

with the latest posts, I have to admit I wonder what is disinformation and what is true in many claims, but I'll reserve my judgments to see what, if anything, proves out.

there are too many people who have reasons to oppose the actions of various criminals and actions to rely on speculation.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Thanks for your thoughts

I do appreciate your "reserve".

FROM THE ARCHIVES;MARCH 1, 1999
Ex-BCCI Bankers Say Working At the Bank Ruined Their Careers
By DANIEL PEARL

Now, Mr. Islam and 358 other former BCCI workers in England want the bank to pay for what they say is the "stigma" caused to their careers. They have enlisted one of the most powerful labor lawyers in Britain, Cherie Booth, wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair. And they are getting a serious hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice. The case has dragged on for three months, delved into thorny issues of race and competence, and run up legal costs on the order of $3 million.

New Ground

The workers are breaking new ground in employee law in England, and possibly beyond. The House of Lords overturned an 88-year-old legal precedent to allow the case to go to trial, saying a business could be forced to pay damages for breaking its implicit contract with employees to operate honestly. How much in damages, though, nobody knows: Even Ms. Booth has acknowledged that it is "nebulous" to try to tally damages for the lost income of thousands of jobs the workers may or may not have won if they didn't have the BCCI "badge of uncertainty".
http://www.geocities.com/spyjaguar/1399.html

What happened with this case? It is completely different from the one now, right? Curious that it is Daniel Pearl reporting.

And Ian Huntely mother's maiden name was Nixon

[RainDog]

8. Aren't those two different cases?

I have a copy of that article by Pearl. The case he was writing about was people who worked for BCCI who said they couldn't get jobs because of the taint of the association with the bank.

The current case, as I understand it, is a "class action" or whatever it would be called, by people from a burg which had their money in BCCI, and even, strangely it seemed at the time, Abu Dabhi, which, I thought, had given refuge or "house arrest" to BCCI criminals...I could be wrong about that one...

The current case is about whether or not the Bank of England failed to do its duty to oversee the financial solidity of BCCI and thus cause people who were customers of the bank to lose money.

I don't know what happened to the other case. I remember at the time that Pearl's article noted it would be hard to be able to set damages or ascertain who much loss someone suffered in a job search.

[Oggy]

7. Thanks

I'll have a look at the weekend (if my 11 week old daughter sleeps a bit).