Godfather Tony

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033808/Tony-Blair-godfather-Rupert-Murdochs-daughter-attended-baptism.html

Godfather Tony, Murdoch's top crony: Blair attended Rupert's daughter's baptism on banks of the River Jordan



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/05/article-2033808-0DBA8E4E00000578-106_468x503.jpg



The dress code was all-white and celebrity godparents Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman figured prominently in a gushing Hello! report covering the baptism of Rupert Murdoch’s two youngest children. Curiously, there was no mention – or photograph – in the magazine’s 19-page picture spread of another famous godparent present at the star-studded ceremony on the banks of the River Jordan. For it emerged after that Tony Blair is godfather to the media tycoon’s nine-year-old daughter, Grace, raising fresh questions about links between the former prime minister and the News International boss.

The secret bond between Mr Blair and the Murdoch family was disclosed in a rare interview with the billionaire’s third wife, Wendi, in which the former Labour leader is described as one of Mrs Murdoch’s ‘closest friends’. Mr Blair’s office refused to comment on the interview, which appears in the October issue of Vogue, but sources have confirmed that the magazine account is accurate. Mr Blair’s close ties to the Murdochs might now explain his reluctance to criticise News International over the phone-hacking scandal that has engulfed the media empire and forced the closure of the News of the World.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/05/article-0-0DB75EDA00000578-77_468x286.jpg



Earlier this summer it was reported that Mr Blair had urged Gordon Brown to put pressure on Labour MP Tom Watson, who led the campaign to expose the scandal, to back off – although the former prime minister’s spokesman denied this. On becoming Labour leader in 1994, Mr Blair flew to a conference hosted by Mr Murdoch to end the party’s feud with him. The unlikely alliance continued throughout Mr Blair’s ten years in office as Mr Murdoch’s newspapers – The Times, The Sun and the News of the World – supported him. But news that he played such a significant role in the Murdoch children’s baptism – hosted by Queen Rania of Jordan – reveals a far closer personal relationship between Mr Blair and the media mogul.

The April 5, 2010, issue of Hello! reported that Mr Murdoch’s daughters Grace and Chloe, eight, were baptised at the site where Jesus is said to have been immersed in the Jordan by John the Baptist.
Guests included Hollywood stars Kidman and Jackman, as well as property tycoon Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Google co-founder Larry Page. Pictures of Mr Murdoch and his high-profile guests fill page after glossy page of Hello!, but there is neither sight nor mention of Mr Blair, now a Middle East envoy.

I don't think you could make this man up; a man who invades two countries in the Middle East based upon a lie resulting in two nations destroyed and thousands dead who then later becomes Middle East Peace Envoy... a man who flys around the world making expensive speeches and who 'accidently' shredded his expenses sheets (because thats just the thing you do with offical documents)... and a man who attends a baptism on the banks of the river Jordan based on a deal with a man who shares his love of invading foreign countries. (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/07/why-does-rupert-want-war.html)

Throwing up yet? you should be.

Thoughts on the legacy of Antony Blair?

[FlyingJesus]

Whilst I'm sure it's all terrible and whatnot that Tony Blair has friends, the issue I'd like to address is why you insist on calling him Antony on the basis that Tony is (according to you) just a name he came up with to make us like him more yet you always called David Cameron, Dave. Do you just have an aversion to using the names people actually go by or is there some actual logic behind it?

[Jordy]

Whilst I'm sure it's all terrible and whatnot that Tony Blair has friends, the issue I'd like to address is why you insist on calling him Antony on the basis that Tony is (according to you) just a name he came up with to make us like him more yet you always called David Cameron, Dave. Do you just have an aversion to using the names people actually go by or is there some actual logic behind it?By this reckoning, shouldn't Ron Paul be called Ronald Paul?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because Mr. Blair used that name in his sickening and cheesey way 'Call me Tone!' and its about time we put an end to it. He's just, eurgh. I refuse to use his slogans, PR tricks and the rest of the nonsense that went with him and his government.


Whilst I'm sure it's all terrible and whatnot that Tony Blair has friends

Actually its about his hypocrisy and the need to destroy the myth that 'Mr. Murdoch is 'right-wing' so therefore Mr. Blair is'.

[Mathew]

How dare the poor lad have a friend or two! How absurd! Four years down the line and he's still not allowed to enjoy a good ole' baptism without petty assumptions about his objectivity floating around. He's not even in power!

[GommeInc]

Whilst I'm sure it's all terrible and whatnot that Tony Blair has friends, the issue I'd like to address is why you insist on calling him Antony on the basis that Tony is (according to you) just a name he came up with to make us like him more yet you always called David Cameron, Dave. Do you just have an aversion to using the names people actually go by or is there some actual logic behind it?
He seems to of called him 'Tony' more times than 'Anthony' :P

Anyway, Tony needs a slap and be chucked into a pit with a load of angry relatives of those who got killed fighting this seemingly pointless war (according to the MI5 mistress and the general concensus). Murdoch on the other hand doesn't know what he's doing within the confines of his business, thus making him a pretty lousy businessman but successful at making money. But if they're friends we can't really comment, it just means there are two dislikeable men near each other, making a room feel slightly dirty.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How dare the poor lad have a friend or two! How absurd! Four years down the line and he's still not allowed to enjoy a good ole' baptism without petty assumptions about his objectivity floating around. He's not even in power!

See above before posting smart-arse comments.


But if they're friends we can't really comment, it just means there are two dislikeable men near each other, making a room feel slightly dirty.

I just think its interesting to see why they are 'friends' (I doubt they have much in common) and how close their relationship was and the basis of what it was based upon, mainly their love of foreign military adventures. What's more so funny (if we get any) will be the reactions of Labour supporters who bash the Murdoch press yet Saint Blair was right in bed with him.

As I said earlier, there's a myth that Mr. Murdoch is part of a mythical conservative establishment.

[Mathew]

See above before posting smart arse comments.
Smart arse, or just living in the present? The damage has been done and Tony Blair has little to do with politics. Does it keep you awake at night knowing that they're living in harmony? How dare two people in the public eye get along so well.

The Daily Mail attempting to stir things up, yet again.

[scottish]

who gives a ****?

Edited by Infectious (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Smart arse, or just living in the present? The damage has been done and Tony Blair has little to do with politics. Does it keep you awake at night knowing that they're living in harmony? How dare two people in the public eye get along so well.

The Daily Mail attempting to stir things up, yet again.

Why shouldn't a man who took us into two foreign wars based on a lie be rightly criticised? why shouldn't a man who makes expensive speeches around the world despite being a 'socialist' have scorn poured on him? whats wrong with that? why shouldn't supporters of this man who are staunchly anti-Murdoch based on the myth I spoke about be humiliated with these latest revelations?


How dare two people in the public eye get along so well.

Of course! just friends - one of whom just happens to own a media Empire whilst the other was standing for election, nothing to see here folks..

[Ajthedragon]

Whilst I'm sure it's all terrible and whatnot that Tony Blair has friends, the issue I'd like to address is why you insist on calling him Antony on the basis that Tony is (according to you) just a name he came up with to make us like him more yet you always called David Cameron, Dave. Do you just have an aversion to using the names people actually go by or is there some actual logic behind it?

I agree with this (and I support Tories hehe). Btw his names Anthony not Antony! ;)

Frankly I don't see what all the bother is about. So what if he's friends with Murdoch? Frankly I couldn't care less.

[Mathew]

There is a world away from politics, Dan!

[Catzsy]

The problem is Dan is that you purposely target him on every occasion possible. It is not even handed. Many, many politicians of all colours have cosied up to Murdoch so why just mention him?

[Inseriousity.]

Poor Grace... his younger children get Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman as godparents and she gets... tony blair. Way to go, dad!!

[Technologic]

It was my understanding Tony Blair doesn't really have anything to do with anything any more.... Or am i wrong?

[-:Undertaker:-]

There is a world away from politics, Dan!

I thought you weren't going to comment again? or is it that you cannot answer the points I put forward?


The problem is Dan is that you purposely target him on every occasion possible. It is not even handed. Many, many politicians of all colours have cosied up to Murdoch so why just mention him?

I'm sure you were one of the ones who couldn't stop mentioning Murdoch before and after the 'hackgate', remember with the GOP thread you brought him up with no evidence trying to link him with Ron Paul (a slur)? yet at the same time, you can't stand it when I attack Saint Blair.

Well here it is, out in the open - the war monger Blair best 'friends' with Murdoch who you so detest.


It was my understanding Tony Blair doesn't really have anything to do with anything any more.... Or am i wrong?

He's Middle East 'Peace' Envoy still i'm sure, as you can see with the Arab Spring he's done a great job! :P

[Mathew]

I thought you weren't going to comment again? or is it that you cannot answer the points I put forward?

Hang on, don't comment with more smart comments unless you are going to answer the questions I put forward.
I won't be answering the points you put forward because you're unable to accept someone elses point of view and we'd get nowhere, just like every other occasion. Yes he made mistakes and yes I'm sure some people are interested, but at least I'm able to accept the fact that personal lives should be exactly that: personal. It's none of your business what he does away from politics and funnily enough, this doesn't concern that directly.

I never noticed quite how rubbish your attitude is when things don't go your way!

[-:Undertaker:-]

I won't be answering the points you put forward because you're unable to accept someone elses point of view and we'd get nowhere, just like every other occasion. Yes he made mistakes and yes I'm sure some people are interested, but at least I'm able to accept the fact that personal lives should be exactly that: personal. It's none of your business what he does away from politics and funnily enough, this doesn't concern that directly.

Of course I don't accept your points, thats what a debate is - and if you don't like your post being challenged with actual evidence-backed points as I provided (and you did not), then don't be suprised when I take you to task on it. As for Mr. Blair, the deal between a media tycoon and a former Prime Minister is in the public interest and concerning privacy - Mr. Blair isn't entitled to any when he countless liberties whilst in office.


I never noticed quite how rubbish your attitude is when things don't go your way!

Isn't that you? you tried to have a go, I came back, you didn't want to respond but then thought you'd throw in another clever-arse comment.

If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen!


"i won't be replying because yet again, yourself and the daily mail have blown one small finding way out of proportion and looking into things far too deeply. i won't be getting into a never-ending cycle of posts again."

Take up your own advice.

[Chippiewill]

Most people in the public eye tend to end up being friends with other people in the public eye. It was by chance that Tony (He wants that name we shall call him by it out of respect) has things in common with Murdoch so they ended up being friends. No point looking too closely into it because if you look closely enough at anything you'll find a pattern.



Take up your own advice.
*cough* A5 *cough*

[Catzsy]

I thought you weren't going to comment again? or is it that you cannot answer the points I put forward?



I'm sure you were one of the ones who couldn't stop mentioning Murdoch before and after the 'hackgate', remember with the GOP thread you brought him up with no evidence trying to link him with Ron Paul (a slur)? yet at the same time, you can't stand it when I attack Saint Blair.

Well here it is, out in the open - the war monger Blair best 'friends' with Murdoch who you so detest.



He's Middle East 'Peace' Envoy still i'm sure, as you can see with the Arab Spring he's done a great job! :P

Oh really?

These are recent threads relating to and producing pictures of Blair and Gedaffi amongst many, many you have posted.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718924&highlight=
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718931&highlight=
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718169&highlight=
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=717188&highlight=

Find me a thread or any long history at all that I have posted about Murdoch. I don't think my 'fixation' is any where near as powerful as yours. I don't detest him anyway just felt that he was powermad and did have too close relationships with many, many politicians but you just seem to single one out all the time. Very subjective threads.

[Ardemax]

He deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away. Antoine Blair must never see daylight again!

I'm sure Mr. Rupert "the bear" Murdoch has plenty of well-known friends and just because one happened to be involved with government shouldn't cause a fuss.

It's a baptism. Not a "nuke-the-middle-east" conference.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh really?

These are recent threads relating to and producing pictures of Blair and Gedaffi amongst many, many you have posted.

Well its true isn't it? here's the man who you lot have argued the toss with me in the past that all he wants to do is help the poor people under the jackboot of these foreign dictators - yet here is Mr. Blair with just one example of him cosying upto a man who was always just as bad as the lot he deposed 'in the name of freedom' in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And what does this prove? that his foreign policy has nothing to do with what he claims it to be so.


http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718924&highlight=
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718931&highlight=
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=718169&highlight=
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=717188&highlight=

Find me a thread or any long history at all that I have posted about Murdoch. I don't think my 'fixation' is any where near as powerful as yours. I don't detest him anyway just felt that he was powermad and did have too close relationships with many, many politicians but you just seem to single one out all the time. Very subjective threads.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=715407
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=684570&p=6958542&highlight=murdoch+catzsy#post6958542

I don't have a fixation, I just like making supporters of Mr. Blair squirm because when it involves Blair (who they admire) and Murdoch (who they detest) being close. Well they don't know what to make of it - left speechless. But had this of been Mr. Cameron, who is identical to Mr. Blair, then the knives would have been out for him.

[Ardemax]

But had this of been Mr. Cameron, who is identical to Mr. Blair, then the knives would have been out for him.

K your posts had a slight bit of credibility, up until this point.

[-:Undertaker:-]

K your posts had a slight bit of credibility, up until this point.

I'll PM you shortly with the full list of policy areas the Conservative Party and Labour Party agree on (all with some small exceptions).

[Ardemax]

I'll PM you shortly with the full list of policy areas the Conservative Party and Labour Party agree on (all with some small exceptions).

And I'll show you the obvious why Labour and Conservatives are different.

Why don't we start with the name?

[GommeInc]

And I'll show you the obvious why Labour and Conservatives are different.

Why don't we start with the name?
The names mean sod all :P An aubergine and an egg plant are the same thing yet have different names. The Conservatives and the Labour Parties are actually very similar. Perhaps too similar? :P The main three parties tend to to share the same ideologies but speak them in a different tone. I've noticed recently that they have very similar policies. The main differences I can pick out is the Labour Party wastes money differently to the Conservatives. Labour waste money on unnecessary bureacracy while the Tories divert money to foreign affairs. Both make the rich richer, as the Labour party disappeared the moment new Labour existed (new Labour = current Labour Party).

[Catzsy]

Well its true isn't it? here's the man who you lot have argued the toss with me in the past that all he wants to do is help the poor people under the jackboot of these foreign dictators - yet here is Mr. Blair with just one example of him cosying upto a man who was always just as bad as the lot he deposed 'in the name of freedom' in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And what does this prove? that his foreign policy has nothing to do with what he claims it to be so.



http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=715407
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=684570&p=6958542&highlight=murdoch+catzsy#post6958542

I don't have a fixation, I just like making supporters of Mr. Blair squirm because when it involves Blair (who they admire) and Murdoch (who they detest) being close. Well they don't know what to make of it - left speechless. But had this of been Mr. Cameron, who is identical to Mr. Blair, then the knives would have been out for him.

You find two threads I bet I could find 30+ at least you have posted in respect of Tony Blair. I agree it is probably not a fixation more of an obsession that tbh is getting quite boring. Cameron may have modelled himself on Blair but he is a mere shadow of him. You talk about me not living in the real world? All leaders of all countries 'cosy up' as you put it. It is a fact of life whether we like it or not in the politics of the world. I feel though he went with the best of intentions to get him to give up his chemical weapons. At least he did something probably knowing he would be crucified for it when others complain but do sod all.

[Wig44.]

How dare the poor lad have a friend or two! How absurd! Four years down the line and he's still not allowed to enjoy a good ole' baptism without petty assumptions about his objectivity floating around. He's not even in power!

You obviously don't get the point. Come back in a year or two.

[Mathew]

You obviously don't get the point. Come back in a year or two.
Oh dear. Another one. :P

[FlyingJesus]

My best friend's a socialist, doesn't mean I share his views

[-:Undertaker:-]

You find two threads I bet I could find 30+ at least you have posted in respect of Tony Blair. I agree it is probably not a fixation more of an obsession that tbh is getting quite boring.

Indeed you could, I criticise politicians in office across the board whereas you only attack the blue and yellow ones.


Cameron may have modelled himself on Blair but he is a mere shadow of him. You talk about me not living in the real world?

Mr Cameron and Mr Blair agree on most issues, from foreign policy to the European Union, to education, to healthcare, to size and scope of the public sector, to the extent of civil liberties, to our relationship with the United States, to our involvement in overseas adventures, to political correctness (equality and diversity legislation). If you wish to pick me up on this point then i'd be more than happy to go into each example and list exactly how and where they agree, and why they agree.


All leaders of all countries 'cosy up' as you put it. It is a fact of life whether we like it or not in the politics of the world. I feel though he went with the best of intentions to get him to give up his chemical weapons.

Why didn't we cosy upto Saddam then in that case? oh wait we did many years ago along with supporting him in his war that he started against Iran - a country which now is after nuclear weapons and yet you wonder why. But ap[art from that, he [Saddam] allowed inspectors in to prove it - but still, the truth was simply too inconvenient for Mr Blair and Mr Bush.


At least he did something probably knowing he would be crucified for it when others complain but do sod all.

Mr Blair hasn't been punished for his lies and hypocrisy, he is a very rich man.


My best friend's a socialist, doesn't mean I share his views

But Murdoch and Blair do share the same views, see the Hitchens link.

[FlyingJesus]

I also have liberal conservative friends yet I don't always take their advice on matters

[Catzsy]

Indeed you could, I criticise politicians in office across the board whereas you only attack the blue and yellow ones.

Oh I have criticised Gordon Brown, Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Ed Milliband for his softly, softly approach and I am sure others in my time. I certainly do not spend 99% of my time criticising one person.



Mr Cameron and Mr Blair agree on most issues, from foreign policy to the European Union, to education, to healthcare, to size and scope of the public sector, to the extent of civil liberties, to our relationship with the United States, to our involvement in overseas adventures, to political correctness (equality and diversity legislation). If you wish to pick me up on this point then i'd be more than happy to go into each example and list exactly how and where they agree, and why they agree.

As I said Cameron has based himself on Blair but is a mere shadow. Cameron spends most of his mind changing his mind. At least Tony Blair as with Margaret Thatcher (whether we agreed with them or not) had the courage of their convictions.



Why didn't we cosy upto Saddam then in that case? oh wait we did many years ago along with supporting him in his war that he started against Iran - a country which now is after nuclear weapons and yet you wonder why. But ap[art from that, he [Saddam] allowed inspectors in to prove it - but still, the truth was simply too inconvenient for Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

Or possibly because he had invaded Kuwait and had been subject to sanctions by the UN since 1990 and had killed 50,000 Kurds. Just a few small things that spring to mind.



Mr Blair hasn't been punished for his lies and hypocrisy, he is a very rich man.
What has being rich got to do with anything? If he just wanted to be a rich man he would not have spent almost 25 years in politics. Money cannot buy reputation and he has been crucified by many. He believed in what he did and had the courage to do it. The American Ambassador summed up it perfectly. He said it is all very well to criticise an action with 20/20 hindsight but it does not mean that decision was not right given the times we then lived in.


But Murdoch and Blair do share the same views, see the Hitchens link.
Sorry Dan that would be like asking Burger King who make the best burgers - one would not get an unbiased view.

These are Tony Blairs belief - he was a centre left politician.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm
Murdoch is supposed to be a neo conservative but this quote I believe sums him up the best:

Some observers see Murdoch as more closely attracted to power and opportunism than ideology. Tim Arango of the New York Times writes, “Mr. Murdoch's politics have often proved more malleable and less dogmatic than his critics have portrayed. He has been pragmatic in aligning himself, and his company, with power, rather than ideology. He supported Tony Blair in Britain, and in 2006, his New York Post endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Senate. Mr. Murdoch even hosted a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. And shortly after the election of Barack Obama as president, the Post fawned over him in its pages

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh I have criticised Gordon Brown, Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Ed Milliband for his softly, softly approach and I am sure others in my time. I certainly do not spend 99% of my time criticising one person.

Only based on myths, you too I remember joined the press-gangup in an attempt to oust Gordon Brown. While he should have been ousted many years ago for his incompetence and stupidity, this is not what you seeked to oust him for - you simply seeked to oust him for both electoral gain.


As I said Cameron has based himself on Blair but is a mere shadow. Cameron spends most of his mind changing his mind. At least Tony Blair as with Margaret Thatcher (whether we agreed with them or not) had the courage of their convictions.

Mr Blair also spent his time changing his mind many times, the best example that springs to my mind is the example of the EU Consitution/Lisbon Treaty referendum promise. They are both exactly the same, whilst I agree Mr Blair has views (to the very left, not right wing as many pretend) so does Mr Cameron - which are the same as those of Mr Blair.

The pair of them are committed to comprehensive education, subverting us to the European Union, a large public sector, curtailing of civil liberties, the war against marriage and the family, foreign military adventures, continued running down of the armed forces, a committment to a gigantic and expensive healthcare system, devotion to political correctness and equality, both are in support of idiotic devolution across the Kingdom, both are committed to a failed monetary policy...... I could go on and on, but if you disagree with these points i'd be more than happy for you to pick me up on them and we can then come to the eventual conclusion they that are indeed the same.

As Peter Hitchens described it, the difference between the Labour Party which is full of ex-Trotskyists and the Conservative Party which isn't - is that at least the Labour Party understands what it is doing (embarking upon), and thats it. But in terms of policy, as I said; two peas in a pod.


Or possibly because he had invaded Kuwait and had been subject to sanctions by the UN since 1990 and had killed 50,000 Kurds. Just a few small things that spring to mind.

The starvation of Iraq you mean by UN sanctions? because its always the people who suffer with sanctions whereas the leaders do not. After all, the sanctions and consquent starvation in Iraq was one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden gave for attacking the United States with 9/11 (http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/bin-laden-connects-attacks-on-us-to-its.html). As for the war against Kuwait along with the Kurdish uprising - the issue is more complex than simply that, however I agree of course he was a brutal dictator.

But then, the countries the west supports (which once included Iraq) are just as bad if not worse so the idea that we went in to save the people and the Kurds is a complete and utter fantasy which you know as well as I do is used to divert attention away from the false claim that Iraq had WMD.

As Enoch Powell put it in regards to Yugoslavia; it matters not whether Yugoslavia dissolves into two dozen states or a dozen states - it is not relevent to the interests of the United Kingdom. The same is applicable to Kuwait.


What has being rich got to do with anything? If he just wanted to be a rich man he would not have spent almost 25 years in politics. Money cannot buy reputation and he has been crucified by many. He believed in what he did and had the courage to do it. The American Ambassador summed up it perfectly. He said it is all very well to criticise an action with 20/20 hindsight but it does not mean that decision was not right given the times we then lived in.

It wasn't right at the time either - even if Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear weapon (which I assure you, if he did have WMD or any form of military defences then we would not have dared to invade) then so what? the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons pointing at this country and our allies for decades yet we still talked. So why you are suggesting I should be afraid of a tinpot country with no airforce, no army, no navy and no nuclear weapons capabilities? a country which has also never declared war or threatened to declare war on the United Kingdom.

I am not afraid of the nuclear-armed China, India or Pakistan who have hundreds of nuclear weapons - they rarely ever (if ever) provoke war.


Sorry Dan that would be like asking Burger King who make the best burgers - one would not get an unbiased view.

These are Tony Blairs belief - he was a centre left politician.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm
Murdoch is supposed to be a neo conservative but this quote I believe sums him up the best:

Murdoch is a liberal interventionalist, alike Blair.