Walking in the Shadows

Random musings from Warwickshire on life in general... Things that make me laugh, make me cry, things that wind me up beyond all endurance - and everything in between.

Blair on trial. I wish. (Part 2 )

This continues from the previous post, where Tony Blair is giving evidence to the Iraq War enquiry.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most


***********************************

1409 Mr Blair says he tried one "last-ditch chance" to get a UN solution, by defining more clearly the definition of a breach of the UN's will in terms of WMDs.

Right. But only because he would be able to plead that in his defence.

1412 As the war approached President Bush told Mr Blair that, if going into Iraq was too difficult, he would understand if the UK did not get involved, the inquiry hears. It was a "tough situation", Mr Blair adds.

So tough that he still went ahead and supported his little buddy.

1413 Mr Blair says he "genuinely hoped" the UN path would work.

If that was the case, why didn’t he try harder to get the agreement?

1416 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair confirms that George Bush was willing to go it alone in Iraq if it was "too difficult" for Britain but the former PM says his judgement - a word he's used often - was that the alliance with America was important and he had been down a UN path that he had hoped would work and had done everything he could to avoid this "tough choice" - and that the military agreed "if we were going to be part of this we should be whole hearted".

Yeah, but he didn’t, and the war went ahead regardless of what anyone said.

1416 The aftermath of the invasion was "the most difficult part", Mr Blair says, adding that to have kept out of this would have been wrong.

No, wrong was going into Iraq in the first place without the UN mandate.

1420 Sir Roderic Lyne moves on to the issue of the legality of the war, which has been such a focus of previous hearings this week. He is summarising what was said previously, allowing Mr Blair to interject if he disagrees at any point.

1425 Mr Blair says he is happy with the summary of legal issues so far. So Sir Roderic continues with his narrative of the way the debate over legality of the war went in the run-up to war.

1423 Sir Roderic Lyne says there was "consistent and united advice" from Foreign Office lawyers that fresh UN authorisation would have been needed to make the use of force against Iraq lawful. However, resolution 1441, which was passed by the UN, was not "crystal clear". Up until February 2003 the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, said that a further decision by the Security Council was required, he adds.

1428 Sir Roderic Lyne says that Lord Goldsmith said later that Resolution 1441 was compatible "in principle" with authorising force, but, if the matter came before a court, he was not confident this would work. He had, "to a degree", parted opinion with the Foreign Office lawyers, he adds. Lord Goldsmith was asked for a "yes or no" decision. By 13 March, he had decided that "on balance" there was a lawful basis for use of force without having to go beyond Resolution 1441. But this required a determination that Iraq was "in further material breach" of its obligations. Lord Goldsmith said he had asked Mr Blair to say this and Mr Blair had done so. This gave the "green light" for action, Sir Roderic says

1434 Mr Blair says Sir Roderic's was a "fair summary of the legal background". He adds that Resolution 1441 declared Saddam was in breach of the UN's demands.

In other words, he can’t argue with the facts. Makes a nice change…

1436 Mr Blair says he was given a Foreign Office paper on 8 March 2002 setting out legal terms for action against Iraq. Military action had been taken against Saddam in 1993 and 1998, he adds. The legal advice made it important to go down the UN route, Mr Blair tells the inquiry. The government was a "long way" from a decision, so the attorney general was not brought in at that point.

Doesn’t alter the fact that he didn’t ask for advice on the legality of the war…

1436 Sir Roderic Lyne says it seems the attorney general rarely discussed the issue of Iraq with Mr Blair, particularly in 2002. Mr Blair says Lord Goldsmith had been "closely involved" but did not attend cabinet until the decision was to be taken. That was the usual practice, he said. However, he added that Lord Goldsmith was giving his advice to the prime minister and ministers, Mr Blair says.

Even if advice was given, it was ignored, or more to the point, bent to make it fit with the desired purpose.

1438 Once discussions about action in Iraq began with the Americans, Mr Blair says he was sure by March 2002 that it was important to go via the UN route.

If that was the case, why wasn’t everything done to gain this resolution?

1441 Resolution 1441 was adopted by the UN in November 2002. By early 2003 the armed forces had been instructed to prepare for action, Sir Roderic Lyne says. He asks whether it would have been useful to have the attorney general's advice. Mr Blair says if Lord Goldsmith had said action against Iraq was unlawful, it would not have happened. Mr Blair says the government knew its options. It had not received formal advice, but Lord Goldsmith had made clear his opinion.

And that opinion was ignored, along with the advice, as it didn’t give the answer that was wanted.

1444 Mr Blair says he was "well aware" that Lord Goldsmith was saying that a second UN resolution was needed. Saddam made a "material breach" of the existing Resolution 1441, he added. There was "at least as powerful an argument" in favour of just one, rather than two, resolutions, he adds.

But that didn’t stop the planning for the invasion, even though it would have been illegal under international law.

1447 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair confirms military preparations were under way even before the 'first' UN resolution -1441- was passed but makes it clear ultimately no action would have taken without legal cover for it

Typical of Blair – he just wanted to go along with what Shrub wanted.

1449 The "spirit" of Resolution 1441 was that Saddam would get one final chance, Mr Blair says. Otherwise "that's it", he adds. A further resolution would have been politically preferable, Mr Blair says.

Never mind politically preferable – it would have been better for everyone if this second resolution had been obtained. That way, a cohesive plan for the aftermath would have been in place.

1450 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair sidesteps the question of what he said if anything to the Attorney General between 7th and 13th March 2003 when the Attorney General's advice "'evolved"' - in other words when Lord Goldsmith ditched caveats and gave the green light for military action.

Bit close to the truth? Maybe he realised just what he was getting into at long last – but I doubt it.

1452 Sir Roderic Lyne suggests it was a "considerable relief" when Lord Goldsmith offered different advice, on 13 March 2003. Mr Blair says he did so because of the Hans Blix evidence suggesting Saddam had not complied with Resolution 1441. But Sir Roderic says this was contrary to many international lawyers' opinions. Mr Blair says all countries which took military action believed they had a legal reason for doing so.

Crap. It just meant that the Attorney General caved in to political pressure, and started toeing the line that Blair and Shrub wanted him to.

1456 Sir Roderic Lyne asks Mr Blair how convinced he was that the UK had a strong legal case after Lord Goldsmith's advice. Mr Blair says Lord Goldsmith would not have reached his opinion "unless he believed it". The attorney general had not said he would not have won a court case with such a point, merely that it was arguable either way, Mr Blair says. On this advice, the former PM says he decided "to go forward".

No – it means that Lord Goldsmith lost his backbone, and gave the answers that Blair and co wanted to hear – not what was needed.

1500 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Asked if he felt there was a strong legal case for war, Tony Blair said the Attorney General had to come to a decision which in the end, he did. Throughout this session Tony Blair been keen to stress Lord Goldsmith’s "top rank" experience as a lawyer, his integrity and his desire to give advice whether required or not - in other words, he has sought distance himself from suggestions that he or his officials could have leant on the attorney general to water down legal objections to war. But the question of what Tony Blair said to Lord Goldsmith in the crucial week of 7-13 March wasn't hotly pursued.

Rubbish. Lord Goldsmith was leaned on by his “political masters” and just bleated out whatever they wanted to hear – in this case, that there was no requirement for the UN resolution.

1504 The defence spending review of 1997 stated that the military should be given sufficient time for planning actions, panel member Baroness Prashar says. Mr Blair says that on Iraq, for a time, the government was worried about making planning too visible and "triggering an assumption" of invasion. He repeats that, in October 2002, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: "We really need to get on with this." Army chief General Sir Mike Jackson had been clear that the forces would be ready, Mr Blair says.

The military would have been ready, regardless of what Geoff Hoon said – that’s their job.

1508 There was visible preparation later, but in mid-2002 there was a concern that people did not start to think an invasion was inevitable, Mr Blair says. And "it really wasn't", he adds

Funny – he’s pretty much admitted to being committed to the invasion, so how can he say that the invasion wasn’t inevitable?

1510 After a very brief set of questions on military preparation, Mr Blair is asked about planning for the war's aftermath. There was an "immense amount" of this, he tells the panel. The "real problem" was that some wrong eventualities were prepared for. The focus was on humanitarian outcomes, which averted a disaster. But the oil fields were not burned and chemical and biological weapons not used.

The Iraqis burnt the Kuwaiti oil fields during their retreat in 1990, but Saddam wasn’t daft enough to damage something that he could use to get money into the country… Humanitarian concerns? What about the ordinary people who suffered after the invasion, as the insurgency took hold, and they were being killed along with our service personnel?

1511 One of the planning assumptions, Mr Blair says, was that there would be a functioning Iraqi civil service below the top level. But dealing with a "semi-fascist state" like Iraq makes that assumption wrong, he adds. It was necessary to rebuild the civil infrastructure from nothing, as it was a "completely broken system".

True – if you weren’t a member of the Baath party, then you weren’t allowed to be part of the government. But the trouble was, not everyone was a committed party member…

1513 The risks and resources required were weighed up and the UK "could not walk away from the people of Iraq" after the war, Mr Blair says. Bu the UK would have done some things differently in hindsight, he adds.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but until someone invents a time machine, you’re screwed.

1516 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: There's been a lot of debate about whether troops were properly equipped for action and whether enough planning had been done - and whether Gordon Brown as chancellor was properly resourcing the troops. Tony Blair attempts to take the political sting out of this early on by saying that it was up to the military to judge if they were prepared and that he as PM "never refused a request for money and equipment".

That may be the case, but what about the required investment in decent kit, and making sure that there was enough for everyone?

1522 Mr Blair again says the UK did not plan for the absence of a functioning Iraqi civil service. He adds that "people did not think al-Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did". The latter influences nearly caused the mission to fail, Mr Blair says. These are the same forces confronted as in Afghanistan, he adds.

What a surprise – there was no plan for the absence of a functioning civil service, That was apparent from the outset – all these plans for fighting, but nothing to help with the aftermath.

1524 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair is very reluctant to admit to mistakes in planning for the aftermath. The key mistake for him was to assume there would still be a functioning Iraqi civil service after the invasion but said that another potential problem - sectarian violence - was tackled swiftly when Shia, Sunnis and Kurds were quickly brought together. The subsequent problems are blamed on the influence of Iran – a pretty constant bête noire for Tony Blair today - and al-Qaeda.

What a surprise – Blair doesn’t like admitting he was wrong. Guess that comes with the territory of being a politician...

1527 Mr Blair says states like Iraq under Saddam are repressive and secretive. The question for other countries is whether it is necessary and possible to engage in such places, he adds. Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcott calls another break, with questioning expected to recommence at about 1550 GMT.

Ok – Iraq wasn’t the most open place, but I still don’t see the reason why we needed to invade Iraq.

1546 Mr Blair says the plan was that the aftermath would not require as many troops as the conflict itself. The issue in southern Iraq was not the number of troops, but how reconstruction could get going while, fairly early on, there were groups opposed to this.

Whoops – someone didn’t do their homework… The Shia sect of Islam is predominant in Iraq – and it was only Saddam's iron fist that kept a lid on things…

1549 Saddam was toppled very quickly but the allies found the situation was different to that which had been expected, Mr Blair says. Another assumption, that Iran would not be provocative, also started to change, with its backing for the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr, he adds.

Like Iran wouldn’t miss the chance to stir things up. Technically, the Iran-Iraq war was only ever on a cease-fire – no peace treaty / agreement was ever signed.

1553 On funding for aid and redevelopment, Mr Blair says extra money was agreed with the Treasury in March 2003. Iraq was the "key country" for the Department for International Development in 2003-04, he adds. The problem, which became clearer, "was not a lack of resources, but a lack of security".

Which anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen happening, as Iraq is such a mix of cultures. It was only Saddam’s ruthless control that kept a lid on things.

1556 There was "much discussion" of the Shia-Sunni issue, Mr Blair says. But people did not believe al-Qaeda and Iran would have a destabilising influence. The Iraqi people were not in favour of violence or sectarianism, he says.

No, because it wasn’t in their interest. But a tiny (but well armed) minority had other ideas, and decided to stir things up, to cause trouble for the US and the UK.

1558 The UK tried to "reach out" to Iran, but one of the "most disappointing" aspects of the mission was that the country became a major destabilising influence in Iraq, Mr Blair adds.

Iran wouldn’t spit on either Shrub or Blair if they were on fire – they’d be more likely to pour crude oil on them to help the fire, so appealing to them wasn’t really a smart move…

1600 The government asked for an assessment on Iran's likely attitude for an invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair says. The evidence was it would have a "watching brief" and "be pleased" to get rid of Saddam.

Wouldn’t you be pleased to get rid of someone who did so much damage to your military in an eight year war?

1602 Returning to his "twenty ten" point, Tony Blair says that if Saddam had been left in power he has "little doubt" that Iraq would now be "competing" with Iran on nuclear weapons and in support of terrorist groups.

Open to debate again – Saddam would have only supported the terrorist groups if it had suited his agenda.

1604 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair launches another verbal attack on Iran - this time, for deliberately trying to destabilise post-war Iraq but Sir Roderic Lyne, the most dogged of Mr Blair's inquisitors, wonders why this wasn't anticipated. Tony Blair says the advice - presumably the intelligence - suggested that Iran would be glad to see the back of Saddam and would be "amenable" to the new Iraq

Anyone could have foreseen this happening – Iran for years has wanted to challenge the Sunni rule in the Middle East, and Saddam was an impediment to this happening. It’s highly unlikely that Iran wouldn’t have taken the opportunity to make sure that it was a Shia led government that came into power in post-Saddam Iraq.

1609 On the disbanding of the Iraqi army by the US, Mr Blair says he is "not sure" about the policy. It would have been "sensible" for the Americans to have a discussion about it.

It looks like the US have a lot to answer for in some respects – as their forward planning seems non-existent.

1612 Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman says WMDs were not found and this was the "headline for most people". He asks when Mr Blair thought this was likely to be the case. During 2004 it became "difficult to sustain" the possibility WMDs might turn up, he answers.

There was never any chance of turning up the WMDs, as there was no political will, from either the US or the UK to assist with the inspections, and put pressure on Saddam to facilitate the inspections.

1614 The force required to remove a regime is "one function", but there will have to be nation-building afterwards, Mr Blair says. This may require more or different types of forces, he adds.

Regime change. That was the ultimate end, but no-one seemed to give any thought to the reconstruction side of things…

1616 Mr Blair says the "very purpose" of the people the UK ended up fighting in Iraq was to stop reconstruction. In such circumstances "you don't move to peace-keeping" straightaway, because "your enemy is trying to kill you".

True – but it was because the people who were part of the insurgency thought that the US and UK had invaded their country. Technically, we had done so.

1622 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair says the problem wasn't the pace of reconstruction in post-war Iraq but security - although he also implicitly admits that more attention would have to be paid to "nation building" if a similar situation were to exist in future.

Hindsight again.

1625 It was bound to take a "certain amount of time" to win the battle of creating stability in Iraq, Mr Blair says.

Yeah – talking to the people first might have helped – they might not have felt so angry about the invasion once the euphoria of getting rid of Saddam and his murderous regime faded.

1631 On the deaths of Iraqi civilians since the war, Mr Blair says the coalition forces were not the ones doing the killing. It was terrorists and sectarians, "deliberately" trying to end the stabilisation process. These were "precisely the same people we were trying to fight everywhere". People in southern Iraq are now better off than under Saddam and have hope of a better future, Mr Blair says. Panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman says that claim is up for debate.

Agreed – the coalition personnel were not doing the killing – but if they hadn’t been there, then the bombs wouldn’t have been going off near their bases.

1632 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: The inquiry takes a more emotive turn with Sir Lawrence pointing to the growing civilian death toll after the invasion. Tony Blair passionately argues that this is the fault of the terrorists. But the inquiry are interested in whether coalition troops could do more to protect people and opponents of the war would blame the invasion for unleashing the violence.

Whatever the pros and cons of this argument, there is only so much that the military can do to protect the civilian population, as they were limited by both numvers and equipment. It’s a case of chicken and egg – without the troops, there would have been little violence and Saddam still in power, but with them, Saddam was removed but the violence kicked off.

1635 Mr Blair says there was not a "cavalier" attitude to planning for the aftermath of the war. But, however much you plan and whatever forces you have, al-Qaeda and Iran would have made the task difficult. This was no reason to "back away", Mr Blair says. Nobody would want to go back to the days of no hope, opportunity or freedom, he adds.

That’s a bit of a joke, the whole aftermath planning smacks of a cavalier attitude – as in “things will sort themselves out”

1641 Mr Blair says the "key players" in the UK government were in close contact as planning for the war developed.

In close contact? What with? A brick wall?

1643 The cabinet had 25 pre-invasion discussions, Mr Blair says. There was a "constant interaction", he adds. Members of the cabinet did not feel they were not involved, even Robin Cook, who eventually resigned over the war, Mr Blair says.

Robin Cook was the only member of the government who had the courage of his convictions, and resigned as a matter of principal, as he opposed the invasion.

1651 The cabinet was focused on political issues at the time of making decisions on whether to go to war, Mr Blair says. Even Robin Cook, who quit over the war, said it was necessary to get a second UN resolution for such reasons, he adds

So why didn’t he listen? Or was he too taken with the idea of regime change, as proposed by his buddy, Shrub?

1653 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair is keen to rebut the allegation that he led entirely from the front on invading Iraq and that though his colleagues may have been behind him, they were a long way behind. He says there were 25 discussions on Iraq at cabinet meetings - and that most of the cabinet agreed with him, but could challenge if they wish (and as the late Robin Cook did) - and there was an "immense amount" going on in Clare Short's International Development Department; implicitly he's saying she shares responsibility for decisions though she resigned after the conflict. It had been suggested that Tony Blair had kept some senior colleagues out of the loop on key decisions. He suggests Clare Short was involved in post war planning discussions well before the war itself began.

Talk about trying to wriggle out of the blame. By blaming Clare Short, it takes the heat off of him, and makes him look slightly less culpable.

1655 There could have been a major legal debate about military action in Kosovo in the late 1990s but there was not, because it was not such a politically divisive issue as Iraq, Mr Blair says.


Kosovo, unlike Iraq, had UN sanctioning, so there is no comparison between the two.

1656 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair ends the questioning on post-war planning with his customary defiant and robust tone - he seems more assured here than on the dense questioning on the legality of the conflict earlier. He says there was no "cavalier" attitude taken to planning the aftermath of war and that - as with Afghanistan - you have to be prepared for the long haul

Strange – that doesn’t seem apparent at the moment – the lack of planning is criminal.

1703 Inquiry chairman Sir John Chico says the "liberators" of Iraq soon came to be resented. He asks whether the people of Iraq thought the invasion and subsequent efforts worthwhile. Mr Blair says it is "too early" to say whether Iraqi democracy will function effectively and take root, although there are "hopeful signs". Income per head has risen, money is being spent on infrastructure, he adds. It was a "very, very difficult fight" and that the UK will be better prepared and educated if it takes part in future nation-building exercises

We shouldn’t have been in this position in the first place! The coalition was resented the minute the euphoria of Saddam’s overthrow wore off, and the bombs started exploding in the market places, killing not only the troops, but civilians as well.

1705 Mr Blair says child mortality has fallen in Iraq because of the change of regime - 50,000 fewer young children dying each year he says. The majority of Iraqis would overwhelmingly say the situation is preferable to that under Saddam, he adds.

True – there is no more state sanctioned murder to remove rivals to power. But equally, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the coalition out of their country.

1708 Mr Blair is asked about the anger felt towards him over the Iraq war, and whether he has regrets. He replies that he had to take the decision for war and there is "not a single day" when he does not think about it. He adds that, had he left Saddam in power, the circumstances for dealing with him would be worse. Mr Blair says he is "sorry" the war was divisive, but the UK's security is better without Saddam and his sons in power. He feels responsibility but not regret for removing Saddam Hussein. As the session comes to an end he says he believes "the world is safer as a result" of the Iraq war.

The UK’s security has improved without Saddam? What planet is he on? It’s worse since he helped Shrub remove Saddam, and things won’t improve until we get out of Iraq.

*****************************

All this enquiry has done so far, is proven that Blair is a liar, who was more intent of posing and trying to impress his little friend Shrub. At the end of this, I can’t see any answers worth their paper being produced. If I’m wrong, then I will cheerfully post a retraction of this particular comment on my blog, but I doubt I’ll have to do that.

Guess I should log off and head for home – it is a Friday night after all…

Back when I get the chance.

Karen

Blair on trial. I wish. (Part 1)

As I explained in an earlier post, I’ve decided to follow this enquiry today (as my work allows) as I feel that this needs airing, and I have chosen selected highlights, This will be followed in two parts – the morning session, and the afternoon session.

Again, as is my prerogative. I make no apologies for the views that are in italics – they are mine, and mine alone.


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

***********************************

This quote is straight from the BBC website Iraq War Enquiry - Live Feed

This is the big one. Tony Blair, the prime minister who took Britain to war in Iraq in 2003, is to face six hours of questioning about his role. The five members of the Iraq inquiry will ask him about the build-up to the invasion, the conduct of the war and the planning and execution of its aftermath. There will be particular interest in the legality - or otherwise - of the war and the discussions between the US and Britain before troops were sent in without a second United Nations resolution. Also expect questions about the claim that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction”
Today will be the start of the ‘interrogation’ of a certain T Blair, over his decision to take the UK into an illegal war. Ok – I don’t have a problem admitting that Saddam was no angel – far from it. What bugs me is the fact that our service men & women have been killed for a pointless (and immoral) war.

0949 Mr Blair says the effectiveness of sanctions before 9/11 was eroding. He adds that he has gone back through his speeches during this period. From 1997 to 2001 Mr Blair says the sanctions in place on Iraq weren't the "top priority". If 9/11 had not happened, the assessment of Saddam would not have been the same. The UK and US view changed "dramatically" at this point, Mr Blair says.

Yeah – Shrub (I mean Bush Jnr) wanted to go one better than daddy, and knock out Saddam.

0952 Sir Roderic Lyne says Saddam was not involved in 9/11 or with al-Qaeda. Mr Blair responds that 9/11 changed perceptions.

What perceptions? Iraq was a threat in 1990 – sanctions pretty much made sure that Saddam & Iraq were a spent force by 9/11.

1005 Mr Blair says he was "never short" of people challenging him during this period, including cabinet ministers Robin Cook and Clare Short. But the Iraq options paper was not specifically discussed at cabinet, he tells the inquiry.

Would have been nice if he’d listened to the voices of dissent, instead of riding roughshod over people. And what happened to full and frank discussions?

1007 The "downside" arguments were about the risks of military involvement and to relationships with the Arab world and others, Mr Blair says. The "full range" of views were received, but "the trouble was, we had to make a decision".

Make a decision? To do what? Act as Shrub’s pet? And I notice that he still took no notice of other peoples views – it was almost as if it was all about what HE wanted.

1013 Sir Roderic Lyne asks whether the removal of regimes had become a "valid objective" of UK policy by 1999. "No," Mr Blair replies. WMDs were the "key issue" in Iraq, he adds.

Yet the UN inspection teams found no evidence after the 1990 war to say that there were any WMDs left – the allies had bombed the areas that were known to house SCUDS and other weapons.

1015 Saddam's regime, which had used chemical weapons on some of its own people, was a "bigger threat" than many others, Mr Blair says.

No-one disputes that he gassed his own people – and he used chemical weapons against Iran during that war as well.

1017 A prime minister must take an assessment of risk, Mr Blair says. Pre-9/11 Saddam had been a "monster" but the UK had to "make best". Afterwards, that changed, he adds. Rogue states cannot be allowed to develop or proliferate WMDs, Mr Blair argues.

Agreed. But Iraq was in no position to get anything truly nasty, as the sanctions pretty much wiped out his ability to trade for anything that could be used.

1029 Mr Blair says he and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed the UK would try to get a UN resolution. He adds that it was important to put together a coalition on Iraq. The UN route was important as he "didn't want America to feel it had no option but to do it alone".

Yeah – but that didn’t stop Shrub though. He was determined to get his own way, and remove Saddam.

1030 The only commitment at Crawford, in spring 2002, was to deal with Saddam, Mr Blair says. He and Mr Bush agreed on this, but the method of doing so was "open".

See previous comment.

1039 It was clear that, if it came to military action to deal with WMDs, the UK would be "with" the US, Mr Blair says. Force was "always an option", he tells the panel.

As I said – Shrub wanted to go one better and remove Saddam from power.

1041 Back to the Crawford ranch meeting. Sir Roderic Lyne asks whether the US and UK disagreed on the means of tackling WMDs, with the UK preferring the UN route. Mr Blair says that Mr Bush had agreed that "if the UN route worked; it worked".

Like Shrub was really willing to wait for the UN to give the go-ahead for the use of force to tackle the alleged WMDs.

1050 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Again Tony Blair refutes the "poodle" charge which has dogged him. He says that President Bush would have adjusted their policy of regime change if weapons inspections worked and if the UN route had worked. The term 'UN route' is ambiguous though - some believe the UN route meant disarmament without war, others that it simply meant more explicit and widespread backing for military action. Of course ultimately it led to neither.

‘Nuff said.


1113 Mr Blair says military action possibilities were discussed at that Crawford meeting with President Bush in April 2002.

What a surprise. Shrub was never going to wait for the UN to agree to his plans to topple Saddam.

1117 Mr Blair says that, if it was right to conduct a military campaign, it was right for Britain to be involved. It was best, in such a case, to be "right alongside" the US. If war is thought to be right, the UK "should be prepared to play our part fully", Mr Blair adds.

As what? Something to support Shrub in his favourite pastime – and help distract attention from the problems at home. But this should only have been agreed to with the UN sanctioning any action.

1124 Saddam had used WMDs and "definitely had them", Mr Blair says. It would have required much evidence to put the supposed programme to develop more WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) into doubt, he adds.

No-one is disputing that Saddam had used WMDs – but where were they when the UN inspection team was there after the 1990 Gulf war?

1126 Mr Blair says the "link" between Saddam and al-Qaeda - which previous inquiries have suggested did not exist - was that highly suppressed and failing states become "porous" and easier for terror groups to infiltrate. The link between this problem and failing states having WMDs could make them more dangerous, he tells the panel.

Ok – I agree Iraq wasn’t the most stable of countries, but I think that even Saddam would have noticed al-Qaeda coming into Iraq…

1134 On to the September 2002 dossier, claiming Saddam had WMDs he could mobilise within 45 minutes of giving an order. Mr Blair says this was to do with short-range chemical munitions. The words later took on "far greater significance", he adds.

Mobilise in 45 minutes? That’s if the things even existed, which I very much doubt.

1141 Dealing with intelligence evidence, Mr Blair says he believed it when he said in his foreword to the 2002 dossier that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam had continued to produce biological and chemical weapons.

Beyond doubt? Why weren’t they found then, or more to the point, why didn’t any of the defectors allude to them?

1154 Panel member Sir Roderic Lyne asks whether intelligence in late 2002 was suggesting the WMD threat was growing. It was, Mr Blair says. It was not known at the time that evidence of mobile weapons production facilities - which would have allowed Saddam to evade inspections - was wrong, he adds.

At last. He’s admitted to being wrong about something. Just a pity that he didn’t think more like this when the question of going to war was first mentioned.

1155 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: A significant exchange between Sir Lawrence and Tony Blair. The former PM says it is justifiable to say intelligence on Iraq was "beyond doubt" because he prefaces the phrase in the foreword of the September dossier with the word "I believe" and he says he genuinely believed it… that was, in effect his reading of the intelligence and he "couldn't understand how anyone could come to a different view".

Justifiable intelligence? Where? Never mind that he “believed” that the evidence was beyond doubt – other people, including the late Dr Kelly were raising doubts about the validity of the evidence.

1157 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: At least a partial admission from Tony Blair that the use of intelligence could have been bettered handled. Tony Blair argues that the now controversial 45 minute claim on Saddam's ability to have WMD ready for use in the September 2002 dossier took on much more significance subsequently than at the time. But Sir Lawrence Freedman is concerned even at the time that the claim was too general and not specific enough. Tony Blair admits with hindsight that it would have been better to have corrected this at the time but again makes clear that there is no truth in the allegation that Downing St used the information knowing it to be probably wrong.

Of course he’s not going to admit he got it wrong – there would be even more pressure to indict him as a war criminal if he said he got it wrong.

1201 On presentation of the UK's Iraq policy in 2002, Mr Blair says there had been no decision on military action but it was a possibility. The "problem" was that people were writing that the UK had decided. If he had said military planning was in place, this could make such a course of action "irreversible", he adds.

It was. It’s just that he didn’t want to admit that he’d committed the UK to an illegal war.

1202 Towards the end of October 2002, the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, asked Mr Blair to discuss military planning in more detail, he says. Most of this had to be "under the radar" but did not always stay there, he tells the panel.

Under the radar? Only because he didn’t want people realising that he was acting as Shrub’s poodle.

1205 On going to the UN, says the difficulty was that Resolution 1441 was "strong", but there was an "unresolved issue". Some countries wanted to have a decision for action only with a specific UN mandate. Mr Blair took the view that that was not necessary but he thought a new resolution would make the situation easier politically.

Agreed – plus the war would have been seen as legal, and no-one would have objected so much, as there would have been a proper plan to re-build things after the war.

1207 Backing away from Saddam in the run-up to war would have sent a "bad message" for the rest of the world, the former PM says.

Ok – agreed on that, but the war should have been sanctioned by the UN, and there wouldn’t have been so many protests.

1213 Mr Blair is asked whether military planning set the terms of diplomatic debate. There was no doubt Saddam was in breach of UN conditions, he tells the inquiry. There was time enough to get another resolution, but France and Russia moved to another position, Mr Blair says.

Yes – they wanted more time for the inspections to work, rather than rushing headlong into a war.

1224 Saddam was in a "game-playing" situation with the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, Mr Blair says. As troops began to build up, the Iraqi leader started to give more cooperation. Mr Blix was not "enthusiastic" about interviewing Iraqi scientists, as they, or their families, could be killed.

No-one is disputing the fact that Saddam used terror to keep people in line – it was one of the most disgusting things about his regime.

1225 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Tony Blair makes an important distinction between Saddam and Col Gaddafi, who dismantled Libya's WMD programme under international scrutiny. The former PM is implicitly arguing that it doesn't really matter if Saddam had WMD - the fact that, unlike Libya, he did not co-operate, concealed documents, and restricted access to scientists means that he was in breach of his obligations to the UN and could not be trusted not to resurrect a weapons programme even if one wasn't in the end active at that time - that the UN was into a "game playing scenario" with Saddam.

Add into that, Gaddafi paid “blood money” to the Lockerbie victims, and has quite a large oil reserve… Hmmm I wonder if oil had anything to do with the determination to get rid of Saddam… Surely not.

1227 Mr Blair says he was "confused" as to what Mr Blix was trying to say in February 2003. On one page of his briefing, he says Iraq has made a commitment to allow interviews but there was a reluctance to follow through. Sometimes it is important not to ask the "March 2003 question" but the "2010 question", Mr Blair says. It is at least arguable that Saddam was a threat and if he had been left in place for several more years, with oil at $100 a barrel, he would have had the intent and the means to act, and the UK and its allies would have "lost our nerve", he argues.

Ahhh – now the truth comes out. Oil. Never mind the WMDs – oil is FAR more important.

1229 Mr Blair says he worked for a UN resolution "until the last moment".

Liar.

1234 Mr Blair says he tried to find a way, with Mr Blix, to move on, constructing tests for Saddam's regime, including interviewing Iraqi scientists outside the country.

Like Saddam would have agreed to that, and Blair knows that – he’s just looking to protect his own skin.

1235 The UK was "trying desperately" to get a way of going ahead with the UN, Mr Blair says. However, it became "very clear" that France and Russia's position on agreeing to any resolution had changed.

France and Russia wanted to exhaust all options, before going to war, unlike Shrub and his pet.

1240 From BBC political correspondent Iain Watson: Although no weapons of mass destruction were found following the war but Tony Blair says the findings of the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam had the means and "know how" to restart a weapons programme justifies action.

Maybe he did have the means and the know how to restart things, but I doubt somehow that Saddam would have been that stupid, given his past history with the US.

1241 Asked whether he urged President Bush to give more time to reach a UN resolution, Mr Blair says that Saddam had not cooperated before. Mr Blair says that, if a resolution could be put together, Mr Bush was in favour, but there was not the time.

No, because they didn’t want to make time. If they had been serious about the UN resolution, they would have found a way to get things sorted out.

Back at 14:00, when this resumes.


Karen

Another joke

Well, the jokes are coming in thick and fast today, so this is the second one that I’ve decided to post, as it just appealed to my twisted sense of humour…

I make no apologies for it – it’s made me laugh.

Enjoy.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most


***********************************

An old Italian lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard.

His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:

Dear Vincent,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over… I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Papa

A few days later he received a letter from his son.


Dear Pop,
Don't dig up that garden. That's where the bodies are buried.
Love,
Vinnie


At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.


That same day the old man received another letter from his son.

Dear Pop,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.


Love you,
Vinnie

Explanation of the Iraq War Enquiry.

I make no apology for this – I’ve copied it straight from the BBC website, as I feel that it sums up this enquiry correctly, and will explain what my later posts are about.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most



*******************

The key points of the Iraq war inquiry explained

Tony Blair is appearing at the Iraq Inquiry in the most high-profile
session since proceedings began three months ago.

What is the remit of the inquiry?

It is looking at events between 2001 and 2009, covering the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Ministers say the terms of reference are unprecedented in their breadth while inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot says he will not shirk from apportioning blame where he sees fit. 179 British service personnel were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died over the period, though estimates vary considerably.

Who has given evidence so far?

During the first two months, the inquiry heard from senior diplomats, civil servants and military commanders involved in the build-up to war, the military campaign itself and the aftermath. Among those giving evidence were Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the United States between 1997 and 2003, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq invasion, Admiral Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003 and Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time. In recent weeks, the inquiry has heard from ministers and other senior figures at No 10 such as former foreign secretary Jack Straw and No 10 communications director Alastair Campbell. It has also taken evidence from a Foreign Office lawyer who quit in protest at the war and from Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general who advised ministers that the war was lawful.

What are witnesses being asked about?

Areas covered early on included the development of UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2003 and UK-US relations over the period. There has been scrutiny of the intelligence available on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its influence on decisions taken by ministers as well as events at the UN in the run-up to war, including the negotiation of UN resolution 1441. This gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm and co-operate with weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences". There has also been significant focus on the legal arguments surrounding the war and whether it was justified without explicit UN authorisation.

Are witnesses testifying on oath?

No they are not, leading some to question the merits of the inquiry. However, all those appearing have been asked to sign a piece of paper saying they gave a "full and truthful" account of events. There is also controversy over the powers of the panel. There are no judges nor QCs on the body, leading many to question whether it has the expertise to question whether the war was legal. But the panel says it will call on relevant legal advice where needed.

What are proving to be the controversial points?

Critics of the Iraq war argue the Bush administration had effectively decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force by the middle of 2002, that the UK was aware of this and had offered its support. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has always denied this but Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's man in Washington at the time, highlighted in his evidence a private meeting between the two men in April 2002, after which Mr Blair began to talk publicly about regime change. Sir David Manning said Mr Blair signalled his intention to back regime change but urged President Bush to get UN authorisation for it. Alastair Campbell said Mr Blair wrote private notes to President Bush during 2002 suggesting the UK would ultimately take part in military action if diplomatic efforts failed. These have not been published.

What will Tony Blair be asked about?

The former prime minister is facing six hours of questioning in the first public scrutiny of his record over Iraq. Mr Blair is set to be asked whether he gave any private assurances to President Bush that he would support military action come what may and whether he approved of US policy of regime change. He is also likely to be asked about comments he made in December appearing to suggest he would have backed military action even if he had known Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There will also be detailed questions about why he said there was no doubt Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

When is Gordon Brown appearing?

The inquiry initially said the prime minister and other ministers with ongoing responsibility for Iraq would appear after the election. However, after pressure from the opposition, Mr Brown made clear he would be willing to appear at any time. As a result, Sir John Chilcot has asked him to appear next month and Mr Brown has said he is "happy" to do so.

How did the inquiry begin

The inquiry officially began in July. Sir John and the four other panel members met some of the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 as well as former and current serving personnel. During the meetings, several relatives of those killed criticised the decision to go to war, saying the British people had been lied to about the threat posed by Iraq. Sir John and his fellow panel members also spent weeks examining thousands of relevant documents from across government. However, there has been criticism that some documents have not been declassified, meaning that although the inquiry can view them they cannot be made public.

Can the public see the hearings?

Sir John has said it is "essential" that as much of the inquiry as possible is held in public. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for initially suggesting it would mainly take place in private, for national security reasons. In what critics said was an embarrassing U-turn, he later said it was up to Sir John to decide how it should proceed. Hearings are taking place in public unless there are compelling reasons of national security not to do so. Currently there has been just one private session with General Sir John Reith, the commander who oversaw the invasion.

This is not the first inquiry into Iraq, is it?

No. There have already been four separate inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict. In 2003, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify the war. The Hutton inquiry, in January 2004, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist and weapons adviser Dr David Kelly. The Butler inquiry, in July 2004, looked once again at the intelligence which was used to justify the war.

How long will the latest probe take?

Due to the number of hearings planned and the number of documents to be considered, the Inquiry says it may not publish its findings before 2011. The opposition is angry it will not report before the general election, which must be held by June.

Christian Humour worth the read

Occasionally, I get a really funny, clean joke - and this is one of those rare occasions.

Enjoy.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most


********************************************

Jesus and Satan were having an on-going argument about who was better on the computer. They had been going at it for days, and frankly God was tired of hearing all the bickering.

Finally fed up, God said, 'THAT'S IT! I have had enough. I am going to set up a test that will run for two hours, and from those results, I will judge who does the better job.'

So Satan and Jesus sat down at the keyboards and typed away.


They moused.


They faxed.


They e-mailed.


They e-mailed with attachments.


They downloaded.


They did spreadsheets.


They wrote reports.


They created labels and cards.


They created charts and graphs.


They did some genealogy reports .


They did every job known to man.


Jesus worked with heavenly efficiency and Satan was faster than hell.

Then, ten minutes before their time was up, lightning suddenly flashed across the sky, thunder rolled, rain poured, and, of course, the power went off.

Satan stared at his blank screen and screamed every curse word known in the underworld.

Jesus just sighed.

Finally the electricity came back on, and each of them restarted their computers. Satan started searching frantically, screaming:

'It's gone! It's all GONE! 'I lost everything when the power went out!'

Meanwhile, Jesus quietly started printing out all of his files from the past two hours of work.

Satan observed this and became irate.

'Wait!' he screamed. 'That's not fair! He cheated! How come he has all his work and I don't have any?

God just shrugged and said,





JESUS SAVES....

“Bee Wing” Impact

A term given to the type of impact damage that my windscreen has suffered. Again. This is the second screen that has been damaged in the past 7 months, and to be honest, I’m more than a tad fed up. Simply because it’s dratted inconvenient to get Auto Glass (who are very good) to come out and have a look at the damage.

The worst part is, with this grotty weather, the road surfaces are breaking up, meaning that you get more stones / boulders available, which means that you run the risk of more screen damage.

I wouldn’t complain so much if the money that I fork out to the government for the “Road Fund” for my car (£175.00) was used to maintain the roads, but somehow I get the feeling that the motorist is just a convenient source of revenue – in effect a “cash cow” to subsidise things the more “fashionable” things.

Ok – maybe the motorist isn’t a saint, but I object to being charged “Road Fund Licence” when the money is certainly not spent repairing the roads.

Ah well - guess I should call this quits - I'm supposed to be working, not blogging, but I'm suffering TNFI - and it's only Monday!

Back later...

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Chilling out with a Film – and the historical implications…

Well, Mum is on the road to recovery. What makes me say this? Simple. We walked around Solihull on Saturday (ok – I admit there were lots of little pauses) but she managed it. Ok – she didn’t drive – I did – but it’s an improvement.

Saturday night was a quiet one for me – no plans to head out on the town or anything daft like that – so I settled down with a film – The Great Escape with Steve McQueen as the “Cooler King”.

It’s the sort of film that got me thinking, and strangely enough, whilst I was coming into work this morning, I heard an interview with Andy Wiseman, who was a POW at Stalag Luft III.

I’ve pasted the article from the Radio 4 website, as I found the interview very thought provoking.

Karen


Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

**********************************************

This week, a group, including relatives of the survivors and young RAF recruits, retrace the 1,000-mile march which followed the evacuation of the Great Escape camp, Stalag Luft III, and which resulted in the death of 200 POWs.


Andy Wiseman, a former POW at the camp and a veteran of the Long March, tells his extraordinary story.

I was born in Berlin in 1923, so that makes me 87. My father was Polish, my mother was American. They were both Jewish, so I'm Jewish too. I went to a German school. I saw the rise of Hitler, experienced my first anti-semitism and we left Germany in 1934 for Poland.

In August 1939 my father decided to send me to England. I volunteered for the Royal Air Force for flying duties, bombed a few targets in Europe and got shot down on 18 April 1944 over France. Bailed out, lost three members of my crew and walked through bits of France for a few days.

Then I was picked up by the Gestapo and ultimately finished up at the most famous of RAF camps in Germany, Luft III, the scene of the Great Escape.

There was no point in getting killed at five minutes to midnight
Andy Wiseman
The Great Escape had taken place about three weeks before I got into the camp. The camp was shocked by the murder of the 50 officers who had escaped and had been caught by the Germans.

Until then, escapes were a game. You escaped, you got caught, you came back, your friends waved and cheered you up. You went into solitary confinement, you came out, you got more cheers and you planned the next escape.

The Germans announced that, from then onwards, all escapees would be shot. And there was a great argument whether one should carry on escaping or not. But gradually the camp went back to normal.

One of the things that was quite good in the camp, we listened to the BBC, unofficially. It was read to each hut once a day, so we knew what was going on.


We knew that the Russians were approaching, getting nearer, and we argued with the German camp commandant that we wanted to stay in the camp and wait for the Russians to liberate us.

And then came 25 January 1945 when the German camp commandant announced we had two hours to leave the camp. It was one of the coldest nights of the year. Temperatures were between -22 and -25 centigrade. We had no boots, no gloves, no hats: we were dressed in whatever we had.

The experience of the long march varied tremendously. Some people had a very very very tough time, with dysentery, with frostbite with diphtheria. Others had not so bad a time.

I think march is the wrong word, its not the long march anyway, it's the long shuffle.

You just followed into the footsteps of the guy in front of you. You bowed your head because snow was falling, and somebody said, if you bow your head as you walk or shuffle, you'd be less affected by the wind coming at you.

You didn't talk because that was an effort. You concentrated on walking. You concentrated on putting your foot into the footmark in the snow of the person in front of you. You didn't think.

Obviously the most important person on the long march was you. You were also looking after the people who had become the nearest and dearest. So you helped.

You concentrated on putting your foot into the footmark in the snow of the person in front of you
Andy Wiseman
It became more and more difficult. People fainted, Germans threatened to shoot them if they didn't march, so you helped them. You helped them to the best of your ability.

Some German guards were reasonably nice, others were real bastards. Again, it depended.

As the march went on, day after day after day, night after night after night, the column got longer and longer and longer.

You lost some of your friends. You lost all your friends. And when you finished up in a school or a church or a glass factory, you spent some time walking around looking around to see whether there was anyone there you knew.

Sometimes slept in the open, sometimes in churches, sometimes in schools. It was totally disorganised.

German civilian reaction to us differed. There were some villages where people came out with water and bread and we gave them cigarettes. There were villages where people threw stones at us. They were varied and you never knew what going on.


The long march brought to the fore qualities that you never knew you had. If somebody had said to me you will go on a long march for days on end at temperatures of minus 25, I'd have said, "You're mad, I'm not going to do it."

When it came to it, you did it, because the alternative was death. And there was really no point in getting killed at five minutes to midnight.

My group were taken south of Berlin and there we were liberated by the Russians in April before Berlin had fallen. And there I had the time of my life because I think I was the only RAF officer who spoke Russian, so I became tremendously important. I argued with Soviet generals, spoke to Soviet officers. I was fully occupied.

The Russians kept us there for a month. Then we were taken by lorries to Torgau and from there to Brussels and flown from there in Lancasters to Britain.

I came back to England in May 45, I married within a few weeks. I had a fiancé that I refused to marry during the war because I thought I wouldn't survive it.

I joined the BBC fairly soon afterwards, which having been aircrew and having been prisoner of war helped no end, vis-à-vis the administrators who hadn't had the experience.

What the long march taught me, and I go on long marches with current RAF people, is that cometh the hour cometh the man. There is no such thing "I can't do it" there is no such thing "its impossible".

Have a go and you'd be amazed what you can do. If you see a barrier, don't turn around and pretend it isn't there, you've got to get over it or under it, there's no other way of living.

And you can learn more about the RAF's retracing of the Long March at http://www.raf.mod.uk/longmarch/

Friday afternoon giggles

This got sent to me by a good friend - I make no apologies for posting it -it's made me giggle this afternoon.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most


***********************************************************

A very successful lawyer parked his brand new Porsche Carrera GT in front of the office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck came along too close to the curb and completely tore off the driver's door.

Fortunately, a cop in a police car was close enough to see the accident and pulled up behind the Porsche, his lights flashing. But, before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically about how his Porsche, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how hard the body shop tried to make it new again.

After the lawyer finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief. "I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are," he said. "You are so focused on your possessions that you neglect the most important things in life."

"How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer.

The cop replied, "Don't you even realize that your left arm is missing? It got ripped off when the truck hit you!!!"

"OH, MY GOD!" screamed the lawyer MY ROLEX!"

Being preached at (part 2)

Well, I’m back, and it wasn’t as bad as I’d feared. It was informative (to a point), but as I do most of the things that were recommended, it was really a waste of my time.

I get the feeling that the poor guy doing the course was a bit worried, as I openly said that I did do the “eco driving” as I find that it helps the fuel economy on the 207…

But, it was a tad unfair of me, especially as he was from IAM fleet (and I am a member of the IAM – talk about preaching to the choir where I am concerned!) Even so, I was still able to pick up one useful tip – and that was to lock the seatbelts in the rear of the car across the slabs when I don’t have a rear passenger (something I try to avoid!) to make sure that my stuff in the boot doesn’t go flying lessons in the event of an accident.

Aside from that, I wasn’t too impressed, but as I had to go – I guess that it was just a skive… Especially as I’ve now completed the work that I had to do. Thank God. Now all I have to do is avoid getting caught for anything before I make a break for freedom at 17:00…

Back tomorrow.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Corporate preaching

Is something that really annoys me. I don’t object to training, but there are some things that I really find objectionable – and one is being preached at with regards to how I drive.

The worst part is, I have to spend 1 ½ hours being preached at, when I have other things that need doing. It’s to do with “green motoring”, and reading thought the ten points that we are given, I can find fault with most of them.

Points like:

Use air conditioning only when necessary. What about those of us that have climate control in the car? That only runs when it needs to!

Use engine braking. Most people don’t have the foggiest, and I seem to recall from when I was learning to drive, that it was an instant fail if you did that, as you were deemed “not to be in control of the vehicle” as well as the comment that it’s cheaper to replace brake pads that the clutch.

Check your tyre pressures. Most people don’t have the foggiest what the tyre pressure should be, and never check the pressure – I at least check mine, and know what the pressure should be for normal loads (2.3 bar front & 2.5 bar rear)

Needless to say, I can see that I’m not exactly going to be popular, but to be honest, I really don’t want to do this damned course, but I’ve been told that I am doing it. The only way that I can escape, is to go sick, or book a day’s holiday (which I get the feeling will be refused!)

Ah well, back to the grindstone.

Back later, if I get the chance…

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

“Jail Break” (Or Getting Mum out of the fleapit)

Well, as I type this, Mum is at home, and out of that fleapit of a hospital. The discharge process was a farce, and to be honest, I am glad to have Mum back home. Don’t get me wrong – I know she needed the operation, and am glad that it has been done, but the standards were…. Scarily lax.

The gel dispenser that I’d reported being empty yesterday was still empty, and I walked in with one of the office minions that seemed to be based on the ward. She walked straight in to her office, ignoring the notices about using this gel, even though the damned dispenser was on the wall by the door of the office!

If you needed a wheelchair to get a patient out, there were none available on the ward, and it was a case of “go find one yourself”. I did – and I was lucky, because there were only three left!

Thankfully, I was able to park in the drop off area, and go and wheel Mum out to the car (she managed to get in with relative ease – could be something to do with all the practise that she has had!)

Now all we have to do is make sure that the district nurse turns up tomorrow, as Mum needs to have the dressing on her wounds changed daily – but if I'm honest, I don’t hold out much hope…

Guess I should call this quits – I need to get some sleep.

Back when I get the chance…


Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Visiting Mum in “jail”

That was what this dratted hospital reminded me of. That and the fact that the so-called infection control seems to be non-existent.

At the entrance to the wards, there are pumps that dispense this grotty alcohol free anti-microbial gel. I went to use the one that was outside the ward, only to find that it was empty. So, as I entered the ward area, I found another dispenser, liberally coated my hands and told one of the auxiliaries that seemed to be doing very little.

“Ok – I’ll get that sorted out”

No worries there – or so I thought. I located where Mum was (she looked pretty good, all things considering), and sorted out a seat for myself. Now I know from past experience that when I have been to visit Mum in hospital, it was almost a hanging offence to sit either on the bed, or the chair that was beside the bed, as there were chairs in the day room that visitors were supposed to use.

This time, I could have sat on Mum’s bed without anything being said to me. Not a good indication as far as I could see for infection control. Then the sadists turned up (sorry – I mean physiotherapists).

Now when Mum had her hip sorted out, it was a rule that no patient was allowed out of bed without putting slippers on. This time? Mum could have walked all over the ward in bare feet, and not one person would have said a damned thing to her.

Add into this mix, the mere fact that it was a good thing that Mum had taken some of her own medication into hospital with her, and you get the impression that I am less than impressed with the standards that I have seen. It turns out, that no medication has been sorted for Mum, despite the fact that she gave the pre-operative clinic all the information.

I made my escape, and on the way out, checked the dispenser that had been empty as I entered the ward, and found that it was still empty. To be honest, the sooner I can get Mum back home, the better. I really don’t want her staying in that fleapit of a hospital any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Guess I should call this quits – I’ve got to call the playpen and see if I can book some extra time off, as I don’t have the foggiest idea when Mum is going to be allowed home.

Back later, if I get the chance.

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

Leaving Mum

Well, I’ve just dropped Mum off at the hospital. What a depressing place. You can tell that the architect used to design prisons…

The car park was easy to find – once you knew where the hell you were aiming for. It’s almost like the disabled car park location is a state secret. Mum and I found where she was supposed to go, and got checked in by the nurse.

As per normal, Mum hadn’t had the results of the MRSA test (I read the admission card – she’d tested negative) and there was little information about her medication (despite the fact that she’d given the pre-admission clinic a complete printout from the GP as well as writing it out!)

Because there was no point me hanging around, I headed for home, via the nearby Tesco, as there were several things that I wanted to pick up whilst Mum was in hospital – milk, bread and potatoes.

That was where the fun started. As the weather has been somewhat inclement (ok – it’s snowed here, and the roads that haven’t been gritted are like skating rinks) the car park was just a sea of white. No indication of the parking bays or anything else. God help you if you were unsteady on your feet, because it was lethal underfoot as well.

The store itself looked like it had been hit by locusts – there was very little fresh fruit or vegetables, but I guess that it could have been due to the time that I was there – just after 08:30, but equally, it could have been due to the fact that the delivery truck hadn’t made it.

Honestly, it does make you wonder at times. Two flakes of snow, and the entire country grinds to a halt, and you get panic buying at the supermarket. Well, that’s something I won’t be indulging in – I’ve got everything I need, and if not – well I'm sure that I can do without for a couple of days.

Back tomorrow – I want to try and get some sleep…

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most