Cherie Blair's Foot-in-Mouth trick

By Carole Malone , 05/10/2008

I’D read about it, I’d heard about it but I’d never actually seen it in action until last week. I’m talking about Cherie Blair’s “Foot in Mouth” trick—the unerring ability to cause maximum embarrassment and offence without ever noticing.

At last week’s Tory Party conference I’d been invited to a fringe meeting hosted by The Sun on How To Fix Broken Britain. Cherie Blair was on the panel. (So desperate for publicity she was at a Tory conference.)

Sitting just feet away from her was Helen Newlove, whose husband Garry was kicked to death by yobs outside his home. Next to her were Paul and Linda Bowman, whose daughter Sally Anne was stabbed to death then raped by monster Mark Dixie, and beside them, Mark Prince, whose son Kiyan was stabbed through the heart outside his school.

Humbling enough that these wounded, broken families had found the courage to come and talk about the violence that decimated their lives. Even more incredible that they were able to do it with such dignity and eloquence.

And then Mrs Blair, who’d been introduced as a Human Rights supporter, was asked by Paul Bowman why his daughter’s killer is able to live a worry-free life in jail with three meals a day in the warmth and safety of a place where he can be educated, do any job he wants, watch TV if he wants, when the Human Rights afforded to HIM were denied to Paul’s dead daughter.

“If a dog in this country decides to act outside what we regard as acceptable—if he bites a child—its rights are taken away and it's destroyed,” he said.

Paul wanted to know why Dixie’s human rights weren’t waived when he went out with a knife with the intention to murder, and not only stabbed Paul’s daughter but raped her when she was dead?

It was a good question—one which Cherie conveniently ignored until a member of the public insisted she answer it.

That was the moment the Foot was firmly rammed into the Big Mouth. Never mind that Mrs Blair arrived at conference protected from the violence on our streets by hordes of security men (one bystander told me she’d counted 17).

But faced with these desperate grieving people, she started to bang on about how we had to have the Human Rights Act because “everyone has the right to life and no one should be held in slavery.” (EH?)

She also insisted that EVERYONE’S rights had to be defended—even the unpopular. She obviously hadn’t grasped the people at that meeting weren’t talking about “unpopular” people but sadistic, brutal killers with zero respect for human life. She then droned on about how community punishments carried out by offenders wearing high visibility clothing weren’t the soft option people thought they were.

So, was she suggesting a just punishment for Sally Anne Bowman’s killer and Garry Newlove’s killer was a bit of community service in reflector jackets? And if she wasn’t, why mention it?

And all this on the day we discovered that murdered Barclays banker, Frank McGarahan who’d gone to the aid of a couple in Norwich last week, was still being kicked by 12 thugs as he lay dying.

When a member of the panel told Mrs Blair the Human Rights act should be torn up and drafted again, her childish retort was: “So do you disagree with the Right to Life, do you disagree that no one should be held in slavery?”

Not once did she look into the eyes of those relatives. Not once did she show any empathy or any understanding of what they’d been through.

No, Cherie just wanted to hammer home her intellectual belief that every individual—be they killers, rapists or paedophiles—deserves to be treated humanely.

Well I’m with those families. People who kill, who debase their victims, who put them through unendurable agonies SHOULD be denied their human rights on the basis that they aren’t human.

And their time in jail shouldn’t consist of computer courses or cosy nights in front of the TV. It should be hard work, so bloody hard they never think of hurting another human being ever again.

As for Mrs Blair, if she can’t connect with ordinary people on any human level, if all she can do is ride roughshod over their pain, she really ought to stay out of their way.

Devastated families like the Bowmans, the Newloves and the Princes have enough to deal with without being patronised by a woman who makes huge play of her working-class roots but appears to have no clue of the dangers facing people on Britain’s streets.

Your comments

Would she also agree with what her husbands government did to us as a family when they tore into us and ripped our lives apart, I take it as a yes even though she would be able to understand the LAW'S of this land, they do not care for anything away from their own lives.

By AH. Posted October 26 2008 at 7:59 AM.

Cherie Blair.Should have not been at the tory forum as she is part of the problem and not the solution.If she is so worried about human rights and womens rights why is she not in Zimbawbe or china or saudi arabia afghanistan .I will tell you why she cannot get there tax payers to pay her exorbant fees and she knows damn well they would say **** off you Gargoyle

By Tony Boland. Posted October 19 2008 at 9:05 PM.

its all about money thiers good money in looking after crap

By sean. Posted October 18 2008 at 12:29 PM.

What idiot invited her to a Tory meeting? When they left office i thought we were done with that gruesome twosome and if Cameron wont rip up the HRA along with all the other tripe Labour foisted on us then he won't get to Number 10, we will see to that.

By Zordana. Posted October 13 2008 at 12:18 AM.

I only wish she would get in to a position of one of these families,.ie.being raped,or a family member being stabbed to death,then see if shé is the Jesus Christ, she thinks she is and turn the other cheek,I dont think so

By albert. Posted October 12 2008 at 11:31 AM.

I could rob a shop mug some one pinch a car Id probably get a small fine thats all. as its a first offence that would be ok But if i smoke in public drop a fag dont put my wheelie bin out on time maybe overfill it or some other goverment nonsense of a do gooder with no sense I would be fined large amount of money with a criminal record took before the courts making sure i park my car in the white lines or i would be fined again the law is a joke could we please have some one with a bit of common sense in goverment this time please

By kath. Posted October 12 2008 at 9:12 AM.

Well let the blairs who want to be do gooders have them all living next door to them .They should be a hostel built next door to them see what the woman thinks then get in the real world mrs BLAIR you certanily dont have any clue would you like all these criminals next to your kids dont think so as for human rights act they not human I sujest your house is big enough would anybody like to lodge with the blairs .You a woman who wouldnt even admit to the mmr jab how it was given to your kids get real woman

By kath. Posted October 12 2008 at 8:58 AM.

I lost my father earlier this year, and the healing process is taking a long time. Bearing this in mind, I cannot imagine what the Bowmans, Mr Kiyan think of Mrs Blair with her utter lack of tact by taking human rights for murders who should be locked up with hard labour.

How can the judicial system, allow those two boys who deliberately killed James Bulger, freedom after only 10years in prison. I tell you the world is such a cruel place - some people will experience the cruelty others will not!!. What did a three years old boy do to deserve dying so violently? Now we are talking of the human rights of these boys and many other murders!! It is sickening.

By Funmi Idowu. Posted October 11 2008 at 10:46 PM.

How can she sit there beside garry newlove's widow and the bowman family, and go on about murderer's and rapists being '' unpopular'' if the Blair's lost a child through murder and rape how would they feel then about the hated '' human rights act'', When someone takes a human life then their human rights should be taken away, an eye for an eye.

By JUNE SHERBURN. Posted October 6 2008 at 7:06 PM.

Having read the article on Cherie Blair, she is responsible for the Human Rights Act being used in such a way that she profits from it, her husband took in into this country via the back door as he did with many other so called laws. If a person commits a capital crime he or she should forfeit any rights and be put in prison without limit of time.

By Eric Leitch. Posted October 6 2008 at 8:14 PM.

I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction and no-one would advocate Sharia Law, but what we have in this Country is the opposite end of that scale, where those who commit these heinous crimes go virtually unpunished. Prison is a soft option - an occupational hazard, where they can "chill out". Most of then have a far better life inside than they ever would outside. There is no deterrent. Its time to get a lot tougher on crime. Cherie is so out of touch and she should go away and shut up.

By Jan. Posted October 6 2008 at 9:17 AM.

It seems to me that in a civilized society human rights should be no more than owing a duty of care to one another and to live within the boundaries of decency and the law.

Anyone who chooses to live outside those boundaries and cause harm or hurt to others should forfeit some or all of those rights.

Current legislation has gone too far. There is more protection for the guilty than the injured.

Breaking the law today is of little consequence and law breakers do not understand the meaning of consequenses.

For that matter I do not believe many politicians fully understood the consequences either when they voted for the adoption of the human rights legislation.

I clearly remember a MP, who happend to be a solicitor, saying it would have no impact on English Law

The law undermines the authority of parents the police authorities and school teachers. We need to redress the balance as a matter of urgency.

I wonder what the ratio is between criminal and human rights lawyers? I also wonder if HR lawyers have themselves to be human or are they on the bandwagon just for the money?
Posted by David

By David Stathers. Posted October 6 2008 at 1:15 AM.

I haven't noticed her son rushing to join the Army despite her husband's claims of weapons of mass destruction.
The woman's a disgrace.

By john selby. Posted October 5 2008 at 9:38 PM.

Cherie Booth is a very poor example to highlight the rights and wrongs of human rights legislation and capital/severe punishment. She is a divisive and controversial figure due to her greed and arrogance down the years in the public eye. Those who commit those horrific crimes are very sick people with appalling backgrounds. Prison will not rehabiliate them whatever the regimes. Capital punishment is wrong due to dangers of wrongful convictions and difficulties of a jury to convict when the death penalty hangs over their decisions. More importantly, the way we punish reflects the way we want society to be: barbaric or humane. It says more about the good than the crimininals. The sufferings of Mrs. Newlove and The Bowmen family is always in our hearts and we are very touched by their neverending heartbreak. The important thing is to cure society of its ills as much as we can and there is a lot we can do. I myself have campaigned very hard for security on my own estate and worked with the police and my MP to improve things, often putting myself at risk as a result. Please don't let a vile woman's self-regarding and unfeeling attitude put our way forwad out of focus.

By Helen Li. Posted October 5 2008 at 2:37 PM.

In my opinion killers, rapists etc loose their human rights as soon as they commit the crime. It isn't right how they get to live a worry free life with three good meals a day when they have taken the life of someone else. Cherie Blair really doesn't have a clue about any of this and I would really like to see her walk aroun feeling as unsafe as we all. She clearly doesn't care about anyone but herself

By alex. Posted October 5 2008 at 1:21 PM.

Ms Blair or should I call her Ms Booth is obviously from another planet.
All the human rights as done is open a pandora's box
of inequals and shown itself to be a dangerous law to the victims of crime and to good old common sense of our society.
The wrong people are using the law to there own ends and that is why it should be repealed and rewritten to safe guard all those people it was supposed safe guard.
Ms Blair as got it in her head that this law is the be all and end all of all laws.
People like Ms Blair will not give up this law without a fight it will take the people of the UK to force this law back to where it came from and for intelligent people to come up with a NEW human rights act that does what it supposed to do.

By David. Posted October 5 2008 at 1:12 PM.

It's about time the government reviewed the so called" HUMAN RIGHTS" law as it seems to protect the perpetrators of " INHUMAN" crimes one hell of alot more than the families who have suffered unimaginable loss at the hands of said heathens. In fact the law regarding punishment should be torn-up and re-written!

By Laurence Smith. Posted October 5 2008 at 12:10 PM.

The people writing knee jerk reactions here are the ones that 'don't have a clue'. There is a reason why there are juries and we live in a democracy in the UK. What the columnist and posters here seem to want is an eye for an eye, similar to some Middle Eastern countries systems of justice. Imagine the outcry if we had Sharia law? You can't have it both ways folks.

By Clair. Posted October 5 2008 at 10:50 AM.

For a person who is supposed to be intelligent, she is not the brightess light in the room, but none the less it's what I've come to expect from her ilk do what I say and not what I do,you can have what I say you can have , but not what I have got.

By Fred Rudd. Posted October 5 2008 at 9:49 AM.

By Fred Rudd. Posted October 5 2008 at 9:36 AM.

this imbecile is not a h/r crusader, it's just an another easy money spinner for her, she makes me want to vomit.

By c.howell. Posted October 5 2008 at 9:30 AM.

There are cases of wrongful conviction and there is no guarantee that the appeals process will identify them. Examples of successful appeals are Angela Cannings, Sally Clark and Barry George. I do not believe that any civilised society executes its criminals, and I do not think that the death penalty has any impact on crime. For most of us, a conviction for murder must mean imprisonment for the rest of life and not release on licence after 12 years.

By Peter. Posted October 5 2008 at 7:54 AM.

Blair is one of the reasons that england is so dangerous, I think with her so charitable advocacy for murderers. rapists, etc. etc, she should drop her body guards and walk around just like every one else, put herself out there, I bet she does nt have the guts. what a piece of work she is! the woman is a menace.

By chris. Posted October 5 2008 at 5:17 AM.

Reading this post made my blood boil. CB hasn't got a clue. She lives in an ivory tower and doesn't have to worry about her family being attacked in broad daylight. I absolutely despise that woman. I wish she'd go and live somewhere else so we would not have to hear from her ever again.

By Lyn Hudson. Posted October 5 2008 at 1:57 AM.

We have to check every comment before we can allow it to be published. But don't worry, we've got a team on it 24/7 - so check back soon! Please note that we cannot publish all comments received. The editor's decision is final. Please note that your email address will not be displayed next to your comment.