# Blair comes clean



## CARREG (1 September 2010)

My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ng-ban-as-primeval-passions-drove-debate.html  ...............Carreg


----------



## the watcher (1 September 2010)

I read that this morning, his comment on hunting was one of the quotes in The Guardian....what an enormous waste of time, money and effort


----------



## Paddydou (1 September 2010)

Sorry Carreg - I have to disagree.

Blair will never be "clean".

He only did it to gain votes. He had no intention of a ban, he jumped on a badly made band wagon to get what he wanted then found that actually what he wanted was not quite what he thought it would be! So now we are stuck with very poor "laws" that can't be enforced, are an infringement on liberty and make no sense to anyone involved. 

Typical of Labour in government, waste as much time and money as possible then be grumpy when you pass it back.


----------



## Judgemental (1 September 2010)

I am absolutely astonished not only by Mr Blair's revelations but by the fact the LACS is having to sell property in the West Country.

Did the LACS contribute to Labour Party funds? 

IF THEY DID, WERE THEY IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO REASONABLY GIVE MONEY TO THE LABOUR PARTY UNDER REASONABLE TRADING PROTOCOLS?

Perhaps they can enter this forum and state their case?  

Coupled to the fact the LACS have two limited companies both of which have Debentures Registered.

League Against Cruel Sports (UK) Ltd Company number: 02880406

A Debenture was registered against the company on 5 January 2009

The League Against Cruel Sports Company number: 04037610

A Debenture was registered against the company on 21 July 2009.

*The definition of a DEBENTURE: AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEBTNESS OR A BOND OF A COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGING A DEBT  AND PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT FIXED TERM INTERVALS*


----------



## Alec Swan (1 September 2010)

J-M,

these interesting thoughts are now being split into 3 separate threads.  I'm at some risk of loosing hounds!

Alec.

ETS,  "IF" the LACS did in fact offer funds to the Labour party, and Blair knowingly (thanks for that CARREG) sabotaged the process, then perhaps they (the LACS) should ask for their money back.  Hunting comes in many forms,  doesn't it?  What fun! At least the peerage debacle gave value for money - to some. a.


----------



## URBAce (1 September 2010)

What a weasle. This guy invoked the Parliament Act, remember.

He's using his book to ingratiate himself with the public at large and try to make them forget what a complete ************** he is.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 September 2010)

URBAce,

but could Blair have managed it unaided?  The thing that I find myself totally at odds with,  is that Blair was appointed as the Middle East Peace Envoy.  Am I the only one who sees this as a monstrous insult to those who we have damaged,  and possibly irrevocably? It's beyond being funny.

Alec.


----------



## spaniel (1 September 2010)

I actually find it hard to put into words how offensive I find him,  and thats not like me!


----------



## Countryside (1 September 2010)

The Countryside Alliance blog on this subject can be read here: 

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/blog/blair-and-hunting-the-truth/

I will try to copy and paste the content...

Tony Blair&#8217;s reputation for not being wholly wedded to the truth has been supported by more important evidence than his behaviour over the Hunting Act, but that issue and his re-writing of history in his memoir &#8216;A Journey&#8217; typifies his delusion. In it he says that the hunting ban is &#8220;one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret&#8221;, but claims he ensured that the Hunting Act was &#8220;a masterly British compromise&#8221; that left enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue &#8220;provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed.&#8221;

To anyone with the most limited understanding of the Parliamentary process that put the Act on the Statute Book this is complete and utter nonsense. Blair&#8217;s Government, after a Government Inquiry and years of public and political debate published a Hunting Bill in December 2002. That Bill did not seek to ban hunting. It would have allowed fox hunting and other activities to continue if they could persuade a tribunal they could meet twin tests based on &#8216;utility&#8217; and &#8216;cruelty&#8217;. The Bill would, however, have banned stag hunting and coursing outright. In defiance of all logic, but to no one&#8217;s surprise, Labour MPs in the House of Commons rejected the Government&#8217;s proposals for licensing and, led by Gerald Kaufman and the late Tony Banks, turned the bill into a complete ban on all hunting.

The House of Lords, however, was ready to compromise and instead of rejecting the ban entirely it turned the Bill back into its original &#8216;licensing&#8217; form. Although, after Defra Minister Alun Michael&#8217;s claim that there was incontrovertible evidence that staghunting was cruel was condemned as &#8216;scientifically illiterate&#8217; by the scientist who carried out the definitive study of staghunting, the Lords did amend the original licensing Bill to allow the tribunal to consider applications for a licence from all types of hunts. It also introduced a conservation element into the tests so that hunts could support license applications on the grounds of environmental benefits.



With only 20% of even Labour peers supporting it there was quite obviously no way that the House of Lords was ever going to support a total ban on hunting.  Without the support of peers a ban could only be passed using the mighty constitutional hammer of the Parliament Acts (the very rarely used route by which Bills can become law without the assent of the House of Lords) which put Blair in a remarkably strong position to push through a classic New Labour &#8216;middle way&#8217; resolution.

But by the summer of 2004 things were not going well for Blair in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Iraq, Foundation Hospitals and any number of other unpopular policies were causing dissent in the ranks and at every PLP meeting one issue was at the top of backbenchers&#8217; agenda: they wanted the Hunting Act back in its banning form in a timescale that would engage the Parliament Act. Gerald Kaufman even wrote a comment piece in the Guardian stating that he would vote against the Government on Foundation Hospitals for the first time in his long, long parliamentary career if it did not give him a hunting ban. By July Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Leader of the House Peter Hain, never shy of trying to endear himself to his colleagues, went to Blair and told him that they could not hold the PLP unless he gave them their hunting ban, and he agreed in the full knowledge of exactly what he was doing.

For the first and only time in 13 years of Labour Government Parliament was recalled in September. The Hunting Bill was brought back as a total ban and on September 15th 2004 it passed all stages in the Commons in one day despite massive demonstrations. Blair emerged from Downing Street to vote against the ban, but this act, like the denials in his book, was completely duplicitous. By bringing back the Bill and engaging the Parliament Act he had sabotaged a carefully crafted position which should have allowed the Government and parliament to agree a workable licensing regime.



The law that was passed does not allow hunting to continue &#8220;provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox is killed&#8221;. It bans nearly all hunting of nearly all species. This was not &#8220;a masterly British compromise&#8221;, it was a craven retreat from evidence and logic for short term political ends. If there is any compromise it is in the enforcement of the law, and Blair can claim no credit for passing an Act which is both so illogical and so reviled by every single person that it is meant to affect that the police take the view that they have better things to do than try and make it work.

Tony Blair&#8217;s re-writing of history is not going to fool anyone. He, and he alone, was responsible for the rejection of the &#8216;middle way&#8217; proposals for licensed hunting and the passing of a complete ban on all hunting. A compromise was on the table, but by bringing back the Hunting Bill as a complete ban in a timetable that allowed the Parliament Acts to be used he created one of the most illiberal, ineffective and wasteful laws of modern times. The fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong makes his actions more reprehensible, not less.


----------



## Simsar (1 September 2010)

LOL! So when Simon and I in Brighton outside the conference all them years ago started the whole pro hunt demo of by shouting TONY BLAIRS A ******, we were kinda right then!  That was before I was handcuffed to scaffolding by the nice policeman!!!!


----------



## Paddydou (2 September 2010)

Simsar said:



			LOL! So when Simon and I in Brighton outside the conference all them years ago started the whole pro hunt demo of by shouting TONY BLAIRS A ******, we were kinda right then!  That was before I was handcuffed to scaffolding by the nice policeman!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Some girls have all the fun...


----------



## Simsar (2 September 2010)

Oh it was great!  Trying to rip the arse of an anti but got handcuffed!  I wish I knew someone in the press the photo's would have been amazing but never published.  The same in Parliament square but I made front page then.


----------



## Orangehorse (2 September 2010)

It is nice to have the facts recalled by the Countryside Alliance.  This should be printed out and attached to every copy of the book!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (2 September 2010)

is anyone gonna buy his wretched book?


----------



## JanetGeorge (2 September 2010)

rosiefronfelen said:



			is anyone gonna buy his wretched book?
		
Click to expand...

It was released yesterday, became Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever, and shot to the top of Amazon.co.uk's best-seller list. It's already the 12th best-seller inthe USA and 9thon the Canadian list!

So yes, the wretched book will make millions for Tony Blair and his publishers, despite the lies (or even because of them!)


----------



## rosie fronfelen (2 September 2010)

JanetGeorge said:



			It was released yesterday, became Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever, and shot to the top of Amazon.co.uk's best-seller list. It's already the 12th best-seller inthe USA and 9thon the Canadian list!

So yes, the wretched book will make millions for Tony Blair and his publishers, despite the lies (or even because of them!)

Click to expand...

so they are lovers of fairy stories!


----------



## Sanolly (2 September 2010)

Simsar - That sounds really kinky - I just got nicked! LOL

On a slightly different note of the same topic on the radio it said that TB (!!) admitted to "crying in private about the deaths of British soldiers"... Well I should hope so too, what are we supposed to feel sorry for you?! If you hadn't crawled so far up GB's arse and invaded Iraq in the first place those soldiers wouldn't be dead! Sorry mini rant!


----------



## Paddydou (3 September 2010)

JanetGeorge said:



			It was released yesterday, became Waterstone's fastest-selling autobiography ever, and shot to the top of Amazon.co.uk's best-seller list. It's already the 12th best-seller inthe USA and 9thon the Canadian list!

So yes, the wretched book will make millions for Tony Blair and his publishers, despite the lies (or even because of them!)

Click to expand...

There really are no words to discribe how much I dispise that man. Just the thought of him leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. 

Why oh why are people buying it?? It seems so pointless! We all know he lied he has admitted to being shaddy in his dealings and we are effectivly paying him for it when we should be banging him up!

Gah. Too much typing already wasted on a sniveling slimey disgusting excuse for a human being...


----------



## rosie fronfelen (3 September 2010)

the Americans thrive on this British drivel-


----------



## Alec Swan (5 September 2010)

rosiefronfelen said:



			the Americans thrive on this British drivel-
		
Click to expand...

I take it from that,  that you are referring to the book,  and not our collective prose?!

I'm not too sure about this thread title,  either.  CLEAN?  you're kidding me,  the man wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I have a deep and well founded distrust of all politicians,  which explains why I don't vote.  Voting only serves to encourage them.  

The idea of it should be that politicians serve us,  and not the other way around.

Alec.


----------



## Simsar (5 September 2010)

Alec Swan said:



			I take it from that,  that you are referring to the book,  and not our collective prose?!

I'm not too sure about this thread title,  either.  CLEAN?  you're kidding me,  the man wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I have a deep and well founded distrust of all politicians,  which explains why I don't vote.  Voting only serves to encourage them.  

The idea of it should be that politicians serve us,  and not the other way around.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely! 100% agree.


----------



## Judgemental (5 September 2010)

Simsar said:



			Absolutely! 100% agree.
		
Click to expand...

What do Tony Blair and Adolf Hitler have in common?

Answer: They both conducted illegal invasions of another country's sovereign territory and they both banned hunting.

The lady who tried to make a Citizen's Arrest in Dublin yesterday for Blair's crimes against humanity, was outstanding.

Tony Blair and his government committed a crime against the country folk of this nation.

In his so called book he has admitted that he and his government knew *.... all *about hunting. 

That in my opinion is a crime, because there has been an abuse of process by the State against a section of rural society  - what are we all going to do about this situation?

Don't think his other half is too happy about her friend formerly Mrs Prescott now being called Lady Prescott and she is still plain Mrs!


----------



## Simsar (5 September 2010)

Jm what would you like us to do.


----------



## irish_only (5 September 2010)

That man wouldn't come clean if you put him through an industrial washing machine several times over. Despicable, self centred, aaagghh just can't continue...........


----------



## Holly831 (5 September 2010)

_''Blair said he initially agreed to a ban without properly understanding the issue''_


I think the same can be said about virtually every decision him and his lot made.

I wasn't pro or anti hunting but while all this was going on I (gasp) spoke to people that hunted and then....actually went on a hunt...I am now staunchly PRO hunting and proud


----------



## Judgemental (5 September 2010)

Simsar said:



			Jm what would you like us to do.
		
Click to expand...

This is a very rare situation, indeed in my opinion wholly unique.

The former Prime Minister who presided over the government that enacted the Hunting Act 2004 has said, "it was a mistake and he knew nothing about hunting and the effect upon those effected".

