lol attack.

He was clearly going to take a swing of the adults didn't hold him back.

Journalists don't deserve a kicking for asking a question you jackboot licking thug.

I bet you're a member of EDL or Combat 18 or some similar racist thug group aren't you.

Phil seemingly has much less emotional control than JC.

Just swallowing the attack story whole, worse than any leave voter on Brexit.

Never forget this post.

OMFG.

That is not even close to what is happening in the video, you have totally lost your **** on this one.

Phils Labour rage.

Anyone can clearly see he was cocking his pimp hand back, ready to unleash some regulation on the press old school leftist fascist style.

Corbyn has a clear mandate to give some scumbag journos a good kicking.

I'm sure he's readying his soapbox for tomorrow...

Chilcot talking now. So damning of Blair. Surely even he cant spin this as anything else.

I'm almost hopeful we might see a trial.

i used to bulk up my english essays so that they'd overshoot the minimum word count by quite a bit, found that i got better marks that way. i reckon chilcot had a similar schooling experience

LOL


"Tony Blair has claimed the findings of the long-awaited Chilcot report "should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit" against him - and insisted the removal of Saddam Hussein was not to blame for terrorism."

Tony Blair claims findings show he did not lie over Iraq War

Complete and utter ****ing **nt.

Meanwhile:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-70-years.html

I didn't mean he wouldn't try but I doubt it's going to wash with anyone this time.

Chilcot didn't put it in obscure language like Butler did. Butler was just as damning but used too much civil service understatement so Blair could lie that one off.

Just as long as you remember David Kelly was strongly in favour of military action against Iraq.

Trial for what? The ICC has no jurisdiction in 'crimes of aggression'. It would have jurisdiction in any specific war crimes committed by British forces, but officers of government could only be indicted if the squaddies' actions -- for instance, if British troops carried out 'genocide', which I don't think they did -- were shown to have been ordered by government as a matter of policy.

In terms of British law, a case of 'misconduct in public office' would be problematic since the war was legally authorised by Parliament, and the House had every opportunity to hear from opposing voices up to and including former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, so it's not as if they didn't know what was going on.

He has long since stopped caring what anyone thinks of him or his policies - as long as he doesn't face legal action he'll keep happily on raking in the millions, because only God can judge the egomaniac.

Wow. I mean everybody knew it but still, wow.

Meanwhile:

"This message is hidden because 57 On Red is on your ignore list."

Illegal rendition or complicity in torture are the best bets.

The diminished reputation and loss of political authority and friends in high places make that at least a bit more likely.

lol

hahaha!

"I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-****s who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it …"

so has blair been charged yet