The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
the hutton report was about who was responsible for dr kellys death,right?
and kelly killed himself because he was exposed as a whistleblower,right?
now who exposed him?
the level of government zealotism going on here is beyond belief.
and kelly killed himself because he was exposed as a whistleblower,right?
now who exposed him?
the level of government zealotism going on here is beyond belief.
And, unknown kernel, wasn't the very beginning of the events that led to this about people claiming how things had been presented? By the media...certain sections of which are now on full attack whilst others ae on full defence...
Y'know, if we had the morning televised press briefings like in the US there'd be a lot less of this misunderstanding I believe. As it is nearly every government policy/statement/action gets presented by the media with attached bias one way or the other.
Y'know, if we had the morning televised press briefings like in the US there'd be a lot less of this misunderstanding I believe. As it is nearly every government policy/statement/action gets presented by the media with attached bias one way or the other.
I have a solution.
The government should arrange for anyone who wants to to be able to claim a large pack of A4 lined paper and a pack of twenty pens, and an A4ringbider with "Hutton Report" printed in black letters on the front.
Thus, the nation can all write it's own reports to please itself. These individual reports will have as much impact as the real one but will undoubtedly, as people like Flockhart prove, be very entertaining reading.
Good idea, non?
The government should arrange for anyone who wants to to be able to claim a large pack of A4 lined paper and a pack of twenty pens, and an A4ringbider with "Hutton Report" printed in black letters on the front.
Thus, the nation can all write it's own reports to please itself. These individual reports will have as much impact as the real one but will undoubtedly, as people like Flockhart prove, be very entertaining reading.
Good idea, non?
Light wrote:
> Fact is, all this report looked at was "Were the Government or
> BBC at fault when it came to the naming of Dr Kelly". That's
> all. Nothing more or less.
True, but it's being presented as so much more than that. Most of the news reporting has been about the BBC getting its story wrong (or partly wrong depending on how you look at the evidence) and almost nothing about what part the BBC played in name Dr Kelly. Similarly, I don't think I would have noticed the criticisms of the MoD had I not watched the summary on TV. It seems to me that the government decided to name him - something that may or may not be 'underhand' - but I don't think the report went into the significance of that, or looked at anything wider than the bare facts - the culture of spin or whatever else contributed. In fact I read something on the internet pointing out that anything that could cast a bad light on the government was conveniently outside Hutton's remit, and anything that could cast a bad light on the BBC was inside his remit.
> Fact is, all this report looked at was "Were the Government or
> BBC at fault when it came to the naming of Dr Kelly". That's
> all. Nothing more or less.
True, but it's being presented as so much more than that. Most of the news reporting has been about the BBC getting its story wrong (or partly wrong depending on how you look at the evidence) and almost nothing about what part the BBC played in name Dr Kelly. Similarly, I don't think I would have noticed the criticisms of the MoD had I not watched the summary on TV. It seems to me that the government decided to name him - something that may or may not be 'underhand' - but I don't think the report went into the significance of that, or looked at anything wider than the bare facts - the culture of spin or whatever else contributed. In fact I read something on the internet pointing out that anything that could cast a bad light on the government was conveniently outside Hutton's remit, and anything that could cast a bad light on the BBC was inside his remit.
Light wrote:
> Darwock wrote:
> The Hutton report most definitely was concerned with the governments
> scheme to name & shame Dr. Kelly, as these were undoubtedly a
> contributing factor to his suicide.
>
> But it was NOT concerned with anything to do with the Iraq war, and
> the reliability or otherwise of the intel that led to that war.
It didn't look at the validity of the Intel, but it did look at if the Government had lied and 'sexed-up' that Intel. The Hutton report found that the Government didn't lie, and acted on the Intel it had.
> Have you got any evidence to show that there was a deliberate scheme
> to name and shame him? The MOD were criticised by Hutton for not
> telling him that officials would confirm his name if asked, but all
> the other charges were found by Hutton to be unproven. I'm quite
> willing to accept a lawlord has got it wrong based on the available
> evidence, but I'd need to see that evidence first.
> As is, much though I wanted the report to show that there was such a
> scheme, it does not. And personally, until I see some evidence or a
> convincing and coherhent argument to the contrary, I'm going to
> accept what the report says.
Good for you. Its nice to see that others want to see some sort of proof before screaming Whitewash.
> Changing the subject momentarily, is no-one else impressed with the
> impartiality that the BBC have reported on what is essentially a
> story about how they screwed up badly?
I am. I comend they for having the ability to accept their failure, and indeed, report on it.
> Darwock wrote:
> The Hutton report most definitely was concerned with the governments
> scheme to name & shame Dr. Kelly, as these were undoubtedly a
> contributing factor to his suicide.
>
> But it was NOT concerned with anything to do with the Iraq war, and
> the reliability or otherwise of the intel that led to that war.
It didn't look at the validity of the Intel, but it did look at if the Government had lied and 'sexed-up' that Intel. The Hutton report found that the Government didn't lie, and acted on the Intel it had.
> Have you got any evidence to show that there was a deliberate scheme
> to name and shame him? The MOD were criticised by Hutton for not
> telling him that officials would confirm his name if asked, but all
> the other charges were found by Hutton to be unproven. I'm quite
> willing to accept a lawlord has got it wrong based on the available
> evidence, but I'd need to see that evidence first.
> As is, much though I wanted the report to show that there was such a
> scheme, it does not. And personally, until I see some evidence or a
> convincing and coherhent argument to the contrary, I'm going to
> accept what the report says.
Good for you. Its nice to see that others want to see some sort of proof before screaming Whitewash.
> Changing the subject momentarily, is no-one else impressed with the
> impartiality that the BBC have reported on what is essentially a
> story about how they screwed up badly?
I am. I comend they for having the ability to accept their failure, and indeed, report on it.
Darwock wrote:
> The changes to the dossiers are relevant, since it's these claims Dr.
> Kelly was reported to have cast doubt on.
But whatever doubts Dr Kelly about the war intel may have had were not for Hutton to investigate. His role was purely to investigate the circumstances of his death. Whilst Kelly's expression of those doubts is something Hutton can investigate as it is directly connected to the circumstances surrounding his death, the doubts themselves are beyond the scope of Hutton.
I'd agree that that is a semantic point, but it's an important one.
> The changes to the dossiers are relevant, since it's these claims Dr.
> Kelly was reported to have cast doubt on.
But whatever doubts Dr Kelly about the war intel may have had were not for Hutton to investigate. His role was purely to investigate the circumstances of his death. Whilst Kelly's expression of those doubts is something Hutton can investigate as it is directly connected to the circumstances surrounding his death, the doubts themselves are beyond the scope of Hutton.
I'd agree that that is a semantic point, but it's an important one.
The changes to the dossiers are relevant, since it's these claims Dr. Kelly was reported to have cast doubt on.
Darwock wrote:
> It's not that, you said I was talking about 'stuff' that had nothing
> to do with Hutton, when I only mentioned things that the report was
> concerned with.
>
> Anyway I'm not going to add to the back-and-forth arguing over
> semantics that goes on all the time in here.
Oh THAT! Right, my apologies; I was just making a generalised comment about some of the debate between yourself and Skarro. When you mentioned "Seedy tales of changes to the dossiers", I think you were referring to the changes to some of the war intel made by Campbell et al, yeah? But that was beyond the scope of Hutton; the report was not concerned with that.
And I appreciate that getting bogged down in semantics can be frustrating. However, I would differenciate between semantics (which are, whether we like it or not, important; the 45 minute claim is semantic, but it matters, no?) and sophistry (which is using semantics out of context; more of a word game where the sophist tries to torture the English Language half to death in order to prove that, according to strict definitions of words set out by the sophist, he/she can't possibly be incorrect).
An annoying, but increasingly true, saying: "God is in the details"
> It's not that, you said I was talking about 'stuff' that had nothing
> to do with Hutton, when I only mentioned things that the report was
> concerned with.
>
> Anyway I'm not going to add to the back-and-forth arguing over
> semantics that goes on all the time in here.
Oh THAT! Right, my apologies; I was just making a generalised comment about some of the debate between yourself and Skarro. When you mentioned "Seedy tales of changes to the dossiers", I think you were referring to the changes to some of the war intel made by Campbell et al, yeah? But that was beyond the scope of Hutton; the report was not concerned with that.
And I appreciate that getting bogged down in semantics can be frustrating. However, I would differenciate between semantics (which are, whether we like it or not, important; the 45 minute claim is semantic, but it matters, no?) and sophistry (which is using semantics out of context; more of a word game where the sophist tries to torture the English Language half to death in order to prove that, according to strict definitions of words set out by the sophist, he/she can't possibly be incorrect).
An annoying, but increasingly true, saying: "God is in the details"
It's not that, you said I was talking about 'stuff' that had nothing to do with Hutton, when I only mentioned things that the report was concerned with.
Anyway I'm not going to add to the back-and-forth arguing over semantics that goes on all the time in here.
Anyway I'm not going to add to the back-and-forth arguing over semantics that goes on all the time in here.
Darwock wrote:
> ..or are you guilty of responding to posts wihtout reading them too,
> Light..
Heh. No, not that I know of. But I'm intrigued to know how my saying that;
>Fact is, all this report looked at was "Were the Government or BBC at >fault when it came to the naming of Dr Kelly". That's all. Nothing more >or less.
is in any way deviating from your assertion that;
>The Hutton report most definitely was concerned with the governments >scheme to name & shame Dr. Kelly, as these were undoubtedly a >contributing factor to his suicide.
All that differs between those 2 is that my statement is fairly neutral, whilst yours is clearly far more subjective in tone.
> ..or are you guilty of responding to posts wihtout reading them too,
> Light..
Heh. No, not that I know of. But I'm intrigued to know how my saying that;
>Fact is, all this report looked at was "Were the Government or BBC at >fault when it came to the naming of Dr Kelly". That's all. Nothing more >or less.
is in any way deviating from your assertion that;
>The Hutton report most definitely was concerned with the governments >scheme to name & shame Dr. Kelly, as these were undoubtedly a >contributing factor to his suicide.
All that differs between those 2 is that my statement is fairly neutral, whilst yours is clearly far more subjective in tone.
Page: