HOW COULD ANYONE VOTE LABOUR AGAIN - AFTER BOMBARDIER BLAIR'S BETRAYAL - MR BLAIR'S BUNKER IS BEING BESIEGED


BLAIR IS ACTING AS A SPOILER TO DESTROY LABOUR'S ELECTORAL CHANCES IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS IN SCOTLAND, WALES AND ENGLAND ON 3 MAY 2007.


INTOLERANT TOTALITARIAN LABOUR WILL DISCOVER MELTDOWN...


SPEAKING ON THE BBC LAST WEEK, THE PRIME MINISTER SAID HE WOULD LEAVE IN HIS OWN TIME AND WAS UNFAZED BY POLICE ALLEGATIONS OF CASH FOR PEERAGES.

REALLY...

I WONDER WHY???

THE LABOUR 'COURT-JESTER', DENNIS SKINNER ('BLAIR's BUTT FROM BOLSOVER') ALWAYS PREPARED TO MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF IF TONY IS IN ENOUGH BOVVER - SEEMS TO ENJOY 'LEAKING' FOR TONY BLAIR? SAYING THE UNSAYABLE - THAT HE DOES NOT TRUST THE POLICE - WHY WOULD HE UNDERMINE THE POWERS OF THE POLICE?


BECAUSE HE HAS THE SUPPORT OF TONY BLAIR...

IN TRUTH, TONY BLAIR IS PERHAPS THE ONLY BRITISH PRIME MINISTER IN LIVING MEMORY WHO TRULY DETESTS THE POLICE AS MUCH AS HE DOES...


BUT THE POLICE MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PREJUDICE OR POLITICAL PRESSURE...


ONLY THE LABOUR PARTY WOULD POUR SCORN & DISCREDIT ON THE POLICE


WE DO NOT WANT A POLITICAL POLICE IN THIS COUNTRY - THANK YOU...


MOST LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD CRINGE AT BEING QUESTIONED BY POLICE AS SUSPECTS IN A CRIME.


ONLY THE DELUDED OR DODGY WOULD DISMISS SUCH A CONFRONTATION LIGHTLY.


YET IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THIS COULD BE THE REACTION OF A DELUDED PERSON - AS A DELUDED MR BLAIR

OR EVEN A DODGY PERSON - AS THE DODGY MR BLAIR

OR THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WHO SEEM TO ENJOY AN IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION?


WHY?

IS IT NOT BECAUSE THE HEAD OF THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) IS AN EXTREMELY STRONG SUPPORTER OF TONY BLAIR - HE WAS RECOMMENDED BY CHERIE BLAIR AS HER HEAD OF CHAMBERS AT MATRIX CHAMBERS TO BE DPP AND ON CHERIE'S ADVICE TONY BLAIR NOMINATED KEN MACDONALD FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (DPP) AS HEAD OF THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) EVEN THOUGH HIS EXPERIENCE WAS IN DEFENCE WORK?


THE DPP IS THE 'INDEPENDENT' PERSON WHO DECIDES IF - ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES - THERE IS A REALISTIC PROSPECT OF A CONVICTION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE...


The PROSECUTION TEST has two stages.


SKIP THIS TECHNICAL STUFF...

The first: consideration of the evidence.
1. THE EVIDENTIAL STAGE.
If the case does not pass the evidential stage it must not go ahead no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does pass the evidential stage, the DPP must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.
2. PUBLIC INTEREST TEST.

The evidential and public interest stages:
1. THE EVIDENTIAL STAGE
The DPP must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against each defendant on each charge. The DPP must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case.
A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant/s of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant's guilt.
When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, the DPP must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears.
The DPP must ask himself the following questions:
Can the evidence be used in court?
Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court?
There are certain legal rules which might mean that evidence which seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it was gathered? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction?
Is the evidence reliable?
Is there evidence which might support or detract from the reliability of a confession?
Is the reliability affected by factors such as the defendant's age, intelligence or level of understanding?
What explanation has the defendant given?
Is a court likely to find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole?
Does it support an innocent explanation?
If the identity of the defendant is likely to be questioned, is the evidence about this strong enough?
Is the witness's background likely to weaken the prosecution case?
For example, does the witness have any motive that may affect his or her attitude to the case, or a relevant previous conviction?
Are there concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness?
Are these concerns based on evidence or simply information with nothing to support it?
Is there further evidence which the police should be asked to seek out which may support or detract from the account of the witness?
The DPP should not ignore evidence because he is not sure that it can be used or is reliable.
But the DPP should look closely at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

2. THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST
In 1951, Lord Shawcross, who was Attorney General (AG), (now it is Peter Goldsmith, an ardent Labour Party member and strong Tony supporter who is a very very good friend of Tony Blair and tends to attend all Cabinet meetings - a very good friend of Ken Macdonald, the DPP, as head of the CPS, who is answerable to Peter Goldsmith) made the classic statement on public interest, which has been supported by Attorneys General ever since: "It has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". (House of Commons Debates, volume 483, column 681, 29 January1951.)
The public interest must be considered in each case where there is enough evidence to provide 'A REALISTIC PROSPECT OF CONVICTION'.
Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, often the prosecution should go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.
A prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour, or it appears more appropriate in all the circumstances of the case to divert the person from prosecution.
The DPP must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly.

Public interest factors that can affect the decision to prosecute usually depend on the seriousness of the offence or the circumstances of the suspect.
Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better.
The following lists of some common public interest factors, both for and against prosecution, are not exhaustive.
The factors that apply will depend on the facts in each case.

Some common public interest factors in favour of prosecution
The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed in the public interest.
A prosecution is likely to be needed if:
a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
[a conviction is likely to result in a confiscation or any other order;]
[a weapon was used or violence was threatened during the commission of the offence;]
the offence was committed against a person serving the public (for example, a police or prison officer, or a nurse);
the defendant was in a position of authority or trust;
the evidence shows that the defendant was a ringleader or an organiser of the offence;
there is evidence that the offence was premeditated;
there is evidence that the offence was carried out by a group;
the victim of the offence was vulnerable, has been put in considerable fear, or suffered personal attack, damage or disturbance;
[the offence was committed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, a child;]
the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin, disability, sex, religious beliefs, political views or sexual orientation, or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics;
there is a marked difference between the actual or mental ages of the defendant and the victim, or if there is any element of corruption;
the defendant's previous convictions or cautions are relevant to the present offence;
the defendant is alleged to have committed the offence while under an order of the court;
there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated , for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
[the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread in the area where it was committed; or]
a prosecution would have a significant positive impact on maintaining community confidence.

Some common public interest factors against prosecution
A prosecution is less likely to be needed if:
[the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty;]
[the defendant has already been made the subject of a sentence and any further conviction would be unlikely to result in the imposition of an additional sentence or order, unless the nature of the particular offence requires a prosecution or the defendant withdraws consent to have an offence taken into consideration;
the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding (these factors must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence);
the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by a misjudgement;
there has been a long delay between the offence taking place and the date of the trial, unless:
the offence is serious;
the delay has been caused in part by the defendant;
the offence has only recently come to light; or
the complexity of the offence has meant that there has been a long investigation;
a prosecution is likely to have a bad effect on the victim's physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence;
the defendant is elderly or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from significant mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is real possibility that it may be repeated. The Crown Prosecution Service, where necessary, applies Home Office guidelines about how to deal with mentally disordered offenders. The DPP must balance the desirability of diverting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public;
the defendant has put right the loss or harm that was caused (but defendants must not avoid prosecution or diversion solely because they pay compensation); or
details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security.
Deciding on the public interest is not simply a matter of adding up the number of factors on each side. The DPP must decide how important each factor is in the circumstances of each case and go on to make an overall assessment.
The relationship between the victim and the public interest
The DPP does not act for victims or the families of victims in the same way as solicitors act for their clients.

The DPP acts on behalf of the public and not just in the interests of any particular individual.
However, when considering the public interest, the DPP should always take into account the consequences for the victim of whether or not to prosecute, and any views expressed by the victim or the victim's family.
It is important that a victim is told about a decision which makes a significant difference to the case in which they are involved.
The DPP should ensure that he follows any agreed procedures.


CARRY ON HERE...

IS THERE LIKELY TO BE ANY PROSECUTION?

YOU MUST BE JOKING - NOT WITH THIS 'INDEPENDENT' DECISION - THE SCAM IS LAUGHABLE!

EXACTLY THE SAME LAUGHABLE BELIEF THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WHEN THE 45 - YES, FORTY FIVE - PROPERTIES WENT 'MISSING' FROM THE VAST HOUSING STOCK OF 19,000 - YES, NINETEEN THOUSAND PROPERTIES HELD IN TRUST AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - WORTH A COOL
FOUR BILLION POUNDS - THAT IS FOUR THOUSAND MILLION POUNDS - 4,000,000,000 AT THE LAST COUNT.

WAS THERE ANY PROSECUTION AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST? -


YOU MUST BE JOKING!


AFTER AN 'INDEPENDENT' INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY TONY BLAIR'S GOOD FRIEND AND EXTREMELY LOYAL LABOUR SUPPORTER AND BEST FRIEND OF CHERIE BLAIR, KEN MACDONALD AS DPP - APPOINTED BY TONY BLAIR - THE LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER WHO INDIRECTLY CONTROLS NHHT - DECIDED THERE WAS 'INSUFFICIENT' EVIDENCE FOR A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST ANY OF ITS MOST SENIOR MANAGEMENT!

WELL WHAT A 'SURPRISE'!!!

BUT WILL THERE BE ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL LINKS IDENTIFIED BY TOM KELLY OF THE NUMBER TEN PRESS OFFICE?


...DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!


WILL THERE BE A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF TONY BLAIR???

...WHAT DO YOU THINK ? ? ?

USE YOUR INTELLIGENCE AND THE ANSWER IS CRYSTAL CLEAR... BASED ON PAST FORM...


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST IS CONTROLLED BY THE CENTRE OF THE LABOUR PARTY - IT'S DIRECTORS ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE LABOUR PARTY - EVEN MEMBERS OF MI6 ARE REPRESENTED ON THE NHHT STAUNCH LABOUR PARTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS!

THE BIGGEST UNACCOUNTABLE SOURCE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY - OH TONY BLAIR WILL BE WELL LOOKED AFTER - AFTER 3 MAY 2006 WHEN HE WILL BE FREE TO LEAVE FOR CONNAUGHT SQUARE - HIS SPOILER FOR THE SIGNIFICANT MELTDOWN ELECTIONS IN SCOTLAND, WALES & ENGLAND... FOR TONY TO DISCREDIT GORDON... SO MUCH FOR BROTHER BARONS OF LOONY LABOUR LUVVIES!


...WHY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT TONY'S MORTGAGE APPLICATION? - THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES WAS THERE TONE? PETER (CALL ME 'BOBBY' ON THE PHONE IN FRONT OF SIGNIFICANT OTHERS) MANDELSON, TONY'S NOMINEE AS EU TRADE COMMISSIONER, TO CONTROL TRADE - BUT IN WHOSE INTERESTS - INTERESTS OF EUROPE OR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? PETER MANDELSON DISCOVERED MYRIAD WAYS TO NAVIGATE AROUND THESE APPLICATIONS - DIDN'T HE?
BUT IT IS AN OFFENCE TO SUBMIT A FRAUDULENT MORTGAGE APPLICATION FORM!!!

BUT MP's ARE UNDERSTOOD TO BE 'HONOURABLE' MEMBERS!

THE CULTURE OF HEAVY DRINKING, CHEAP BOOZE, AND HIGHLY DISCOUNTED SWILL AT THE TROUGH OF PLENTY... NO CHALLENGES TO EXPENSE CLAIMS... FANTASTIC FOLLIES, 24 HOUR BARS AND 5 STAR RESTAURANTS... TRULY THE PALACE OF PARLIAMENTS... THE ILLUSION OF POWER... TRULY HELD BY THE ELECTIVE DICTATOR WITH AN UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION WITH MAXIMUM POWERS FOR ABUSE...


A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS CALLED FOR TO SCRUTINIZE TONY'S MORTGAGE APPLICATION FORM...

BUT WITH HOUSING ACROSS THE COUNTRY - NEVER EVER HAS SUCH A SCAM IN HOUSING BEEN PERPETRATED ON THIS SCALE BEFORE - CONTROLLED FROM THE VERY HEART OF 10 DOWNING STREET.

UNACCOUNTABLE TAXPAYERS MONEY IS USED - GERRYMANDERING OF THE ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - THE IDEA FOR HOUSES AND FLATS TO BE GIVEN IN RETURN FOR VOTES FROM THE NEW IMMIGRANTS TO BRITAIN - CRAFTY - CUNNING - DECEITFUL - CORRUPT?

