The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Darwock wrote:
> Channel 4 news covered this extremely well I thought. It was such a
> one sided report that people can't help but suspect it's a total
> whitewash... it certainly makes me think about all of Blair's
> "let's wait for the report before we start flinging mud
> around" statements.
>
> It also is very 'anti-journalist'. Not to demean him, but Dr. Kelly
> was a whistle blower. Of course it was unauthorised for him to speak
> to the press. Hutton is saying such things should not be reported to
> the public on that basis? It's a free press (or it was...)
Are you saying that 4 News is fair, impartial, and totally un-biased. If you are, i disagree. Every time i watch 4 News, its always against the Government, no matter what the issue.
Another thing, why is the Hutton report a whitewash. After all, he saw and heard a lot more stuff than anybody here. For weeks, the BBC have been singing his praises, until he goes against them. I think people here are forgeting their place. If anybody here has hard evidence that this is a Whitewash, please give. If not, your not really in a position to say it is a Whitewash.
> Channel 4 news covered this extremely well I thought. It was such a
> one sided report that people can't help but suspect it's a total
> whitewash... it certainly makes me think about all of Blair's
> "let's wait for the report before we start flinging mud
> around" statements.
>
> It also is very 'anti-journalist'. Not to demean him, but Dr. Kelly
> was a whistle blower. Of course it was unauthorised for him to speak
> to the press. Hutton is saying such things should not be reported to
> the public on that basis? It's a free press (or it was...)
Are you saying that 4 News is fair, impartial, and totally un-biased. If you are, i disagree. Every time i watch 4 News, its always against the Government, no matter what the issue.
Another thing, why is the Hutton report a whitewash. After all, he saw and heard a lot more stuff than anybody here. For weeks, the BBC have been singing his praises, until he goes against them. I think people here are forgeting their place. If anybody here has hard evidence that this is a Whitewash, please give. If not, your not really in a position to say it is a Whitewash.
Darwock wrote:
> It also is very 'anti-journalist'. Not to demean him, but Dr. Kelly
> was a whistle blower. Of course it was unauthorised for him to speak
> to the press. Hutton is saying such things should not be reported to
> the public on that basis? It's a free press (or it was...)
It is a free press, but you'll find that Kelly, and many many others from all kinds of employment sign a contract when they begin work that tells them certain things must not be divulged to the press unless they are authorised to do so.
Plus you miss the crucial point of all of this - what ended up being said by Gilligan was LIES. There is a free press but a flip side of this is that the press has to maintain a level of truth or at least be able to back up allegations. Hutton stated that in his belief and from the notes Gilligan himself made that the claims made by Gilligan had no basis in fact.
> It also is very 'anti-journalist'. Not to demean him, but Dr. Kelly
> was a whistle blower. Of course it was unauthorised for him to speak
> to the press. Hutton is saying such things should not be reported to
> the public on that basis? It's a free press (or it was...)
It is a free press, but you'll find that Kelly, and many many others from all kinds of employment sign a contract when they begin work that tells them certain things must not be divulged to the press unless they are authorised to do so.
Plus you miss the crucial point of all of this - what ended up being said by Gilligan was LIES. There is a free press but a flip side of this is that the press has to maintain a level of truth or at least be able to back up allegations. Hutton stated that in his belief and from the notes Gilligan himself made that the claims made by Gilligan had no basis in fact.
Channel 4 news covered this extremely well I thought. It was such a one sided report that people can't help but suspect it's a total whitewash... it certainly makes me think about all of Blair's "let's wait for the report before we start flinging mud around" statements.
It also is very 'anti-journalist'. Not to demean him, but Dr. Kelly was a whistle blower. Of course it was unauthorised for him to speak to the press. Hutton is saying such things should not be reported to the public on that basis? It's a free press (or it was...)
It also is very 'anti-journalist'. Not to demean him, but Dr. Kelly was a whistle blower. Of course it was unauthorised for him to speak to the press. Hutton is saying such things should not be reported to the public on that basis? It's a free press (or it was...)
Light wrote:
> Which I took to mean you were hinting that the report validates the
> war. If you're NOT saying that, I apologise; I got it wrong. If I
> have got it wrong, can you please clarify what you did mean by that
> comment. After all, Hutton expressly said that the war intel itself
> was out of the remit of his report.
Hinting eh? Are you and Mr Gilligan friends? I meant that at the time of the dossier the claim was;
a)From credible intelligence
b)Believed real at the time
c)Inserted for valid reasons
Now if you had stuck to what was said, rather than what you wanted to see hinted at, you'd have noticed that was all I was claiming.
> Now then; wasn't it you who accused ME of saying that the report
> validates the war?
Oh dear, slipping aren't we. Go back and read. I accused you of saying that I had said that. Which you admit to misunderstanding above...
By the way I noticed on Tesco website that they are selling abridged copies of the report for 6.99? How moneygrabbing is that...considering is it on the web for free.
> Which I took to mean you were hinting that the report validates the
> war. If you're NOT saying that, I apologise; I got it wrong. If I
> have got it wrong, can you please clarify what you did mean by that
> comment. After all, Hutton expressly said that the war intel itself
> was out of the remit of his report.
