JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IF BLAIR WAS JAILED

By Mark Cooney

TONY BLAIR - very few sane people would associate his name with truth and justice.

The disingenuous nature of this man led to the violent deaths of more than 100,00 Iraqis, a normally hospitable and generous race who represented no threat to us.

For decades, their only instinct has been to survive.

But then they were caught in the crossfire of a monstrous dictator who ruled them with an iron fist, and two scheming Western governments who ostensibly sponsored their destruction - babies and all.

Today, the Iraqis find themselves once again trapped by their geography and history in a cauldron of violence and hate.

With political, religious and tribal uprisings sweeping the Middle East, they don't even have the comfort blanket of peace in order to pick up the pieces of their lives destroyed by death and destruction.

Old tribal vendettas have re-emerged and exploded into bloody civil war.

While Iraq’s majority Shia and minority Sunni tribes fight for control of the region, the al-Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), has comprehensively rekindled the flames of sectarian bloodshed in recent days. Amidst this carnage, a fourth faction, the Kurds, are on the verge of realising a long-held dream by taking control of Iraq’s northern region.

Blair’s contribution to the chaos is once again to step into the spotlight and declare that the latest insurgency has nothing to do with him.

He has further twisted his blood-stained dagger into the hearts of Iraqis seeking justice by reiterating his spurious claims that he didn’t initiate the crisis over there. Far from it. In fact, in waging a devastating war on the country, he claims he did the right thing.

The Labour Party’s former golden boy has said that Iraq would still be a major problem even without the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. He insists the US-UK invasion was not to blame for the current apocalypse.

In an essay on the Middle East crisis (Read it here), Blair insisted that we had to “liberate ourselves from the notion that we caused this”. Note the “we”.

And, in another unconvincing televised ramble, he added: ”Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and  had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq.”

That claim has already been disputed by some diplomatic heavyweights, including Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the US between 1997 and 2003. In a newspaper interview, he said the campaign strategy against Saddam Hussein was "perhaps the most significant reason" for the current sectarian violence.

"We are reaping what we sowed in 2003,” he claimed. “This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule.”

And Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN representative in Iraq, also disputes Tony Blair's analysis of the conflict, saying ISIS did not exist before the 2003 invasion. Rather, it grew out of the bloodshed and the regional instability created by Bush and Blair.

He has already said several times in the past that the West's indifference to Syria would put it at risk of being a failed state and that it would spill over into neighbouring areas.

When asked by Channel 4 News if he agreed with Tony Blair that the West should once again send in the troops, Mr Brahimi said: "Military intervention? Not again, please. I doubt if military intervention from the outside again is the right thing because you know how these things start, and how they finish."

Asked if Blair was correct in his assertion that the current slaughter would exist even without the 2003 invasion, he replied: "I'm afraid he's wrong. We would probably still be in an extremely bad place, but nothing like we have now. You wouldn't have al-Qaeda going around. I mean, al-Qaeda taking over three cities in two days...that's unthinkable!

"A lot of people in the region who were interested in listening to Mr Blair don't listen anymore."

Something of a handicap for a Middle East peace envoy.

What is also for sure is that without Blair and George Bush’s trigger-happy attitude, there would be a lot more Iraqi citizens alive today to testify against these claims of innocence.

There would also not have been thousands of British and American parents saluting their sons and daughters returning in coffins, having served their purpose in the eyes of the politicians.

There have also been strong accusations that the Ministry of Defence under equipped our soldiers, which is why their American counterparts nickname the British Army “The Borrowers”. They weren’t given the right tools to execute a very dirty job. The fact that they were not properly protected in a war zone was morally reprehensible.

So, does this one rate as a war crime? That’s one for international law to decide if it ever bothers to catch up with this morally bankrupt globetrotter.

There would almost certainly not be a whole generation of orphaned children growing up with appalling injuries and a lifetime of horrific mental traumas. And who can blame them for growing up with a serious grudge?

In his typical phoney manner, Blair pleaded in the run-up to the invasion that he just wanted to help the Iraqi people and that the troops were going to “win hearts and minds”. Instead, they put bullets in them.

Saddam was hanged for his three-decade murder spree (and perhaps other more convenient reasons). But, following the invasion and slaughter, Blair was bestowed with the distinguished mantle of Middle East peace envoy.

On that kind of recruiting logic, could Kim Jong-un be next in line for UN Secretary General? Is it any more absurd or distasteful?

If it the whole scenario were not appalling enough, Blair has become exceedingly rich off the back of the invasion.

Rather than demonstrate some humility and accountability, perhaps even a smattering of repentance, he continues to enjoy the glare of the public eye, travelling the globe first class to give handsomely-paid speeches to all who will listen to his self-serving version of world events. He is now a multi-millionaire.

Perhaps repeating the same old nonsense to audiences is cathartic for him, and helps relieve him of some of the guilt burden that most of us would carry heavily. But he gives the impression that he possesses neither guilt nor shame.

He ignored the will of the British public, many of whom still fully believe the attack on Iraq to be illegal. Instead, he cartwheeled out of international obscurity and onto the world stage to fully support Bush’s plan to invade. Brothers-in-arms, or, at least, brothers-in-bomber jackets.

He sent UK forces to join the US-led invasion in violation of international law.

America’s favourite poodle sold it on a pretext of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. It didn’t. But now he says they might have got them at some point in the future.

As for Blair’s “hearts and minds” pledge? Well, it was left to charities to count the bodies (and the body parts) in the streets and market squares.

Perversely, Blair expected us all to triumphantly celebrate the glory of Britain in “liberating” a country and installing “democracy”. He was wrong.

Moreover, this narcissistic egomaniac hoped we would all laud him as a great leader and world statesman who had helped make the world a safer place. Another massive miscalculation.

This week Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who wants to end England’s 300-year rule over Scotland in September’s Independence Referendum, said: “Tony Blair has now claimed that the invasion of Iraq was about whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power. Eleven years ago he said it was about weapons of mass destruction.

“He is guilty of breathtaking amnesia on his reasons for invading Iraq and clearly hopes everybody else will conveniently forget his 2003 decision, the consequences of which have played out over 11 years, with hundreds of thousands dead.

“We have reached a position where Western powers’ ability to intervene in any conflict – even in a just manner – has been totally undermined by the legacy of the Iraq disaster, with a damaging loss."

Blair’s denials and delusions suggest he believes only God should judge him.

He has blood on his hands alright, but he’s cleansed himself of all responsibility.

The next time we see Tony Blair, let's hope it's in front of a judge, or, better still, behind bars.

'IMPARTIAL' BBC ERECTS IRON CURTAIN AROUND GLASGOW'S PACIFIC QUAY

By Mark Cooney

THOMAS JEFFERSON erected the pillars of a democratic society when he stated: ”Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Fast forward 200 years and the comment by the third President of the United States is starting to sound profoundly naive on these shores.

The impartiality of a country’s media is a cornerstone of democracy. In the 21st Century, people no longer just seek the truth, they demand it. But in "reporting" news related to the Scottish Referendum vote this September, the BBC and London-owned Scottish newspapers increasingly appear to have adopted the journalistic values of Pravda.

There is a growing rumour (make that growing resentment) in Scotland that the BBC is not impartial. In fact, it looks grossly partial on one specific issue; the Independence Referendum.

I grew up believing that Auntie always told the truth and was fair to both sides of any story. I thought the only narrative it preached was fact. I especially believed it was not aligned to any political agenda or to any cause, other than telling us all how things really are. It was almost ingrained in my mind that the BBC’s mantra was to present the facts and let the adults arrive at their own judgements.

It’s comforting to the human soul to know that someone in this complex world will always tell us the truth. We like to know we are defining our opinions based on cast-iron facts. And we thought they were facts because the BBC said so.

But, together with the Scottish mainstream papers, we are witnessing growing evidence that it is presently trying to control, twist and stifle the debate in favour of a Westminster status quo. With just three months to go to voting day, the BBC has already joined sides with the English State it knows and understands.

To mislead the people of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales on such a seismic event is unforgivable. Through its blatant strategy of promoting one side of the political spectrum at the expense of the other through selected news reports, biased interviews and the closing down of public comment on its web pages, the BBC has shattered its own fabled impartiality. In Scotland, at least.

The enviously high bar of editorial standards that Auntie once set herself are now so low that not even Mister Fantastic on a soup only diet could limbo under it. Her publicly-funded corset has fallen around her ankles. And that’s more than a bare cheek, it’s public indecency.

Firstly, there is the glaring lack of any real cross-examination of unionist advocates’ statements on news and debate programmes, while in contrast there are very well prepared grillings facing any champion of independence, with questions often designed to wrong foot them.

The BBC’s presenters, particularly Andrew Neil, Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Marr, have been treating independence interviewees as the main "target" on their shows and subjecting them to both barrels. Overly aggressive, dismissive and sneering, they launch a barrage of follow-up questions, often only to be left defeated by a smarter person with a better argument. (Check Referendum-related videos on YouTube and decide for yourself).

There’s even been a sense of shadenfreude from several BBC presenters when they think they’ve got the indie guest pinned on the studio ropes. It’s noticeable and it's unsavoury.

Of course, it's encouraging to see presenters performing with intensity when questioning pro-independence folk. That's what good journalists should be doing. But the contrast in the mild mannered and shallow questioning of unionist politicians’ statements is stark.

Perhaps they could ask the Labour hierarchy why anyone should trust their economic arguments after they alone oversaw the collapse of the UK’s banking sector, which has been attributed to Gordon Brown’s and Alistair Darling’s utter disregard of industry regulation.

Something that stands out on these BBC programmes is the patronising manner in which the presenters and their studio guests from Westminster almost refuse to acknowledge the SNP as the democratically-elected government of Scotland.

It has been chosen by the people of Scotland to run our country in a competent manner and to represent the interests and wishes of ALL its citizens. They’re not just "trying to grab a bit of the limelight" as one barely known Tory minister accused an elected SNP MSP on Question Time.

The BBC is not giving us veritas on BOTH sides of the argument. Indeed, its presentation of the debate is almost beyond satire.

Rather than wake up to the fact the people of Scotland are no longer cozened and publicly redressing the obvious imbalance, the BBC has instead responded to increasing complaints by throwing a tantrum and closing down comments on its Scottish web pages.

These are the actions of our national public broadcaster in the 21st Century. It’s a defensive action that has polluted the waters of editorial transparency. But the BBC’s charge list doesn’t end there.

Think about the membership of the arch unionist business club, the CBI, which has been a registered "No" voter. Think about the dumbing down of Newsnight Scotland in its relaunch as "Scotland 2014". The show is presented by Sarah Smith,  daughter of former Labour leader John Smith and a lady who has deep Labour roots. Should the BBC not, at the very least, be trying to be seen as impartial?

Meanwhile, academics in Scotland have studied the BBC’s news output and noted there were many more unionist-led stories than independence-led, and that unionist claims were given far greater prominence than those on the nationalist side.

A recent major BBC Scottish history programme series was also accused by historians of having a very anglo-centric narrative. 

After, of course, the producers omitted damning evidence of English oppression and barbarity, and a country forced against its will into the Union in 1707 by a small band of Scots nobles who were rewarded with gold and English lands.

Programme advisors, some of whom were eminent historians, distanced themselves from the 10-part series before it was finished. The BBC promoted it as a kind of ultimate guide to Scottish history. But the academics challenged its accuracy, to say the least.

As well as saying it was too anglo-centric, the failure to front it with a historian has also been heavily criticised by professors and the public. Instead, a prepared script by the BBC was given to an archaeologist to narrate. The chosen presenter has also publicly admitted he is pro union. Academic advisers quit before programmes were completed.

Professor Allan Macinnes, of the University of Strathclyde, resigned from the series' advisory board after its first meeting. "I thought the whole production was dreadful," he said. "The first script I got was so anglo-centric I couldn't believe it.

"It was written on the basis as if Scotland was a divided country until the Union came along and civilised it.

"At the time, England was divided, France was divided, Germany didn't even exist. I would like to see a wider European context.”

Why did the BBC ignore the advice of these historians? And why did it not choose a more authoritative figure to present it? Like a historian perhaps?

Does the BBC have any major news anchormen or women, or history programme presenters in Scotland who are not pro union?

And it’s not just the BBC. It has been revealed that the vast majority of Scotland’s daily newspapers also have a strong unionist agenda. Again, impartial is not a word Scots would readily use to describe most of our country’s written press.

Pro-union stories get maximum coverage, with every angle covered to the third degree that it’s almost becoming Monty Pythonesque in its absurdity. The "No" camp can make any nonsensical claim about the effects of independence and its given generous air time and column inches.

A former Labour defence minister makes a fantastical assertion that an independent Scotland will actually lead to the World Order being disrupted, and it immediately becomes headline news. But rather than the claim being thoroughly investigated and then soundly discredited, it was promoted as a serious possibility through large sections of the media.

Well, if the consequences of voting for independence is Peebles being dynamited off the map by an intergalactic terrorist in a Portsmouth-built Death Star, there isn’t much we can do to prove otherwise. It’s just one of those unknown unknowns, as Donald Rumsfeld would have mused.

At the same time, a positive pro independence story, such as a unionist MP saying Scotland would be much better off running its own affairs in its own country, is often challenged by all and sundry, or reduced to a lower ranking news item, or not even published.

In January this year, the BBC Trust found BBC Scotland guilty of having misled the public after a Reporting Scotland item misrepresented an Irish politician in relation to a story on EU membership post-independence.

Raymond Buchanan, who reported the item for the BBC, resigned days before the Trust announced its intention to carry out an investigation.

Despite the guilty verdict, BBC Scotland management refused to apologise and have yet to issue any correction.

There can be no doubt that stories harmful to the "No" campaign are being heavily censored by our media. Positive news for the "Yes" side is being curtailed.

We know this because we all live in the third Millennium these days and can find the facts and stories published elsewhere at the click of a mouse. There’s a world of data out there.

I’d like to tell Auntie that sometimes in Scotland, in clement weather anyway, we pick up interesting stuff on the wireless and telegram. We now even know that three guys in a cramped washing machine landed on the moon in 1969, that there are repeats of Bullseye on the telly and that 95% of other countries in the world are now independent.

Banning public comment on Scottish politics is an anachronism. Why would the BBC want to do anything that would discourage the people, the source of its licence-fees, from letting the national broadcaster know what the nation thinks? Isn’t that anti-news? Is it, dare I say it, bias?

Channel 4’s recent excellent coverage of the Referendum makes the BBC’s immature communication attempts look akin to an episode of Teletubbies - albeit everyone in Teletubbyland is treated as an equal partner.

The BBC, sometimes known as a "national treasure", often boasts about its world renowned image as the purveyor of truth.

Here's an excerpt from its own charter:

"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences.  It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.  We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected."

On September 18, the people of Scotland will vote on the Referendum question on whether we think Scotland should be independent, like much of Planet Earth.

NOT JUST ANOTHER BROKEN BRICK IN THE WALL

By Mark Cooney

DESPITE Edinburgh Council’s protestations, the collapse of a school wall that killed 12-year-old Keane Wallis-Bennett could and should have been avoided.

The dangerous state of the girls’ changing rooms at Liberton High School had been reported by pupils, but nothing was done to repair it.

It is a tragedy that leaves a loving family in despair, but one that is sadly indicative of the consequences of wasteful and even immoral spending by our councils. 

They have spent many millions, and sometimes billions, on needless vanity projects, while our towns continue to fall into disrepair at an alarming rate. Walk around the less salubrious areas of our communities and you are compelled to ask yourself; “where’s the money going?”

Keane’s school needed £1million of repairs but council budget pressures meant it was not deemed a priority.

One Liberton pupil claimed she had warned a teacher some months ago that there was an unstable wall in the girls' changing room. She said: “I told staff that the wall had moved when I leaned on it, but nothing was done. I think they should have done something.”

And, in February, the Council was fined £8,000 after a pupil received serious injuries when she fell down a lift shaft at the same school.

When it comes to dilapidated facilities, Liberton High School is not alone. This week, schools in Perthshire were also in the headlines because of council neglect.

On an island of health and safety fanaticism, surely every council has a legal and moral obligation to ensure school structures are at the very least safe, if not modern and child friendly. Risking children’s safety is never an option and the wall should have been repaired immediately as a matter of course after being reported.

Why it wasn’t we don’t yet know, but it may have been attended to had Edinburgh’s Council not burned a billion notes on a tram system that the majority of the city’s residents neither believed was needed, nor wanted.

The project was originally costed in 2003 at £375 million.

Most would agree that Edinburgh has an excellent bus service that did not require an additional tram network, but the then Liberal Democrat-led council ploughed ahead, regardless of the feelings of local taxpayers.

I suspect that improvements to crater-laden roads, litter collection, public health and school safety were higher on the public’s agenda.

Keane’s grandmother this week revealed similar feelings when she told a Scottish newspaper that the trams budget had come at the sacrifice of school kids’ safety.

My contacts, some of whom were in senior positions on the Edinburgh tram committee before they departed with generous payoffs, speak of a bemused and rudderless group of social workers ‘working’ on a complex subterranean engineering project of which they had zero experience.

One would think it would have been better to hire more engineers, or maybe even experienced professionals who understood building contracts. But I understand the council panjandrums were instead enjoying their junkets, visiting the world’s great cities and their tram networks at public expense.

This is not a demonisation of trams, which can offer frequent, efficient and cheap public transport, but more the monstrous mismanagement of contracts and a spectacular failure of supervisory diligence. And the utter disregard for the public purse.

Since coming to power in Scotland in 2007 the SNP has repeatedly berated the plan to spend a billion pounds on the trams. The kerfuffle finally took its toll on the Liberal Democrats when the party was all but wiped out at the 2012 city council elections.

Edinburgh Council is now led by an SNP/Labour coalition, but the trams project goes ahead as planned.

Well, not really as planned. More than two years late, significantly truncated from the original routes - because they had run out of money - and still several hundred million pounds over budget. 

Serious money, indeed - money that should have been spent on public buildings, housing, schools, pavements and streets. Surely there is a strong case to be made that council neglect and budgetary incompetence attributed, at least in part, to a child’s death.

This week it was revealed that expenditure on footpath maintenance in Scotland is down 20% since 2009. This offers more clear evidence that money, our money, is being spent elsewhere.

And here’s another fiscal factor. How much compensation is Edinburgh Council paying out each year to victims of accidents caused by poorly maintained pavements, roads, walls and buildings? And will the accident payouts increase as trams and cyclists vie with each other for space on the road?

Are they really managing and spending our money how we want them to?

Just where is these councillors’ moral compass?

One would presume the council is applying some serious time and thought on how to recoup that billion pounds. Or will the city’s public servants continue to ignore taxpayers’ opinions while letting those accountable for the tram sham depart with golden goodbyes without as much as an apology?

It’s all so sadly predictable. And so are the consequences.

* At the time of publication, no one from Edinburgh City Council was available to comment, but we will publish any replies when we receive them.