What we can do? Within the law of course - *it seems to me some serious e-mailing of MPs' is required.* It's not hard to get your MP's e-mail address normally something along the lines of .mp@parliament.uk i.e first name with. and then surname. Some don't put MP in but all of them have Websites. Make sure you cc to their constiuency e-mail address as well.

Make sure you click the Read Receipt box too.

All that has to be done is that you point out to your MP that the former Prime Minister has admitted the Hunting Act 2004 is illegal.

No hunting person has to go any further than their desk and computer.

What should happen fundamentally is, when such a situation arises, the Government Law Officers have to advise the Minister, who should say, "things cannot continue as they are" and use his powers under the Statutory Instrument embodied in the act.   

Of course in my opinion, it seems Blair is eager to be enobled and is doing everything to issue 'comfortable words' to the powers that be, but somehow I don't think we will ever see Tony Blair in the house of Lords.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (5 September 2010)

Alec Swan said:



			I take it from that,  that you are referring to the book,  and not our collective prose?!

I'm not too sure about this thread title,  either.  CLEAN?  you're kidding me,  the man wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I have a deep and well founded distrust of all politicians,  which explains why I don't vote.  Voting only serves to encourage them.  

The idea of it should be that politicians serve us,  and not the other way around.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

was it necessary to ask that Alec, of course i was referring to this wretched book. i have nothing against Americans or Canadians, just repling to a comment made by Mrs Janet George.


----------



## MissySmythe (5 September 2010)

irish_only said:



			That man wouldn't come clean if you put him through an industrial washing machine several times over. Despicable, self centred, aaagghh just can't continue...........
		
Click to expand...

Hahaha! My thoughts EXACTLY!


----------



## Judgemental (5 September 2010)

This is a deadly serious situation.

I believe Tony Blair has, either wittingly or unwittingly, bearing in mind both he and his wife are barristers, created what I believe is referred to in Parliamentary and Legal parliance as an UNTENABLE SITUATION.

Where an Untenable situation is discouvered  by the government of the day the Minister is legally empowered to make necessay changes.

Here I refer to the act: Section 14: 

Subordinate legislation. An order of the Secretary of State under this Act

(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,.
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,.
(c)may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for specified purposes,.
*(d)may make different provision for different circumstances* or purposes, and.
*(e)may make transitional, consequential and incidental provision.*.

You don't have to be a lawyer, MP or minister of the crown to work this out, it's so simple.


----------



## Simsar (5 September 2010)

Found mine! For Dorking Surrey.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/paul_beresford/mole_valley


----------



## Alec Swan (5 September 2010)

Rosie,  

my question was intended to be tongue-in-cheek!  I can't do smilies,  and hoped that the !,  would do!!!!!  I read somewhere that Blair was to donate the proceeds from his book to injured service men.  

No Magistrate in this country would allow a criminal to make retrospective recompense,  so how come Blair seems to be getting away with it?  

Many years ago I spent some time,  within a tented existence,  and with the Bedouin.  From their perspective,  I'm now ashamed to be British.  

For those who may wish to consider the Arab,  read the works of William Baggot Glubb.  I'm not sure of my spelling,  but he used the pseudonym Glubb Pasha.  He was a British envoy,  sent out,  from memory,  between the two great wars,  with the directive to report back.  He wrote,  I think,  two books, "War in the desert" and "Living with Arabs".  Read his works,  and then tell me that "our" interference in the Middle East,  had any legal or moral argument.  

That Blair ignored those,  who would have been far better advised than I,  who counselled against his pointless agenda,  both in the Middle east,  and also our current debate,  fills me with anger.

Right,  rant over!  I'm now going to discuss things with Judgemental,  things that we may,  between us all,  be able to influence!!

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 September 2010)

J-M,

If the hunting fraternity are to take this on,  then perhaps a few points should be considered.  Before I become involved in a fight,  then I consider my opponent,  and that's his strengths as well as his weaknesses.

The weaknesses can be very well summed up,  in their dubious links to the Labour party.  Though in the event that the Coalition falls apart,  then perhaps sooner rather than later,  would be a good idea.

Their strengths?  A numerically small group of people have swayed the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers.  They have also been persuaded of this fact because hunting is so often represented by those who,  and I can do no better than quote the perceptive and witty quote from another post,  insist on correcting others with lines,  such as "They're not DAWGS,  they're HINDS"!!  That's funny and damaging,  in equal measure.

I really hate to tell you this,  but from the perspective of the voting public,  the articulated,  well presented and educated approach,  does nothing but reinforce the argument given by the "antis".  The argument being that those who hunt,  course,  or take part in any field sports which involve "dawgs",  and in what ever form,  are elitist,  wealthy,  out of touch with the real world.  We all know this not to be so.

I would suggest to you that the weaknesses of those who hunt,  become the relied upon strengths of those who don't.  Relying upon the LACS running out of money,  wont be enough,  and neither will the repeal of an Act,  which was so flawed as to be wrong.  We really must get our house in order,  if we are to see any level of reinstatement.  It would be my intention that my thoughts would be viewed as constructive criticism!  

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (5 September 2010)

Alec Swan said:



			J-M,
  A numerically small group of people have swayed the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec you are missing a phrase and a sentence, as follows:

"A numerically small group of people have swayed a small proportion of the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."

Please give perfectly intelligent people who simply believe that hunting is wrong some credit for having minds of their own!

And anyone who is fooled by Blair is pretty dumb! All his political career Blair has said what he needs to say to get what he wants. If you read reports of the Northern Ireland peace process, both sides would walk out of meetings saying that he agreed with them. He didn't, he just said  what they wanted to hear. In that case it produced a great result, but that just goes to show how clever he is. At the time of the hunt ban, he wanted votes and got them. Now, he wants to party with the rich and famous and powerful and the rich and famous and powerful are largely into blood sports. Changed his mind? How would we know? Knowbody knows what is really in that man's mind!


----------



## Alec Swan (5 September 2010)

cptrayes said:



			Alec you are missing a phrase and a sentence, as follows:

"A numerically small group of people have swayed /?/a small proportion of/?/ the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."

Please give perfectly intelligent people who simply believe that hunting is wrong some credit for having minds of their own!
		
Click to expand...

cptrayes,  

I fail to see how I've missed either phrase,  or sentence.  Quote me,  by all means,  but perhaps you'd be kind enough to add your thoughts,  but afterwards.  You have quite blatantly miss quoted me,  and you've also added your own thoughts to mine,  but still within your 




			!!  Manipulating my argument,  towards your own ends,  isn't on.

Perhaps you could explain your additions,  which seem to be at odds,  with each other.  You have added "a small proportion",  and then included,  within your "Quote",  "A very substantial proportion of the British Public".  Which is it to be?  I suspect the larger of the two,  is what you'd prefer.  The very substantial proportion of the British public,  have been mislead.  I'm sorry,  but it's that simple.

Whilst I'm not altogether sure what "perfect intelligence" is,  I will readily accept that you have given a degree of thought to this debate.

You and I will agree on two points,  possibly.  Blair was the worst peace time leader,  which we've had,  in living memory,  and though this may surprise you,  not only do I not hunt,  but I'd find some common ground with Wilde.  That really isn't the point.  What is the point,  is that hunting is an important part of a rural environment.  Fail to grasp that,  and there will be little progress.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## cptrayes (5 September 2010)

I love it when pro hunting people call "making you accept my point of view"   "progress". I wish I had a pound for every post on the rights and wrongs of hunting on this forum contained a similar insistence that the only right argument is pro hunting. There are two sides and the people on each side and in the middle have a perfect right to hold the views that they do. 

I don't share your point of view about hunting Alex. I am fully up to date with the arguments on both sides as users of this forum will know from previous discussions. I am a country dweller and land owner and I drag hunt and in the past I have both fox hunted and cub hunted, now laughably rebranded as "early season hunting" to avoid upsetting people by calling it by its correct and accurate name. 

I do not accept that hunting fox or deer with hounds is essential to the rural envoronment. The very rural environment in which I live manages extremely well without it. I accept that it is important to many people and I feel sorry for them that they have been deprived of something that they love doing. 

There is no conflict at all in what I wrote earlier though I apologise for missing out the words "I think". I should have posted "I think that you have missed a phrase and a sentence" rather than made a statement. Sorry. 
But it is true that:

A numerically small group of people have swayed a small proportion of the British Public into believing that those who hunt are murderers. 

In addition to that small proportion: 

A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."

These two statements are both correct and not in conflict. Your quibble over the  use of the words "perfectly intelligent" is pure pedantry and do no justice to your own intelligence or this debate.


----------



## EAST KENT (5 September 2010)

A very substantial proportion of the British Public believe that in this day and age the use of animals to chase and control a pest species is not justifiable."



  Oh really? Well tell that to my working lakies who could easily cure the London boroughs of their Basil Brushes  at a swoop,and be in Heaven doing it.I am beyond caring what the great British Public think anymore,any means to get us HUNTERS back doing our stuff is fine by me. And if you think I could rouse myself enough to chase a bloomin` duster..not b.......y likely! There are probably a lot of riders on this forum who have never even been on a real hunt,watching hound work,admiring the skill of the wily fox..I feel great pity for you,you can have absolutely NO conception what we have lost . If that Weazel ever crossed in front of me..well,see you in clink,but it`d be well worth it.


----------



## Judgemental (5 September 2010)

The message I am getting from *.liar* is that his other half is giving him grief at home, because it looks very unlikely that he will ever be given a peerage or title.  

Therefore he is going to say and do anything that will appease those he treated so badly.

"Always be nice to people on the way up you never know who you might meet on the way down".

Alec you have some interesting points. My view is that we are now beyond the point of no return, where it is clear civil damage was done to a section of society and business.

Civil damage in that the government of the day and *.liar* in effect issued a defamation against hunting people and damaged their business interests, their social status and encouraged abuse against hunting people.

Frankly in exactly the same ways as Hitler did with the Jews. *.liars* government was exactly the same as that of Nazi Germany. Banning hunting, invading a soverign state and degenerating a section of the population.

Collective civil action could be an option, why not?


----------



## Crazy Friesian (6 September 2010)

rosiefronfelen said:



			the Americans thrive on this British drivel-
		
Click to expand...

And pay him a FORTUNE as a consultant...


----------



## Paddydou (6 September 2010)

Crazyfriesian said:



			And pay him a FORTUNE as a consultant... 

Click to expand...

The only difference between stupidity and genius is that stupidity has no bounds...


----------



## JenHunt (6 September 2010)

clean? Clean?! CLEAN??!!

the little bleeeep doesn't know the meaning of the word. 

as someone already pointed out... the man has more in common with one A. Hitler than the previous Labour Prime Minister!

also - there's lies, damnded lies, and Politics!


----------



## Judgemental (6 September 2010)

Serious question, search your souls, sensible answers with hand on heart.

When the ban came into force and since, how many of you have felt you have been:

a) Humiliated
b) Degraded
c) Feel a greater or lesser degree of anxiety that there might be an 'accident' - you all know what that means.
d) As a direct result of the ban have you lost money, lost a job and have you or those you know suffered a loss in terms horses or hounds, particularly the latter because they are now unable to do that for which they are bred.


----------



## Kat (6 September 2010)

Apparently there is a campaign asking customers in book shops to move Blair's book from the "autobiography" section to the "true crime" section. It has been fairly successful so far but some shoppers have been even more imaginative with copies being found in the "dark fantasy" section!


----------



## rosie fronfelen (6 September 2010)

this rubbish is already down to half price.


----------



## EAST KENT (6 September 2010)

AHA!! He did`nt care for the eggs .and has now cancelled a book signing,in London I  think,   shame ,I might have gone along..what with the cubbing season upon us and all. Says he does`nt want to take up too many "resources"..i.e his protection squad.

  Ah well ,patience is a virtue folks!


----------



## EAST KENT (6 September 2010)

Judgemental said:



			Serious question, search your souls, sensible answers with hand on heart.

When the ban came into force and since, how many of you have felt you have been:

a) Humiliated
b) Degraded
c) Feel a greater or lesser degree of anxiety that there might be an 'accident' - you all know what that means.
d) As a direct result of the ban have you lost money, lost a job and have you or those you know suffered a loss in terms horses or hounds, particularly the latter because they are now unable to do that for which they are bred.
		
Click to expand...

Non of those..more like bloody angry actually.


----------

