The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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?
> The clever thing is that it's taken a while for people to work out
> what the hell was going on - but now it's too late, the BBC is the
> news.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy's column in the Metro today says something along those lines - it's a plea for the BBC to sort itself out quickly so the government can't use it as a smokescreen to hide from questions about the war
(which is what they previously used the Hutton report for - even though it had nothing to do wwith the war, rrrrright?)
> what the hell was going on - but now it's too late, the BBC is the
> news.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy's column in the Metro today says something along those lines - it's a plea for the BBC to sort itself out quickly so the government can't use it as a smokescreen to hide from questions about the war
(which is what they previously used the Hutton report for - even though it had nothing to do wwith the war, rrrrright?)
..or are you guilty of responding to posts wihtout reading them too, Light..
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.
Light wrote:
> Right; you'll have to forgive me as I didn't see that, but didn't you
> criticise everyone else who has posted in this thread for only
> relying on news reports? And yet you only relined on a summary of the
> main points yourself, correct?
Hello Bell. Could you answer the above question please? Only it reads like you're being evasive. If you could clarify please.
> Right; you'll have to forgive me as I didn't see that, but didn't you
> criticise everyone else who has posted in this thread for only
> relying on news reports? And yet you only relined on a summary of the
> main points yourself, correct?
Hello Bell. Could you answer the above question please? Only it reads like you're being evasive. If you could clarify please.
Darwock wrote:
> Stuff
Then Skarra wrote:
>Stuff in response
My personal opinion is that you're both arguing over things that the Hutton report was never intended to look at. It seems to me you're both arguing the point that "This report shows that the government told us the truth about the war/This report hides the fact that the government lied about the war"
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.
So although the Hutton enquiry acknowledged that some of the intel on Iraq came in the form of a doctored 12 year old Phd thesis downloaded from the net, it did not make any comment on this as it was outside the scope of the enquiry.
> Stuff
Then Skarra wrote:
>Stuff in response
My personal opinion is that you're both arguing over things that the Hutton report was never intended to look at. It seems to me you're both arguing the point that "This report shows that the government told us the truth about the war/This report hides the fact that the government lied about the war"
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.
So although the Hutton enquiry acknowledged that some of the intel on Iraq came in the form of a doctored 12 year old Phd thesis downloaded from the net, it did not make any comment on this as it was outside the scope of the enquiry.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> I haven't read through all of what Flockhart has said. I try not to
> comment on something that I haven't read or don't know anything
> about. People will just think me a fool if I did.
>
> You mean like when you were talking about Rainbow Six? Oh....
Mwah ha ha haaa! Yeah, that's the one; the one where I immediately admitted to having made it up purely to see your reaction, and you then spent 3 posts going;
"You haven't played it, have you?"
'No Bell; I baited you to make you annoyed'
"So where is the proof you've played it?"
'Uhh...Bell, I've just said I only said that to bait you. I haven't played it'
"So you refuse to provide proof you've read it?"
'Umm...Bell, can you actually read what I've said?"
And it was at that point you decided to avoid the subject. Again. Cos you can't ever admit to being the butt of a joke, can you? Jokes are offensive. Possibly even slanderous.
> Light wrote:
> I haven't read through all of what Flockhart has said. I try not to
> comment on something that I haven't read or don't know anything
> about. People will just think me a fool if I did.
>
> You mean like when you were talking about Rainbow Six? Oh....
Mwah ha ha haaa! Yeah, that's the one; the one where I immediately admitted to having made it up purely to see your reaction, and you then spent 3 posts going;
"You haven't played it, have you?"
'No Bell; I baited you to make you annoyed'
"So where is the proof you've played it?"
'Uhh...Bell, I've just said I only said that to bait you. I haven't played it'
"So you refuse to provide proof you've read it?"
'Umm...Bell, can you actually read what I've said?"
And it was at that point you decided to avoid the subject. Again. Cos you can't ever admit to being the butt of a joke, can you? Jokes are offensive. Possibly even slanderous.
Darwock wrote:
> Plenty of evidence came to light during the enquiry... seedy tales of
> changes to the dossiers, and connivances to name Dr. Kelly to gain
> the upper hand in the government's row with the BBC... none of which
> found it's way into the reports conclusions.
Only suggested changes. Ones that Scarlet agreed with.
> Last poll I saw on Sky News said that 73% of the public feel the
> report is a whitewash. Surely any neutral, rational person will see
> it the same way. We don't appear to have many neutral people on these
> forums, but either there are a lot of paranoid members of the public
> or the government underestimated their intelligence.
I'm sorry, but just because people don't have faith in the Government, doesn't mean they don't deserve faith. After all, most people had already made up their mind on the Government and Hutton. Blair was Guilty until proven guilty. Any talk of the Government as being innocent is shouted down as a Whitewash, even when both the Torys, AND Lim-Dems accept Huttons findings.
> Plenty of evidence came to light during the enquiry... seedy tales of
> changes to the dossiers, and connivances to name Dr. Kelly to gain
> the upper hand in the government's row with the BBC... none of which
> found it's way into the reports conclusions.
Only suggested changes. Ones that Scarlet agreed with.
> Last poll I saw on Sky News said that 73% of the public feel the
> report is a whitewash. Surely any neutral, rational person will see
> it the same way. We don't appear to have many neutral people on these
> forums, but either there are a lot of paranoid members of the public
> or the government underestimated their intelligence.
I'm sorry, but just because people don't have faith in the Government, doesn't mean they don't deserve faith. After all, most people had already made up their mind on the Government and Hutton. Blair was Guilty until proven guilty. Any talk of the Government as being innocent is shouted down as a Whitewash, even when both the Torys, AND Lim-Dems accept Huttons findings.
These are a few of the things I've read about the Hutton report and largely agreed with. Most of them are from right wing and pro-war commentators, just to show that I am not just doing my communist smoker bit by thinking of this report as a whitewash.
Boris Johnson in the Telegraph. (Sample quote: "I put it to you that the judge is noble, learned and talking through the back of his neck." Ah, Boris, if only you weren't a Tory.)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2C712E37
Rod Liddle, former Today editor in The Spectator:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1D722E37
Peter Oborne, also in The Spectator:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2F752E37
And for all the cancerous socialists out there:
http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
The clever thing is that it's taken a while for people to work out what the hell was going on - but now it's too late, the BBC is the news.
Boris Johnson in the Telegraph. (Sample quote: "I put it to you that the judge is noble, learned and talking through the back of his neck." Ah, Boris, if only you weren't a Tory.)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2C712E37
Rod Liddle, former Today editor in The Spectator:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1D722E37
Peter Oborne, also in The Spectator:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2F752E37
And for all the cancerous socialists out there:
http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
The clever thing is that it's taken a while for people to work out what the hell was going on - but now it's too late, the BBC is the news.
Plenty of evidence came to light during the enquiry... seedy tales of changes to the dossiers, and connivances to name Dr. Kelly to gain the upper hand in the government's row with the BBC... none of which found it's way into the reports conclusions.
Last poll I saw on Sky News said that 73% of the public feel the report is a whitewash. Surely any neutral, rational person will see it the same way. We don't appear to have many neutral people on these forums, but either there are a lot of paranoid members of the public or the government underestimated their intelligence.
Last poll I saw on Sky News said that 73% of the public feel the report is a whitewash. Surely any neutral, rational person will see it the same way. We don't appear to have many neutral people on these forums, but either there are a lot of paranoid members of the public or the government underestimated their intelligence.
Page: