Is Tony Blair right to give the proceeds of his Book sale to the RBL?

[Lamp]

well?

BBC News - Tony Blair donates book cash to injured soldier charity

 

[Aoami]

A little patronising perhaps, but a good gesture none the less.

 

[cHodAX]

He is doing the right thing, fair play to him because he didn't have to and £4.5 million plus royalties is a fuckload of cash to pass on, even for someone like him.

 

[Lamp]

yeah....agreed...but he's not going to miss the £5mill is he? He's not exactly on the bread line. The guy makes £100,000 every time he speaks at a public engagement

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Whatever way you want to paint it this quote from Tony Blair sums it up when referring to the soldiers:

"But whatever view people take of my decisions, I think that there is only one view to take of them: they are the bravest and the best."

Spin, not spin, I don't care. Some good will come of it. The only choice is to be grouchy or gracious about the donation.

 

[Aiteal]

About 4 months ago at belfast city airport I saw and spoke to a lad with no arms, legs or even a face that his mother would recognise as her son's.

Blair can give away all the money he's made and will ever make, it won't change the fact he sent that lad there to make sure that oil companies can continue to fuck the rest of us over.

 

[Cadelin]

Surely the more important question is; is Tony Blair right to make his donation public?

Giving money to charity is clearly a good thing. It doesn't necessarily make that person good but the deed certainly is.

By making is donation public more people are likely to buy his book and therefore increase the size of the donation. While he is certainly wealthy 5+ million is a very large donation. But by making it public it does appear as if he is trying to illicit sympathy.

My thoughts are that if it maximizes the size of the donation then its a good thing.

 

[Ch3tan]

I'm glad for the charity, but this is nothing but PR and a guilty conscience from Blair.

 

[cHodAX]

About 4 months ago at belfast city airport I saw and spoke to a lad with no arms, legs or even a face that his mother would recognise as her son's.

Blair can give away all the money he's made and will ever make, it won't change the fact he sent that lad there to make sure that oil companies can continue to fuck the rest of us over.

Any other prime minister would have done the same when it came to the invasion, don't kid yourself otherwise. Governments always protect the interests of big oil, Tories or Labour it makes no difference, we were always going to Iraq.

 

[R2D3]

It is good that the money is going to charity.

However he will be making money from it:

- wont hurt his profile, which will keep the public speaking money rolling in
- it will help the book sell so when it comes to his next book he will be in for a bigger payday on the back of huge sales of this one

and of course wont hurt in any hopes of becoming Lord Blair...

Must admit think he is a git, so I am speaking from a biased perspective.

 

[Lamp]

Agree with Cho's last comment. (OT: Why do you think Al Megrahi (sp.) was released? Oil. Terminal cancer my arse. He's living the life of Riley out there)

 

[cHodAX]

My thoughts are that if it maximizes the size of the donation then its a good thing.

Exactly, if the publicity doubles the value of the donation then even the miserable Tories voting against it on here will need to have a rethink.

 

[cHodAX]

Exactly. (OT: Why do you think Al Megrahi (sp.) was released? Oil. Terminal cancer my arse. He's living the life of Riley out there)

He does have terminal cancer, I know that for a fact, he is recieving the finest treatment money can buy at the expense of the Libyian taxpaper and that is why he is still hanging on. My aunt had brain tumors, they gave her 3 months and she lived 3 years because she was given cutting edge treatment at Christies Hospital in Manchester. A terminal prognosis does not come with an accurate 'best before' date.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The bloke gave away a fuckload of cash to a charity. Just be glad he did instead of looking for motives. He could've easily not done it.

 

[cHodAX]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The bloke gave away a fuckload of cash to a charity. Just be glad he did instead of looking for motives. He could've easily not done it.

Thank fuck someone is talking sense.

 

[Aiteal]

Any other prime minister would have done the same when it came to the invasion, don't kid yourself otherwise. Governments always protect the interests of big oil, Tories or Labour it makes no difference, we were always going to Iraq.

No
I don't agree, Blair diluted the power of cabinet and took the UK closer to a US presidential style of government, because it played to his narcissistic personality.
British PM's don't always have to follow the US line, Wilson at least had the balls to stand upto LBJ, Blair was simply flattered into supporting the US.
If someone like Cook had been PM, there would have been no British troops in Iraq.

 

[old.Tohtori]

His money right? Everyones choice.

Obvious pr trick to make it public, but it would go public no matter what.

So in essence, i guess i dun give a fook

 

[Ch3tan]

His money right? Everyones choice.

Obvious pr trick to make it public, but it would go public no matter what.

So in essence, i guess i dun give a fook

No it wouldn't, there are thousands and thousands of very rich people who donate to charity anonymously, because they aren't doing it for an personal gain other than maybe the feeling that they have done a good dead.

 

[Thorwyn]

...that they have done a good dead.

Freudian slip?

 

[old.Tohtori]

No it wouldn't, there are thousands and thousands of very rich people who donate to charity anonymously, because they aren't doing it for an personal gain other than maybe the feeling that they have done a good dead.

That's a fair point, but i do think it becomes less possible with high profile positions; such as high politicians etc.

 

[CorNokZ]

If someone like Cook had been PM, there would have been no British troops in Iraq.

Hahahaha This really made me laugh! If you really believe this you are beyond naive

 

[megadave]

he can give all the money he wants, wont change a thing

 

[CorNokZ]

he can give all the money he wants, wont change a thing

Say that to a soldier who needs rehabilitation

 

[Punishment]

Say that to a soldier who needs rehabilitation

 

[Bugz]

Of course he shouldn't give money to charity. What a fuckin ponce. We don't want your money!

 

[Ctuchik]

Say that to a soldier who needs rehabilitation

Isn't enlisting in the British army voluntary now?

I'm not saying i don't feel pity for the guys getting hurt over there, but if its voluntary then he didn't really have to do it.

 

[Bugz]

Isn't enlisting in the British army voluntary now?

I'm not saying i don't feel pity for the guys getting hurt over there, but if its voluntary then he didn't really have to do it.

What a stupid argument.

I'll let someone else do the pleasures

 

[soze]

Without suggesting he is on the same level when Angelina Jolie gave her wages from a film to charity someone sold the story to the press. Its not impossible to imagine the same would have happened here the whole guilty conscience angle is too good a story for the sun to pass up.

I suppose my point is just because he made it public that does not mean it was his choice. He may have been forced too or the Publishers decided him telling will shift loads more so got him to do it.

 

[Genedril]

No
I don't agree, Blair diluted the power of cabinet and took the UK closer to a US presidential style of government, because it played to his narcissistic personality.
British PM's don't always have to follow the US line, Wilson at least had the balls to stand upto LBJ, Blair was simply flattered into supporting the US.
If someone like Cook had been PM, there would have been no British troops in Iraq.

Replace Blair with Thatcher and it's exactly the same.

Without suggesting he is on the same level when Angelina Jolie gave her wages from a film to charity someone sold the story to the press. Its not impossible to imagine the same would have happened here the whole guilty conscience angle is too good a story for the sun to pass up.

I suppose my point is just because he made it public that does not mean it was his choice. He may have been forced too or the Publishers decided him telling will shift loads more so got him to do it.

Not defending him but it's entirely possible someone said 'what are you doing with all those royalties' and under pressure he said he'd give it away - he's not the first person to do something like that when put in the spolight.

Personally I think that whether you like him or not he is doing the right thing - the motives you may question but that's not the question.

 

[kamorrista]

Maybe there is also chance for him to do right things? never knew a perfect prime minister, but anyways, good action = go ahead