Could someone please explain this Cherie Blair thing?
Discussion
Why does everyone seem to condone her exploitativeness?
Please correct me if I have this wrong, but I gather that since she became Mrs PM, she has travelled the world making appearances (that is to say, shaking hands and showing her clownlike grimacing smile) and giving speeches to various assemblages, and that for these modest efforts she has received a huge sum of money. It seems that she keeps the money for personal use.
Presumably her keeping the money has been legal. What I cannot grasp is why people tolerate it.
Okay, she's lawyer, but so are hundreds of thousands of other people who are at least as interesting and insightful as she is (i.e., minimally so). She doesn't get the invites because of her job, not does she get them because of her slim professional accomplishments, which, again, have been equaled by many, many other people.
Obviously, she only gets the invites because of the guy that she married ages ago. That guy is, in theory, the servant of the British people and, in practice, is paid by them. His wife exploits her hubby's public position to enrich her personal life. That smells.
The British ruling classes are infinitely condescending about the crassness of American politics. Yet it must be said that no American President's wife would dare to act with such brazen and rapacious selfishness as the Great Grimacer has done. If she can raise great sums of money from commercialised face-time, that's fine - but the money must go to charity. It doesn't belong in investment properties for Euan and trust funds for Leo.
Am I missing something?
tinman0 said:
Presumably her keeping the money has been legal. What I cannot grasp is why people tolerate it.
its not tolerated. theres just nothing that can be done at the moment.
It's not tolerated?
The England football coach says (more) silly things and the media go wild. The leader of the irrelevant third party admits that he's a drinker and the media go crazy. David Beckham gets caught shagging some bimbo and there is a media frenzy. George The Jackal Galloway puts on a red leotard and the nation stops everything to discuss the grave implications and potential consequences.
The PM's wife swans around squeezing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds out of ingenuous organisations - including some charities - and nobody peeps. That sure seems like tolerance to me.
flemke said:
It's not tolerated?
The England football coach says (more) silly things and the media go wild. The leader of the irrelevant third party admits that he's a drinker and the media go crazy. David Beckham gets caught shagging some bimbo and there is a media frenzy. George The Jackal Galloway puts on a red leotard and the nation stops everything to discuss the grave implications and potential consequences.
The PM's wife swans around squeezing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds out of ingenuous organisations - including some charities - and nobody peeps. That sure seems like tolerance to me.
its not tolerated, but these things are recorded.
the british press only do things when there is blood in the water. these little misdermeaners are recorded, and people like Cherie Blair think they've got away with it, and will do it again. they are stupid creatures who get lulled into a false sense of security about their power and position. but the press only attack if the creature is bleeding. right now shes well protected, but say in 2-3 years come General Election time there may be more dirt and Tony Blair will be standing down so her protection won't be as good.
then the press will take her down.
cherie blair is a good example cause they've tried to rip her apart a couple of times before and failed. but because the press are mean barstewards you can be assured she is on their list of people to take down and when her time is ready she will be torn apart.
live by the press, die by the press.
tinman0 said:
It's not tolerated?
The England football coach says (more) silly things and the media go wild. The leader of the irrelevant third party admits that he's a drinker and the media go crazy. David Beckham gets caught shagging some bimbo and there is a media frenzy. George The Jackal Galloway puts on a red leotard and the nation stops everything to discuss the grave implications and potential consequences.
The PM's wife swans around squeezing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds out of ingenuous organisations - including some charities - and nobody peeps. That sure seems like tolerance to me.
its not tolerated, but these things are recorded.
the british press only do things when there is blood in the water. these little misdermeaners are recorded, and people like Cherie Blair think they've got away with it, and will do it again. they are stupid creatures who get lulled into a false sense of security about their power and position. but the press only attack if the creature is bleeding. right now shes well protected, but say in 2-3 years come General Election time there may be more dirt and Tony Blair will be standing down so her protection won't be as good.
then the press will take her down.
cherie blair is a good example cause they've tried to rip her apart a couple of times before and failed. but because the press are mean barstewards you can be assured she is on their list of people to take down and when her time is ready she will be torn apart.
live by the press, die by the press.
I agree with the abouve, but would also like to point out, that there's going to be quite a big bang at some point. I personally believe that they have links with Irish terrorism and criminal activity.
It genuinely is a "den of thieves".
tinman0 said:
...its not tolerated, but these things are recorded.
Ah, so you're saying that the media don't tolerate (in the sense of accepting) her behaviour, but they lack confidence that they could stir up interest in it or could help to bring it to a halt?
Perhaps, although considering the number of crackpots who seem to be able to secure airtime in Britain for their forlorn and often risible special interests, that would surprise me.
In any case, why don't the Opposition attack it? Norma Major and Dennis Thatcher weren't doing the same, were they? Even the most quixotic anti-Blairists seem uninterested.
I tell you, if this happened in the States the news media and the Democrats would be all over it like white on rice.
dilbert said:
I personally believe that they have links with Irish terrorism and criminal activity.
Not exactly sure what you're getting at?
I wasn't sure to whom you were referring when you said that "they have links with Irish terrorism and criminal activity".
flemke said:
I personally believe that they have links with Irish terrorism and criminal activity.
Not exactly sure what you're getting at?
I wasn't sure to whom you were referring when you said that "they have links with Irish terrorism and criminal activity".
And I wasn't sure who you were referring to when you mentioned in passing, "The World's Greatest Orator".
Having said that, I appreciate that my post was ambiguous, but it doesn't take too much consideration to imagine who I might have been referring to in this thread about Cherie Blair!
Edited to add;
I mean, we're living in the United States of Bad Britain for goodness sakes. It's like we're talking about the President and the First lady...... of the european socialist republic.
I think what people are missing, is that this is exactly how the begining of a "repressed society" should feel!
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 28th January 19:11
dilbert said:
And I wasn't sure who you were referring to when you mentioned in passing, "The World's Greatest Orator".
Having said that, I appreciate that my post was ambiguous, but it doesn't take too much consideration to imagine who I might have been referring to in this thread about Cherie Blair!
By the "WGO", I was alluding sarcastically to Tony Blair's wife. I know that the world is rife with injustice, but it is galling when some with so little to say gets paid so much for saying it.
flemke said:
And I wasn't sure who you were referring to when you mentioned in passing, "The World's Greatest Orator".
Having said that, I appreciate that my post was ambiguous, but it doesn't take too much consideration to imagine who I might have been referring to in this thread about Cherie Blair!
By the "WGO", I was alluding sarcastically to Tony Blair's wife. I know that the world is rife with injustice, but it is galling when some with so little to say gets paid so much for saying it.
I quite agree!
flemke said:
...its not tolerated, but these things are recorded.
Ah, so you're saying that the media don't tolerate (in the sense of accepting) her behaviour, but they lack confidence that they could stir up interest in it or could help to bring it to a halt?
Perhaps, although considering the number of crackpots who seem to be able to secure airtime in Britain for their forlorn and often risible special interests, that would surprise me.
In any case, why don't the Opposition attack it? Norma Major and Dennis Thatcher weren't doing the same, were they? Even the most quixotic anti-Blairists seem uninterested.
I tell you, if this happened in the States the news media and the Democrats would be all over it like white on rice.
its not confidence they lack in the slightest, its the idea of getting a result.
if you look at Kate Moss, she managed to avoid the press once over the small coke habit, but the second time it came up they took her down. they cost her £ms in deal from the fashion houses that employed her, she then checked into rehab etc. but there was a victory.
however, with Cherie Blair there is no victory. they've gone down the path of taking her down before and got no where. the story peters out into nothing. shes still where she is doing what she doesn't. there wasn't a victory. plus New Labour get heavy with the press and it gets dropped.
the day the press can sense a victory will be the day they take her down. i think what you are seeing is "bad timing" looking like "uninterested". the press are always interested, however there is a time and place for the kill. and today is not it.
also, the press have bigger fish to fry at the moment like the LibDems and Sven. The Libdems are showing themselves to be the most contemptable bunch of walfwits around and there is still mileage in that one.
the opposition are going to attack it when theres a good time to as well. right now we are inbetween elections - wouldn't you wait to attack the PMs wife at General Election time?
also, there is no way Tony Blair can be ousted as leader of the Labour Party - they simply don't have a mechanism like the Tories and Libdems. Tony Blur can stay for as long as he wants and not a single Labour Party member can get him out iirc. the only damage that can be inflicted is at a General Election.
love machine said:
No matter who you vote for the gurument always gets in
Very true words that put my political anger to bed. Same shit, different assholeNext it'll be someone else. It's a part of the spec, you can't change it, so why worry about it.
And to this end I also believe that it might be good to return to the ideas that brought Charles I to an end. The whole idea of ministerial duty seems to be failing. So...
Kill the leader, build a new parliament, and promote the old one to a higher but token existance.
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 28th January 19:35
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff