If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cherie and the fraudster
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, what's your take on this?
Is it any of our business, does it reflect on the Govt and should we be "concerned" in any way?
Is it any of our business, does it reflect on the Govt and should we be "concerned" in any way?
0
Comments
Cherie should not be an issue...Unfortunately she makes herself one by involving herself in politics. Its as though she wants the best of both worlds, she wants to be a player in the political world but she doesnt want to act like it in her personal life.
I still hate the woman....
I think the dail Mail are trying their best to creat yet another story that isn't there.
Or that, as a part-time Judge, she shouldn't be above reproach?
Or that she should use her position as the PMs wife to get "involved" in an extradition case?
Personally I think she has alot to answer for, her actions contradict many of those which her husband preaches. MMR eing an prior example, her children's education being another.
Like it or not she is involved in politics, sometimes vocally - remember her opinions on the Israel/Palestine issue.
When, through her actions, the public is given reason to question the validity of everything that Number 10 says, I'd say that we should be very concerned about what has come to light in the past few weeks...
A different matter is getting involved personally to influence the outcome of an extradition process because of who she is. If true, those allegations would constitute a grave issue. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. Downing Street doesn't do itself any favours by continuing to lie about things (god do they ever learn!) and they are starting to lose the benefit of the doubt.
It is also true that the original charge of using that man as a go-between in the purchase of property is nothing more serious than lack of judgment, and frankly a bit of a non-story. The issue has been blown out of all proportions by the Daily Blackmail, arguably the most fundamentalist anti-labour vitriolic rag ever seen. It makes the pre-Rosie Boycott Daily Express look like the Morning Star.
byny, you dont really need me to answer that question do you?
Its also not just the mail.
It's blatantly obvious that there is so much spin involved in this Government, and especially what comes out of Number 10. It's bound to trip them up every so often.
Question is, what else aren't they telling us ??
So, what's your take on this?
Is it any of our business, does it reflect on the Govt and should we be "concerned" in any way?
0
are you reffering to the socialist she is married to ?
Now that's funny
Tuesday night, Cherie holds a press conference in which she claims that the reason that she had lied via Number 10, wasn't because she had done anything incorrect, but to protect her children.
Wednesday, Number 10 releases this year's Xmas card which features the entire Blair Family in "happy family" pose.
Spot the difference?
I do understand that a prime minister can't have his children going down the "local" in weekends from the age of 11, and smoking weed at every opportunity.
But why "use" them to promote his own cause?
I mean, what have his children got to do with any of his politics? It's not like they sit with him at home saying "daddy, make this and this suggestion next time at the parliament", so why drag them into stuff like christmas cards, and press-material when they are just as important for the country, as every other kid?
Sorry. It's just a thing which I never got when speaking about Blairs family.
Families of politcians, are quite anonymious here.
If she wants to maintain her family's prvacy then she shouldn't use them in publicity like this.
That said the whole episode wasn't about her family it was about her actions. Its just typical of our current Govt to try and spin this into something it isn't.
She did something.
The press found out and asked questions.
She lied.
Now it may just be that I'm a cynic but why lie? If you have nothing to hide, why lie? If it was just a case of them using an intermediary to buy a house, thus avoid the extra cost associated because it was The Blairs, then fine. But it wasn't. They used someone facing deportation from this country, and then she (trained lawyer, part-time judge) made phone calls about the deportation. Which is smelly in the least.
But it isn't just about her either, because she is married to the PM and you cannot tell me that he had no idea what was going on...hence he is complicit in the whole event. Especially as his office was the one passing out the lies, and his PR man (a man with a suspect history) is the one fielding all the questions...
And so what if she dealt with a fraudster.She didn't commit a crime, so what is the problem?
Too many unanswered question I would say, but do the people really deep down give a shit?
I think Not. (She's cried and said sorry, can't reporters leave it at that?)
Here what Mr Blair had to say about it today
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=36433
No, I don't think people give much of a shit. In a year's time people will look back (if they can remember this affair at all) and think this was the biggest non-story in the history of mankind.
As for your second question, no the Daily Mail will not let it go. Their hatred of Labour and anything that doesn't fall within their conservative, christian model is legendary. And this time they have broken their own record. The only positive outcome out of this is that general opinion (as well as the media's) of Associated Newspapers Ltd it's at its lowest ever. From congratulating the Mail on Sunday for breaking the news 12 days ago the general mood has changed in view of the extremely hostile and disproportionate treatment the Mail has given to the Blairs. The paper has gone into a lunatic, obsessive craze not only by over-reporting the story to ludicrous levels but by savaging every other newspaper and the BBC for daring to report Downing Street subsequent replies, and for not repeating all the allegations the Mail gave as 100% true.
As it happens, much of the original story published by the Mail on Sunday was utter bollocks. They claimed Foster had been a guest of the Blairs at Checkers- bullshit-, and that Labour's spin doctors had been asked to improve the public image of Foster- more bullshit.
On top of this there has been a most disgusting character assassination of Cherie Blair. The Mail rejoiced in reminding readers what a weirdo Cherie is and about her style gurus, love of New Age philosophy, constant consultations with a Medium, healing earrings and other oddities.
This comes from the paper that firmly believes there is a hidden code in the Bible that predicted September 11th, that the pyramids were built by little green men and that crop circles are also made by naughty Martians.
I'm kind of repeating a piece published in Private Eye about the whole affair. It makes good reading (although it puts you off from buying newspapers again, ever).
And again, I ask a simple question, if everything is above board, why lie at all?
Has it been proved she lied?
"I have had no contact with..."
"No faxes were recieved..."
The interesting thing is just as much what wasn't said as what was..."No telephone calls were made through the switchboard.." - in other words phone calls were made but we aren't being given anymore information. Why not? What were the calls that were made?
Why did Cherie find out who the Judge was, what relevance was this to her...?
I'm not saying that there is a story, just that there are so many questions which should be answered. By being evasive, putting out half truths and straight lies, Number 10 gives the impression that they are hiding something.
Another standard Labour tactic is to throw a shit stick at the person making the accusations, hoping that it will detract from the questions being asked. In this case they are aguing for the privacy of the children. My question is, when has this been brought up? The only link with the children is that the flat was bought for their son, but the purchase of the flat isn't being questioned, it is what did Peter Foster get in return for purchasing the flat, what was his relationship with Cherie/Tony.
As I said earlier, one of the questions I have, is how involved was her husband, or doesn't he get involved in family matter. Added to that was the - if your privacy was so vital to you, why did you realeas a picture of your children the the day after you made your statement...
Like I said, so many questions, so few straight answers...
If they cannot be honest on something so alledgedly above board, how will they act if there is something the really don't want us to find out about...
I think she was very stupid by lying and using Downing Street's Press Office MoK. I don't think there is nothing illegal about it. However it gives the impression that the media and the public should be treated on a need-to-know basis. Also that that rather patronisingly they chose to tell lies so the whole thing would not be known by the public, who in the eyes of the government is not intelligent enough to realise there was nothing illegal or malicious done in the part of Cherie.
Or perhaps, knowing that certain sectors of the press will take a story and squeeze it for what is worth to produce the maximum amount of damage and embarrassment to the Blairs, Cherie tried to stop the whole thing coming into light.
In an ideal world she would have distanced herself from Peter Foster as soon as she found out about his past. But she didn't, she got involved in his case - I would be very surprised if the faxes which were sent to her private office weren't seen by her - regardless of any denials from her office.
The contempt that Labour has consistently shown for the media and the public meant that they felt we shouldn't know. Its as if we aren't worthy, that they are above telling us the basic truth.
I'm sure that if she had come clean from the start then things would be different, but now she has given the impression that things are still hidden - consequently the press pack isn't going to let go.
Of course, had she acted approriately from the start, no denials would have been necessary at all...
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/nmhp-home_news-51366-1?source=
Its interesting to note that the most vocal criticism is actually coming from The Mirror, traditionally a left-wing paper.
And the Blairs are open to ministerial scrutiny, they are married and therefore and joint and severally liable for actions. Cherie per se isnt subjecvt to ministerial standards, but her husband, and therefore the entire family, is.
A convenient story though.
As for the current climate against the Mail, have a look at one of my earlier posts on this thread and you will see the summary of charges. Basically the Mail on Sunday's original story had a fair number of porkies. Foster was not a guess of the Blairs at Checkers and Downing Street's spin doctors had not been asked to improve the public image of Foster, as the MoS had claimed.
The Mail then went into a rage against Fleet Street because they refused to accept its story as the whole truth (and who could blame them considering what a load of bollocks much of it was). It then raged some more when the BBC (oh, that terrible communist-ridden filthy corporation!) and the press dared to give coverage to Downing Street's subsequent press conferences. The Mail had decided on behalf of the nation that Downing Street never ever tells the truth, and that as such no statements from them should be repeated... and freedom of expression be damned.
On top of all of this the Mail papers then embarked into a 14-day (and counting) character assassination of Cherie Blair and the biggest, most overblown coverage given to a story since September 11th. They have made it a personal mission to inflict the maximum amount of damage possible, even when this non-story can be stretched only so far. The rest of the media is observing this long rant with great bemusement, as never before in the history of British journalism has a 'newspaper' been so pathetic about an issue. It makes the News of the World's coverage of paedophiles look like Pulitzer material in comparison.