Is this why Blair wasn't interviewed under caution...?

The link to the Telegraph article needs to be corrected.

Dick,

I've fixed the link. Cheers for pointing it out.

Didums, that would have been a real shame. Good job I wasn't the plod or that comment would have been a deciding factor to make sure he DID get a caution !

"Make no mistake, Scotland Yard was informed that Mr Blair would resign as Prime Minister if he was interviewed under caution," said a source. "They were placed in a very difficult position indeed."

Not that Blair actually would resign, of course. The 'threat' and the problems that presented to the police were enough to get the desired result. Blair increasingly resembles Archer - everyone knows he's a liar, but they lack the courage to say so.

The Jeffrey Archer parallel is exactly right. Except he's not Deputy Chairman of his party responsible for doing the rubber chicken fund raising speaking circuit in North East Scotland, he's the fucking Prime Minister.

I can't believe he would resign, then he would be without the protection of his position, just one of the slobs.
In my view, he could only resign over one of his 'moral' issues, which range from killing foreigners to killing foreigners.

I wonder if the boy weirdo milliband is thanking the prime minister for his glowing, off the record goading in the observer yesterday. 
Not that it will work, Milliband's too canny, but it does serve the ongoing project of sowing doubt and majorising the iron chancellor before the prime minister leaves to line his pockets, er save the planet

World War III begins April 6th, perhaps Blair is just going to hang on to see that it gets off to a good start before throwing the towel in, thus ensuring Brown is locked in on US foreign policy. He may even throw a few British cruise missiles in for 'kidnapping' our glorious fighters of freedom and democracy.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml

I agree that it seems extremely likely that Bush/Israel/Blair will attack Iran in April, but I'd really doubt the 6th. Blair isn't religious nor surrounded by religious people but Bush is, and to mount a full scale attack, possibly nuclear, on the holiest day in the Christian calendar when Christ was offered up for sacrifice, makes me think it would upset just too many punters - both supporters of the war and even more opposers.

"and to mount a full scale attack, possibly nuclear, on the holiest day in the Christian calendar"

Why not? They revel in that kind of thing. Saddam Hussien's was hung on Eid. It's like the second head shot in a two shot "suicide" or the destruction of WTC7. Explicit signals to the knowing: We Do What We Want. Bush's christian "base" are so Fundamentally dumb they probably believe Arabs rather than Jews killed their Caucasian Saviour by now and will see it as righteous pay back.

Blair knows he only has to cling on till the Iran war for the "political landscape to change" enough for him to "serve"
the full term. And then suspend the elections if enough bombs go off on Oxford Street.

Did Blair threaten to go if one of his acolyt-- sorry, advisers was charged? That said, the Feds could just charge Blair the moment he annouces he's stepping down.

He's above the law just like George. Holy pissflaps.

Bliar said he would resign? And who the f*** believes him at all?

It could only be Mr Plod lead by a police commissioner (the other Bliar who also condones killing innocent people) hoping against hope that he will get his just rewards for licking Tone's arse.

That's what you would think, but who knows how this bunch of "Christians" think?

"What would Jesus deploy - a fuel-air bomb or a tactical nuke?"

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, shoot him dead and then kill his family, his friends, and everyone else within a few hundred miles".

Have they ever heard of the New Testament?

Said johnf:

"I agree that it seems extremely likely that Bush/Israel/Blair will attack Iran in April, but I'd really doubt the 6th. Blair isn't religious nor surrounded by religious people but Bush is, and to mount a full scale attack, possibly nuclear, on the holiest day in the Christian calendar when Christ was offered up for sacrifice, makes me think it would upset just too many punters - both supporters of the war and even more opposers."

Blair isn't religious? Ha! Tony "Only God is entitled to judge me'" Blair is just as much of a frothing, fundamentalist psycho as Bush, he just happens to have enough low cunning to keep it hidden.

As regards timing? The Casus Belli is being created as we speak - fifteen sacrificial lambs to get Iran to react exactly how the neocons want them to, and Blair talking about how this crisis is entering a new phase. To top it off, American forces in the Persian Gulf 'coincidentally' start wargames to ratchet up the provocation at a time when tension needs to be dialled down. The 'right' people will make the 'wrong' decisions and provoke an incident, and Blair and Bush will have their war.

I hope I'm wrong. But we've seen this shell game played out before.