Viewing Thread:
"A Bit Too Bl**dy Late...."

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 ?

Blank wrote:
> 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.

He testified to the FASC that he was not the source. Unless you care to call into question the information of a dead, long serving, respected expert then I'd shut up.

Gilligan wanted a story, he falsified it.

Still, not to worry, yet another enquiry is gearing up and if that concludes along the same lines then the BBC and Gilligan are in for a metaphorical kicking.

But what evidence do you have to make you trust Kelly over Gilligan? It's just one's word over the other at the moment.

And the fact that Kelly killed himself soon after does seem to make his statements less believable. I'm not saying he definitely was the source, but you can't rule it out so arrogantly.

Yes I can. If he were to kill himself because he did tell Gilligan than information then it is most likely he would leave behind something to that effect, in a way that it would be exposed. No point killing yourself over something that isn't resolved.

More likely he was being used by Gilligan, realised this, and that suspicious ones like YOU would not believe him, so he killed himself, forcing this new enquiry which will uncover the truth. The BBC has essentially already started backing away from Gilligan with it's Sunday statement, and noticeably used the traditional low coverage day of Sunday to make the announcement...

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.

Why bother leaving something behind to prove something when you'll be dead? Do you think dead people care about what happens afterwards? No, they can't, because they're dead.

And another thing - what COULD he have left behind?

Who authorised the leaking of his name to the newspapers?

Somebody has to authorise that? Is it not possible someone did it without the consent of their superiors?

Yes, but more likely it was deliberately "leaked" to the papers....

Unbeliever wrote:
> Yes, but more likely it was deliberately "leaked" to the
> papers....

Who dutifully published it ? LOL ! Talk about hypocrisy....

And if the papers print nothing, I'm sure people would flock from far away to buy a blank pad.