91Èȱ¬

Interesting stuff Nick. I suspect that recent events have only served to confirm what Blair knew already - that his successor is pretty unlikely to make any progress whatsoever in the quest for peace in the Middle East, no matter who wins the next election.

In other words Tony has now only 6 or 7 months to initiate a reconciliation of the Israelis, Hamas and the Palestinians. If he fails, he leaves office with one of his key ambitions unfulfilled. A tall order - wish him luck for me.

I've just seen your report on News24 following the Press Conference with Ehud Olmert. The manner in which questions were asked about the internal Labour Party debacle in the middle of such a Press Conference was a complete and total disgrace in my opinion. How could you possibly dare interject such a parochial issue into such a serious event. I was utterly ashamed of your disgraceful performance and I truly hope you are too.

Yes, this is an issue that's flavour of the week over in Britain, but it has absolutely no place over there in such serious circumstances. You will no doubt return to your usual 24-hour boring repetition of gossip when you return - that's your privilege - but doing so over there was unconscionable.

Will you deliver an on-air apology? I most certainly hope so. Please, think what you're doing and don't ever be so small-minded as to do it again. Truly shameful.

Hi Nick,
A difficult decision to make..whether to ask that question about Brown and Blair in that arena. Any chance of a comment about it?
Keep up the great work.
Hamlet

Hi Nick,

Not only was your question to the Prime Minister about domestic politics totally inappropriate, your comment afterwards that the PM had said it was 'disrespectful' to raise the issue was dishonest. Tony Blair did not accuse you of being disrespectful; he said he was surprised that you'd raised the question as he'd already answered it. This was not a serious attempt to elicit information from the PM but silly,fourth-form, attention-seeking showing off. Grow up.

Hi Nick
I think that peace is the way foward and every effort the prime minister makes towards acheiving this goal, will add to the efforts of many peace makers dreams. However, it must be said that securing any peace agreements in the world can only come about by someone who himself is seen as neutral and not taking sides. Unfortunately Tony seems to have lost that neutrallity and at the same time i feel that the whole country has also lost that sort of position in the world because of his actions. Good intelligent and unbiased people truly seeking peace in the world see only distruction in the future if politicians and governments cannot see that they are really making a mess of the efforts that have been acheived by our predecessors.
My suggestion is to ask questions like.... Do you think that this course of action will help make peace or war?
Do you think that this course of action will bring people closer together or futher apart?
Do you think that human unity is more important than religious ideals?

Dennis

Hi Nick,
I know you quite rightly have moved on to more recent things.....but could we have a clue as to what your opinion is regarding the hornets nest you prodded by asking Blair THAT domestic question in Israel??

Well it's all a bit late Tony, you should have jumped in there at the beginning of the conflict. Your chancellor should have also stood by you but fail to express his views too.It is essent that a peaceful process is found and it would have been made easier had you not taken the American route.

Mr Robinson, I do not normally, (in fact, have never) felt the need to comment on reporting style or content regarding any of the items I have seen on the 91Èȱ¬. However, having read and heard your accusations of "Personality Politics" in the recent past, I felt I really had to point out the following.

I found your raising of a question regarding UK politics during a Middle East conference offensive, and I am sure that Ehud Olmert would also have done. What was even more upsetting, was that you seemed to fail to ask any relevant questions regarding the recent conflict in that area, preferring instead to follow your own agenda. Such grandstanding by a 91Èȱ¬ correspondent can only be viewed badly by all involved, and I believe that it would be fair of me to accuse you of "Personality Reporting" more suited to a red-top newspaper in this instance.

I am not, for your information, a supporter of any political party as I tend to feel rather jaindiced about most politicians. Because of this, I rely upon institutions such as the 91Èȱ¬ to provide comment on issues that are relevant to the setting in which an interview is being given. In this instance, I feel that you rather let your employer down and failed in your obligation to provide information that would have been relevant.

Sean Richards

Dear Mr. Robinson,
I have just read the interview you gave the Media Section of the Independent.
Please, don't change the Glasses, keep the hair line as it is, but please continue to Harass, Politician's of every Hue, keep sinking your teeth into Politiician's who make out they can walk on water, and above all, Fight the good Fight.
You and those like you are the only defence we have, to stop us ever reaching a time, when the Clock really will Strike Thirteen.
Kind regards.

Was Ehud Olmert upset at THAT question?
I do hope so. But he probably was not listening, I expect he was doodling plans on his napkin for more civilian deaths and trying to decipher the words 'Proportional response'.