I hate to try and talk sense here, especially when it involves Bliar, but I fully understand why the tax payer will and should fund his defence.
Can you imagine anyone wanting to be in office, and especially a PM, if there was a chance they may have to pay to defend themselves against future accusations.
In this instance it's most likely a valid case but I would guess there are many other spurious.
It's hard enough getting decent people to be politicians (there must be some
) but would be even harder in our increasingly litigious society otherwise.
So a bit like the bigot spouting rubbish as is his right under free speech; I agree with the overall concept even if I disapprove of a specific case.
