Some of the left leaning papers are trying to blame the BBC. Now suppose the BBC had breached the confidentiality of their source and said "yes, Dr David Kelly, the civil servant whose name was leaked to the press is the one that spilled the beans to Andrew Gilligan" would he be alive today or would the BBC be shouldering all the blame for his suicide? (And today, after consultation with Dr Kelly's family, the BBC has said he was the source.)
Note that I am NOT saying the Government leaked his name but given that it is they to whom he reported a conversation with Andrew Gilligan it is quite understandable that many will reach that conclusion.

If the BBC had said "No it was someone else" would everyone have instantly lost interest in Dr David Kelly - it was already too late, his confidentiality had been breached he'd been publicly humiliated, he was under a lot of pressure from the MoD, there might even be a suspicion that the BBC was lying to protect him. And the Government machine would then have started digging around for another scapegoat.
It was unreasonable to ask the BBC to deny Kelly as their source because if there was a culture of issuing truthful denials then as soon as the true source was identified and a denial withheld it would confirm the guess as correct.

The BBC is right to respect confidentiality where it is made a condition of a disclosure otherwise the dirty washing of governments of all persuasions would never be revealed. Freedom of the media is an essential element of democracy.

The guy took his own decisions, talked to the press, took his own life. It' s tragic, but there is only one person responsible for the death of Dr Kelly and that is Dr Kelly.

This topic is a little out of date now since the BBC has now admitted that Kelly was their source but Kelly himself said that he didn't make the claims the BBC say he did.

The major topic on the news networks now is how many people at the BBC are going to get the chop now their lie has been revealed.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme The guy took his own decisions, talked to the press, took his own life. It' s tragic, but there is only one person responsible for the death of Dr Kelly and that is Dr Kelly. I'm disappointed by such a cop out from someone who has in the past made some quite rational posts here. I believe it is reasonable to infer that recent events may have had some bearing on Dr Kelly's action.
It reads as if you're saying it's his own fault for talking to the press. Maybe this discussion should be part of the "bring back hanging" thread: civil servants who cause embarrassment to the Labour party should face a death sentence.
I trust you will be voting in the "No - because I support Labour right or wrong" section.

Originally posted by GHaywood
This topic is a little out of date now since the BBC has now admitted that Kelly was their source but Kelly himself said that he didn't make the claims the BBC say he did.

Not logical.

What we know is that Dr Kelly (under pressure from the MoD and under their promise of confidentiality) confirmed he had spoken to Andrew Gilligan but denied he had made some of the specific claims in the BBC report. The BBC asserts that Kelly's conversation did make those claims. Is anyone suggesting that Kelly went anonymously to the press to support the Government's dodgy dossier and what emerged was a diametrically opposite report? I think not. He was critical of the dossier but denied that he was the source of some of the specific statements that were reported. One or other story is inaccurate.
It is convenient but intellectually dishonest to decide to rely on the evidence of a witness who is no longer available for cross-examination. It would be equally valid to propose that he killed himself because he had lied to his bosses about what he said to Gilligan. It will be interesting if Gilligan can provide contemporaneous notes or even voice recordings to the judicial investigation.


The major topic on the news networks now is how many people at the BBC are going to get the chop now their lie has been revealed.
Which news networks? I notice that the hardly non-partisan Guardian has an attack on the BBC from that epitome of integrity, Peter Mandleson. Apart from that, most news sources I can see are focussing on the government. The nearest the Independent gets to suggesting that the BBC has a case to answer is "In London, his Downing Street staff were equally constrained, conscious of the real possibility that Mr Campbell could lose his job in the fall-out from Dr Kelly's death. Privately, they are hoping that Lord Hutton will extend his inquiry to look into whether the BBC, and the journalists who besieged Dr Kelly's Oxfordshire home, contributed to his state of mind."

I assume you too will be voting in the "No - because I support Labour right or wrong" section.

The person responible for the death of David Kelly is, David Kelly, no one made him do it, alright, maybe he was under pressure but so are most people, at work or in their private lives but they don't commit suicide.

Obviously, the man could not face up to life, we are all victims, I too, am a victim, I have suffered more than I can say for most of my life, so if sress causes it, why havent I killed myself? because I am not a nutcase!

Alright, he was a brilliant scientist and I am sure a very nice man, but at the same time he must have had a weak character, I am sorry for him and all his family and I do not wish to belittle him in any way and realise that his death is a sad loss to his nearest and dearest and indeed to this country. My profound condolences.

Originally posted by robh
I'm disappointed by such a cop out from someone who has in the past made some quite rational posts here. I believe it is reasonable to infer that recent events may have had some bearing on Dr Kelly's action.
It reads as if you're saying it's his own fault for talking to the press. Maybe this discussion should be part of the "bring back hanging" thread: civil servants who cause embarrassment to the Labour party should face a death sentence.
I trust you will be voting in the "No - because I support Labour right or wrong" section.

How do you construe my support for labour from my post suggesting that Dr Kelly was responsible for the death of Dr Kelly? There is no connection between the two. Dr Kelly was not (probably) executed or sentenced to death, so your comparisons with the death sentence are purely emotive.

Sure, there were other factors at play, but if other people can be held responsible for a man's death, then it can't be suicide - it has to be murder, masnslaughter, unlawful killing, causing death through recklessness or assisted suicide. It appears to be none of these things. The poor man must have felt that he was under extreme pressure, but the crisis was of his own making. If he hadn't spoken to Andrew Gilligan then he would (probably) still be alive.

The fact that he was 'outed' by the MOD after informing them that he 'might' be gilligans source till does not place responsibility, even partly, for his death at anyones door other than his own.

It's sad that he felt he had no other option than to take his own life, truly a desperate man, but the blame for his death cannot be pointed at anyone else. The agencies involved should take a long hard look at their procedures and how they treat their employees but suicide is suicide (if indeed it was suicide and not some nefariaous government plan to silence difficult whistleblowers - which I have no reason to believe is true).

For the record I voted "I'm a mindless moron with no opinions". I'm just wondering who the other person was....

Well watching the thread and poll develop has been interesting. I think I know who voted which way. I guess Phantomime and ghaywood went for the moron option (along with a third one who didn't have anything to say).

"Blood on his hands" voters? rob seems an obvious choice and so far 5 others who didn't feel the need to add to what I wrote.

How nice to see phantomime and hal in agreement !

Hal was at least honest going for "Labour right or wrong".

But Hal (and phantomime, you can work together on this), what's your point? He was under pressure and killed himself but it's his own fault for being weak, no blame attaches to those who put him under that pressure? I'm pleased to have had my understanding of the "caring" nature of Labour clarified.

I assume you will say the same about schoolchildren who kill themselves as a result of psychological bullying. At least 16 children commit suicide as a result of bullying in the UK every year, adding in misdiagnosed cases the number is probably much more. You think no blame attaches to the bully, the school, the parents? Tell the teachers to stop wasting their time trying to prevent bullying, these kids are weak, why should we care if their character weakness leads them to conclude the best way out is suicide?

I suggest that Dr Kelly is in effect a victim of workplace bullying, the cause of over 100 UK adult suicides a year, but never mind, they are all weak characters, we're better off without them. Was there a threat of being charged under the official secrets act, loss of job and pension? Adam Ingram (Minister for the Armed services) said, trying to get the BBC to deny Kelly was their source, "hopefully that would allow Dr Kelly to carry on his career at the MoD". That sounds very much like a threat of dismissal if the BBC had confirmed his involvement.


A small correction, I wrote "the BBC has said he was the source". That's not quite right, they said he was the primary source which suggests that there may have been additional sources and reading more around the topic it seems Gilligan is known to have a source in DIS but Gilligan protects his sources.

The story moves on and the spin is starting. One suggestion is that if the BBC had said "Yes, he's the man" then he'd still be alive. Pardon me! Wouldn't he have been under still greater pressure? Still at least this story's taken the pressure off Tony to explain why he got us into a war on false pretences in the first place.

Vic

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

For the record I voted "I'm a mindless moron with no opinions". I'm just wondering who the other person was....
Twas I!

