Blair: money whore & tyrant appeaser

Geeklawyer was, predictably, smug at the Court of Appeal’s decision to tell the Government that Tony Bliar’s policy of ejecting People-We-Dont-Like to Tyrannies-We-Now-Like with civil liberties regimes that he hoped to emulate is illegal. Of course the obvious danger to this unwilling tourist was entirely negated: Phoney Tony got a solemn good conduct note, scribbled in prisoners blood, from the regimes concerned:

Sure Tony, we will treat them fairly, honest  :wink:

But it gets better: the High Court then kicked Tony in the bollocks while he was still stunned and reeling from the CA’s decision. It turns out that allegedly corrupt payments were made to the Saudi’s and that those in receipt of them coerced TB into dropping corruption investigations on the threat that they wouldn’t buy lots of our jetfighters. Of course that wasn’t really the reason sleazy Tony dropped the investigations. No, honest. It was because the Saudi’s are a key partner in preventing terrorism.

The Court laughed at Philip Sale’s argument that it was simply impractical to stick by the rule of law and high moral standards so we must just do as they wanted. The CA’s retort was “No sale Sales”.

Of course if the oil despots really wanted to stop terrorism they could just stop giving billons of dollars to the terrorist groups they sponsor. But of course, being a genius, only Geeklawyer can comprehend this stunningly sophisticated anti-terror strategy.

Related Post

RSS feed | Trackback URI

6 Comments »

Comment by lo-fi
2008-04-10 22:07:00

Are you baiting your fan club again?

 
Comment by Geeklawyer
2008-04-10 22:19:16

Moi? :mrgreen:

 
Comment by James C
2008-04-11 00:00:11

Geek,

The SFO will be quietly nobbled.

 
Comment by simply wondered
2008-04-11 10:09:29

as so often, the reporting and the decision itself (which by good fortune i spent last night reading in the vague hope it might give me a few eatra marks in Con & Ad next month) don’t entirely mesh.
it seems to my as yet unqualified eye that the court is playing a very careful hand here. when they get past the emotive words like ‘abject’, the court appears to say that the giving in to illegal saudi pressure was not what undermined the rule of law - it was that they didn’t wriggle more before admitting that we like their money too much and giving in to illegal saudi pressure. or am i splitting hairs? don’t worry - i have already built the wicker cage in tony’s size, i just like to be precise…

 
Comment by Charon QC
2008-04-11 20:13:20

Be you ever so high… the law is above you….

Ah…. The good old days of denning …. are they returning?

 
Comment by Charon QC
2008-04-11 20:16:57

GL… the title of your latest post seems remarkably apt…. have you been writing careers books for law students again - if not, may I borrow the quote for a chapter heading on the profession for my knew online tractatus: ‘Principia Legis for the new order’

I’ll pay a small fee in Rioja or Mead…. or cider, if you really must.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.