The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Teflon Tony – A Rogue’s Guide To Keeping Slippery As A Greased Piglet
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
Page:
Nice one, Mr Duck: a good summing up of why the political class is increasingly hated by the public.
Belldandy wrote:
> Ha, I still laugh at these people who thought the 45 minutes claim
> meant Iraq would attack England that fast...I mean how STUPID can you
> get.
Could it have been headlines like "Brits 45 Mins From Doom" that made people think this? Headlines that, though the government knew they were incorrect at the time, they did nothing to correct? Your sneering only comfirms the attitude taken by the warmongers: ha ha, they deserved to be tricked into war.
I would be pretty interested to see your posts from the time the dossier was released: were you laughing at the stupid plebs then or were you whipping up hysteria about the Cyprus and 45 minutes claims? I suspect the latter.
Belldandy wrote:
> Ha, I still laugh at these people who thought the 45 minutes claim
> meant Iraq would attack England that fast...I mean how STUPID can you
> get.
Could it have been headlines like "Brits 45 Mins From Doom" that made people think this? Headlines that, though the government knew they were incorrect at the time, they did nothing to correct? Your sneering only comfirms the attitude taken by the warmongers: ha ha, they deserved to be tricked into war.
I would be pretty interested to see your posts from the time the dossier was released: were you laughing at the stupid plebs then or were you whipping up hysteria about the Cyprus and 45 minutes claims? I suspect the latter.
Ha, I still laugh at these people who thought the 45 minutes claim meant Iraq would attack England that fast...I mean how STUPID can you get.
What next? I think the Government ought to clarify this tuition fees thing. I mean how do we know it will affect students in the England? I never heard anyone specify nationality. Maybe he means Americans eh? OR French students? How do we even know tution fees will be in £'s ? No one mentioned that did they? Maybe he'll make us pay in Euro's! ETC ETC
What next? I think the Government ought to clarify this tuition fees thing. I mean how do we know it will affect students in the England? I never heard anyone specify nationality. Maybe he means Americans eh? OR French students? How do we even know tution fees will be in £'s ? No one mentioned that did they? Maybe he'll make us pay in Euro's! ETC ETC
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the
> Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
>
> Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45
> minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to
> deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general
> public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British
> bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45
> minutes.
> Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption,
> when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified
> anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
Why correct people when the information is in your favour. I think 90% of all politicians would have done the same.
> They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you
> will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
> Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the
> assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the
> equipment and funding available to armed forces.
> Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility
> never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s
> an art form. And a spectator sport.
Did Tony Blair handle the logistics of every piece of hardware? No! Did Geoff Hoon, yes. Thats why he got spanked, and not Tony
> In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof
> before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can
> allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you
> see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s
> government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as
> bad as it’s likely to get.
> And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital
> proof? Hide it.
I was under the impression that in the UK, we followed the innocent until proven guilty way. It seems people assume Blair is guilty of something, until proven guilty. Any talk of innocence is shouted down as Whitewash.
> Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody
> is allowed to see it.
> This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this
> evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would
> be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details
> of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
> Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever
> reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be
> allowed to challenge that crutch.
What would you suggest. After all, Inteligence is usually very sensitive. Any time some intel is questioned, should we let all see it. Wouldn't that undermine the covert nature of intel?
> The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you
> find a loop-hole to escape through.
> Where’ve we seen this recently?
> Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a
> couple of them.
>
> Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce
> them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next
> election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will
> outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
Times change. Before 9/11, Blair was making military cutbacks. After, investing more. See, things change. Perhaps he assumed to much in the last manifesto, but i doubt he was laughing to himself saying, 'Fools, just wait until after the next election'.
> 1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of
> force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get
> the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was
> against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and
> squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
Have you read 1441? Here you go:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Take a look at page two, paragraph 1. I quote:
"...Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687(1991)..."
That is where the permission came from. I'm short sighted, and i didn't need to squint at all.
> We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the
> Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
>
> Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45
> minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to
> deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general
> public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British
> bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45
> minutes.
> Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption,
> when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified
> anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
Why correct people when the information is in your favour. I think 90% of all politicians would have done the same.
> They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you
> will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
> Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the
> assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the
> equipment and funding available to armed forces.
> Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility
> never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s
> an art form. And a spectator sport.
Did Tony Blair handle the logistics of every piece of hardware? No! Did Geoff Hoon, yes. Thats why he got spanked, and not Tony
> In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof
> before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can
> allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you
> see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s
> government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as
> bad as it’s likely to get.
> And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital
> proof? Hide it.
I was under the impression that in the UK, we followed the innocent until proven guilty way. It seems people assume Blair is guilty of something, until proven guilty. Any talk of innocence is shouted down as Whitewash.
> Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody
> is allowed to see it.
> This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this
> evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would
> be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details
> of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
> Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever
> reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be
> allowed to challenge that crutch.
What would you suggest. After all, Inteligence is usually very sensitive. Any time some intel is questioned, should we let all see it. Wouldn't that undermine the covert nature of intel?
> The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you
> find a loop-hole to escape through.
> Where’ve we seen this recently?
> Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a
> couple of them.
>
> Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce
> them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next
> election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will
> outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
Times change. Before 9/11, Blair was making military cutbacks. After, investing more. See, things change. Perhaps he assumed to much in the last manifesto, but i doubt he was laughing to himself saying, 'Fools, just wait until after the next election'.
> 1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of
> force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get
> the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was
> against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and
> squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
Have you read 1441? Here you go:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Take a look at page two, paragraph 1. I quote:
"...Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687(1991)..."
That is where the permission came from. I'm short sighted, and i didn't need to squint at all.
Teflon Tony – A Rogue’s Guide To Keeping Slippery As A Greased Piglet
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
It’s not because he took Bill’s advice on non-stain clothing, but his uncanny knack of coming out of controversy without taking the blame that earned ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair his latest nickname.
But there’s more than spin to Tony’s masterful manoeuvring, so just how does he always come up smelling of roses?
---You Can Lead A Horse To Water, But It’s Not Your Fault If It Drinks---
We take our example of this tactic from the dossier linked to the Hutton report (don’t worry, I won’t go on about it).
Intelligence claimed Iraq could prepare its WMDs for use in just 45 minutes, but failed to point out that this only referred to deployment on the battlefield. Consequently, the media and general public assumed this meant the weapons could be used against British bases in Cyprus and even against Britain itself within that 45 minutes.
Although he never sought to correct people’s mistaken assumption, when the truth came out Blair coolly pointed out he never specified anything about the 45 minutes, then wandered off into the sunset.
---Muck Hitting The Fan? Hide Behind A Fat Man---
They say the old ones are the best, and using a scapegoat, or if you will, a human shield, has certainly passed the test of time.
Watch the artful positioning of the Prime Minister, using the assistance of media allies, during recent backlashes regarding the equipment and funding available to armed forces.
Geoff Hoon took massive damage, but the burden of responsibility never quite reached the door of No. 10. When executed this well, it’s an art form. And a spectator sport.
---I Know Something You Don’t Know---
In a relatively stable political position, your enemies need proof before they dare make solid accusations against you. Sure, they can allude to accusations, but that won’t do too much damage – did you see Howard ask Blair for ‘reassurance’ nobody from Labour’s government leaked details of the Hutton report to the Sun? That’s as bad as it’s likely to get.
And the key to making sure your opponents don’t have that vital proof? Hide it.
Mr Blair has solid proof, he claims, that Iraq have WMDs. But nobody is allowed to see it.
This is the single point holding up the entire Iraq war, if this evidence were shown to be wrong, unreliable or fictional, Blair would be dead and buried. So you can see why it’s so important no details of that information can ever be publicly scrutinised.
Blair can handle the suspicion there were no WMDs, for whatever reason, so long as he can lean on his information. And nobody will be allowed to challenge that crutch.
---Principles Can Hold You Prisoner, Semantics Can Set You Free---
The idea, of course, is that you can abandon policies, so long as you find a loop-hole to escape through.
Where’ve we seen this recently?
Where do you begin on this one? So many examples available, here’s a couple of them.
Tuition fees – Labour’s last manifesto promised not to introduce them, but because they won’t come into force until after the next election, he argues he gets off on a technicality. Since nobody will outright call him a total liar without watertight proof, he’s right.
1441 – The UN resolution that can be interpreted as permitting use of force in Iraq. If you try hard enough. The coalition could never get the UN to agree to military action, because a big chunk of the UN was against it. But if you hold the resolution at a funny angle and squint, it looks like maybe Blair can send troops in after all.
So there you have it, a comprehensive guide to getting away with it. If you ever find yourself as prime minister of some country maybe these techniques will work for you too. But remember, there’ll be at least one ageing nerd complaining about you on the internet :^)
Page: