Does it strike anyone as a bit idiotic when this bloke's family start whining on about Blair having 'blood on his hands'? I mean, I wouldn't want to see anyone die, and my heart goes out to Ken's family, but isn't it a bit rich blaming Tony Blair? Ken Bigley chose to be in Iraq. He knen the dangers. He wasn't a conscript. Allegedly, his family had already urged him to leave, but he stayed on because the money was good. He also dismissed fears for his safety and drove around in a distinctive white 4x4. I find it really hard to see how Tony Blair can be blamed for Ken's death..... (thousands of others, but not Ken's!).
your quite mad Dok..do you read The Daily mail or The Express YES/No section of their letters page ?? ... sorry if i am being rude or anything or sneering for that matter but it was just a thought of mine i can't work out what the hell you think .. this thread may be a side issue from the thought that you wish for Mr Blairs resignation but whaaggg your mad. Anyway away from that i think only his brother and not all his family think that Mr Blair has blood on his hands. Most can see and apreciate Mr Blair did all and what he could . It may have been a bit naive of Mr Bigley and his co workers/friends not to have security ...but he took the risk and the risk took him (and his friends).
Ken Bigley's family are getting quite involved in the anti-war movement at the moment. They accept that Blair did all he could to secure Bigley's release, after all how far can you go when negotiating with terrorists? When they refer to him having 'blood on his hands' they're blaming him for the invasion of Iraq and for the climate of occupation and insurgency which they feel led to Bigley's capture. I feel that it may not have been the wisest of choices for Bigley to go to work in Iraq, but he made his choice, and it turned out to be a disastrously poor one. Nevertheless, for the situation in Iraq at the moment, and for so many of the deaths which have occurred, I do feel that Tony Blair deserves a significant portion of the blame....
Matthew, just because someone disagrees with most of the things Blair does, doesn;t mean that person has to become narrowminded and begin to blame him for things that aren;t his fault.
No, you're not being rude or sneering, you're just being a prick. I know this might come as a shock to you, but not everyone has polarised opinions where they fall neatly into one of two opposing camps. The grown-ups amongst us realise that the world is a lot more complicated than that, and there will often be grey areas. We therefore formulate our opinions on each individual issue as it arises, without buying into some kind of party line where we're obliged to think a certain way.
Ken Bigley knew that there were risks, he went over there to earn extortionate amounts of money, that is undeniable. However he was only trying to better his life. I don't think that means you deserve to get your head sawn off with a sharp knife. Still, it wouldn't be my choice of career move. Quite simply the people responsible are the people who did it. Violence in any form is rarely excusable no matter who is comes from. More people have died at the hands of the coalition. However, if it wasn't for Blair there would have been no British involvement in the Iraq war, so I guess in some ways that makes him very indirectly accountable for all the British people who are over there, which includes everyone from the soldiers who were sent there to those who were kidded into thinking they are rebuilding the country and making it better. I'd agree that Blair has blood on his hands but that blood was already there long before poor Mr Bigley was killed.
I'd argue that Bigley going to Iraq played a much larger part than the 'climate of occupation and insurgency"!!! You don't stand in the middle of the road and then blame the government for building it when you get knocked down! As you know very well Sal, I'm entirely opposed to the war and think Blair has a lot of other people's blood on his hands. That doesn't make him accountable for every Westerner foolish enough to be in Iraq, though. They made their choices.
just thought it was his brother paul Anti-war meeting hears Paul Bigley message 08/10/2004 - 20:20:42 About 200 anti-war protesters held a sombre meeting tonight calling for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq. The meeting, which was initially due to feature a live telephone link with Paul Bigley, brother of murdered hostage Ken, opened with a minute’s silence in tribute to his memory. Mr Bigley withdrew from the meeting following news of his brother’s execution, but asked for a short message to be read out. It said: “Please, please stop the war and prevent any other lives being lost. It is illegal. It has to stop. “Mr Blair has blood on his hands.” The meeting was arranged by the Merseyside Stop The War coalition, and was held in the Eleanor Rathbone Theatre at the University of Liverpool. Paul Bigley was tonight travelling from his home in Amsterdam to Liverpool to be with his mother Lil and brothers Phil and Stan. Chairman Mark Holt offered his condolences and sympathy to the Bigley family on behalf of the group, before Rose Gentle, the mother of soldier Gordon, who was killed while serving in Iraq, gave a short speech calling for the withdrawal of British forces. She said: “Tony Blair should listen to us and stop listening to America. It’s time to face up to reality. “(Tony Blair) wrote to me and told me that Gordon had died for his country. That is rubbish. Gordon died for Tony Blair’s greed and lies. “He should set a deadline and bring all the troops back home.” But that realy does not matter .. i will show respect for him and his family at this time of grief No he does not deserve any blame however you look at it .. Do you mean if Mr Blair had not sent troops to iraq then Mr Bigley would not be their / well then i suppose Mr Bush has blood on his hands ? Wow shal we star blaming Mr Bigley as well ? This is so not right ... i think i am just going to leave this and say WTF R.I.P Mr Bigley.
I agree entirely Paul. I wouldn't wish that death on anyone. I just don't see that in this instance, Blair can really be held to blame.
As much of a stupid move Blair made going to war in the first place... people do seem to forget that he is indeed human and if you put yourself in his shoes and took into acout the responsibility of looking after a whole country you might have a bit of sympathy for the guy. I dont beleive the war wasright but i dont beleive Blairs the total c*** people make him out to be. He did his best once he'd dug the whole to un-dig it, he did what he thought was right... subsiquently turned out to be wrong... but i know id have terrible trouble being in his power. I dont think Blair could be "blamed" for this death.. he has a part of blame for the situation we are in now but hes not the only one who makes the decisions in this country, infact im pretty sure he hardly makes any of them.
Well I get what you mean.. Blair / Bush.... you could argue they're just a figure head for an ongoing regime that has had it's agenda clearly set out for a long time... independant of who is at the "driving seat"
yeah, but he got voted in coz people wanted him to make our descisions. i dont think backing him up by saying he doesnt make the decisions is much of an argument, coz he should have the strength to stand up to bush if he doesnt want to get involved in any wars, but he didnt, which makes me think he's either spineless, or was in favour of the war. i do agree that he shouldnt personally be held resonsible for kens death though. he didnt force him to go out there. peace and love stardust xxx
Put it this way ... if it was me and my Staines Massive..... and there was the ...*thinks* .... woking crew and A fuck off gang of nuclear weapon holding americans told me to side with them and fight the woking crew...... or go against them .... i know id be bloody intimidated... innit!
Mr Blair and his 'crew' could quite easily have said No... The Australians have never said No to the americans in the last hundred years or so..so i think personaly the we went because we deemed it the right thing to do ,and it had nothing to do with what america wanted us to do . I think fleasy you have a good point and i possibly have said it myself before , its an awsesome task running a country and decisions made are decisions made. right or wrong. If anti war people made a the dicision possibly another 'war' would be happening maybe the world would have been less hostile and maybe less people would be dead..maybe but then maybe not .. an awesome task and a awesome responsibility. Mr bigley is if honest not that significant in the whole darn thing .. but again R.I.P Mr Bigley
Yes he is human. Yes he has got a hell of a lot of responsibility. But you have to remember that he chose his role, he didn't 'accidentally' end up in a position of power. To accept the role of PM is to accept responsibility, I could have a small amount of sympathy for him, but then if he needs it, he shouldn't have token on that role in the first place.
If you disagree with him thats fair enough .... just look at what your personal choice may have caused or not caused ... ????? Not saying its would be any better or any worse ... just think and take this into account
I'm not sure what your point is here Matthew, but the point I was making was irrelevant to whether I agree with him or not. I'm simply saying that when you choose to accept the role of Prime Minister, you also accept the responsibility of running the country, and that includes all the good, bad and the ugly decisions, and taking the fallout for it.
