The Iraq war protestors have stated their frustration at former Prime Minister Tony Blair, after he reportedly ‘snuck’ into the Iraq enquiry venue for his second session of evidence.
The former PM arrived around two hours before the hearing was set to begin, compared to when he arrived to his first evidence session on time, where he was greeted by hundreds of angry protestors.
Mr Blair is being questioned about his involvement in the war in Iraq, and is being asked to explain possible gaps, and inconsistencies nearly a year on from his last evidence session.
The Chairman of the stop the war coalition Andrew Murray, stated that he believed Blair has, “sneaked in under the cover of darkness”.
Murray, whose son had served and died in Iraq, stated he was not surprised that Blair avoided the wrath of the protestors, and believed that the former PM should stand trial as a war criminal.
Nearly a year from Blair’s last evidence session, the inquiry has heard from more witnesses, and have received evidence contradicting that of Mr. Blair’s.
Notes belonged to Blair when he was in power, including his private notes to former US President Tony Blair, have been seen by Sir John Chilcot, with some being declassified and placed on public record. Mr Blair’s private notes to Mr Bush are not part of that list.
The inquiry requested to have a number of memos written by Mr Blair to Mr Bush declassified, only to have the cabinet to refuse their appeal.
The panel believe these memos to be crucial to their case, as they claim the memos provide an insight into Blair’s actions as he made commitments to Mr Bush. The panel believe this evidence is not reflected in other papers, and not available to the public.
The past week has seen a new testimony concerning the legal basis of the war.
A new witness statement to the enquiry from Lord Goldsmith, Suggested that Mr Blair ignored, and contradicted legal advice that he had been given.
Lord Goldsmith was asked whether Mr Blair’s words, in a speech he gave in Parliament, and on a Television interview, were compatible with his legal advice he had given to the then Prime Minister.
Lord Goldsmith replied “No”, and stated that he found Mr Blair’s language to be uncomfortable.
As the session continues, what are your views on the matter ?