Hinting eh? Are you and Mr Gilligan friends? I meant that at the time of the dossier the claim was;
a)From credible intelligence
b)Believed real at the time
c)Inserted for valid reasons
Now if you had stuck to what was said, rather than what you wanted to see hinted at, you'd have noticed that was all I was claiming.
> Now then; wasn't it you who accused ME of saying that the report
> validates the war?
Oh dear, slipping aren't we. Go back and read. I accused you of saying that I had said that. Which you admit to misunderstanding above...
By the way I noticed on Tesco website that they are selling abridged copies of the report for 6.99? How moneygrabbing is that...considering is it on the web for free.
Skarra wrote:
>
> Somebody commented on a post such as yours earlier. You refuse to
> accept this report, unless it sais what you want it to. I think you'd
> have doubted this report, unless it was totally daming to Tony Blair,
> and that is unfair. The Tories, and Lib-Dems accept the report, you
> should too.
Yup, I agree. The scope of the report was Dr Kelly's death, NOTHING ELSE. The report has given it's conclusions, and whether they're liked or not, they should be accepted. God knows, Michael Howard made himself look a big enough idiot yesterday. Which was funny...
>
> Somebody commented on a post such as yours earlier. You refuse to
> accept this report, unless it sais what you want it to. I think you'd
> have doubted this report, unless it was totally daming to Tony Blair,
> and that is unfair. The Tories, and Lib-Dems accept the report, you
> should too.
Yup, I agree. The scope of the report was Dr Kelly's death, NOTHING ELSE. The report has given it's conclusions, and whether they're liked or not, they should be accepted. God knows, Michael Howard made himself look a big enough idiot yesterday. Which was funny...
Belldandy wrote:
> Come one Light, no more messing around, find where I say it and
> quote
> the reply.
Okay, you said;
> Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not
> made up, and was from true intelligence.
Which I took to mean you were hinting that the report validates the war. If you're NOT saying that, I apologise; I got it wrong. If I have got it wrong, can you please clarify what you did mean by that comment. After all, Hutton expressly said that the war intel itself was out of the remit of his report.
Now then; wasn't it you who accused ME of saying that the report validates the war?
> Come one Light, no more messing around, find where I say it and
> quote
> the reply.
Okay, you said;
> Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not
> made up, and was from true intelligence.
Which I took to mean you were hinting that the report validates the war. If you're NOT saying that, I apologise; I got it wrong. If I have got it wrong, can you please clarify what you did mean by that comment. After all, Hutton expressly said that the war intel itself was out of the remit of his report.
Now then; wasn't it you who accused ME of saying that the report validates the war?
Flockhart wrote:
> B*LL*CKS! he is a bloody liar if he says he is angry,he would have
> wanted it leaked if it cleared him.
> personally i think hutton bottled it,he completely cleared the
> government when we all know they are guilty as hell.
> the way they played a guessing game with his name was
> disgraceful,they admitted it and he still cleared them!
> and if hoon gets away with his job that will just be the icing on the
> cake for the the most corrupt government i can think of(barring the
> republicans)
> lets hope that no weapons are found in iraq,so blair can f**k off in
> disgrace.
Somebody commented on a post such as yours earlier. You refuse to accept this report, unless it sais what you want it to. I think you'd have doubted this report, unless it was totally daming to Tony Blair, and that is unfair. The Tories, and Lib-Dems accept the report, you should too.
> B*LL*CKS! he is a bloody liar if he says he is angry,he would have
> wanted it leaked if it cleared him.
> personally i think hutton bottled it,he completely cleared the
> government when we all know they are guilty as hell.
> the way they played a guessing game with his name was
> disgraceful,they admitted it and he still cleared them!
> and if hoon gets away with his job that will just be the icing on the
> cake for the the most corrupt government i can think of(barring the
> republicans)
> lets hope that no weapons are found in iraq,so blair can f**k off in
> disgrace.
Somebody commented on a post such as yours earlier. You refuse to accept this report, unless it sais what you want it to. I think you'd have doubted this report, unless it was totally daming to Tony Blair, and that is unfair. The Tories, and Lib-Dems accept the report, you should too.
Ha. Back on topic..!
B*LL*CKS! he is a bloody liar if he says he is angry,he would have wanted it leaked if it cleared him.
personally i think hutton bottled it,he completely cleared the government when we all know they are guilty as hell.
the way they played a guessing game with his name was disgraceful,they admitted it and he still cleared them!
and if hoon gets away with his job that will just be the icing on the cake for the the most corrupt government i can think of(barring the republicans)
lets hope that no weapons are found in iraq,so blair can f**k off in disgrace.
personally i think hutton bottled it,he completely cleared the government when we all know they are guilty as hell.
the way they played a guessing game with his name was disgraceful,they admitted it and he still cleared them!
and if hoon gets away with his job that will just be the icing on the cake for the the most corrupt government i can think of(barring the republicans)
lets hope that no weapons are found in iraq,so blair can f**k off in disgrace.
If Ignatius is the Ignatius I'm thinking of (and the more I read of Bell's posts the more think it is) then didn't he have a girlfriend or at least an ex-girlfriend? That would make some earlier comments possibly slanderous.
Page: