More like this
Blair book: why should we pay for his security?
Book signing in Piccadilly is likely to cost the taxpayer £250,000 - and he won’t even do dedications
Questions have been raised about the cost of security for Tony Blair when he signs copies of his memoir, A Journey, at Waterstone's, Piccadilly on September 8. The former PM is known to have been paid a £4.6m advance for the book, so why should the taxpayer meet the cost of his security, estimated to be about £250,000?
That guesstimate is based on the cost of policing Blair's last central London gig - his appearance in front of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war. Keeping him safe from anti-war protestors on that occasion was said to have cost the taxpayer £273,000 and the security needed in Piccadilly next month is expected to be no different.
The protests expected outside Waterstone's will be given extra edge by a £30,000 bounty offered by the Stop the War Coalition to anyone who manages to arrest Blair.
The Coalition's Andrew Burkin said yesterday: "We are appalled that Waterstone's are prepared to have him on their premises. It is a disgrace that he is swanning around with police protection at our expense he should be in The Hague on trial for war crimes."
As for the signing itself, the rules imposed by Blair's publishers on the Waterstone's event suggest actual purchasers of the tome might be thin on the ground.
According to the Bookseller: "Customers cannot be photographed with Blair, there will be no personal dedications and all bags, backpacks and briefcases must be checked in, along with cameras and mobile phones... Blair will sign a maximum of two books per customer." Nice.
·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
THis is just another joke the rich get richer the poor get poorer and this cretin is laughing at us
Seems to me most posts are missing the point. The problem is not Tony Blair, but radical Muslim extremists and others who would love the violent death of an ex-Prime Minister splashed all over the news. Tony Blair is entitled to the level of protection comensurate with the level of the threat against him. Those people who suggest security is unwarranted or that he should pay for it himself whilst going about his normal lawful business have not thought it through. Protection from assassination attempts for past and present officers of state is the absolute responsibility of the state. Democratically elected politicians (whether you agree with them or not) are not the problem; highly motivated people with proven murderous intent are. Would anyone suggest removing security from Margaret Thatcher? There are plenty of dissident republicans with long memories in Ireland who would delight at the opportunities that would open up.
This is one of the 'expenses' that really annoys. Who pays for the security of any other author? Blair is no longer a PM, in fact he's not anything any more except to the US for some reason. If Blair won't pay for his own security then it is a 'benefit in kind' as he benefits from it. So, if he won't pay the bill, charge Waterstones or Random House, then tax blair for the benefit in kind. Just like any other person would be. This man is not and never has been special. He was elected for some reason and now he's nothing again.
At a push - if Blair's on 'official' business his protection is a matter for the State: if they want him, they pay for him. But equally, if he's working entirely for himself - which is the case with this signing - he should pay for whatever protection he feels he needs. If he chooses to make that cost a requirement of appearing at Waterstones and passes the cost on to them - fine, but would Waterstones think it's worth it then? I think not.
The more we see of the odious man out of office the clearer it is that he was nothing more than a self-serving, glory-hunting oxygen thief all along............if only more voters had seen it at the time...........
For too long this pseudo-Labour politician and his greedy, reputedly socialist wife have been taking the tax-payers of this country for a ride - another of Mrs Blair's beloved freebies? I doubt whether anyone in authority will dare to put a stop to this nonsense, but in this particular instance I agree that Waterstones should be asked to pay at least some of the bill - or perhaps a nationwide boycott of their shops could be arranged?
If Blair is a man of conscience, as he so desperately wants us to believe, he should offer to pay the security costs himself or perhaps donate an equivalent amount to charity. To deliberately inflict such a cost on the public purse at a time of financial restraint shows just how out of touch the Blairs are with the real world. Surely former PMs should only have publicly funded security for "official" engagements?
Why not stipulate that Blair picks up the tab for the protection ?
Simple: Make Waterstones responsible for the costs. They will be the secondary beneficiary party (Blair, unfortunately, will be the main beneficiary), and they are arranging this shindig, so they should pay. Then maybe they will think twice about inviting a man suspected of all manner of wrongdoing, and hated by so many, into their hallowed halls. The may even passs the cost along to Blair...
It is fair a former PM has whatever protection he needs; whatever we may think of the ********, he hasn't been found guilty of a crime. But wouldn't normal common sense and basic decency tell him to minimise unnecessary expenses such as this ? What an arrogant xhit the man is!