The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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 ?
Quite right. After all it was the BBC that declared war on the basis of bs evidence. It was the BBC that kissed Bush's a$s so hard that they could taste the pretzel. It was the BBC that evaded, lied and distracted while people were asking questions about, y'know, what actually HAPPENED in Iraq. It was the BBC that tossed off in front of congress while people were dieing in Iraq and at home.
In fact anyone who doesn't believe that everything bad that happened, ever, was entirely the fault of the BBC is a closet Ba'athist, communist, liberal, motherless son of Saddam who should be strung up by his anti-American, Rumsfeld-spunking balls.
Excuse me while I go and fap up over my copy of the dodgy dossier.
In fact anyone who doesn't believe that everything bad that happened, ever, was entirely the fault of the BBC is a closet Ba'athist, communist, liberal, motherless son of Saddam who should be strung up by his anti-American, Rumsfeld-spunking balls.
Excuse me while I go and fap up over my copy of the dodgy dossier.
Practical Magic wrote:
> 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.
Not more likely at all really - considering the fact that speaking to journalists AT ALL was breaking his contract, he's going to try and lighten the load. He knows the government could give him a hard time, sack him or any number of things.
If you view it in this light it seems clearer why he killed himself.
> 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.
Not more likely at all really - considering the fact that speaking to journalists AT ALL was breaking his contract, he's going to try and lighten the load. He knows the government could give him a hard time, sack him or any number of things.
If you view it in this light it seems clearer why he killed himself.
What's this? What about the damn onus on Campbell eh?
I don't care about any stupid Government elected "independant" commitee that came to the conclusion he did nothing wrong. He's twisted the truth on more than one occasion and he should be sacked.
The BBC are hardly the one's to blame for protecting their sources. As for Dr Kelly's suicide? Let's just say I have my own conclusions to draw concerning his decision to kill himself.
I don't care about any stupid Government elected "independant" commitee that came to the conclusion he did nothing wrong. He's twisted the truth on more than one occasion and he should be sacked.
The BBC are hardly the one's to blame for protecting their sources. As for Dr Kelly's suicide? Let's just say I have my own conclusions to draw concerning his decision to kill himself.
Y'know Bell, your views would be a lot easier to respect if you actually provided the train of thought that led you to arrive at them. But whenever you're asked to do so, you just run away screaming in an attempt to save face.
This has led me to believe that, far from being a wannabe neo-conservative, you're just not that bright. And, like all dim people, if you don't understand something, your only method of argument is repetition.
Speaking of which, by all means post yet another "You do the same/you never provide evidence either/I'm getting bored" response. Loathsome little coward.
This has led me to believe that, far from being a wannabe neo-conservative, you're just not that bright. And, like all dim people, if you don't understand something, your only method of argument is repetition.
Speaking of which, by all means post yet another "You do the same/you never provide evidence either/I'm getting bored" response. Loathsome little coward.
Ultimately, the FASC enquiry was begun BECAUSE OF THE BBC - Namely Gilligan. If, as now seems increasingly likely, he falsified his reports about the government sexing up the dossier - and the FASC has already declared Campbell never ordered that in the first place - then the enquiry, which led to Kelly's death, should never have begun in the first place, as it was begun on false accusations.
Light, I don't really care what you think, I hold you beyond contempt.
Blank, the man was an expert in his field, part of his job was to have contact with other journalists to explain and clarify subjects, clearly Gilligan falsified what he reported and tried to set Kelly up for his own false reporting.
Hmmm...and how obvious a plant were those Chinese students, noticeably Blair rounded back on them with the equivalent of "we're a democracy, unlike you lot who can't do anything about your government". Heck, if I was a genuine Chinese student I'd be more concerned about my own government than one miles away - I'll bet cash they were planted, or at least the questions were, by Chinese intelligence.
Light, I don't really care what you think, I hold you beyond contempt.
Blank, the man was an expert in his field, part of his job was to have contact with other journalists to explain and clarify subjects, clearly Gilligan falsified what he reported and tried to set Kelly up for his own false reporting.
Hmmm...and how obvious a plant were those Chinese students, noticeably Blair rounded back on them with the equivalent of "we're a democracy, unlike you lot who can't do anything about your government". Heck, if I was a genuine Chinese student I'd be more concerned about my own government than one miles away - I'll bet cash they were planted, or at least the questions were, by Chinese intelligence.
Conflicting messages really. On the one hand, we've got to find out why Campbell released his name into the public domain in the beginning. To try and take the heat off himself. The BBC were quite right not to name Dr Kelly until after his death. The question is whether the BBC should have relied on Gilligan so heavily? Yes. Because they are protecting their sources and by casting aspersions on the credibility of their journalists, it leaves the BBC's credibility in question.
Let's not forget why Dr Kelly killed himself and the main reason why there is a furore over such an action; namely the government being held accountable for its' sources of intelligence.
The whole situation is a debacle. Even from a neutral point of view, whatever damage limitation measures were in place have clearly failed as the government is being protrayed in an even worse light than previously. The continued efforts to "spin" their way out of trouble has landed them in hot water in the past (remember the "a good day to bury bad news" e-mail) and it seems it's happening again.
Let's not forget why Dr Kelly killed himself and the main reason why there is a furore over such an action; namely the government being held accountable for its' sources of intelligence.
The whole situation is a debacle. Even from a neutral point of view, whatever damage limitation measures were in place have clearly failed as the government is being protrayed in an even worse light than previously. The continued efforts to "spin" their way out of trouble has landed them in hot water in the past (remember the "a good day to bury bad news" e-mail) and it seems it's happening again.
Unbeliever wrote:
> Conflicting messages really. On the one hand, we've got to find out
> why Campbell released his name into the public domain in the
> beginning. To try and take the heat off himself. The BBC were quite
> right not to name Dr Kelly until after his death. The question is
> whether the BBC should have relied on Gilligan so heavily? Yes.
> Because they are protecting their sources and by casting aspersions on
> the credibility of their journalists, it leaves the BBC's credibility
> in question.
>
> Let's not forget why Dr Kelly killed himself and the main reason why
> there is a furore over such an action; namely the government being
> held accountable for its' sources of intelligence.
>
> The whole situation is a debacle. Even from a neutral point of view,
> whatever damage limitation measures were in place have clearly failed
> as the government is being protrayed in an even worse light than
> previously. The continued efforts to "spin" their way out of
> trouble has landed them in hot water in the past (remember the "a
> good day to bury bad news" e-mail) and it seems it's happening
> again.
Absolutely; anyone taking this tragic death as 'conclusive proof' of either government corruption or government innocence is a candidate for the worlds stupidest person.
Right Bell?
> Conflicting messages really. On the one hand, we've got to find out
> why Campbell released his name into the public domain in the
> beginning. To try and take the heat off himself. The BBC were quite
> right not to name Dr Kelly until after his death. The question is
> whether the BBC should have relied on Gilligan so heavily? Yes.
> Because they are protecting their sources and by casting aspersions on
> the credibility of their journalists, it leaves the BBC's credibility
> in question.
>
> Let's not forget why Dr Kelly killed himself and the main reason why
> there is a furore over such an action; namely the government being
> held accountable for its' sources of intelligence.
>
> The whole situation is a debacle. Even from a neutral point of view,
> whatever damage limitation measures were in place have clearly failed
> as the government is being protrayed in an even worse light than
> previously. The continued efforts to "spin" their way out of
> trouble has landed them in hot water in the past (remember the "a
> good day to bury bad news" e-mail) and it seems it's happening
> again.
Absolutely; anyone taking this tragic death as 'conclusive proof' of either government corruption or government innocence is a candidate for the worlds stupidest person.
Right Bell?
Practical Magic wrote:
> Blank, the man was an expert in his field, part of his job was to have
> contact with other journalists to explain and clarify subjects,
> clearly Gilligan falsified what he reported and tried to set Kelly up
> for his own false reporting.
Nope, it was part of his contract that he could not talk about the details of chem/bio warfare. Whether he was the source or not, he still broke his contract - doesn't this seem like a more likely reason for his suicide?
And it doesn't mean that Gilligan falsified the information anyway. There's no reason to believe that Kelly was wholly innocent and Gilligan wholly guilty.
> Blank, the man was an expert in his field, part of his job was to have
> contact with other journalists to explain and clarify subjects,
> clearly Gilligan falsified what he reported and tried to set Kelly up
> for his own false reporting.
Nope, it was part of his contract that he could not talk about the details of chem/bio warfare. Whether he was the source or not, he still broke his contract - doesn't this seem like a more likely reason for his suicide?
And it doesn't mean that Gilligan falsified the information anyway. There's no reason to believe that Kelly was wholly innocent and Gilligan wholly guilty.
As well as the fact that someone in the Gov. leaked his name to the press.
But that's not the issue, remember? The main issue is...what is the public's view of the Government in light of these revelations?
Even PM can't deny the fact that the credibility of the Government is at its' lowest point since Labour came into power.
But that's not the issue, remember? The main issue is...what is the public's view of the Government in light of these revelations?
Even PM can't deny the fact that the credibility of the Government is at its' lowest point since Labour came into power.
Page: