The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> P.S. Light & Belldandy, do us a favour and shut up now - don't
> turn an interesting discussion into another bickering match between
> you two and your choice of words.
Fair enough. I'll back down on this one seeing as it's bugging others.
> P.S. Light & Belldandy, do us a favour and shut up now - don't
> turn an interesting discussion into another bickering match between
> you two and your choice of words.
Fair enough. I'll back down on this one seeing as it's bugging others.
Even better then, you made an assumption using third hand reporting!
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel who had read the Sun
Sorry, but I can't let you get away with that sort of slander. I read about the leak to The Sun last night on the Guardian website. I admit that I then tried to look at The Sun's website but they were still concentrating on the day's big story, which was, erm, something about Man Utd. It's a well known fact that I only read The Sun when I go and buy a Chinese takeaway, and even then I have to get the staff to help me with the longer words, such as 'boobalicious'.
> unknown kernel who had read the Sun
Sorry, but I can't let you get away with that sort of slander. I read about the leak to The Sun last night on the Guardian website. I admit that I then tried to look at The Sun's website but they were still concentrating on the day's big story, which was, erm, something about Man Utd. It's a well known fact that I only read The Sun when I go and buy a Chinese takeaway, and even then I have to get the staff to help me with the longer words, such as 'boobalicious'.
Belldandy wrote:
> Also very stupid of Howard to claim Downing Street
> leaked last night because I firmly believe the Met's investigation
> will find that untrue, after which he's going to look stupid at best.
To be fair, and only fair, saying stuff like that is similar to those Howard claimed about Blair lying.
> Also very stupid of Howard to claim Downing Street
> leaked last night because I firmly believe the Met's investigation
> will find that untrue, after which he's going to look stupid at best.
To be fair, and only fair, saying stuff like that is similar to those Howard claimed about Blair lying.
Light wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
>
>
> I agree actually; personally I think both men are scrotes, But Howard
> has screwed up BADLY here. Not that I should be surprised at the
> Tories screwing up, but there y'go...
This I do agree on.
PM's Question Time, Blair's statement this afternoon, and last night's tutition fees debate and vote were all appaling displays of British government at its absolute worst. It was akin, most of the time, to a playground argument, which would be okay if it were not for the fact these people are supposed to be running the country...
Howard may have seemed confident but why the hell did he try and pick on the reasons for war when his own party had said many many times that Blair should have urged action on Iraq way before he did anyway? It made no sense. Also very stupid of Howard to claim Downing Street leaked last night because I firmly believe the Met's investigation will find that untrue, after which he's going to look stupid at best.
> Skarra wrote:
> Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
>
>
> I agree actually; personally I think both men are scrotes, But Howard
> has screwed up BADLY here. Not that I should be surprised at the
> Tories screwing up, but there y'go...
This I do agree on.
PM's Question Time, Blair's statement this afternoon, and last night's tutition fees debate and vote were all appaling displays of British government at its absolute worst. It was akin, most of the time, to a playground argument, which would be okay if it were not for the fact these people are supposed to be running the country...
Howard may have seemed confident but why the hell did he try and pick on the reasons for war when his own party had said many many times that Blair should have urged action on Iraq way before he did anyway? It made no sense. Also very stupid of Howard to claim Downing Street leaked last night because I firmly believe the Met's investigation will find that untrue, after which he's going to look stupid at best.
Skarra wrote:
> Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
I'm really sorry
> Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
I'm really sorry
Light wrote:
> Erm...wasn't the Hutton report about how information was released
> about Dr Kelly's death and not the actual War intel? Well my oh my,
> it was.
Quote from actual report
"The major controversy which arose following
Mr Andrew Gilligan’s broadcasts on the BBC Today programme on 29 May 2003
and which closely involved Dr Kelly arose from the allegations in the broadcasts (that the Government probably knew,before it decided to put it in its dossier of 24 September 2002,that the statement was wrong that the Iraqi military were able to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of a decision to do so and that 10 Downing Street ordered the dossier to be sexed up.
It was these allegations attacking the integrity of the Government which drew Dr Kelly into the controversy about the broadcasts and which I consider I should examine under my terms of
reference. The issue whether,if approved by the Joint Intelligence Committee and believed by the Government to be reliable,the intelligence contained in the dossier was nevertheless unreliable is a separate issue which I consider does not fall within my terms of reference."
Is that clear enough for you Light?
Maybe it would have helped if you had listened to it before commenting eh? Intelligence was relevant only in the context of the allegation made by Gilligan. It is YOU that made the gigantic leap from that this report could be used to validate a war just because the intelligence in that dossier was proven not to have been faked at the time of that dossier.
> Course you would Bell; you'd say the BBC ate babies in Iraq....oh,
> unless you google a link of theirs that backs up one of your
> theories.
>
> Anyway, it could have been anyone but I'm intrigued; why do you think
> the BBC would leak a report that is critical of them?
Only three parties had that report and the opportunity to leak it. Downing Street could not because they'd know that any leak would be investigated and that if it was traced to them they'd be in severe trouble. Downing Street at that point in time already knows that the report does not threaten it and actually vindicates it in most aspects.
The Kelly family also had the report. Again they have little reason to leak anything because all that Kelly was criticised on, in a minor way, was meeting and talking with Gilligan about issues he should not have. However Hutton accepted that it is likely that Kelly did not intend in advance to talk to Gilligan as he did and that Gilligan's notes (of which there were two versions) would not be the record of the entire meeting.
Which leaves the BBC. Whilst it is unlikely that an executive decision was taken to leak information it is pretty clear from the report itself that the BBC has poor controls over its people and what they do. A possible motive could be to try and deflect attention away from the BBC, or more likely that someone who stands to lose from the reports findings but whom feels they were coerced or forced into doing something in the chain of events at the BBC leaked it in revenge. I do not think money could be a motive as the Sun would have to account for the money and the trail would lead to the person.
Either way the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been asked to investigate so the answer will become apparent in the future. If it is not the BBC then I'll admit I am wrong at that point. But right now I would wager they are at the very least somehow involved.
> 1. a few vague attempts to insult other posters based on
> misunderstanding what was actually posted (you'll note I didn't post
> a damn thing until after the report had been made public...as it
> happens, I haven't actually read the Sun today. Or at all for the
> last 3 years...)
Incorrect. You posted at 12:47 about the validity of the report an its findings which was quite amazing considering that at that point only the Government, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, BBC, Hutton and Kelly family even knew the full content of the report. Even if you were simply agreeing at 12:47 with unknown kernel who had read the Sun you were - by your own admittance because you state you have not read the Sun - agreeing with something you had never read nor seen.
> 2. followed by an implication that anyone disagreeing with him is
> simply making it up.
>
> Unsurprisingly, no evidence is offered for either of these claims.
> What a shock...
It is a simple point.
You alledge the report is not valid - with no proof. I am sure Lord Hutton would like this proof that you and few others seem to have.
You link the report to validating the war despite Hutton making numerous references that it is in no way possible to do so. Intelligence associated with the enquiry was only measured reliable in the context that at the time of those events it was credible and believed true, not that the same intelligence was actually reliable in the context of today and what we now know.
You seem unable to make the differentiation Light.
> Erm...wasn't the Hutton report about how information was released
> about Dr Kelly's death and not the actual War intel? Well my oh my,
> it was.
Quote from actual report
"The major controversy which arose following
Mr Andrew Gilligan’s broadcasts on the BBC Today programme on 29 May 2003
and which closely involved Dr Kelly arose from the allegations in the broadcasts (that the Government probably knew,before it decided to put it in its dossier of 24 September 2002,that the statement was wrong that the Iraqi military were able to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of a decision to do so and that 10 Downing Street ordered the dossier to be sexed up.
It was these allegations attacking the integrity of the Government which drew Dr Kelly into the controversy about the broadcasts and which I consider I should examine under my terms of
reference. The issue whether,if approved by the Joint Intelligence Committee and believed by the Government to be reliable,the intelligence contained in the dossier was nevertheless unreliable is a separate issue which I consider does not fall within my terms of reference."
Is that clear enough for you Light?
Maybe it would have helped if you had listened to it before commenting eh? Intelligence was relevant only in the context of the allegation made by Gilligan. It is YOU that made the gigantic leap from that this report could be used to validate a war just because the intelligence in that dossier was proven not to have been faked at the time of that dossier.
> Course you would Bell; you'd say the BBC ate babies in Iraq....oh,
> unless you google a link of theirs that backs up one of your
> theories.
>
> Anyway, it could have been anyone but I'm intrigued; why do you think
> the BBC would leak a report that is critical of them?
Only three parties had that report and the opportunity to leak it. Downing Street could not because they'd know that any leak would be investigated and that if it was traced to them they'd be in severe trouble. Downing Street at that point in time already knows that the report does not threaten it and actually vindicates it in most aspects.
The Kelly family also had the report. Again they have little reason to leak anything because all that Kelly was criticised on, in a minor way, was meeting and talking with Gilligan about issues he should not have. However Hutton accepted that it is likely that Kelly did not intend in advance to talk to Gilligan as he did and that Gilligan's notes (of which there were two versions) would not be the record of the entire meeting.
Which leaves the BBC. Whilst it is unlikely that an executive decision was taken to leak information it is pretty clear from the report itself that the BBC has poor controls over its people and what they do. A possible motive could be to try and deflect attention away from the BBC, or more likely that someone who stands to lose from the reports findings but whom feels they were coerced or forced into doing something in the chain of events at the BBC leaked it in revenge. I do not think money could be a motive as the Sun would have to account for the money and the trail would lead to the person.
Either way the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been asked to investigate so the answer will become apparent in the future. If it is not the BBC then I'll admit I am wrong at that point. But right now I would wager they are at the very least somehow involved.
> 1. a few vague attempts to insult other posters based on
> misunderstanding what was actually posted (you'll note I didn't post
> a damn thing until after the report had been made public...as it
> happens, I haven't actually read the Sun today. Or at all for the
> last 3 years...)
Incorrect. You posted at 12:47 about the validity of the report an its findings which was quite amazing considering that at that point only the Government, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, BBC, Hutton and Kelly family even knew the full content of the report. Even if you were simply agreeing at 12:47 with unknown kernel who had read the Sun you were - by your own admittance because you state you have not read the Sun - agreeing with something you had never read nor seen.
> 2. followed by an implication that anyone disagreeing with him is
> simply making it up.
>
> Unsurprisingly, no evidence is offered for either of these claims.
> What a shock...
It is a simple point.
You alledge the report is not valid - with no proof. I am sure Lord Hutton would like this proof that you and few others seem to have.
You link the report to validating the war despite Hutton making numerous references that it is in no way possible to do so. Intelligence associated with the enquiry was only measured reliable in the context that at the time of those events it was credible and believed true, not that the same intelligence was actually reliable in the context of today and what we now know.
You seem unable to make the differentiation Light.
P.S. Light & Belldandy, do us a favour and shut up now - don't turn an interesting discussion into another bickering match between you two and your choice of words.
What about this letter sent to the Guardian...? Seems to go into more detial than Hutton's "he killed himself, no doubt about it, he used his own knife."
QUOTE-
As medical professionals, a trauma & orthopaedic surgeon, a specialist anaesthesiologist, and a diagnostic radiologist, we do not think evidence given at the Hutton Inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.
Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist who appeared at the Hutton Inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound in his left wrist. We consider this highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to drastic blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - was completely transected. Complete transection means the artery quickly retracts, promoting clotting of the blood:
"When an artery is completely divided, the highly elastic quality of its wall causes it to retract into the tissues, thereby diminishing the calibre of the vessel and promoting clotting."
A Textbook of Surgery by Christopher, Fourth Edition, 1945, p210
It was reported by the ambulance team that blood at the scene was minimal. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vaso-constricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose 3 litres of blood; in our view it is unlikely that Dr Kelly would have lost more than a pint from the wound described.
Mr Alexander Allan, the toxicologist testifying at the Inquiry, considered the ingestion of co-proxamol insufficient to cause death. Mr Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of co-proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Mr Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.
In summary, we dispute that Dr Kelly could have died either from haemorrhage or from co-proxamol ingestion. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken in recent days of resuming the inquest into Dr Kelly's death. If it does re-open, a clear need exists for further scrutiny into Dr Hunt's conclusions regarding the cause of death.
Yours sincerely
David Halpin, MB BS FRCS
Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr C Stephen Frost, BSc, MB ChB
Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)
Dr Searle Sennett, BSc, MBChB, FFARCS
Specialist Anaesthesiologist
QUOTE-
As medical professionals, a trauma & orthopaedic surgeon, a specialist anaesthesiologist, and a diagnostic radiologist, we do not think evidence given at the Hutton Inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.
Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist who appeared at the Hutton Inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound in his left wrist. We consider this highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to drastic blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - was completely transected. Complete transection means the artery quickly retracts, promoting clotting of the blood:
"When an artery is completely divided, the highly elastic quality of its wall causes it to retract into the tissues, thereby diminishing the calibre of the vessel and promoting clotting."
A Textbook of Surgery by Christopher, Fourth Edition, 1945, p210
It was reported by the ambulance team that blood at the scene was minimal. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vaso-constricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose 3 litres of blood; in our view it is unlikely that Dr Kelly would have lost more than a pint from the wound described.
Mr Alexander Allan, the toxicologist testifying at the Inquiry, considered the ingestion of co-proxamol insufficient to cause death. Mr Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of co-proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Mr Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.
In summary, we dispute that Dr Kelly could have died either from haemorrhage or from co-proxamol ingestion. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken in recent days of resuming the inquest into Dr Kelly's death. If it does re-open, a clear need exists for further scrutiny into Dr Hunt's conclusions regarding the cause of death.
Yours sincerely
David Halpin, MB BS FRCS
Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr C Stephen Frost, BSc, MB ChB
Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)
Dr Searle Sennett, BSc, MBChB, FFARCS
Specialist Anaesthesiologist
Skarra wrote:
> Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
I agree actually; personally I think both men are scrotes, But Howard has screwed up BADLY here. Not that I should be surprised at the Tories screwing up, but there y'go...
> Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
I agree actually; personally I think both men are scrotes, But Howard has screwed up BADLY here. Not that I should be surprised at the Tories screwing up, but there y'go...
Page: