The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Flockhart wrote:
> firstly biased why? i may be wrong but wasnt hutton selected by the
> government.i go simply on what was said,they just recounted what had
> already been said,why would i be biased,im simply going by the what
> ive been told,as have you.can you seriously,hand on heart,tell me
> that you believe the government is completely innocent and has acted
> beyond reproach during all this.
> we all go on what we are told,how can you be certain we have been
> told the truth.
Well, it was by the BBC, i was under the impression they had a vested interest in the Hutton Report. Thats why it was biased.
If the Government lied or not isn't for me to say. It was for Hutton, and now he's said something you don't like, you scream Whitewash.
And i can't be 100% certain, but i put my faith in Hutton, as he was more independent that any BBC report.
> firstly biased why? i may be wrong but wasnt hutton selected by the
> government.i go simply on what was said,they just recounted what had
> already been said,why would i be biased,im simply going by the what
> ive been told,as have you.can you seriously,hand on heart,tell me
> that you believe the government is completely innocent and has acted
> beyond reproach during all this.
> we all go on what we are told,how can you be certain we have been
> told the truth.
Well, it was by the BBC, i was under the impression they had a vested interest in the Hutton Report. Thats why it was biased.
If the Government lied or not isn't for me to say. It was for Hutton, and now he's said something you don't like, you scream Whitewash.
And i can't be 100% certain, but i put my faith in Hutton, as he was more independent that any BBC report.
Belldandy wrote:
> And Flockhart you nicely skirted around the fact that I ripped your
> argument to shreds.
p01. !<3113. 0 VVn3l)!
(Pot. Kettle. Owned.
> And Flockhart you nicely skirted around the fact that I ripped your
> argument to shreds.
p01. !<3113. 0 VVn3l)!
(Pot. Kettle. Owned.
Flockhart wrote:
> seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
> my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
> you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless you
> are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the
> bible says that"
> (swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything
> you read.
> answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some
> politician.
> i have nothing more to say on the matter.
Evidence of Labour's failure in education?
You'll be surprised to know that I'm pretty much with the Conservatives on most issues.
And Flockhart you nicely skirted around the fact that I ripped your argument to shreds.
> seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
> my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
> you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless you
> are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the
> bible says that"
> (swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything
> you read.
> answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some
> politician.
> i have nothing more to say on the matter.
Evidence of Labour's failure in education?
You'll be surprised to know that I'm pretty much with the Conservatives on most issues.
And Flockhart you nicely skirted around the fact that I ripped your argument to shreds.
sorry my mistake.i misread the name
Flockhart wrote:
> oi darwock try answering the questions i asked.
> then see if you can defend the government.
>
> *SINGS
> # are you tony blair in disguise?
Er, I'm not defending the government Flockhart, I'm arguing the same points as you. (???)
> oi darwock try answering the questions i asked.
> then see if you can defend the government.
>
> *SINGS
> # are you tony blair in disguise?
Er, I'm not defending the government Flockhart, I'm arguing the same points as you. (???)
thankyou kernel.
we can see faults on all sides.you should ask yourself why you cant.
we can see faults on all sides.you should ask yourself why you cant.
Skarra wrote:
> Flockhart wrote:
> seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
> my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
> you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless
> you
> are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the
> bible says that"
> (swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything
> you read.
> answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some
> politician.
> i have nothing more to say on the matter.
>
> Well, tell me this. Why do you believe a BBC report, a biased one by
> the way, over Lord Hutton, you say also Biased? Why the BBC over
> Hutton? Could it be because it supports your view?
firstly biased why? i may be wrong but wasnt hutton selected by the government.i go simply on what was said,they just recounted what had already been said,why would i be biased,im simply going by the what ive been told,as have you.can you seriously,hand on heart,tell me that you believe the government is completely innocent and has acted beyond reproach during all this.
we all go on what we are told,how can you be certain we have been told the truth.
> Flockhart wrote:
> seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
> my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
> you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless
> you
> are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the
> bible says that"
> (swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything
> you read.
> answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some
> politician.
> i have nothing more to say on the matter.
>
> Well, tell me this. Why do you believe a BBC report, a biased one by
> the way, over Lord Hutton, you say also Biased? Why the BBC over
> Hutton? Could it be because it supports your view?
firstly biased why? i may be wrong but wasnt hutton selected by the government.i go simply on what was said,they just recounted what had already been said,why would i be biased,im simply going by the what ive been told,as have you.can you seriously,hand on heart,tell me that you believe the government is completely innocent and has acted beyond reproach during all this.
we all go on what we are told,how can you be certain we have been told the truth.
The more I think about it, the more I think that this report is a whitewash - a very subtle and clever whitewash but a whitewash all the same. I don't really have time right now to type out what I'm thinking but I'll maybe do it later.
In the meantime...this is nicked off http://willesdenherald.blogspot.com
Questions for Lord Hutton
How did your Lordship conclude:
a) Dr Kelly breached Ministry of Defence regulations when he met Gilligan - after hearing in the inquiry that it was part of Kelly's remit to brief journalists?
b) That Blair's comments to journalists in-flight to Japan "threw no light" on the issues - after Blair had stated that he had nothing to do with naming Kelly, and we heard in evidence that he had chaired the meeting where the decision to name was taken.
c) That you have nothing in particular to say about Hoon - after Hoon has been caught out repeatedly telling half-truths or lies by omission.
Are we allowed to ask whether the government sounded out your opinions before appointing you? Or was it known by some insiders where your sympathies lay? Who decided that the "miraculously" glowing report for the government should be released the day after the vote on tuition fees, which the government probably expected to lose? How convenient that that story was replaced instantly by yours. How did Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper get the report in time for this morning?
Whatever happened to that old-fashioned concept of Justice? Would it not be just to take into account a dossier cobbled together from the internet with a 10-year-old university thesis, and wording falsified to say "terrorist groups" instead of "opposition parties" etc (etc etc etc.) Maybe it didn't fall within your Narrow Remit, but you are not a dummy, you knew from the undisputed record that they had already been caught out falsifying dossiers.
Think of it this way: The BBC makes one mistake and an unelected PR man (Campbell) marches in and interrupts Channel 4 News, the dogs are loosed on them, and their governors are now expected to resign en masse. Contrast the government's fate: They falsify dossiers, invade another sovereign country for false reasons, cause thousands of deaths, and institute an inquiry on a tangential issue designed as a firebreak to save them from their just fate.
For whatever reason, you have singularly failed to do Justice to Hoon or Blair and for Dr Kelly. At the same time you have been inordinately eager to castigate the BBC and Gilligan. If this inquiry had instead been a trial by jury, there is every likelihood that the verdicts would have been very different.
In the meantime...this is nicked off http://willesdenherald.blogspot.com
Questions for Lord Hutton
How did your Lordship conclude:
a) Dr Kelly breached Ministry of Defence regulations when he met Gilligan - after hearing in the inquiry that it was part of Kelly's remit to brief journalists?
b) That Blair's comments to journalists in-flight to Japan "threw no light" on the issues - after Blair had stated that he had nothing to do with naming Kelly, and we heard in evidence that he had chaired the meeting where the decision to name was taken.
c) That you have nothing in particular to say about Hoon - after Hoon has been caught out repeatedly telling half-truths or lies by omission.
Are we allowed to ask whether the government sounded out your opinions before appointing you? Or was it known by some insiders where your sympathies lay? Who decided that the "miraculously" glowing report for the government should be released the day after the vote on tuition fees, which the government probably expected to lose? How convenient that that story was replaced instantly by yours. How did Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper get the report in time for this morning?
Whatever happened to that old-fashioned concept of Justice? Would it not be just to take into account a dossier cobbled together from the internet with a 10-year-old university thesis, and wording falsified to say "terrorist groups" instead of "opposition parties" etc (etc etc etc.) Maybe it didn't fall within your Narrow Remit, but you are not a dummy, you knew from the undisputed record that they had already been caught out falsifying dossiers.
Think of it this way: The BBC makes one mistake and an unelected PR man (Campbell) marches in and interrupts Channel 4 News, the dogs are loosed on them, and their governors are now expected to resign en masse. Contrast the government's fate: They falsify dossiers, invade another sovereign country for false reasons, cause thousands of deaths, and institute an inquiry on a tangential issue designed as a firebreak to save them from their just fate.
For whatever reason, you have singularly failed to do Justice to Hoon or Blair and for Dr Kelly. At the same time you have been inordinately eager to castigate the BBC and Gilligan. If this inquiry had instead been a trial by jury, there is every likelihood that the verdicts would have been very different.
Flockhart wrote:
> seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
> my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
> you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless you
> are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the
> bible says that"
> (swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything
> you read.
> answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some
> politician.
> i have nothing more to say on the matter.
Well, tell me this. Why do you believe a BBC report, a biased one by the way, over Lord Hutton, you say also Biased? Why the BBC over Hutton? Could it be because it supports your view?
> seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
> my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
> you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless you
> are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the
> bible says that"
> (swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything
> you read.
> answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some
> politician.
> i have nothing more to say on the matter.
Well, tell me this. Why do you believe a BBC report, a biased one by the way, over Lord Hutton, you say also Biased? Why the BBC over Hutton? Could it be because it supports your view?
seriously youre a labour party member arent you?
my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless you are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the bible says that"
(swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything you read.
answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some politician.
i have nothing more to say on the matter.
my information came mainly from the bbc documentary on monday night.
you are the biased idiot if you think the government is blameless you are like a religous nut with a bible "the bible says this,the bible says that"
(swap bible for hutton report)well you shouldnt believe everything you read.
answer my questions instead of skirting round them like some politician.
i have nothing more to say on the matter.
Page: