Protect from whom? David Cameron? Randy Mandy? Someone who might want to punch him on the nose? Form an orderly queue, behind me.
He's destroyed our country in terms of freedom, right and truth, no doubt about that. Done more lasting damage to Britain than Hitler ever did. But that's all behind him. Surely nobody would want to do him serious harm now, apart from to see him behind bars for the crimes he committed against humanity, knowing them to be illegal under international and common law?
The biggest punishment he can have now is surely to have to live with himself.
There are much bigger and better targets, such as beardy terrormongers. They don't normally get protection. Why shouldn't they? They are targets, made so because they've misbehaved, and made themselves unpopular. So has Blair.
I don't think he's a terrorist target, any more than I am. So why guard his house with four cops? If someone wanted to hurt him they'd go for a family member. I presume Banker Blair, his son, isn't protected 24/7? Nor wossname, the one fed with a catapult when she was a kid?
So, in my humble opinion, we shouldn't be funding protection for him.
But when he's abroad, that's different. When he's doing "charity" work (and I'd surely like to see an audit trail of where this "charity" money goes), which he chooses to do. Then we should definitely not pay for protection. His choice. He pays. No arguments. When he's doing speeches, for which he is paid (and handsomely too, though God knows why anyoene would want to hear what he's got to say). He chooses to do these speeches. We should definitely not be paying.
Please argue. I like a laugh.
Oh, all right. I suppose, if the funding is cancelled and he chooses not to pay for it himself, and is unprotected, and somebody sees fit to shoot him, then we'll all be sorry. Won't we?
1 comment:
It's a shame no one had the balls in the run up to the Iraq War to protect the World from him...
Post a Comment