The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, it looks like he got away with it, anyway.
I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.
Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.
I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.
Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.
Page:
Well, it looks like he got away with it, anyway.
I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.
Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.
I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.
Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.
Why is Tony Blair angry at the report being leaked?
Surely if a provisional report is published to a select few only, then he really must know in this day and age that it's going to be leaked to the press.
As soon as I heard on the radio last night that the report had been handed out - I thought, well that'll be in the papers tomorrow then.
Pathetic.
Surely if a provisional report is published to a select few only, then he really must know in this day and age that it's going to be leaked to the press.
As soon as I heard on the radio last night that the report had been handed out - I thought, well that'll be in the papers tomorrow then.
Pathetic.
I've just read from somewhere else: -
"**** my hat, he's having an absolute whale of a time in the Commons at the minute, he's actually almost started laughing out loud at something to do with the Liberal Democrats spending proposals.
He's already given Michael Howard an absolute beating. You get the feeling he's having a good day."
"**** my hat, he's having an absolute whale of a time in the Commons at the minute, he's actually almost started laughing out loud at something to do with the Liberal Democrats spending proposals.
He's already given Michael Howard an absolute beating. You get the feeling he's having a good day."
Heh...so how long will it be before we read of someone claiming that the Hutton report, despite being about the death of a scientist and who's fault that was, is a full vindication of the land grab? I give it 8 hours, tops.
Hmmm as I see it...
1)Scenario 1 - Hutton report damns PM. Anti-war people hold up report as vindication.
2)Scenario 2 - Hutton report doesn't damn PM. Anti-war people think it is a fix and want another one.
Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not made up, and was from true intelligence.
The leak? I'd bet on the the BBC...
However it is quite interesting that many here chose to comment before the full statement by Lord Hutton was read out. Unknown Kerneal and Light both clearly based any comments on the Sun's reporting and not the acutal findings. But, from what I have just heard, it looks like you guys are not the only anti-war people who decided to indulge in some creative writing....
1)Scenario 1 - Hutton report damns PM. Anti-war people hold up report as vindication.
2)Scenario 2 - Hutton report doesn't damn PM. Anti-war people think it is a fix and want another one.
Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not made up, and was from true intelligence.
The leak? I'd bet on the the BBC...
However it is quite interesting that many here chose to comment before the full statement by Lord Hutton was read out. Unknown Kerneal and Light both clearly based any comments on the Sun's reporting and not the acutal findings. But, from what I have just heard, it looks like you guys are not the only anti-war people who decided to indulge in some creative writing....
And, in regard to Light, Lord Hutton made it quite clear that his enquiry was not about the validity of the war and that he had clearly made no judgement in the report about such issue.
What he did comment on was the intelligence relating to the circumstances leading to Kelly's suicide, and he has not faulted that intelligence in the context which the government presented it and assembled it.
What he did comment on was the intelligence relating to the circumstances leading to Kelly's suicide, and he has not faulted that intelligence in the context which the government presented it and assembled it.
My summary of the summary:
Government - Great guys, super people, can I be a Sir and a Lord at the same time?
BBC - Boo hissss!
WMD - Outside my remit.
Government - Great guys, super people, can I be a Sir and a Lord at the same time?
BBC - Boo hissss!
WMD - Outside my remit.
But clearly you chose to comment before having heard any of the report.
Face facts. Gilligan made false accusations questioning the integrity of the government and the intelligence agencies. These proved to be false and the BBC failed to exercise proper control over him and to properly investigate the government's complaints.
On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now available online for download in pdf format.
The fact is that anyone who questions the validity of this enquiry has only to examine the actual report which anyone can access the majority of.
You can say the enquiry has been fixed, but I suspect that similar to Gilligan's allegations you have no proof or ground for reasonable doubt other than it failed to say what you wanted it to say.
Face facts. Gilligan made false accusations questioning the integrity of the government and the intelligence agencies. These proved to be false and the BBC failed to exercise proper control over him and to properly investigate the government's complaints.
On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now available online for download in pdf format.
The fact is that anyone who questions the validity of this enquiry has only to examine the actual report which anyone can access the majority of.
You can say the enquiry has been fixed, but I suspect that similar to Gilligan's allegations you have no proof or ground for reasonable doubt other than it failed to say what you wanted it to say.
Belldandy wrote:
> But clearly you chose to comment before having heard any of the
> report.
I commented on what was leaked to The Sun last night - that Tony Blair wasn't underhand or duplicitous. Now I've heard the summary and it says exactly the same thing. Still, I do admire your newfound love of commenting only on things you know about.
> But clearly you chose to comment before having heard any of the
> report.
I commented on what was leaked to The Sun last night - that Tony Blair wasn't underhand or duplicitous. Now I've heard the summary and it says exactly the same thing. Still, I do admire your newfound love of commenting only on things you know about.
Light wrote:
> Heh...so how long will it be before we read of someone claiming that
> the Hutton report, despite being about the death of a scientist and
> who's fault that was, is a full vindication of the land grab? I give
> it 8 hours, tops.
Belldandy wrote:
> What he did comment on was the intelligence relating to the
> circumstances leading to Kelly's suicide, and he has not faulted that
> intelligence in the context which the government presented it and
> assembled it.
Does that count?
> Heh...so how long will it be before we read of someone claiming that
> the Hutton report, despite being about the death of a scientist and
> who's fault that was, is a full vindication of the land grab? I give
> it 8 hours, tops.
Belldandy wrote:
> What he did comment on was the intelligence relating to the
> circumstances leading to Kelly's suicide, and he has not faulted that
> intelligence in the context which the government presented it and
> assembled it.
Does that count?
Page: