Should the taxpayer pay for Blairs security?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/36cukyz

It is estimated that the security bill for Blair's book signing will cost the British taxpayer £250.000.

Taking into account that Blair stands to gain a substantial amount of money from the sale of his book, shouldn't he pay for his own security.

[saxy_jag]

As someone commented, it's Waterstone's event - let them pay for it.

Better still, any taxpayer who objects to paying should boycott the event.

Personally, I wouldn't ask him to sign as much as piece of used bog-roll!

[R1Geezer]

no, they should bill the money grubbing J arthur

[Johigham1234]

Would he be prepared to pay our expenses/?

[VHG]

Either you provide security for ex prime ministers or you dont.

You cant pick and choose at which events you provide security, you either do everything or nothing.

If he goes to the Opera do you provide security?
If he goes to a football match do you provide security?
If he goes camping in the New Forest do you provide security?
If he goes on a speech making tour of the US do you provide security?

If we choose to provide him security then we have to do it, if we miss certain events then once it is known he is attending any event where security is NOT provided then he will be an easier target.

(It does not matter if you like him or not - I dont - but all ex-PMs get security).

[modeller]

I think the Blairs and Kinnocks are examples of nepotism at its worse. They are ripping us off. However they are our Nepotists and we can't do much about it. Although we should make them pay a proportion of the cost of security when they are swanning around on holidays or flogging their books. As VHG says # Either you provide security for ex prime ministers or you don't. #
What I object to is the escalating cost of security concerning the Pope's visit . If Blair and Gordon Brown are so besotted by the Pope and his values then let them go to the Vatican.
That money according to the police could be up to £50 million when taking everything into
consideration. I don't care if it's 1 or 50 million it should not be spent on a man supported by
a minority and reviled by many in this country and abroad.
With thousands of us losing our jobs the Pope should be a true Christian and stay at home.
However asking a cleric of any denomination to practice what they preach is impossible.

[Gladeian]

I agree with VHG - we should provide protection for former prime ministers irrespective of what they were or what they have become but.....where the principal is obviously dripping in money as is Blair and his woman he should be made to share in the cost of the protection provided on a pro-rata basis i.e. swanning off around the world grubbing for money should cost him more than the fees paid by Mr Major or Lady Thatcher

[anotheoldgit]

It would appear that the royals security costs are to be cut, so why not Blairs.

http://www.newsofthew.../The-Expendables.html

VHG

/// If he goes on a speech making tour of the US do you provide security? ///

In this case defiantly not, he is out of the country, not on Government business and earning money for himself.

It is either up to the US to protect him while he is in their country, or he provides his own security.

[sp1814]

Damn right we should pay for his protection.

He's an ex-Prime Minister for goodness sake. Whether you agree or disagree with policies his party introduced or how much money he's making on his book tour is irrelevant.

Why should security be different for Blair than it is for Thatcher and Major?

[scotman]

This is an inevitable result of the world we live in. In the UK, as I understand it, ex Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for N.I. and probably some others get security for life.
Is it really practical to suggest that this means 'only if you live quietly, go nowhere, do nothing, say nothing ever again'?
Ex Presidents, Prime Ministers etc do tend to remain in the public sphere.
We all have to live with it.

[Gladeian]

But if your activities in grubbing for money abroad create an additional cost to us (the unfortunate tax payers) why shouldnt Blair contribute to the cost ??

[Gladeian]

Lady Thatcher and Mr Major sp1814 !!

[scotman]

Because the government appointed committee plus civil service backup to calculate how much money was due would cost more to run than any recovery would ever be.

[eyethenkyew]

He should.

[craft1948]

I think Blair is in need of protection..........from the electorate.

[Dolly1308]

What or who ,exactly,are we protecting Blair from ? Once a person is finished as a PM that should be the end of it .

[zzxxee]

how can they justify the expense to be that much???
i would like to see a break down of the costs !!!

[rov1200]

Seems a bit ironic that the one person who has brought peace to the world (questionably) has to dodge the people that gave him the power to do so.

[BertiWooster]

I agree with some posters above - either we provide sucurity for all , or none .

I dont particular like Thatcher or Major - but thats beside the point - that is the system we have in this country .

Major has made loads , promoting his own interests as well .

And while we are at it - what about the list of 'Royals ' that security is provided for - ones who dont contribute anything to the country ?

[Davethedog]

Can someone tell me how either Blair or Kinnock are guilty of Nepotism?

[Zeuhl]

///In this case defiantly not, he is out of the country, not on Government business and earning money for himself.///

So if an ex Prime Minister goes abroad on a trip that is part 'earning money for himself'; part propmoting UK-plc and part supporting a Charity;

which blinking committee of bureaucrats is going to decide what days who is providing security?

And how do you think having his regular security detail stand-down for the occassional day or two is going to save us any money?

I think you may need to think that one through a little more! LOL
.