Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

The Trial Of Tony Blair

gallowglass said:
Sod! - missed the bloody thing! Is there any chance that it'll be repeated, or is available to view elsewhere?

DRAMA: The Trial of Tony Blair
On: Channel 4 (4)
Date: Thursday 18th January 2007 (starting in 2 days)
Time: 22:00 to 23:35 (1 hour and 35 min)

DRAMA: The Trial of Tony Blair
On: more4
Date: Saturday 20th January 2007 (starting in 4 days)
Time: 21:00 to 22:35 (1 hour and 35 minutes long)

Robert Lindsay reprises his acclaimed portrayal of the Prime Minister in Alistair Beaton's biting feature-length satire portraying the trials and tribulations of Tony Blair as he leaves office after more than a decade in power. Phoebe Nicholls, Peter Mullan and Alexander Armstrong complete the principal cast co-starring as Cherie Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron respectively in this hugely entertaining comedy drama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpts taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from
http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1932

and since it's Channel 4, you'll prob'ly get it onnline thru 4OD.

Enjoy
 
Cuddles said:
EX_STAB said:
Ref James I I presume Iolis is referring to the Glorious Revolution of 1689, not as bloody as the Civil war but equally important constitutionally (if not more so) as it gave us our Bill of Rights (even though the current mob don't think it counts and Cameron's mob think it's been subject to implied repeal...)

James II, I think you will find. Also the Glorious Revolution was in 1688, when william and Mary (or Mary and william) took the throne from the papist james and saw him off. He did try to get in through the back door via Ireland but was quite properly given the heave-ho...

A bit of ealry spin there: I don't know how it would be presented today, but I've come to think of the Glorious Revolution as a coup, backed by an invasion force, largely comprising military contractors. :plotting:
 
Cuddles said:
EX_STAB said:
Ref James I I presume Iolis is referring to the Glorious Revolution of 1689, not as bloody as the Civil war but equally important constitutionally (if not more so) as it gave us our Bill of Rights (even though the current mob don't think it counts and Cameron's mob think it's been subject to implied repeal...)

James II, I think you will find. Also the Glorious Revolution was in 1688, when william and Mary (or Mary and william) took the throne from the papist james and saw him off. He did try to get in through the back door via Ireland but was quite properly given the heave-ho...

Your quite right Cuddles on both counts, my mistake. I was thinking of the Bill of Rights being 1689.

Cheers,

Ex STAB
 
Stonker said:
Cuddles said:
EX_STAB said:
Ref James I I presume Iolis is referring to the Glorious Revolution of 1689, not as bloody as the Civil war but equally important constitutionally (if not more so) as it gave us our Bill of Rights (even though the current mob don't think it counts and Cameron's mob think it's been subject to implied repeal...)

James II, I think you will find. Also the Glorious Revolution was in 1688, when william and Mary (or Mary and william) took the throne from the papist james and saw him off. He did try to get in through the back door via Ireland but was quite properly given the heave-ho...

A bit of ealry spin there: I don't know how it would be presented today, but I've come to think of the Glorious Revolution as a coup, backed by an invasion force, largely comprising military contractors. :plotting:

I'm glad to see someone picked up on this - of course, being an Irish Catholic whose family fought 'the Dutchman' I have a somewhat jaundiced view of the 'Glorious Revolution'. However, from a coldly practical standpoint, the events of 1688-1691 probably prevented Britian from falling victim to a revolution similar to that which struck France in 1789.
 
This was hilarious, loved the scene where Bliar is told by the Spams that they'll have to say bad things about him in the election campaign but they dont really mean it...Blair beams in thanks! LOL

Wide Mouthed Frog was pretty convincing too!

Damn I actually started to feel a bit sorry for Blair after watching this...
 
The down side of this being televised is that it ever does happen and T.B. get's a letter by the CPS to appear then bear this in mind - part of his defence will be that the media has already placed him through a trial and any further trial would be bias.

This has happened in the past in the US with common criminals and they have had a lot of charges dropped due to the jury being intimadatewd by the programme....

Was it really such a good call (and I am staunchly against TB)!
 
me n bee said:
The down side of this being televised is that it ever does happen and T.B. get's a letter by the CPS to appear then bear this in mind - part of his defence will be that the media has already placed him through a trial and any further trial would be bias.

This has happened in the past in the US with common criminals and they have had a lot of charges dropped due to the jury being intimadatewd by the programme....

Was it really such a good call (and I am staunchly against TB)!

Good - if thats all we have to worry about - we will just have to make sure any jury sworn in is sober.
Then they wont have got INTIMADATTYEWDDYed!
 
Absolute quality like his previous one "A very Social Secretary" from a while back. The Doris and I chuckled all the way through it, sometimes a seed planted can start the ball rolling, I will be on the M20 to wave him off it that is the case.
 
Just managed to catch the last 10 minutes of this.
Genious!!!!!!!
I will be downloading it tomorrow to watch in full, gutted i missed most of it.

Im a bit shocked that CH4 have been allowed to show it though, without even making up a pretend name for him. But blody good on em!!

Really looking forward to watching this in full.
 
'waging aggressive war' was used to some effect in Nuremburg, does anyone know if it still exists as a article of law or if its been replaced by something else?

sad as it is i don't think he can be charged with deliberate falsehood, obviscation, incompetence, and his 'British' crime of subservience to the whim of another state, so what can he be tried for?
 

New posts

Top