Originally posted by victor_meldrew
Well watching the thread and poll develop has been interesting. I think I know who voted which way. I guess Phantomime and ghaywood went for the moron option (along with a third one who didn't have anything to say).
no need to guess, I said exactly that above. I voted for that because the cut and dried nature of the other options really didn't appeal


"Blood on his hands" voters? rob seems an obvious choice and so far 5 others who didn't feel the need to add to what I wrote.

or couldn't be bothered. Don't take silence for assent - big mistake

How nice to see phantomime and hal in agreement !
Apart from a few topics, there is much in what Halevan says that I agree with.

Hal was at least honest going for "Labour right or wrong".

But Hal (and phantomime, you can work together on this), what's your point?

My point is that the only person responsible for Dr kelly's death is Dr Kelly. I fail to see how anyone else is responsible. Other people may be responsible for contributing to his growing stress and misery, but he killed himself (if news reports are to be believed). That is what suicide means. People may have contributed to his condition, but he took the decision to end it.

He was under pressure and killed himself but it's his own fault for being weak, no blame attaches to those who put him under that pressure? I'm pleased to have had my understanding of the "caring" nature of Labour clarified.
Trust me, I'm as contemptuous of Mr Blair and his so-called 'labour' government as you are. I'm not defending anyone here, just pointing out that the primary suspect in the death of Dr.Kelly is...Dr.Kelly


I assume you will say the same about schoolchildren who kill themselves as a result of psychological bullying.

Why would you assume that? - I have not indicated anything of the kind.

At least 16 children commit suicide as a result of bullying in the UK every year, adding in misdiagnosed cases the number is probably much more. You think no blame attaches to the bully, the school, the parents?

No. I don't think that. What makes you think I do?

Tell the teachers to stop wasting their time trying to prevent bullying, these kids are weak, why should we care if their character weakness leads them to conclude the best way out is suicide?

Children being cared for in an educational establisment is quite a different environment to the one inhabited by Dr. Kelly - he was at the top of his field and the leading Microbiological warfare expert for the MOD. I don't believe in the idea of 'character weakness' anyway. It assumes it is possible to scientifically measure the strength of 'character'. He is (was) a grown man, and should be taking responsibility for his actions by the age of 56.

I suggest that Dr Kelly is in effect a victim of workplace bullying, the cause of over 100 UK adult suicides a year, but never mind, they are all weak characters, we're better off without them. Was there a threat of being charged under the official secrets act, loss of job and pension? Adam Ingram (Minister for the Armed services) said, trying to get the BBC to deny Kelly was their source, "hopefully that would allow Dr Kelly to carry on his career at the MoD". That sounds very much like a threat of dismissal if the BBC had confirmed his involvement.

I think you are probably right. He was certainly hung out to dry by the MOD. Perhaps what he should have done is gone through the established "whistleblowers charter" in effect at the MOD, where the OSA can be circumvented in the public interest. But he doesn't seem to have done that.

A small correction, I wrote "the BBC has said he was the source". That's not quite right, they said he was the primary source which suggests that there may have been additional sources and reading more around the topic it seems Gilligan is known to have a source in DIS but Gilligan protects his sources.

The story moves on and the spin is starting. One suggestion is that if the BBC had said "Yes, he's the man" then he'd still be alive. Pardon me! Wouldn't he have been under still greater pressure? Still at least this story's taken the pressure off Tony to explain why he got us into a war on false pretences in the first place.

Vic

It looks like the Inquiry may well address that, although TB is trying very hard to contain the scope of the report.

If anyone has Dr Kellys blood on their hands, we all do. The media, the government the MOD, and the public at large that demands answers and blame.

Dr Kelly was a victim of circumstance, political expediency and his own demons.

How do you crucify a dead man?

Set Lord Hutton on to him.

How did he become dead?

Some appear to say suicide.

How do you gag BBC reporters?

Set the BBC managemnet on to them.

Why?

Because Blair appointed them.

We end up with Blair.....don't we?

It is about time I made myself extremely unpopular again I think...

Dr Kelly was an important man working at the MOD who had signed the officials secret act and knew all the good stuff about what was going on in Iraq.

He also had a history of unattributable little chats with BBC journalists going back to at least 1998.

He knew he wasnt meant to but he just couldnt help himself from meeting them for lunch in hotels and telling them things....

That is all factual.

Now we come to guesswork.

Something Dr K said to a BBC journalist became front page news and caused a massive row between the government, the ministry who paid his wages and the BBC

He must have seen the papers and watched the news and got a bit scared, thinking "I bet that was me that they are talking about..."

Then he goes to his boss and confesses to the little trysts and gets a good telling off

Then he gets asked to go to the select committee where now everyone knows that it is him that has been lunching with the BBCs best reporters and gets another good telling off

And still his story is front page and it goes on and on for him

And the Government and the Ministry who he has worked for, for years, and the BBC who he has enjoyed chats with for years are now at each other's throats.

How would you feel?

Here is my guess, you would feel embarrassed, ashamed, mortified perhaps, you would maybe feel responsible for all of this awfulness around you, only yourself to blame etc etc

and you would feel crap

and sometimes when people feel crap they kill themselves

How is this anyone else's fault?

Whether or not Blair has Dr Kelly's blood on his hands, he has more than enough British and Iraqi blood on them.

His government took us to war on the pretence that the threat from Saddams WMD was so great that we couldn't give the UN weapons inspects the few months they said they needed to finish their job. It doesn't really matter whether the government deliberately misrepresented intelligence to justify war or whether the misinterpretation was a result of genuine incompetence... they were wrong. They chose not to give weapons inspectors the time they needed to resolve the dispute peacefully, so the blood of the thousands who died is on their hands. On Blair's hands.

Let's also not forget the "BIG picture". This was supposedly all done as part of the global fight against terrorism. But has the war in Iraq helped in the fight against terrorism or has it made the problem worse?

This life is full of dilemas, and Tony Blair is a victim as we all are, what would we have done in his place? The buck stops at the prime minister, personally, I think he did right and in my opinion he is an honourable man who did what he thought best in the very difficult circumstances that faced him at the time. He genuinely believed that this country and its people were in grave danger and took steps accordingly, I think people should get off his back instead of ganging up on him.

Halevan,

Even if Iraq did have WMD they couldn't have fired them at us! These missiles only have a range of 100-200km and would only be a threat to us if they were given to terrorists who managed to get them into this country. Despite all the efforts of the USA and the UK they have never being able to prove a link between Al Qa'ida and the Saddem regime, almost certainly because there wasn't one. However, since the war I would say these groups now have a lot more common ground wouldn't you? Therefore, IF there really were WMD and Sadden somehow managed to get them out of Iraq (with just about every spy satilite in the world watching), then whose hands do you think they will be falling into now and where will they be heading?

I also used to respect Blair and have always supported labour. However, it's not about whether he is honourable or did what he felt was right. The fact is he was wrong and the consequences are that thousands of people died needlessly and the risk of terrorism has increased not decreased.

That dossier that was intended to justify was was certainly sexed up. This was fully known and acknowledged before the scuicide(?) of Dr Kelly. Most of the dossier was based on a PhD thesis written in the mid '90's. The guy who wrote the thessis openly admitted that he could not obtain up to date and accurate information, and he had no data from 1991 onwards. The govt just plagarised it, and made chcnges to make it more scary, changing words like 'probably' to 'definately', and 'opposition groups' to 'terrorist organisations'. If they had any data to base this on, why base the report on something a decade out of date?

Because there is no real intelligence. And Iraq was not a real and immediate threat. Blair has not backtracked, saying that there might be weapons programmes, or precursors. Odd how he's no longer saying 45 minuites. He has had to say this because of speeches by his American Allies, saying that it doesn't matter if any weapons are ever found, and that the weapons issue was only a 'bureaucratic reason', i.e. excuse, for starting the war. They have now started saying the we should be glad to rid the world of a tyrant. This two faced lying does tham no favours.

The rationale was a 'pre-emptive strike', i.e. get those folks before they get us. This was illegal in national law to begin with, and now it seems that the Iraqui regime couldn't have 'got us' anyway. In a few more months, it will just fade from the news, like all the chaos that is still going on in 'liberated' Afghanistan.

Zamo.
All this is hindsight, Blair had the responsibility of deciding then and there and he had to make a decision, the same as Margaret Thatcher, when she gave the order to sink the General Belgrano with the loss of 300 lives, who were not a threat to our forces.

Whosoever is the prime minister at the time has got to make a judgement from all the facts at their disposal and being human they can always make mistakes. I think Blair was right, but now having been put in an invidious position, a lot of people are saying he was wrong, but they are speaking from hindsight which any mug can do.

Originally posted by halevan
Zamo.
All this is hindsight, Blair had the responsibility of deciding then and there and he had to make a decision, the same as Margaret Thatcher, when she gave the order to sink the General Belgrano with the loss of 300 lives, who were not a threat to our forces.

I believe that is still some matter of debate. The Belgrano was cruising away from the exclusion zone north and possibly steaming into position to intercept british vessels coming in from the north.


Whosoever is the prime minister at the time has got to make a judgement from all the facts at their disposal and being human they can always make mistakes. I think Blair was right, but now having been put in an invidious position, a lot of people are saying he was wrong, but they are speaking from hindsight which any mug can do. [/B]
There were many of us saying give the inspectors more time, which would have, likely as not, resolved the question.

Howver the US had scheduled the invasion well ahead of time, and TB had to choose between going with the US, 'against' or sitting on the fence.

I believe he chose to go with the US fearful of the diplomatic consequences for UK and for the world in unilateral US action. THis has been mentioned before somewhere.

Originally posted by halevan
I think Blair was right, but now having been put in an invidious position, a lot of people are saying he was wrong, but they are speaking from hindsight which any mug can do.

I (like most of the UK population) was against us going to war in the first place so it's not a question of hindsight.

The bottom line here is simple... has the war in Iraq helped to reduce the threat from terrorism in the USA and UK? Answer: no it hasn't, it's made it worse. What's more, thousands of people died making it worse. On this bais how do you figure Blair was right?

I am expecting Blair to come walking away from this smelling of roses. :evil:

According to the Sun who have obtained a leaked copy of the conclusion to the Hutton Enquiry. It appears that Blair has been cleared of any wrongdoing but the BBC has been criticised for not investigating Gilligans report.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12981031,00.html

So, Blair survives the top up fees vote by a mere 5 votes and now scrapes his way out of the Hutton inquiry too. Oh well, he only has another 16 months in power anyway before he loses the next General Election.

Originally posted by t020
Oh well, he only has another 16 months in power anyway before he loses the next General Election.

Fingers crossed.

To t020,

He hasn't "scraped" his way out of the Hutton enquiry, he's been proven innocent by a very highly qualified neutral observer. The BBC and Andrew Gilligan have proven themselves to be untrustworthy liars.

You can put as much spin on it as you want, but facts are facts.

Blair will still win the next election, because even if you don't like him, there's no credible alternative. The tories won't tell anybody what they'd do, how can anyone in their right mind vote for that!

Originally posted by Agent Smith
The tories won't tell anybody what they'd do, how can anyone in their right mind vote for that!


According to the latest YouGov poll, the Conservatives now have a 40% share of support amongst the voters, 5% above Labour.

The only other time this has been the case during this reign is the Fuel Crisis blip and Black Wednesday as far as I'm aware.

Yes that's true, and we all know that they are funded by tories!! So what a surprise that they put them in front by 5 points!!

Every other poll as labour in front by 5 points:P

Some one reminds me, does someone in the Conservative government owe the Mr Blair an apology over some slander?

Was it IDS that said something?

Originally posted by t020
So, Blair survives the top up fees vote by a mere 5 votes and now scrapes his way out of the Hutton inquiry too. Oh well, he only has another 16 months in power anyway before he loses the next General Election.

You should be glad he has survived. To rid us of him now could sink us into another term of this shower.

Which for sure will see the back of a country we all (save for a few) love.

We need Blair to sign his death warrant before election time and take Brown, Straw and all the other incompetent pocket liners with him.

A few more months of the prat can't do anymore harm than he already has done. :thumbsup: :P

A few more months of the prat can't do anymore harm than he already has done.

He'll be spending the majority of that time lining up Mr Brown to take the throne, I mean seat of democracy.
And I wonder who the top dogs in his cabinet might be.....

Originally posted by Ow-Zone
He'll be spending the majority of that time lining up Mr Brown to take the throne, I mean seat of democracy. i know Brown is supposedly the next in line, but i'm not really convinced.

if blair wants someone to step into his shoes, i think brown is too moderate... he's disagreed with blair over a number of issues and would take the party into a slightly different direction (which i think would be far better), but someone like blunkett (god forbid) is better placed to carry on el presidente's "good works".

Originally posted by Ow-Zone
He'll be spending the majority of that time lining up Mr Brown to take the throne, I mean seat of democracy.
And I wonder who the top dogs in his cabinet might be.....

I don't see Blair giving up his position until his new position is secured.

Originally posted by Lickszz
We need Blair to sign his death warrant before election time and take Brown, Straw and all the other incompetent pocket liners with him

Let's all pray that happens. We need honest men like Cecil Parkinson, Neil Hamilton, Ian Smith, Michael Brown, Sir Andrew Bowden and Jonathan Aitken all led by that really nice man Michael Howard.:D :D

Originally posted by Lickszz
I don't see Blair giving up his position until his new position is secured.
Which is what??? On the dole queue :P

I'm saddened to see Sheffield people take such an anti-Blair/Labour stance. I'd have thought that, of all places, Sheffield would try harder than most to keep Labour in government.

Perhaps you've forgotten what Thatcher and her mates did to the S.Yorks area? There can hardly be a family in Sheffield that was not affected by factory closures, redundancies and the general wholesale destruction of the industry in the area.

Perhaps you've forgotten the horrors of the miners' strike, the police brutality on the picket lines and how Thatcher tried to starve the miners back to work by cutting their social security payments?

Blair's Labour government may not be ideal, but please stop for a moment to recall the Thatcher years and consider the alternative. Do we really want to go back to that?

Hutton clears Blair
This is all according to The Sun. There is no way in hell that Hutton will clear Cambell/Blair/Hoon. To do so would make him appear incompetent and/or partisan, and render the report a complete waste of time and money. Remember, the evidence that was presented the to inquiry is all public, so everyone can see that such a ruling would only be arrived at by a judge who had spent the whole hearing on copious amounts of crack. Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility I suppose.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I'm saddened to see Sheffield people take such an anti-Blair/Labour stance. I'd have thought that, of all places, Sheffield would try harder than most to keep Labour in government.
The bully tactics of Blair and his cronies meant they won the tuition fees vote but the vast majority of Labour MP's and Members do not believe in, or support, this policy.

As for the Hutton, we still await the official outcome (or are all you staunch Bliarites now in the habit of believing everything you read in the Sun?!?). The paper is probably correct about the Hutton report but I still think the Government have far from been cleared of anything. How they can deny leaking Dr Kelly's name, when they let journalists list off the name of everyone working in the Department until they hit on the right one and confirming it, is ridiculous. Is that how you do everything in your power to protect someones identity?

As for WMD, we now know there weren't any. Either they totally misread the intelligence and are guilty of incompetence (seeing what they wanted to see) or the intelligence was deliberately spun to present a false picture to justify war. Either deserves the top man to take responsibility and GO!

The facts:

The Government had only one report of WMD being "ready to go within 45 minutes".

They implied this posed a genuine threat to UK personnel and interests e.g. the WMD could be fire on bases in Cyprus.

When this was reported in all the papers and on TV they (the gov) failed to correct the story, knowing that the report they'd received only referred to short range weapons for use in the field and could never have been fire on Cyprus (especially seeing as they didn't actually exist either).

They had undue input into a document that was supposed to come from an unbiased source (the intelligence community) and not a Government trying to make a case for war.

The report made the statement that "Saddam is willing to use his WMD". The Government picked out this statement again and again to supports it case for war and argue pre-emtive strike was needed to get rid of the threat. Actually, the report had previously (before government intervention) said that "Saddam is willing to use his WMD if attacked", which supports the opposite view to what the Government was telling parliament and the public! How is that not misleading? :loopy:

I won't go on except to say this. No, I don't want another Tory Government but I want to be able to vote for a Labour Government next time not a Bliar Government.

I agree with all you say. Blair is as slippery as any other politician. It's part of the job description to be devious (unless you are Tony Benn, that is).

And just for the record I'd be happy to see a new Labour leader. But so far, Blair hasn't devoted his time to systematically destroying jobs, crushing the unions and generally keeping the working class in their place.

We had 17 years of that under Thatcher and her successors. At least Blair is part of a LABOUR government, for better or worse. Or is Sheffield not part of the Socialist Republic Of South Yorkshire any more?

And why not Lib Dem? (Just curious, I'm not sure if I will ever have the vote as I'm 18 now, and I'll be officially a Manx citizen in seven months' time...)

Key points on the Hutton report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

Nomme

Originally posted by chill
This is all according to The Sun. There is no way in hell that Hutton will clear Cambell/Blair/Hoon. To do so would make him appear incompetent and/or partisan, and render the report a complete waste of time and money. Remember, the evidence that was presented the to inquiry is all public, so everyone can see that such a ruling would only be arrived at by a judge who had spent the whole hearing on copious amounts of crack. Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility I suppose.

Looks like someones been on the crack then :)

I honestly can't believe the outcome of that report, what a joke.

Originally posted by nomme
Key points on the Hutton report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

Nomme

Should we be quoting from this source?

I mean the BBC isn't going to be damaging to itself now is it?

do not flame me for my opinion....

i fully stand by what the bbc and the today programme in particular tony blair is fast making this country one where peoples views and comments if against the government will not be broadcast

Anyone who believes that either the Government or Hutton are telling the truth in the slightest are very naive If I were Lord Hutton I'd have been worried that I'd get the same treatment as the BBC did if I hadn't gone on the side of the government

Originally posted by max
Let's all pray that happens. We need honest men like Cecil Parkinson, Neil Hamilton, Ian Smith, Michael Brown, Sir Andrew Bowden and Jonathan Aitken all led by that really nice man Michael Howard.:D :D

You mean instead of Keith Vaz, Peter Mandelson and George Galloway? :P :D :D ;)

Originally posted by mojoworking
I agree with all you say. Blair is as slippery as any other politician. It's part of the job description to be devious (unless you are Tony Benn, that is).

And just for the record I'd be happy to see a new Labour leader. But so far, Blair hasn't devoted his time to systematically destroying jobs, crushing the unions and generally keeping the working class in their place.



It is said the 'Manufactuing industry' is dropping back dramtically, I beg to differ, nulabour are 'Manufacturing' non productive jobs to hide the drastic unemployment figures, in doing so they are ruining the ecconomy.

There have been plenty of similar enquiries by law lords and not one has been critical of the government. You won't get a law lord to be critical of the government on something like this, they are all part of the establishment. And didn't Lord Hutton train Tony Blair during his legal career?

Some of the report makes you wonder what planet Hutton is on. In para 228 it says

"the desire of the prime minister to have a dosier which was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD may have subconsciously infulenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the JIC to make the wording stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment".

Subconsciously?!! Saddam hasn't had any weapons for years, the government release a dossier supposedly written by the security services that says saddam can blow up Cyrpus in 45 minutes, and there was only a subconscious influence to write that?!!

Blair always knew the Hutton report was a winner. And what a great way to duck the enquiry that's really needed on why he launched this invasion in the first place - oil.

I found this interesting article (and heard the man being interviewed on the radio this morning too). It is a shame he didnt say this earlier!.

Dr David Kelly might have taken his own life because he feared a taped conversation would prove he lied to MPs, it has been suggested.
This is the "private theory" put forward by Tom Mangold, the broadcaster and friend of the weapons expert.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today he believed that on the day of his death, Dr Kelly learned of a tape recording of him talking to BBC journalist Susan Watts.

Mr Mangold said it was a theory which "held water" for the Kelly family.

Risk taking

UN weapons inspector David Kelly was found dead at an Oxfordshire beauty spot near his home in July 2003, just days after he appeared before the Commons foreign affairs select committee.

He apparently committed suicide shortly after being named as the suspected source for Andrew Gilligan's BBC report claiming the government "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The production of that tape would have exposed David's untruth to the Foreign Affairs Committee ... His strategy at that moment would have fallen apart

Tom Mangold, friend of Dr Kelly

Mr Mangold told Today he believed Dr Kelly "having adopted a strategy that involved a certain amount of dissimulation and not always telling the truth to the Foreign Affairs Committee, took a risk and almost got away with it".

He said: "But my belief is that on the morning of his death ... I think during the course of the morning David learned, either for benign or malign reasons, that Susan Watts had taped the interview with him, and that this tape would eventually be produced by the BBC.

"The production of that tape would, of course, have exposed David's untruth to the Foreign Affairs Committee, that he had had that conversation with Susan Watts. His strategy at that moment would have fallen apart.

"David would have realised that this really was the beginning of the end for him. I think at that moment he took a decision to kill himself. I think that is why he didn't leave a suicide note."


Dr Kelly told friends he had made a mistake in talking to Gilligan
"David told mutual friends of ours that he knew that he had made a mistake in talking to Gilligan, he knew he had made a mistake in trusting Gilligan.

"He thought there was a reasonable chance that he would be outed and he would have to face the music," said Mr Mangold.

And for what it is worth, all those of you who are saying

"Lord Hutton would say that wouldnt he"

and

"He was appointed by the PM so what do you expect"

really need to think about what you are saying.

The PM appointed a Law Lord, that is what one does when one wants an independent public enquiry. See the Scott enquiry, see the Nolan enquiry, see the Cullen enquiry

That is standard, that is what you get when you call for an independent public enquiry, you get a top law Lord.

You are taking the Michael, you absolutely have to be.....

The bloke has spent months and months and months, day in and day out, scrutinising every little note, word, dot and comma

You certainly havent

If you wont stand by the report, whether you like it or not, then you presumably want us to chuck out our entire system

What will you replace it with?

A panel of IT specialists from Sheffield perhaps? (who all have an axe to grind cos they already know they dont like TB)

GET A GRIP

Does Lord Hutton do fences?

Only mine could do with a whitewash :D

So Belle, you think Hutton's assessmeny was correct and unbiased?

So there was no plot to leak Kelly's name to the press and the MoD did everything in their power to protect him?

So Blairs statements to journalists about "having nothing to do with the decision to name Kelly" wasn't a lie when evidence proved he chaired several meetings about it - apprently the decision was taken by others at the meeting so he can claim no part in it?!?!?

So the MoD and the government acted completely properly in every respect and didn't treat Kelly unfairly? For christ's sake, the man felt the need to lie to a FASC because of the pressure they put on him and ultimately killed himself when he felt his lie was going to be exposed! But Hutton says they acted properly?

So the government didn't assert any pressure on the intellegence community to "sex-up" the case for war? Documents didn't contain any false intellegence? They didn't know that the 45 minute claim was unsubstanciated? They didn't know the 45 minute claim only refered to "field" weapons? They didn't include FORGED evidence about Iraq obtaining uranium for it's nuclear weapons programme etc., etc.

AND FINALLY... I suppose Blair is still to be vindicated when they find WMD, or evidence of any such programmes? This despite the UN Weapons Inspectors saying there were none, despite the IAEA saying there were none and despite Kay (head of the US weapons inspectors) saying there are none and they were wrong to think it.

Yes indeed, Blair has truely been cleared of any blame and we should all shut up. :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Zamo

Like it or not mate, but the PM HAS been cleared of an involvement in the death of Dr Kelly.

That is a matter of fact.

Cleared by someone who heard all the evidence incidentally, as opposed to the kangaroo court of the Sheffield Forum members

Source sky news

BBC director general Greg Dyke has resigned in the aftermath of the Hutton report.

Here's the full story:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1121240,00.html

Threads now merged into one "Hutton Report" thread.

Originally posted by Belle
And for what it is worth, all those of you who are saying

"Lord Hutton would say that wouldnt he"

and

"He was appointed by the PM so what do you expect"

really need to think about what you are saying.

The PM appointed a Law Lord, that is what one does when one wants an independent public enquiry. See the Scott enquiry, see the Nolan enquiry, see the Cullen enquiry

That is standard, that is what you get when you call for an independent public enquiry, you get a top law Lord.

You are taking the Michael, you absolutely have to be.....

The bloke has spent months and months and months, day in and day out, scrutinising every little note, word, dot and comma

You certainly havent

If you wont stand by the report, whether you like it or not, then you presumably want us to chuck out our entire system

What will you replace it with?