YOU WANT A SCANDAL - THEN FOCUS ON NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST AND THE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF UNACCOUNTABLE TAXPAYERS MONEY IT RECEIVES IN BUYING UP PROPERTIES THROUGH TONY BLAIR'S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERMENT (DCLG) WHICH TOOK OVER FROM THE DISCREDITED OFFICE OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (ODPM) UNDER DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER MP FOR HULL, THE BULLYING, BLATHERING, DYSFUNCTIONAL, NOT 'FIT-FOR-PURPOSE' JOHN PRESCOTT, OVERSEEN BY QUANGO'S LIKE THE HOUSING CORPORATION (UNDER DCLG CONTROL) & AUDIT COMMISSION (UNDER DCLG CONTROL) WHICH AVOIDS PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY BY NOT BEING SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY BY THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (NAO)

MR BLAIR HAS CERTAINLY LED US DOWN THE GARDEN PATH OF ILLEGAL WAR, DODGY DOSSIERS, DODGY DEALINGS, COUNTLESS THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT DEATHS, MEN, WOMEN AND POOR INNOCENT CHILDREN...

IF ONLY MR BLAIR'S CHILDREN COULD UNDERSTAND?

IF ONLY MRS CHERIE BLAIR COULD UNDERSTAND?


IF ONLY JOHN SCARLETT AND JONATHAN BUCHANAN DID NOT HIDE IN THE DARKNESS AND SHADOWS UNDER THE COVER OF THE NIGHT AS MEN OF DARKNESS AND CLOTHED IN DECEIT?

IF ONLY JOHN SCARLETT AND JONATHAN BUCHANAN KNEW THE MEANING OF THE WORDS INTEGRITY AND MORALITY AND WERE PREPARED TO STAND UP TO AND STAND UP FOR SUCH ISSUES OF INTEGRITY AND MORALITY...

IF ONLY DIRECTORS AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WERE PREPARED TO STAND UP TO AND TO STAND UP FOR SUCH ISSUES AS INTEGRITY AND MORALITY AND WERE PREPARED TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH, NOT THE COUNTLESS LIES, DECEITS AND BETRAYAL OF THE GOOD TENANTS THAT ARE CONTINUALLY HARASSED AND CONTINUALLY SUBJECTED TO VILE DISCRIMINATION AND CONFRONTED BY MANAGEMENT OF NHHT FOR WRITING LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS OF DISREPAIR TO THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT.

NHHT HAVE MADE US ALL TARGETS TO THE PREACHERS OF HATE FOR BLAIR TO TRY TO CONTROL US THROUGH THE UNTRUE WAR ON TERROR.


DELIBERATELY DONE TO DICTATE DELIBERATE DEEDS OF DIKTAT...


NHHT AND ITS BLAIRITE POLICIES INDIRECTLY CONTROLLED BY MR BLAIR HAVE MADE US GOOD PEOPLE THE SUBJECT OF DERISION, LOATHING AND RIDICULE AROUND THE WORLD.

BECAUSE OF MR BLAIR, MANY BRITISH PEOPLE WANT TO ESCAPE THE POLITICAL INTOLERANT TOTALITARIAN PRISON THAT THE POLITICAL INTOLERANT TOTALITARIAN ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP STATE THAT BRITAIN HAS BECOME UNDER THE DELUDED DICTATOR - MR BLAIR - WHO INDIRECTLY CONTROLS NHHT

LYING TO PARLIAMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN OFFENCE LEADING TO DISMISSAL

YET THE PRIME MINISTER PERSUADED PARLIAMENT WITH THE LIES OF THE CENTURY ON IRAQ

MR BLAIR COULD NOT EVEN FIND THE TIME TO ATTEND THE RECENT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON THE IRAQ BLOODBATH THAT HE HAS HELPED TO CREATE

NOT ONCE DOES MR BLAIR ATTEND TO SALUTE THE RETURNING BODY BAGS OF COUNTLESS CORPSES RETURNING TO THE UK FOR HIS WAR ...
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE TERRIBLE TWINS OF SAWYER AND SOLEY...

ALL LABOUR CRONIES ARE NOW STARTING TO LOOK FOR THEIR BOLTHOLES...

THE TERRIBLE TWINS OF LABOUR LOONIES SAWYER AND SOLEY WHO BLAME ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES AND SEEM TO DELIGHT IN ATTACKING OTHERS FROM THE BLOOD-RED LEATHER LABOUR BENCHES IN THE UNDEMOCRATIC HOUSE OF LORDS. BOTH VOTED FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ.
SOLEY ON BLAIR'S INSTRUCTIONS, COMMANDED ALL LABOUR MP'S TO VOTE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR OR LABOUR MP'S WOULD 'LOSE THE WHIP' AND WERE FORCED TO RESIGN AS A LABOUR MP. JUST AS SOLEY LOVED ATTACKING HIS BIGGEST FIGURE OF HATE - RUPERT MURDOCH - AT EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST OFFER MR BLAIR'S LABOUR CRONIES A SEAT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH UNACCOUNTABLE EXPENSES

WELCOME MEMBERS OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT AND THE SPOOKY SPOOKS NEXT TO VAUXHALL BRIDGE AT THE NOW POLITICALLY DIRECTED MI6 - CORRUPTED BY BLAIR - CORRUPTED BY THE LABOUR PARTY

WE HAVE SEEN THE SUPPOSED 'SUSPECTED TERRORISTS' ARRESTS IN AN EFFORT TO DETRACT FROM THE LOCAL DIFFICULTIES OF LABOUR, LIKE LABOUR LORD MICHAEL LEVY OF CHASE HOUSE, NAN CLARK'S LANE, MILL HILL, NORTH LONDON, NW7, RUTH TURNER, JONATHAN POWELL AND TONY BLAIR ARE ALL IN THE FRAME

BUT WHAT IF THE CANARIES START TO SING?


LABOUR LORD MICHAEL LEVY AND THE SELECTIVELY SANITISED SPEECHES FROM MR TONY BLAIR'S ACCOUNT OF EVENTS DO NOT APPEAR TO TALLY WITH THOSE OF OTHER MORE CREDIBLE WITNESSES.

IS THAT SURPRISING?

NOT REALLY...

THAT MEANS THAT THE METROPOLITAN POLICE INVESTIGATION, UNDER JOHN YATES, WILL NEED TO SPEAK WITH LABOUR LORD LEVY OR GET MORE WRITTEN STATEMENTS FROM HIM.

NOT TOO MANY MORE GAMES OF TENNIS AT 'CHEQUERS' (THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIAL COUNTRY RESIDENCE NEAR AYLESBURY IN BUCKS GIVEN BY ARTHUR LEE WHO MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF A WEALTHY NEW YORK BANKER) THEN?


IT LOOKS LIKE TONY BLAIR HAS DROPPED A FEW PEOPLE IN IT?


THIS MEANS THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO GIVE UP MORE INFORMATION TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKINS?

THAT MAY MEAN THAT TONY BLAIR MIGHT BE QUESTIONED UNDER CAUTION?

PERISH THE THOUGHT...

SAINT TONY QUESTIONED UNDER CAUTION???


IN THE TODAY PROGRAMMWE ON RADIO 4, TONY WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HAD THIS TO SAY:

"I have taken the view that this police investigation has been a kind of shock to the system and, on the whole, a good one, I am not sure that any further public benefit will be served by this going any further. I think the benefit from it has now been obtained."


TO WHICH MOST RIGHT THINKING INTELLIGENT BRITISH PEOPLE SAY:

"GET LOST... AND STOP TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE POLICE IN AN IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION!... TRYING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE?"


...TOM KELLY AT TEN DOWNING STREET MUST NOW BE IN HIS ELEMENT...


...SPIN... COUNTER SPIN... LIES... COUNTER LIES...


THE ARRESTS OF THE SO-CALLED 'TERRORISTS' WERE ON THE ADVICE OF JOHN SCARLETT - THE VERY SAME JOHN SCARLETT WHO OVERSAW THE DODGY DOSSIERS AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN KNIGHTED FOR THE DECEPTION.

IS THERE A SEAT WAITING FOR HIM ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST AT HAMMERSMITH - AS GIVEN TO HIS PAL JONATHAN BUCHANAN OF MI6?


MR BLAIR SHOULD TAKE A HINT FROM THE UPLIFTING CHANNEL 4 PROGRAMME, 'THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR', HIRE A GOOD LAWYER, BUT NOT THOSE DODGY LAWYERS RECOMMENDED BY NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST!


TONY BLAIR SHOULD LEAVE THE BLAIR BUNKER IN SACK CLOTH & ASHES AND AWAIT THE KNOCK ON THE DOOR FOR REAL AND A NEW HOME IN A CELL AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AT THE HAGUE, TOGETHER WITH HIS DELUSIONAL AND INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED PAL ACROSS THE WATER.


MANY LEGAL BRAINS ARE TICKING...


IN THE MEANTIME, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, BASED IN THE VERY HEART OF HAMMERSMITH, CONTINUES TO CONFRONT & HARASS THE GOOD TENANTS AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST...


THE LAW OF LIFE DICTATES THAT TO EVERY WICKED AND EVIL CONFRONTATIONAL ACT THERE IS A PENALTY TO PAY...