First we had Tony Blair caught out lying through his teeth so often that one wit started referring to Blair as Bliar.
What are the odds of having two high profile figures both with the surname Blair, but unrelated, and both being Bliars? Now Sir Ian Blair has been caught out lying by the Guardian. It strikes me that if Sir Ian Blair is lying at this stage of the game, how many times might he have lied in the past when giving evidence in court against a suspect?
What makes it worse is that once this liar has been found out, he lies about telling the original lie. How can this man be trusted to hold his job?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
1 comment:
A Blair taking a piece of existing evidence, twisting it to suit his own immediate needs, then stretching it out beyond belief before completely denying having referred to it at all with any sort of importance ? Shome mishtake surely. Sets a wonderful example of how to conduct oneself, doesn't he. No doubt he'll soon be lecturing someone about honesty and integrity...tosser...
Post a Comment