A panel of IT specialists from Sheffield perhaps? (who all have an axe to grind cos they already know they dont like TB)

GET A GRIP

Give me a break. You want to cite other inquiries? Let's look at Widgery's inquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre, an inquiry that has been so dis-credited that millions are being spent on a new inquiry 30 years later so that the families of those killed can finally get to the something that approaches the truth. Or maybe you accept Widgery's findings, because, you know, he's a Lord?
If a relative was falsly accused of murder, would you be just accept the findings of the judge, because the system can't be wrong, and you can't think of anything better?

Sometimes they get it wrong. When they get it wrong, those that believe them to be wrong should shout it from the rooftops until the mistake is rectified. To just accept the report is to cop out.

Originally posted by Belle
Zamo

Like it or not mate, but the PM HAS been cleared of an involvement in the death of Dr Kelly.

That is a matter of fact.

Cleared by someone who heard all the evidence incidentally, as opposed to the kangaroo court of the Sheffield Forum members
Hutton might be willing to give the PM the benefit of the doubt (regarding his involvement in deciding how to handle Kelly) but this joey doesn't buy it!

I'm not one to normally read the Telegraph (let alone quote it!) but I think this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/29/do2902.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/01/29/ixopinion.html) sums the whitewash up!

Belle, like Blair, you are in denial!! :P

Hello, is there anybody in there? just nod if you can hear me, is there anyone at home?

Me in denial? about what? About total vindication? I am in fact delighted that following an official public inquiry by one of only 12 law lords (11 men and now 1 woman too), our PM has been found innocent of telling personal and deliberate lies, thus causing the death of someone.

You lot just dont like being on the losing side.

Better get used to it, we won in 97, we won in 01 and we will win again in 05

Planning on having a party all weekend - after doing the double


:razz:

:partyhat:


(and yes I am sorry for Mrs Kelly and her children, I am always sorry for the relatives of people who commit suicide, knowing a bit about it, although you will understand that I dont know any of them, so my joy at seeing our PM cleared is coupled with some sadness for these people)

(and yes I have always loved Greg Dyke, so losing him is awful too, and Gavin. I didnt want others necessarily to be "losers" in order for our PM to have his name cleared)

Originally posted by Lickszz
The only other time this has been the case during this reign is the Fuel Crisis blip and Black Wednesday as far as I'm aware.

I think you will find Black Wednesday was someone else's "reign" Lickszz - John Major and Norman Lamont 1992

Originally posted by Lickszz
It is said the 'Manufactuing industry' is dropping back dramtically, I beg to differ, nulabour are 'Manufacturing' non productive jobs to hide the drastic unemployment figures, in doing so they are ruining the ecconomy.

And your evidence for this rubbish is?

Originally posted by Belle
You lot just dont like being on the losing side.

Better get used to it, we won in 97, we won in 01 and we will win again in 05

Planning on having a party all weekend - after doing the double

Yes, Labour won in 97 and 01. I remember it - I voted for them! I'm not sure what "lot" you think I belong to? :confused:

Stick your fingers in your ears and shout "we, won, we won" if you like but it won't make all the unanswered questions go away.

Sooner or later Blair will have to face up to the fact that he took us into an illegal war (Hutton hasn't cleared him of that has he?!?) and that at best the reason for doing so was poorly conceived (proving he was incompetent) and at worst exaggerated/fabricated (proving he is a liar).

Originally posted by chill
Give me a break. You want to cite other inquiries? Let's look at Widgery's inquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre, an inquiry that has been so dis-credited that millions are being spent on a new inquiry 30 years later so that the families of those killed can finally get to the something that approaches the truth.

and the new enquiry is being run by LORD Saville

That is HOW IT WORKS!!

You cant suddenly decide you dont like the judiciary because you dont agree with them on a case

Originally posted by Zamo
[B]Yes, Labour won in 97 and 01. I remember it - I voted for them! I'm not sure what "lot" you think I belong to? :confused:

The negative "lot" on this thread

Stick your fingers in your ears and shout "we, won, we won" if you like but it won't make all the unanswered questions go away

Yes, good idea, I shall shout we won we won we won a lot all weekend - because we did, twice, this week

The unanswered questions as you call them, were not part of this inquiry. Those questions were not ASKED! You are cross because because you think this is a finding on the reasons for war, but it wasnt, it was a finding on the reasons why a man killed himself.

Sooner or later Blair will have to face up to the fact that he took us into an illegal war (Hutton hasn't cleared him of that has he?!?)

No because he wasnt ASKED to

Jeeze, now who has his fingers in his ears?

Belle, sorry for being so negative. I just find it hard to see the positives in a PM taking us into an illegal war that left thousands dead and increased the threat of terrorism.

Zamo

I know you feel like that, and lots of other people feel just like you

But that doesnt affect this inquiry finding, which was about something else.

Maybe one day there will be a different inquiry to establish the war stuff - but I wouldnt hold your breath.

This inquiry was in answer to suggestions in the media and amongst the Tories in particular, that Dr K had killed himself because somehow TB made him do it through various underhand means and double dealing.

Now it is proved that he didnt, this is very important, just on its own, just for its own sake

For my part, I wish the family friend with the tape theory had come forward a lot earlier, it is very telling as far as I am concerned.

Belle

Originally posted by Belle
I think you will find Black Wednesday was someone else's "reign" Lickszz - John Major and Norman Lamont 1992

I worded that wrong. I meant this is the biggest percentage lead for the tories since 1992's black wednesday. According to the latest 'You Gov' poll which puts the tories at 40% with nulabour at 35%.

Originally posted by Belle
and the new enquiry is being run by LORD Saville

That is HOW IT WORKS!!

You cant suddenly decide you dont like the judiciary because you dont agree with them on a case

Sorry Belle, but you seem to have misunderstood the point I was making, which was that just because Hutton is a law lord, it doesn't mean that he is incapable of making incorrect judgements, as shown by the original Bloody Sunday inquiry. At no point did I day that I don't like the judiciary system and want away with it.
When wrong judgments are made, as has occurred with Hutton has in my opinion, it should not be accepted, it should be fought.
Understand?
You seem to accept yourself that it is possible for an inquiry to mis-report as you conceed the Saville inquiry is reviewing the Bloody Sunday incident. So why should we accept that Hutton is a gospel representation of the facts surrounding Kelly's death? Hutton said that there is no evidence that Blair knew that the 45 minute claim was unreliable, which is true (because common sense isn't submitable evidence it would seem). If evidence did come to light following the inevitable inquiry that will one day happen into the events surrounding the decision to go to war, will you still accept Blair to be correct, or would you accept that Hutton's findings should be re-visited?

Chris

You obviously cannot read

Read what I said to Zamo in the last posting

The Hutton Inquiry was about the death of Dr Kelly, it was not about the reasons we went to war

It was about getting to the bottom of a series of incidents that made Dr Kelly kill himself.

It was not about whether or not Saddam had weapons

It was about the state of mind of Dr Kelly and what caused him to be in that state of mind.

If Hutton said that there was no evidence that Blair knew the 45 minutes claim was unreliable, and you dont agree, which evidence are you aware of that he didnt know about.

Or did you want him to rule on the basis of Chris Hill's gut feeling?

EVIDENCE mate, the key word

Dr K killed himself because he no longer wanted to live

It was not the PMs fault, that was what Hutton said

And whatever the situation in Iraq, whether it turns out to have been illegitimate or not, that wont change the circumstances now established about the death of this man.

Originally posted by Belle
This inquiry was in answer to suggestions in the media and amongst the Tories in particular, that Dr K had killed himself because somehow TB made him do it through various underhand means and double dealing.

Now it is proved that he didnt, this is very important, just on its own, just for its own sake

This is a great examples of where I think Hutton seems to have strayed from the path of reason in his report. How can that really classy question and answer method they used be seen as anything other than underhand? If they were open and honest, surely the course of action would be to say "We believe that by naming the person that has come forward we will prevent accustations of a cover up and help make our case against the BBC. The person is Dr David Kelly." They would have also informed Kelly of their decision to do this beforehand.

Originally posted by Belle
And your evidence for this rubbish is?

Belle my good blairite.

I refuse to believe the distorted figures of Nulabour. The figures you swallow neat. Then expect the enlightened to swallow too.

You refuse to believe that we have low unemployment? the lowest in years?

Have you asked DaBouncer about this?

Originally posted by Belle
Chris

You obviously cannot read

Read what I said to Zamo in the last posting

The Hutton Inquiry was about the death of Dr Kelly, it was not about the reasons we went to war

It was about getting to the bottom of a series of incidents that made Dr Kelly kill himself.

It was not about whether or not Saddam had weapons

It was about the state of mind of Dr Kelly and what caused him to be in that state of mind.

If Hutton said that there was no evidence that Blair knew the 45 minutes claim was unreliable, and you dont agree, which evidence are you aware of that he didnt know about.

Or did you want him to rule on the basis of Chris Hill's gut feeling?

EVIDENCE mate, the key word

Dr K killed himself because he no longer wanted to live

It was not the PMs fault, that was what Hutton said

And whatever the situation in Iraq, whether it turns out to have been illegitimate or not, that wont change the circumstances now established about the death of this man.

Grow up Belle. Of course I can read, that is how I have been able to engage in this discussion over whether Hutton is correct or not.
Please, re-read what I have said. Point out to me where I have said that the inquiry is over the war. Point out to me where I have said there is evidence that Blair knew that the 45 minutes was incorect, other than the totally reasonable assertion that a single sourced claim could be considered to be unreliable. Point out to me where I have tried to represent my opinion as fact other than my own opinion.
If I am not making myself clear, I apologise, but Belle, take a deep breath, and re-read what I have said.

Originally posted by chill
Point out to me where I have said that the inquiry is over the war. Point out to me where I have said there is evidence that Blair knew that the 45 minutes was incorect, other than the totally reasonable assertion that a single sourced claim could be considered to be unreliable. Point out to me where I have tried to represent my opinion as fact other than my own opinion.
If I am not making myself clear, I apologise, but Belle, take a deep breath, and re-read what I have said.

Not very clear no, but I will do my best.

You said If evidence did come to light following the inevitable inquiry that will one day happen into the events surrounding the decision to go to war, will you still accept Blair to be correct, or would you accept that Hutton's findings should be re-visited?

That seems to me to answer your first point above, you are linking the two things together.

You then said Hutton said that there is no evidence that Blair knew that the 45 minute claim was unreliable, which is true (because common sense isn't submitable evidence it would seem)

that seems to answer your second point.

Thanks

I have to go now, home time

B

Originally posted by Belle
Not very clear no, but I will do my best.

You said

That seems to me to answer your first point above, you are linking the two things together.

You then said

that seems to answer your second point.

Thanks

I have to go now, home time

B

I am suprised you have come to that conclusion.
How is me suggesting that there will probably be an inquiry into the decision to go to war in the future the same as me claiming that the Hutton report was about the decision to go to war? The "45 minute claim" was an integral part of Hutton's inquiry, given that it was the suggestion that Blair knew it to be incorrect that lead to this whole affair. The "45 minute claim" would also be an integral part of any inquiry into the war. The link between the two is inherent, not something that I myself am devising.
And as for evidence, in that quote what I am saying is that I agree there is no physical evidence that Blair knew the claim was incorrect. However, if Hutton is going to make judgements based on the state of mind of those at the heart of the affair (which he clearly does throughout the report), it suprises me that he doesn't at the very least question why Blair would believe a single sourced claim by an Iraqi to be cast iron evidence.

Originally posted by Belle
You refuse to believe that we have low unemployment? the lowest in years?

Have you asked DaBouncer about this?


Thanks to higher student numbers, more part time workers, different ways of defining who is classed as unemployed, etc, New Labour can manipulate employment figures to look as good as they want them to look. I believe one of the reasons behind Blairs insistency upon 50% of school leavers going to University is so that they won't be walking into the dole queue after leaving school, thus making his unemployment figures look better.

Originally posted by chill
I am suprised you have come to that conclusion.
How is me suggesting that there will probably be an inquiry into the decision to go to war in the future the same as me claiming that the Hutton report was about the decision to go to war? The "45 minute claim" was an integral part of Hutton's inquiry, given that it was the suggestion that Blair knew it to be incorrect that lead to this whole affair. The "45 minute claim" would also be an integral part of any inquiry into the war. The link between the two is inherent, not something that I myself am devising.
And as for evidence, in that quote what I am saying is that I agree there is no physical evidence that Blair knew the claim was incorrect. However, if Hutton is going to make judgements based on the state of mind of those at the heart of the affair (which he clearly does throughout the report), it suprises me that he doesn't at the very least question why Blair would believe a single sourced claim by an Iraqi to be cast iron evidence.

Gosh, what a lot to go at!

Item one, for what it is worth, I doubt if there will be the inquiry into the war that you seek.

Item two, what lead to this whole affair as you call it is the suicide of Dr Kelly.

Without his death there would not have been an inquiry and in time the matter of who said what to whom, and with what evidence etc would have been dealt with through the usual methods when two opposing parties disagree, just like in this forum. Someone would come up with an angle that either settled it or made everyone else so ****** off they didnt keep going on about it, or else it would just have died a death (poor turn of phrase but you know what I mean). A row between the Government (or opposition) and the media is not normally settled by an independent public inquiry.

The inquiry was not as a result of any claims in any dossiers, but came precisely because one of the players in the story killed himself. It would have been the same one assumes if the suicide was a government person or a BBC person.

But it was not because of the content of the claims. Those claims were investigated but they were not WHY we had the inquiry.

Item three - the job of the justice system is to sift evidence. Whether in a murder trial or a fraud trial or in this case a suicide. It is not to decide that despite all evidence the answer must be something else, just because your gut or your "common sense" tells you

Where would we head in a world like that?

"I didnt like his eyes, too close together" or "he supports Man U so what do you expect"? (apols to Lou) so he is the guilty party anyway?

I dont have much time for popular opinion if you must know

Popular opinion would have hung Angela Canning

Popular opinion would have deprived Mrs Shipman of a pension

Popular opinion in the 40s held that there were no concentration camps

There are millions of examples, you wont want them all

I like to see a judicious sifting and some REAL common sense, which is not the same as popular opinion.

Sometimes you have to think things that are not popular in order to be right.

I have said it before in this merged thread, many months ago.

Neither the BBC nor the Government, in my view, are responsible for the death of Dr Kelly, he did that to himself.

And that was what the report was meant to look into.

I have experienced huge anger with suicides who I have been personally involved with, because, in the terrible state that they are when they commit the act, they are not taking into account the fall-out.

I feel the same about Dr K.

I realise he was not in his right mind otherwise he wouldnt have wanted to do this to his family or anyone else. But I dont like seeing other people being made to suffer for what he did, on any side.

I wish in particular that Greg Dyke had not resigned

But I suppose we will now have to deal with the situation as we find it

Originally posted by t020
Thanks to higher student numbers, more part time workers, different ways of defining who is classed as unemployed, etc, New Labour can manipulate employment figures to look as good as they want them to look. I believe one of the reasons behind Blairs insistency upon 50% of school leavers going to University is so that they won't be walking into the dole queue after leaving school, thus making his unemployment figures look better.

Thanks T020

for this wonderful opportunity, although entirely irrelevant to the thread, to ask you if you belive that students and part time workers are in fact unemployed?

People out there, I can't believe some of the BS posted about this!!

I can understand a person not liking Blair, ie. a traditional Labour voter or a Tory or a Lib-Dem. This I sort of follow.....Some of you aren't even writing about Hutton or his report, you're just using it as an excuse to do a bit of "Blair bashing" or "tory promoting"

So, let's look at this:-
1. Blair himself as been cleared of any wrong doing.
2. Blairs'government as acted in a wholly proper manner.
3. Andrew Gilligan and the BBC have been found to have acted with scant regard to the truth, and in fact twisted the truth purely to create a sensational story.
4. The MOD could have handled Dr.Kelly in a better manner, although from their point of view, he WAS conducting UNAUTHORISED meetings with A.Gilligan, and talking about information of a sensitive and no-doubt classified nature.
5. Dr.Kelly commited suicide, due to the pressure, which he had brought on himself, from the media and the position he had put himself in, which he unfortunately couldn't handle.

All of these things and more were concluded in Lord Huttons' report.

Lord Hutton is a NEUTRAL OBSERVER and a very highly qualified judge, his report is factual and open. The conservative party "fully accepted Lord Huttons' conclusions". MH said this in the House of Commons, when replying to Blairs' speech! This is all fact by the way. It's on record.

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

Try this web-site and actually try reading some of the evidence. Put aside your political bias, and look at the facts. Yes, FACTS.

It doesnt matter whether you love or hate Blair, facts are facts.

I hate the tories, and I mean that with a capital H., I remember in the 1980's when there were over 3,000,000 unemployed, of which I was one. Despite being well qualified, I couldn't get a job for over 3 years and when I finally found some work, that was as a labourer at a local glass factory! I've never forgiven them for that and I never will.

BUT if M.Howard was found innocent of something by a leading neutral observer, I would grudgingly have to accept it, because again, facts are facts, not heresay or rumour or dodgy journalism. FACTS.

Try putting your emotions and bias to one side and analyse the truth. If you can do this, you will come to the same conclusion as Lord Hutton.

Originally posted by Belle
Thanks T020

for this wonderful opportunity, although entirely irrelevant to the thread, to ask you if you belive that students and part time workers are in fact unemployed?

Irrelevant? Why did *you* feel the need to bring it up then?

There is no question that the government likes to dress up the unemployment figures to make them look better than they are - obviously, some students who Labour are forcing into Uni because of their ludicrous 50% policy would be otherwise unemployed. Full time workers losing their jobs and becoming part time shop workers, for example, is another way of making unemployment stats look better. They'll obviously be earning much less, paying less tax, and probably have need to claim benefits, but hey, at least if they're in part time work the government can pretend that they are good at keeping employment low.

Originally posted by t020
Obviously, some students who Labour are forcing into Uni because of their ludicrous 50% policy would be otherwise unemployed. Full time workers losing their jobs and becoming part time shop workers, for example, is another way of making unemployment stats look better. They'll obviously be earning much less, paying less tax, and probably have need to claim benefits, but hey, at least if they're in part time work the government can pretend that they are good at keeping employment low.

I have waited over a year for this post

But finally it has come

You are a stark raving bonkers Tory supporter who will say ANYTHING at all to make your point

***

- psssst all those who would like to benefit from Higher Education, please note that this middle class Tory Boy thinks it is LUDICROUS to want lots of people to take degrees

He would prefer it if a university education, such as he is currently embarked on, could be kept clean of smelly people who eat fish and chips out of newspaper

I've hit the Scotch now, but I'll attempt a reply none the less!

Originally posted by Belle
Gosh, what a lot to go at!

Item one, for what it is worth, I doubt if there will be the inquiry into the war that you seek.
Unless the Iraq Survey Group find some WMD pretty soon, I think it very likely that there will be an inquiry. Blair himself seems to concede that he will have a case to answer.
Item two, what lead to this whole affair as you call it is the suicide of Dr Kelly.
Which followed him being named as the source for a story where it was alleged that Blair knew that the 45 minute claim was incorrect. That's why the 45 minute claim was integral to the inquiry.
Without his death there would not have been an inquiry and in time the matter of who said what to whom, and with what evidence etc would have been dealt with through the usual methods when two opposing parties disagree, just like in this forum. Someone would come up with an angle that either settled it or made everyone else so ****** off they didnt keep going on about it, or else it would just have died a death (poor turn of phrase but you know what I mean). A row between the Government (or opposition) and the media is not normally settled by an independent public inquiry.

The inquiry was not as a result of any claims in any dossiers, but came precisely because one of the players in the story killed himself. It would have been the same one assumes if the suicide was a government person or a BBC person.

But it was not because of the content of the claims. Those claims were investigated but they were not WHY we had the inquiry.

Yes, but like I say, the fact that the suicide followed the report which followed the 45 minute claim, made that claim and it's reporting a large part of the inquiry.
Item three - the job of the justice system is to sift evidence. Whether in a murder trial or a fraud trial or in this case a suicide. It is not to decide that despite all evidence the answer must be something else, just because your gut or your "common sense" tells you

I dont have much time for popular opinion if you must know

Popular opinion would have hung Angela Canning

Popular opinion would have deprived Mrs Shipman of a pension

Popular opinion in the 40s held that there were no concentration camps

There are millions of examples, you wont want them all

I like to see a judicious sifting and some REAL common sense, which is not the same as popular opinion.

Sometimes you have to think things that are not popular in order to be right.

I have said it before in this merged thread, many months ago.

I entirely agree.
Neither the BBC nor the Government, in my view, are responsible for the death of Dr Kelly, he did that to himself.

Here I agree too, which is why I voted no in the poll that has been attached to this thread. There is no way that Blair could have foreseen his suicide. But that in my eyes does not make his actions any the more honourable. I don't think the question/answer thing was very honourable as I've already said. Just as the BBC made mistakes and have rightly been castigated, so to in my opinion did Blair and co, and they should have been critised too.
And that was what the report was meant to look into.

I have experienced huge anger with suicides who I have been personally involved with, because, in the terrible state that they are when they commit the act, they are not taking into account the fall-out.

I feel the same about Dr K.

I realise he was not in his right mind otherwise he wouldnt have wanted to do this to his family or anyone else. But I dont like seeing other people being made to suffer for what he did, on any side.

I wish in particular that Greg Dyke had not resigned

But I suppose we will now have to deal with the situation as we find it
I actually feel a bit sorry for Dyke haven seen how much he obviously cares about the BBC. To be honest though, I don't think he had much choice, he made some pretty poor choices. To not even read a trascript of Gilligan's report before going out all guns blazing was just dumb.
We're obviously never going to entirly agree on this subject, but I'll summarise my thoughts as follows...
Neither party knew that their actions would ultimatley lead to Kelly feeling that he has to take his own life. Neither should be blamed for his death. At the same time, I believe both parties made errors that should never happen again and hence both should have have been subject to critisism.

Originally posted by Belle

- psssst all those who would like to benefit from Higher Education, please note that this middle class Tory Boy thinks it is LUDICROUS to want lots of people to take degrees

He would prefer it if a university education, such as he is currently embarked on, could be kept clean of smelly people who eat fish and chips out of newspaper


Theres no way 50% of all school leavers are able enough for degrees. Furthermore, it serves only to devalue the degree when 1 in every 2 job applicants have one. Cut student numbers to say, 30%, and pay for the costs of the degrees from the taxpayer (afterall, the highest earners are generally graduates, as showed by my statistics link, and therefore they pay plenty more tax which will more than cover their fees).

Theres no way 50% of all school leavers are able enough for degrees.

And why not?

Everyone deserves the chance, they are paying through the nose for it anyway from their OWN money!

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Try putting your emotions and bias to one side and analyse the truth. If you can do this, you will come to the same conclusion as Lord Hutton.
Just because someone has formed a different opinion to your own, does not mean that that opinion has been arrived out with careful regard to the facts and the evidence.

Originally posted by RPG
And why not?

Everyone deserves the chance, they are paying through the nose for it anyway from their OWN money!

Because 50% of the population aren't intelligent enough! Its that simple! As I also mentioned previously, degrees will only be devalued as a result, meaning those with intelligence will have to spend even more years in education to get Masters and PHDs to stand out from the crowd. What next, Tony?? PHDs for 50% of all graduates?

Please show me the door that takes me back to the Hutton thread,I took a wrong turn I think

Back on topic, click here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/29/do2902.xml) for Boris Johnson's opinion on The Hutton Report.

Originally posted by t020
Back on topic, click here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/29/do2902.xml) for Boris Johnson's opinion on The Hutton Report.

How refreshing after all the rhetoric on this thread to have an independent view of the Hutton report. But wait, what is this I see at the bottom: Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of The Spectator Oh dear, not exactly balanced is it t020?

If the intention was indeed a deliberate whitewash, then the blatant approach taken has in fact backfired. I was unsurprised that Blair was let off the hook, but I cannot see how Hoon can escape without some severe criticism, if the report were to have any credibility as a supposedly balanced judgement.

Few would claim that the BBC was entirely free of blame, but the government's own behaviour was also less than exemplary.

And there still remains the question: if everyone acted in completely good faith over the reports about WMDs, how come none have been found?

Is our intelligence service really so completely useless that it can get things so utterly wrong?

If so, we urgently need to sack the lot of them and recruit somebody

Originally posted by t020
Irrelevant? Why did *you* feel the need to bring it up then?

