The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You guys watching Mr Blair blubbering about it while people go 'yea' in the background?
Belldandy wrote:
> On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now
> available online for download in pdf format.
Can you post a link? I've tried to find it without any luck.
> On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now
> available online for download in pdf format.
Can you post a link? I've tried to find it without any luck.
Aha! Got it.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ (space) content/report/index.htm
300 plus pages. Don't think I'll be reading this at the moment. Work to do.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ (space) content/report/index.htm
300 plus pages. Don't think I'll be reading this at the moment. Work to do.
So, Tony was cleared of 'sexing up' anything. It sais, if the Intel was wrong, thats another thing. But, wrong or not, Blair didn't lie. By the way, whens this debate on the report?
They're debating it now. Blair did his thing and Howard did his, accompanied by cackling and hooting Labour MPs. They behave like a bunch of really unpleasant schoolkids and it really makes me feel a bit sick.
Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not
> made up, and was from true intelligence.
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.
Looks like I was overstating it when I said 8 hours, eh Bell? This is kinda funny actually; you spend one post trying to belittle me for stating that someone is bound to say that the Hutton report justifies the war, then you post something saying that the report justifies the intel that justified the war. Predictable, yet still rather satisfying.
>
> The leak? I'd bet on the the BBC...
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?
>
> 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....
Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! A classic Belldandy post;
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...)
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...
>
> Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not
> made up, and was from true intelligence.
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.
Looks like I was overstating it when I said 8 hours, eh Bell? This is kinda funny actually; you spend one post trying to belittle me for stating that someone is bound to say that the Hutton report justifies the war, then you post something saying that the report justifies the intel that justified the war. Predictable, yet still rather satisfying.
>
> The leak? I'd bet on the the BBC...
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?
>
> 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....
Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! A classic Belldandy post;
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...)
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...
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...
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
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.
Page: