Eye Witness Account of the Blair Visit

[Seán Ryan]

Blair-visits-dublin-gets-egged/ (http://roaringandshouting.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/blair-visits-dublin-gets-egged/)

My account of war criminal Blair's visit. The article has a video in it that includes the egging scene that the BBC are currently begging to get their hands on. Screw them. If anyone can figure out how to embed the Vimeo hosted video here - feel free to do so. The video currently has about a minute of blank footage at the end of it. My apologies, my software is acting the maggot. I'll hopefully sort this in a day or two.

A small number of activists have made an international incident out of this and have stymied what would have otherwise been a sycophantic lovefest for one of the biggest lowlifes ever to darken Ireland's shores.

[greengoose]

It seems that the autograph hunters "Know Their Betters". No wonder that the peasants were under the yoke for over 700 years. The Irish psyche is well explained with these sort of protests. How did the numbers match up? 300 autograph hunters, 200 protesters and 100 cops to make the thing even.

[Cato]

Did the Gardaí behave themselves? I haven't heard any criticism yet.

[Andrew49]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN18EOCL7kI

[mutley]

Blair-visits-dublin-gets-egged/ (http://roaringandshouting.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/blair-visits-dublin-gets-egged/)

My account of war criminal Blair's visit. The article has a video in it that includes the egging scene that the BBC are currently begging to get their hands on. Screw them. If anyone can figure out how to embed the Vimeo hosted video here - feel free to do so. The video currently has about a minute of blank footage at the end of it. My apologies, my software is acting the maggot. I'll hopefully sort this in a day or two.

A small number of activists have made an international incident out of this and have stymied what would have otherwise been a sycophantic lovefest for one of the biggest lowlifes ever to darken Ireland's shores.

Thanks for the link Sean.

Who foots the bill for the security costs for Blairs visit?

[Cato]

Thanks for the link Sean.

Who foots the bill for the security costs for Blairs visit?

The state of course. As it does for the security costs of any person visiting this state who needs protection. Do you believe he should have been left unprotected?

[mutley]

The state of course. As it does for the security costs of any person visiting this state who needs protection. Do you believe he should have been left unprotected?

That is a bit of a loaded question Cato.
If he needs protection he should have it, however the state should not be footing the bill for this protection if it is not a state visit, I would harldy think that book promotion falls into this category.

[C. Flower]

The state of course. As it does for the security costs of any person visiting this state who needs protection. Do you believe he should have been left unprotected?

Should he have been taken into protective custody?

He apparently left Shelbourne early.

[Cato]

That is a bit of a loaded question Cato.
If he needs protection he should have it, however the state should not be footing the bill for this protection if it is not a state visit, I would harldy think that book promotion falls into this category.

If any person within the state, in the judgement of the Gardaí, requires protection then it should be given to them and the state should bear the cost.

Like it or not (and I don't) Blair has been convicted of no crime and is legally allowed to visit and move about this state in safety. It is his right under several different laws, domestic and European. It is incumbent on the state to see that persons are able to exercise their rights in accordance with the laws and to take positive measures, such as offering security, when it is deemed necessary.

Simply because you and I dislike Blair and what he has done does not mean we get to deny him his rights. That would only serve to lower ourselves to his level.

[mutley]

If any person within the state, in the judgement of the Gardaí, requires protection then it should be given to them and the state should bear the cost.

Like it or not (and I don't) Blair has been convicted of no crime and is legally allowed to visit and move about this state in safety. It is his right under several different laws, domestic and European. It is incumbent on the state to see that persons are able to exercise their rights in accordance with the laws and to take positive measures, such as offering security, when it is deemed necessary.

Simply because you and I dislike Blair and what he has done does not mean we get to deny him his rights. That would only serve to lower ourselves to his level.

It isn't really about Blair being convicted of no crime, I'm just thinking that every numpty that wants to come to Ireland and hock a book for profit (I know Blair is donating his profits) should have to bear the costs of their security.

I can't believe that if Jordan, Nigella Lawson, Paul O'Grady, Gok Wan, wanted to come here and promote their books, that we would be liable for their security costs

Simon Cowell was over here auditioning people for XFactor, who bore the cost of his and the other Celebrities security then?

[C. Flower]

Newstalk is discussing Blair's personality - enormously treacherous - has always hated the Labour Party (stirs up trouble just when Labour is trying to choose a new leader) - and is enormously weak as a leader - no indication of why he went into politics.

The many rumours that Blair was an M15 plant in Labour are not contradicted by his behaviour in any way. Certainly, the New Labour project was a political coup to disenfranchise the working class in the UK.

Don't know who's speaking on Newstalk - English guy who has written about Blair in the past.

[Cato]

It isn't really about Blair being convicted of no crime, I'm just thinking that every numpty that wants to come to Ireland and hock a book for profit (I know Blair is donating his profits) should have to bear the costs of their security.

I can't believe that if Jordan, Nigella Lawson, Paul O'Grady, Gok Wan, wanted to come here and promote their books, that we would be liable for their security costs

Simon Cowell was over here auditioning people for XFactor, who bore the cost of his and the other Celebrities security then?

If, in the judgement of the Gardaí, there was a significant threat to their life, then yes, security should be provided. If the purpose of the security is just to keep the hoi polloi away from them then they should pay for the security themselves.

[Garland Names the Planets]

The Gardai are obligated to protect any resident or traveller in this state where there is a reason to think that that persons is in physical danger. Private citizens bear no responsibilty for the cost. It is a right as an EU citizen that you will be protected from danger and the Gardai as the local law enforcement are obligated to uphoald that right. Simple as

[Cato]

The Gardai are obligated to protect any resident or traveller in this state where there is a reason to think that that persons is in physical danger. Private citizens bear no responsibilty for the cost. It is a right as an EU citizen that you will be protected from danger and the Gardai as the local law enforcement are obligated to uphoald that right. Simple as

Thank you for saying clearly what I've been struggling to do.

[mutley]

Thank you for saying clearly what I've been struggling to do.

Garland names the Parrots? :D

[Gruffalo]

I dont understand why anyone would throw shoes or eggs at him. It is pointless and takes the attention away from Blair's wrongdoings.

Everywhere he goes he, and the media, should be reminded that as much of a bastard as Saddam was (and he was) Blair is probably responsible for the deaths of more innocent people.

[C. Flower]

The eggs and the shoes have been reported all over the world and my guess have raised spirits in the same way that the original Bush shoe did.

[antiestablishmentarian]

I think something momentous took place yesterday: Blair was made to realise that his 'retirement' will not be one of swanning around wherever he wants to accliam from the proles- no he will be dogged and hounded wherever he raises his mug and will pay a heavy personal price as a reviled figure- not nearly enough for his crime in helping with the Iraq invasion but a symbolic punishment that most of society considers him to be beyond the pale and worthy of isolation.

[C. Flower]

I think something momentous took place yesterday: Blair was made to realise that his 'retirement' will not be one of swanning around wherever he wants to accliam from the proles- no he will be dogged and hounded wherever he raises his mug and will pay a heavy personal price as a reviled figure- not nearly enough for his crime in helping with the Iraq invasion but a symbolic punishment that most of society considers him to be beyond the pale and worthy of isolation.

Blair in his book admits lying on Iraq and claims to have lied to SF at a critical point in negotiations. He claims to have been running with a more important agenda that democratic accountability allows for.

A million people in Britain marched against the Iraq invasion. There are very serious limitations to electoral democracy, which permits such abuse with accountabilty long after its too late, if ever.

I'm so pleased that there was a determined demonstration and sorry I wasn't able to be there.

A lot of people have been saying "why don't the people responsible for Anglo Irish get the same treatment". Blair was jointly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. As yet the mismanagement of the Irish economy has only caused a hundred or so deaths, through suicide and closure of health services. In fact tens of housands of people have demonstrated since 2007, on health, medical cards, against the bailout and against the attacks on public services.

[TaxProtester]

The Gardai are obligated to protect any resident or traveller in this state where there is a reason to think that that persons is in physical danger.I think the real reason, visiting bigwigs get garda protection is because it they didnt, they would bring their own private security with them which would lead to all kinds of chaotic situations. A couple of months ago the Iranian Foreign Minister was visiting Ireland and his bodyguards attacked and beat up protesters who were shouting questions at him at some public meeting.

The bodyguards were also carrying guns. Im not sure if diplomatic immunity extends to carrying firearms without a licence. Anyone know?

[Sam Lord]

The Gardai are obligated to protect any resident or traveller in this state where there is a reason to think that that persons is in physical danger.

:D:D

That should actually read "obliged to protect any member of the ruling circles at whatever cost."

If you live in a working class estate you will get feck all protection if you are, for example, being intimidated or under threat from scumbags. Not one little bit in my experience ....

[Sam Lord]

I. A couple of months ago the Iranian Foreign Minister was visiting Ireland and his bodyguards attacked and beat up protesters who were shouting questions at him at some public meeting.



Attacked and beat up? Are you sure?

[Lapsedmethodist]

Am I to take it that Saddam and the Taliban are to be viewed as some kind of role models for a groovy society instead of murderous fuc*s who ought to be eliminated ?
When I see the likes of Boyd-Barrett I see someone who revels in the sight of a Sarajevo or a gassing of Kurds because he's certain that someone will try to stop it and he can get his bullhorn out. Genocide gives some freaks a damp spot.

[Sam Lord]

Am I to take it that Saddam and the Taliban are to be viewed as some kind of role models for a groovy society....

No. Why would you ..?

[Lapsedmethodist]

No. Why would you ..?

Because anyone who tries to remove them and their ilk ends up being reviled by people who wouldn't know oppression if it bit them.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Because anyone who tries to remove them and their ilk ends up being reviled by people who wouldn't know oppression if it bit them.

NOt really: the people who tried to remove Saddam are those that put him there in the first place and supported him with arms and finances until he became uppity- he was only removed so american and british capital could get access to the iraqi market and its oil.

[Seán Ryan]

Because anyone who tries to remove them and their ilk ends up being reviled by people who wouldn't know oppression if it bit them.

That's a very blinkered view of reality.

Saddam wasn't the only one 'removed.' So were about 1.4 million men, women and children. With another 5 million or so homeless. God knows how many injured or without the basic necessities.

If the people themselves had risen up or had been able to, the supporters of Team Genocide would have reviled them.

And Blair and Co. didn't quite remove Saddam. They executed a POW.

[Sam Lord]

Because anyone who tries to remove them and their ilk ends up being reviled by people who wouldn't know oppression if it bit them.

The children of Iraq will let you know a lot about oppression in due course .... :D

[TotalMayhem]

And Blair and Co. didn't quite remove Saddam. They executed a POW.

Now, now, Saddam was tried and found guilty according to the laws of a government, 'democratically' elected by the Iraqi people and recognised by the United Nations. Does this make the rest of the world 'accomplices' in the 'murder of a POW'?

[Seán Ryan]

Now, now, Saddam was tried and found guilty according to the laws of a government, 'democratically' elected by the Iraqi people and recognised by the United Nations. Does this make the rest of the world 'accomplices' in the 'murder of a POW'?

Tis strange times that we're living in. The kangaroo court established as a front for the murder of a POW was something to behold. The part that still interests me is the fact that the UN is still sitting on a mountain of paperwork that establishes who sold Saddam the WMDs. None of this was allowed into the 'court' that convicted Saddam - wouldn't do to have his accomplices indicted too.

[Cáthasaigh]

Now, now, Saddam was tried and found guilty according to the laws of a government, 'democratically' elected by the Iraqi people and recognised by the United Nations. Does this make the rest of the world 'accomplices' in the 'murder of a POW'?

Had you ever been to Iraq and gained any concept of the way in which the tribal society inhabited by the bulk of the people works, from shiek to mukhtar to ordinary Iraqi, or indeed if you were familiar with the realities of Iraqi governance then you would realise just how pathetically naive and ridiculous your statement sounds. I have no qualms about the fate that apparently befell Saddam; he deserved death for what he did to the Barzanis never mind the litany of other crimes but please don't insult my intelligence and experience with your ignorant propaganda.


Tis strange times that we're living in. The kangaroo court established as a front for the murder of a POW was something to behold. The part that still interests me is the fact that the UN is still sitting on a mountain of paperwork that establishes who sold Saddam the WMDs. None of this was allowed into the 'court' that convicted Saddam - wouldn't do to have his accomplices indicted too.

The silencing of Saddam is the interesting factor here. Nobody got in to interview him and nobody asked why. Even Eichmann was permitted a last testament; not Saddam, for his would have been much too inconvenient.

[Lapsedmethodist]

That's a very blinkered view of reality.

Saddam wasn't the only one 'removed.' So were about 1.4 million men, women and children. With another 5 million or so homeless. God knows how many injured or without the basic necessities.

If the people themselves had risen up or had been able to, the supporters of Team Genocide would have reviled them.

And Blair and Co. didn't quite remove Saddam. They executed a POW.

A badly planned war and a bad war are two different things.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

[TotalMayhem]

realise just how pathetically naive and ridiculous your statement sounds

Resorting to insults again, are you?


but please don't insult my intelligence and experience

I'm beginning to doubt the existence of both.

[C. Flower]

Now, now, Saddam was tried and found guilty according to the laws of a government, 'democratically' elected by the Iraqi people and recognised by the United Nations. Does this make the rest of the world 'accomplices' in the 'murder of a POW'?

At this stage "UN recognised/mandated" is not any more of a recommendation than "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

The execution was an outrage.

[Gruffalo]

At this stage "UN recognised/mandated" is not any more of a recommendation than "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

The execution was an outrage.

I could not have put that better if I tried.

The execution was an absolute disgrace but only one of many carried out during the reign of Terrorist Tony and Genocidal George.

[TotalMayhem]

At this stage "UN recognised/mandated" is not any more of a recommendation than "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

The execution was an outrage.

Quite, but that doesn't make the recognition by the UN not any less factual, now does it?

[Lapsedmethodist]

At this stage "UN recognised/mandated" is not any more of a recommendation than "awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."


The execution was an outrage.

Why ? The manner in which he was executed is more or less the norm for the area ie. close up and personal. This was exactly how he and his clique operated only they did it on an industrial scale. Good riddance.

[C. Flower]

Quite, but that doesn't make the recognition by the UN not any less factual, now does it?


No one said it wasn't factual. Just that adding the words "UN" to something
doesn't mean a thing.

[C. Flower]

Why ? The manner in which he was executed is more or less the norm for the area ie. close up and personal. This was exactly how he and his clique operated only they did it on an industrial scale. Good riddance.

Amazing how the Americans managed to make Saddam look good.

[Kev Bar]

Attacked and beat up? Are you sure?

I believe gadaffi's son's bodyguards did similar to French cops. The Libyan embassy also played host to the rather undiplomatic assassin of Brit Bobby Yvonne Fletcher.

[C. Flower]

I believe gadaffi's son's bodyguards did similar to French cops. The Libyan embassy also played host to the rather undiplomatic assassin of Brit Bobby Yvonne Fletcher.

There was a reaction not dissimilar to the reaction when Bush was shoed in a press conference, I'd say. Both were shown on tv. The shoe thrower got a lot rougher treatment.

Not particularly nice, but far worse happens to people demonstrating on the streets all over the world.

[TotalMayhem]

Just that adding the words "UN" to something doesn't mean a thing.

Right, then we shouldn't care much either whether Blair will be tried by the ICC (which happens to be a creation and legal attachment of the very same 'meaningless' UN) or not.

When the UN do something you don't agree with, the entire organisition becomes meaningless, if they act against against Israel, the UN all of a sudden is the best thing since sliced bread. Quite a biased opinion, cherry picking is what i call it.

[C. Flower]

Right, then we shouldn't care much either whether Blair will be tried by the ICC (which happens to be a creation and legal attachment of the very same 'meaningless' UN) or not.

When the UN do something you don't agree with, the entire organisition becomes meaningless, if they againt against Israel, the UN all of a sudden is the best thing since sliced bread. Quite a biased opinion, cherry picking is what i call it.

I don't quote the UN on Israel.

[Garland Names the Planets]

:D:D

That should actually read "obliged to protect any member of the ruling circles at whatever cost."

If you live in a working class estate you will get feck all protection if you are, for example, being intimidated or under threat from scumbags. Not one little bit in my experience ....

The Gards shortcomings in other areas does not diminish their obligations in this. You are bordering on whataboutery.

I learn nothing about anyone by throwing eggs at them. I think there is a story in this man and why he did what he did. I for one would like to hear it. I already know what eggs cracking sound like

[Garland Names the Planets]

I think the real reason, visiting bigwigs get garda protection is because it they didnt, they would bring their own private security with them which would lead to all kinds of chaotic situations. A couple of months ago the Iranian Foreign Minister was visiting Ireland and his bodyguards attacked and beat up protesters who were shouting questions at him at some public meeting.

The bodyguards were also carrying guns. Im not sure if diplomatic immunity extends to carrying firearms without a licence. Anyone know?

Foreign dignatories as far as I know are allowed to provide their own security as prescribed by bilateral agreements made by the relevant foreign bodies of each state. ou couldn't very well inmagine Obama wandering the streets of dublin without the Secret Service.

But this does not negate the responsibilities of An Garda Siochana. Where a threat is identified as possible action muct be taken

[mutley]

The Gards shortcomings in other areas does not diminish their obligations in this. You are bordering on whataboutery.

I learn nothing about anyone by throwing eggs at them. I think there is a story in this man and why he did what he did. I for one would like to hear it. I already know what eggs cracking sound like

Yes you do learn something, you learn that sometimes just sometimes protest works, Tony Blair is planning to cancel his next book signing in the UK, he claims because his of the cost to the Police.

Saw this on the channel 4 news, no link yet


Well done to everyone who took part in the protest against Blair