There is no question that the government likes to dress up the unemployment figures to make them look better than they are - obviously, some students who Labour are forcing into Uni because of their ludicrous 50% policy would be otherwise unemployed. Full time workers losing their jobs and becoming part time shop workers, for example, is another way of making unemployment stats look better. They'll obviously be earning much less, paying less tax, and probably have need to claim benefits, but hey, at least if they're in part time work the government can pretend that they are good at keeping employment low.

er when the university population quadrupled unter the tories in the late 80s early 90s, it was precisely for that reason too.

This is not a labour policy, it is a government policy.

As for the kelly report, Tony Blair is exonerated of being responisble in any way for Dr. Kellys Death...I could have told you that at the outset.

Hutton deliberately did not look into WMD etc because it was outside his very closely defined terms of reference.

Its a whitewash, only because of these limited terms of reference.

Dyke has done the honorable thing, as has davies, which is more than can ever be said for almost any politician (with the exception of robin cook)


That Today program slot at 6.07 where gilligan made his (unrepeated) claims is a tiny matter compared to the invasion and occupation of another country.

Hutton is not a white wash so much as a red herring.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Hutton deliberately did not look into WMD etc because it was outside his very closely defined terms of reference.

Its a whitewash, only because of these limited terms of reference.



As I understand it. Hutton's brief was also to look at the row over Gilligan's allegations that the government knowingly added false information to the dossier.

In the Hutton version of events, these allegations were completely unfounded, and the government was completely sincere in its belief in the correctness of its claims about WMDs.

The fact that the WMD claims have themselves been shown to be groundless is, according to Hutton, irrelevant and outside his terms of reference.

So really, we are left with the need for a second enquiry; if the government acted in good faith over its claims about WMDs, how come none have been found?

However, I'm sure that even if such an enquiry is held, there's plenty more whitewash back at the warehouse where Hutton got his.

Originally posted by t020
Because 50% of the population aren't intelligent enough! Its that simple!

How do make that out?
50% of the population are above average intelligence. Fact!
Admittedly by the same token 50% of the population are below average intelligence but they're not going to be the ones studying for degrees are they?

Nomme

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The guy took his own decisions, talked to the press, took his own life. It' s tragic, but there is only one person responsible for the death of Dr Kelly and that is Dr Kelly.

I agree one hundred per cent!

Originally posted by t020
Cut student numbers to say, 30%, and pay for the costs of the degrees from the taxpayer (afterall, the highest earners are generally graduates, as showed by my statistics link, and therefore they pay plenty more tax which will more than cover their fees).

you must be a right gimp to honestly beleive the Bulls**t you are spouting

you said in an earlier post that 50% of the population are not inteligent enough

So if 50% are capable of getting a degree,why cut the student numbers to 30%?

could this be so that elitist snobs like yourself can wave your degree about at the other 20% who could have acheived one but were excluded under your proposal as a status symbol.

how would you select the unfortunate 20%? pehaps people like my eldest who comes from a poor parson cross background,but who left ecclesfield school with 8 gcse straight "A"s,then went to Thomas rotherham college and got 4 A-levels.(travel expenses etc funded by his part time job not mummy and daddy)

would his degree devalue yours then?

well dont panic ,hes going into the forces as a weapons technician. a far more worthwhile vocation than anything you might achieve you sad sad person

Originally posted by gizmo
you must be a right gimp to honestly beleive the Bulls**t you are spouting

you said in an earlier post that 50% of the population are not inteligent enough

So if 50% are capable of getting a degree,why cut the student numbers to 30%?

could this be so that elitist snobs like yourself can wave your degree about at the other 20% who could have acheived one but were excluded under your proposal as a status symbol.

how would you select the unfortunate 20%? pehaps people like my eldest who comes from a poor parson cross background,but who left ecclesfield school with 8 gcse straight "A"s,then went to Thomas rotherham college and got 4 A-levels.(travel expenses etc funded by his part time job not mummy and daddy)

would his degree devalue yours then?

well dont panic ,hes going into the forces as a weapons technician. a far more worthwhile vocation than anything you might achieve you sad sad person

To be fair, what t020 is saying is that your eldest's success would be devalued in a situation where 50% of the population had a degree and that is a bad thing. Ultimatley, the effort he put into his acedmic years would be devalued, because there would be nothing to seperate him from, say someone that got 3As, 3Bs, 3Cs at GCSE and 3 Bs at A-level.
Now, RPG is quite right, it is only fair that everybody that is capable of achieving a degree should be given that opportunity. But any system whereby the ability to learn is linked to the ability to pay is probably going to put off a lot of people from taking up that opportunity.
It is my belief that Labour should have reviewed the entire education system in this country, not just the rather narrow issue of how we fund universities. Let's be honest, a lot of the time spent by people at university is an utter waste of time. It seems to me that there is a vast amount of people in this country that go to university simply for the act of obtaining a degree, and don't actually learn anything of any use to either themselves or society. I for example started a music degree, but dropped out because I failed to see the point of it. I dare say that 90% of the people on my course got their music degree and then went off and worked in IT or something. In that situation, society is no better off having paid for those people to get a degree, and I don't seem to be any worse off than I would have been if I had completed the degree.
On the other hand, if your degree is in medicine and you end up a doctor, or biology and you go on to discover a cure for AIDS, society is clearly better off, and funding your education would prove a solid return on investment for the tax payer.
In addition to this, there seems to be pretty much a sole emphasis on academic education in this country. For what ever reason, there is no value placed on vocational training. Consider the fact that every child in this country has to study a foreign language. What possible benefit to society is teaching a child to speak French if they don't even have a proper grasp of English, let alone a desire to learn French?
If it's what he wants, why not take that child out of the academic system, and allow him to receive training where his skills really do lie, be they artisitic or mechanical or whatever. Our taxes would then be spent benefitting both the individual and society, rather than funding some non-existant utopia where everyone is intelligent and has the potential to gain a university degree?

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Blair will still win the next election, because even if you don't like him, there's no credible alternative. The tories won't tell anybody what they'd do, how can anyone in their right mind vote for that!
Whereas Labour do tell us quite clearly what they intend to do and of course we can all trust them to stick to their promise. As T020 helpfully reminds in every post:
"We pledge not to introduce University top up fees" - Bliar's 2001 Manifesto.

Blair may have has won the battles of Hutton (and student fees) but he has lost the war of hearts and minds. Even mojoworking struggles so hard to defend Labour/Blair that he has to revert to:Blair is as slippery as any other politician. It's part of the job description to be devious .... At least Blair is part of a LABOUR government, for better or worse.I'm sure TB will be grateful for that ringing endorsement from such a loyal and committed supporter.

Wow - what an interesting thread! Partly because it reveals Belle's hitherto unsuspected blind loyalty to Blair. Which is cool, everyone is allowed to be blindly loyal to whoever. However I'm on the side of the anti-blairs on this one. I'm Labour and always have been. However if backbench Labour MPs can criticise and want to oust the PM then there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't either.

Establishment judgements can quite often turn out to be ******** be they handed down by the most senior expert/judge or whoever. To err is human, and I'll be astounded if anyone retorts that the Hutton report is automatically correct simply because it was written by a senior judge. Even Einstein made mistakes and he was a far greater intellect than Lord Hutton! However if what you are saying is that Hutton was the referee and his judgement should be accepted, right or wrong, that's a completely different matter, and more difficult to argue against.

The public however are not stupid and are making up their mind on the basis of the evidence that they caught snippets of. The general impression that the government were wholly blamless doesn't fit with the facts that they heard. To cite a headline in today's observer: "Are we all mad, or is it Hutton?"

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker is publishing a book (available mid Nov) about his investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488662&in_page_id=1770

Weapons expert Dr David Kelly was assassinated, an MP claims today. Campaigning politician Norman Baker believes Dr Kelly, who exposed the Government's "sexed-up" Iraq dossier, was killed to stop him making further revelations about the lies that took Britain to war.

He says the murderers may have been anti-Saddam Iraqis, and suggests the crime was covered up by elements within the British establishment to prevent a diplomatic crisis.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker is publishing a book (available mid Nov) about his investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly

That book should make interesting reading. Can't wait to read it! I also liked David Icke's book that exposed Prince Philip as a lizard! :thumbsup: