[John Whitworth]

I see from my Daily Telegraph that Hilary Clinton is still a confirmed Tonyphile. Is there anyone else here who is of that persuasion or do you all think rightly that the avaricious little creep should be strung up from the nearest lamp-post, Mussolini style?

[Ann Drysdale]

The word "confirmed" is in blue underlined capitals and the green arrow above it tells me that, if I click, I can take up a once in a lifetime opportunity to make money with Sir William. Limited spots remain.

What have I got to lose, apart from the will to live...

Sorry John, as you were. The answer to your question is no, I don't.

I was going to explain with a reference but I can't confirm my source as I currently do not have access to a reliable search engine.

[John Whitworth]

Sir William? Can I make money with Sir William? I feel a Tony moment coming on.

[Brian Allgar]

Tony Blair is the worst Prime Minister that Britain has had in recent years, apart from all the others from Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron. Even if I wanted to string him up, every lamp-post would already be taken.

Well, maybe not - we would no longer need one for the abominable Mrs T.

[Gail White]

Sounds like living as a subject of the Queen is not exactly Paradise...maybe I should rethink my desire to end my days in a cottage in the Cotswolds.

[Douglas G. Brown]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

do you all think rightly that the avaricious little creep should be strung up from the nearest lamp-post, Mussolini style?

John, I thought at first that you were referring to Hillary; of which I would strongly approve.

[Jayne Osborn]

Sounds like living as a subject of the Queen is not exactly Paradise...maybe I should rethink my desire to end my days in a cottage in the Cotswolds.

Gail, nowhere on the planet is total Paradise... but a cottage in the Cotswolds comes close! Don't rethink your desire...stick with it.
I'm only an hour's drive away

PS. I'm not a Tonyphile, John. Can't bear the man, but stringing him up from a lamp-post isn't fair to dog walkers who'd have to stand underneath him.

[Roger Slater]

Why is "avaricious" the adjective you chose to condemn him, John? When I consider his bad qualities, greed does not come to mind. I'm not arguing at all, just wondering why that is the core of your complaint about him.

[Janice D. Soderling]

I am not surprised that The Daily Telegraph is your house organ, John, but I am surprised that you are so indoctrinated that you casually suggest a mob solution for your well-known dislike of Mr. Blair. It would have been a more honorable record in Italy's history had Mussolini been given a fair trial for his war crimes than to resort to a simple "string him up".

Those who might wonder what shattering revelation makes you sputter such nonsense can read the offending article here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...is-behalf.html

The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times. The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's generally right wing stance and influence over Conservative activists, have resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.

In February 2015 the chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph, Peter Oborne resigned. Oborne accused the paper of a "form of fraud on its readers" for its coverage of the bank HSBC in relation to a Swiss tax-dodging scandal that was widely covered by other news media. He alleged that editorial decisions about news content had been heavily influenced by the advertising arm of the newspaper because of commercial interests. Professor Jay Rosen at New York University stated that the resignation was "one of the most important things a journalist has written about journalism lately".

Oborne cited other instances of advertising strategy influencing the content of articles, linking the refusal to take an editorial stance on the repression of democratic demonstrations in Hong Kong to the Telegraph's support from China

The reader quickly notes the article's mealy-mouthed use of "appeared to", "alleged" and "tells me".

I assume you wrote thoughtlessly or in jest or as a distrait curmudgeon, or it may be that you are simply bored and want a little attention on a rainy day. Whatever your motive, the world has seen far too many such summary killings of public figures and lynching of ordinary folk, and it is deplorable that you stoop to this kind of speech.

Moreover, a rabid tone and pursuit of political agenda is not in keeping with the role of moderator whose task is to be a fair referee and not a rabble rouser. You can hold such opinions, of course you can, you can even express them in vitriolic ways—in some other media or as an ordinary member of Eratosphere—but it is as poor taste for a moderator to do so in the space he is set to watch over as it is for the Telegraph to spin their news to please their advertisers.