The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1097520,00.html
BBC names the deceased Dr Kelly as it's source as named by Gilligan.
The onus is now on the BBC and Gilligan, already there are calls for resignations of the BBC chairman and for Gilligan to be dismissed. Dr Kelly testified that he was NOT the source before the FASC, hence it now seems likely that - as insisted by the government all along - Gilligan and members of the BBC twisted and distorted the truth for their own ends.
More to the point, it undermines the whole argument put forward by the BBC over claims of WMD exageration and report forgery. It is believed that, had the BBC done as requested and named their source before now, Kelly would be alive - he could also have refuted the claims if he had been alive but the BBC has chosen to only name him in death.
Certainly Gilligan is in deep trouble now, calling in to question every news related report and program he has been involved in, and the BBC is also not as relieved as the above links suggests as it shows poor controls and judgement on their behalf.
Noticeably, the BBC's own reporting of it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3081027.stm is far less critical, barely mentioning the implications this has.
Ironically, the often criticised by some on here Fox News has the more fair reporting of it http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92417,00.html
Thoughts ?
BBC names the deceased Dr Kelly as it's source as named by Gilligan.
The onus is now on the BBC and Gilligan, already there are calls for resignations of the BBC chairman and for Gilligan to be dismissed. Dr Kelly testified that he was NOT the source before the FASC, hence it now seems likely that - as insisted by the government all along - Gilligan and members of the BBC twisted and distorted the truth for their own ends.
More to the point, it undermines the whole argument put forward by the BBC over claims of WMD exageration and report forgery. It is believed that, had the BBC done as requested and named their source before now, Kelly would be alive - he could also have refuted the claims if he had been alive but the BBC has chosen to only name him in death.
Certainly Gilligan is in deep trouble now, calling in to question every news related report and program he has been involved in, and the BBC is also not as relieved as the above links suggests as it shows poor controls and judgement on their behalf.
Noticeably, the BBC's own reporting of it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3081027.stm is far less critical, barely mentioning the implications this has.
Ironically, the often criticised by some on here Fox News has the more fair reporting of it http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92417,00.html
Thoughts ?
Page:
Practical Magic you say that Dr Kelly had no reason to lie, how can you possibly know that? There are many reasons why he could have lied one of them is that he was forced to, maybe someone at the M.O.D made a few threats. Now this is just speculation but so is your claim that he had no reason to lie. Nobody knows why this man killed himself, but personally I doubt very much that it was pressure from the media. Even if it was then please remember that it was someone in the government who decided to expose Dr Kelly to the media. The government is more aware of the pressure the media can create than anyone, I believe that they just didn't care. Dr Kelly was the perfect tool to focus the media attention away from the governments decisions and on to the Doctor's meeting wih the reporter. I think there are far too many cowards working in the government and they need to be found out one by one and dealt with.
This is what I've been trying to get out of him for the whole debate. I'll say it again:
Why do you trust Kelly over Gilligan?
Why do you trust Kelly over Gilligan?
There were only two people in the room, and so only two people know what was actually said. Gilligan said one thing happened, Kelly said another and then killed himself. I am genuinely confused as to how you can brand one a 'smarmy lying journalist' and the other a 'trustworthy person' with such conviction when nobody knows what actually went on. Unless you were there when the interview was conducted?
What you're forgetting is that Kelly had already broken his contract, whether he was the source or not.
Also, just because he was a very respected person and cleared for some of the highest levels of intelligence doesn't mean he can do no wrong. Have you completely missed every political scandal ever?
Also, just because he was a very respected person and cleared for some of the highest levels of intelligence doesn't mean he can do no wrong. Have you completely missed every political scandal ever?
Because the expert had no reason to lie whatsoever. From his background he had no reason, no motivation, you do not get to be that sort of person - cleared for some of the highest levels of intelligence, without being a trustworthy person.
The BBC's tape is irrelevant because the issue is not Dr Kelly's beliefs - under our style of rule we are allowed individual beliefs unlike under Saddam's regime - but whether Dr Kelly made the allegation about the 45 minutes info to Gilligan. That's it, that's the crux of the matter. Whatever is on that tape does not prove that in that discussion Dr Kelly said, as an official, that the 45 minutes was manipulated or sexed up, or anything. That is the relevant issue.
The government was elected, the BBC is blatantly not and forces everyone with a tv to pay it money for the privilege of channels which are by and large surpassed in every way by others. It is acocuntable only really to itself, is biased - notice it's attempt to shift away from Iraq with it's somewhat iffy Asylum Seekers night of programming and has an agenda like every other media empire there is. If they wish to take on the government then they need real damning evidence, not the equivalent of "he said so" and smarmy lying journalists.
The BBC's tape is irrelevant because the issue is not Dr Kelly's beliefs - under our style of rule we are allowed individual beliefs unlike under Saddam's regime - but whether Dr Kelly made the allegation about the 45 minutes info to Gilligan. That's it, that's the crux of the matter. Whatever is on that tape does not prove that in that discussion Dr Kelly said, as an official, that the 45 minutes was manipulated or sexed up, or anything. That is the relevant issue.
The government was elected, the BBC is blatantly not and forces everyone with a tv to pay it money for the privilege of channels which are by and large surpassed in every way by others. It is acocuntable only really to itself, is biased - notice it's attempt to shift away from Iraq with it's somewhat iffy Asylum Seekers night of programming and has an agenda like every other media empire there is. If they wish to take on the government then they need real damning evidence, not the equivalent of "he said so" and smarmy lying journalists.
Practical Magic wrote:
> now I trust an expert over a reporter desperate to grab
> headlines for himself at the height of the Iraq situation.
Sigh. This is what I've been asking for evidence on the whole time. WHY do you trust the expert who committed suicide soon after over Gilligan?
And it was hardly the height of the Iraq situation.
And you still can't read. Or won't. But I think can't is more likely.
> now I trust an expert over a reporter desperate to grab
> headlines for himself at the height of the Iraq situation.
Sigh. This is what I've been asking for evidence on the whole time. WHY do you trust the expert who committed suicide soon after over Gilligan?
And it was hardly the height of the Iraq situation.
And you still can't read. Or won't. But I think can't is more likely.
Practical Magic wrote:
> The BBC's tape has no relevance, it's not Kelly and Gilligan and use
> of it as evidence of anything is circumstantial at best, not to
> mention the BBC has not aired it's contents publically either.
Sorry, but how can a tape of Kelly expressing doubts about government intelligence be irrelevant? It seems that he spoke with two different reporters about his concerns, one of whom taped the conversation. If you are prepared to dismiss Gilligan's report as a fabrication then the BBC has every right to provide evidence that Kelly had doubts about the case for war, was willing to talk about them to journalists and may not have given the whole story to the select committee.
It seems strange that you demand a higher standard of proof from Blank and the BBC than you do from yourself or the government.
> The BBC's tape has no relevance, it's not Kelly and Gilligan and use
> of it as evidence of anything is circumstantial at best, not to
> mention the BBC has not aired it's contents publically either.
Sorry, but how can a tape of Kelly expressing doubts about government intelligence be irrelevant? It seems that he spoke with two different reporters about his concerns, one of whom taped the conversation. If you are prepared to dismiss Gilligan's report as a fabrication then the BBC has every right to provide evidence that Kelly had doubts about the case for war, was willing to talk about them to journalists and may not have given the whole story to the select committee.
It seems strange that you demand a higher standard of proof from Blank and the BBC than you do from yourself or the government.
The BBC's tape has no relevance, it's not Kelly and Gilligan and use of it as evidence of anything is circumstantial at best, not to mention the BBC has not aired it's contents publically either.
Blank, you called into question Kelly's testimony to the FASC, hence you need proof to prove your point, that's proof that Kelly told Gilligan what Gilligan say's he did. There is none.
I can say Gilligan fabriacted his report because there is no evidence to the contrary other than the man's own words, which clash with Kelly's - now I trust an expert over a reporter desperate to grab headlines for himself at the height of the Iraq situation.
Blank, you called into question Kelly's testimony to the FASC, hence you need proof to prove your point, that's proof that Kelly told Gilligan what Gilligan say's he did. There is none.
I can say Gilligan fabriacted his report because there is no evidence to the contrary other than the man's own words, which clash with Kelly's - now I trust an expert over a reporter desperate to grab headlines for himself at the height of the Iraq situation.
Practical Magic wrote:
> And, actually, as you're calling into question the Dr Kelly, the onus
> is on you to provide evidence Blank, as in any case of defamation. You
> have to prove what you say. I say he told the truth, you don't ,
> that's equivalent to defamation, hence the onus is on you to prove
> your words.
>
> Oh dear, you can't.
Ah, hypocrisy at it's finest. So I have to provide evidence that Kelly was telling lies, when I never accused him of such, and yet you who have been screaming that everything Gilligan says is a complete fabrication have to provide none whatsoever?
> And, actually, as you're calling into question the Dr Kelly, the onus
> is on you to provide evidence Blank, as in any case of defamation. You
> have to prove what you say. I say he told the truth, you don't ,
> that's equivalent to defamation, hence the onus is on you to prove
> your words.
>
> Oh dear, you can't.
Ah, hypocrisy at it's finest. So I have to provide evidence that Kelly was telling lies, when I never accused him of such, and yet you who have been screaming that everything Gilligan says is a complete fabrication have to provide none whatsoever?
Practical Magic wrote:
> And, actually, as you're calling into question the Dr Kelly, the onus
> is on you to provide evidence Blank, as in any case of defamation. You
> have to prove what you say. I say he told the truth, you don't ,
> that's equivalent to defamation, hence the onus is on you to prove
> your words.
>
> Oh dear, you can't.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/ kelly/story/0,13747,1004165,00.html
This might be a start. Not that I'd trust those dirty Guardian liberals.
> And, actually, as you're calling into question the Dr Kelly, the onus
> is on you to provide evidence Blank, as in any case of defamation. You
> have to prove what you say. I say he told the truth, you don't ,
> that's equivalent to defamation, hence the onus is on you to prove
> your words.
>
> Oh dear, you can't.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/ kelly/story/0,13747,1004165,00.html
This might be a start. Not that I'd trust those dirty Guardian liberals.
Page: