Viewing Thread:
"Tony Blair "very angry" that Prime Minister leaked Hutton Report"

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.

Yup, didn't think you'd have a reply or an answer.

You lose.

So, Goatboy, that's your notable *cough* piece of crap *cough* contribution? Okay so I don't quite find how that relates to the Hutton report. Heavens forbid I say that a notable is throwing off the topic, oncemore,

Belldandy wrote:
> My god Flockhart, you are truly an idiot if that is the best you can
> do. Face it you wouldn't know the report in any way even if I were to
> whack you over the head with it.
>
> You think the report is invalid? Proof? Oh dear, you have none, in
> fact a gigantic enquriy with the power to call upon anyone involved
> found no proof that the government did much wrong, so what you have,
> other than paranoid idiot ideas, must be brilliant.
>
> Come on.

It pains me to say it, but Bell has a point. It's no good saying Hutton was a Whitewash, thats no better than when the BBC said the Government lied. If you have proof it was a Whitewash, please, show it.

Belldandy wrote:
> Plus, despite me clearly asking, Goatboy cannot actually produce the
> reference for his Ignatious comment.
-----------

HAHAHAHA
Belldandy cannot answer a simple question, and instead of having the grace to admit he was wrong?
Has a pop at Goatboy for not answering a simple question...er....hello? Phone call for a Mr H Ypocrite.

And even still you have not, and will not, answer my question as to why you wrote "nice Ignatious thing".
"Clearly asking to produce the reference" - Bell. Bell, Bell, Bell.
You really are genuinely stupid aren't you?
Read my 3 posts below, then answer the question.

Why did you say "Nice little Ignatious thing btw"?

That shows you fully understood the reference and felt you were able to shrug it off.
And as for your weak-ass "clearly asking", that followed your blanket flailing of:
"At a guess it is either
1)Dogma reference - the nutty priest
2)Religious reference - doubtful
3)This nutty english guy Ignatious
4)Office reference - never watched the program so that's a guess.
Failing any of the above an obscure pop culture reference which you can share with us all... " - that's not clearly asking for me to explain.
I have no need to explain something that you understood and threw off as "to little end"

Which I can share with you all? There's no need to. It was directed at you, and you understood what I meant.
Otherwise you wouldn't say "nice little Ignatious thing", because if you didn't understand and were simply attempting to sound intelligent? Why, that's demonstrating your complete lack of smarts and the desperate desire for "one upmanship".

I'm afraid Monsieur Dandy that you have been caught in yet another Dandyistic situation where you open your mouth before thinking, and get hauled over the coals asking you to explain.
But you can't, so you try and divert away from the fact you don't actually know or understand your own post.

"Nice little Ignatious thing, btw":
It means, and can only mean, that you fully 100% utterly understood the reference.
Yet time and time again, you fail to answer the simple question of "What little Ignatious thing?"

You have no idea, never had any idea and are trying to salvage some dignity by demanding I find a post about a discussion I haven't had anything to do with or tried to discuss any points whatsoever with you or criticised any post you've made?
That's pretty desperate, even for you.
So, for the gallery, I'll ask one last time - and no squirming around, trying to say "Goatboy hasn't answered my question!!!!!".

What "nice little Ignatious thing" are you talking about?
Not what did I mean, but what meaning did you presume that meant it was to "little end"


> Could it be I was actually right and even now he is scrabbling to
> find a new meaning?

???????????
I'm genuinely concerned for your mental health Bell.
You actually do believe that you haven't dodged a simple question don't you?
You think I'm "scrabbling to find a new meaning", when you haven't actually answered my question of "Why did you say 'nice little Ignatious thing btw'.

I'm guessing it's all those monster chicken rape cartoons you watch.
There, I've even provided you with one tiny line to pick up on and use it to avoid the absolute debacle that is your life on these forums.

My god Flockhart, you are truly an idiot if that is the best you can do. Face it you wouldn't know the report in any way even if I were to whack you over the head with it.

You think the report is invalid? Proof? Oh dear, you have none, in fact a gigantic enquriy with the power to call upon anyone involved found no proof that the government did much wrong, so what you have, other than paranoid idiot ideas, must be brilliant.

Come on.

Belldandy wrote:
> To prove my point...
>
> Flockhart wrote:
> then let me ask you this.did you think it is acceptable to play a
> guessing game with the identity of dr kelly?
>
> The enquiry found that initially Dr Kelly did not realise he was the
> source of Gilligan's report. Hence no one else knew either. The only
> guessing game, as you put it, was by the media and MOD officials who
> were rather concerned that a civil servant, who was bound to not talk
> to the media, was talking.
b*****ks,kelly knew it was him that is why he went to the mod and told them so.that is how the government knew
>
> >did you think it was
> acceptable for the government to add the 45 minute claim?,when it
> wasnt in the original report because it was considered
> unreliable(not
> strictly relevant to case).
>
> Wrong again... The enquiry found that the 45 minute claim was not in
> the original report because that intelligence was not received at
> that time. Whilst the report was being added to the intelligence
> about the 45 minute claim was received and considered authentic. The
> only person, and Hutton made the very clear, to doubt the veracity or
> authenticity of the 45 minute claim at the time of the report was
> Andrew Gilligan. Got that?
i stick by what i siad,it wasnt in there because it was only single source information and therefore unreliable.
>
> do you believe that the government didnt try to release his name
> without being seen to release it?
>
> I honestly don't know because the enquiry did not cover that
> allegation. What it did show was that Kelly realised he was
> Gilligan's claimed source and told his name would have to be
> released. That was in the enquiry report as well.
so now you are saying he knew,make up your mind.he was told that they would not release his name.they lied
>
> do you think that dr kelly should have kept quiet when he knew we
> were getting unreliable information?
>
> Oh dear...go read the report please. The ONLY person who claimed
> information being given to the public was unreliable was ANDREW
> GILLIGAN. You'll notice that, if you READ THE REPORT, that his claims
> about the unreliabl intelligence had no basis in his own notes he
> made whilst talking to Dr Kelly. In fact one of the reasons why Kelly
> took so long to realise he was the un named source was because the
> claims made by Gilligan HAD NOT BEEN SAID BY KELLY.
and you know this how? so he just made it up out of thin air then?
>
>
> do you think it was acceptable that cambell had any part in the
> making of the document,when he cannot be impartial,he had a case to
> make for war and the original document didnt give good enough
> reasons?
>
> Erm, hello? Read the report. Clearly states that the validity of the
> war IS NOT LINKED TO THE HUTTON REPORT. The sole link to the document
> was that Gilligan alledged that the information was unreliable. The
> Hutton Report clearly states that this accusation was false, and that
> at the time the information was presented it was truly believed to be
> accurate.
what are you on about? i was asking if cambell should have had any relevance to the iraq dossier when he couldnt be impartial.
i know its not greatly relevant to the hutton report,its more about my criticism of the govrnment
>
> the bbc werent blameless,gilligan didnt deliberately mix up his
> words,he was told they knew it was unreliable,he mistakenly said in
> a
> unscripted report that they knew it was wrong.and he should have
> corrected himself when asked.however his was a honest mistake the
> governments was most definently not.
>
> Really? Because if YOU HAD READ THE REPORT you'd find the BBC were to
> blame for a great many things. In fact if you had a clue what you
> were talking about then you'd have remembered that Andrew Gilligan,
> testifying to the FAC IN NO WAY stated he was wrong in his report. In
> fact he was very insistent that he was truly right and that his
> allegations were correct. There was no "honest mistake" as
> you put it, but a systematic failing at many levels of the BBC, which
> has lead to 2 resignations so far.
yes you are right there,he should have admitted he was wrong.
>
> now given what i have just typed do you not think i am justified in
> being critical of the government?
>
> No, I think anyone making such allegations should at least know an
> iota of what they are talking about. Be critical, sure, but if your
> criticisms originate from made up facts you just look an idiot.
you shouldnt believe everything that the report says.
the government would lie through their teeth to get out of being blamed.

To prove my point...

Flockhart wrote:
> then let me ask you this.did you think it is acceptable to play a
> guessing game with the identity of dr kelly?

The enquiry found that initially Dr Kelly did not realise he was the source of Gilligan's report. Hence no one else knew either. The only guessing game, as you put it, was by the media and MOD officials who were rather concerned that a civil servant, who was bound to not talk to the media, was talking.

>did you think it was
> acceptable for the government to add the 45 minute claim?,when it
> wasnt in the original report because it was considered unreliable(not
> strictly relevant to case).

Wrong again... The enquiry found that the 45 minute claim was not in the original report because that intelligence was not received at that time. Whilst the report was being added to the intelligence about the 45 minute claim was received and considered authentic. The only person, and Hutton made the very clear, to doubt the veracity or authenticity of the 45 minute claim at the time of the report was Andrew Gilligan. Got that?

> do you believe that the government didnt try to release his name
> without being seen to release it?

I honestly don't know because the enquiry did not cover that allegation. What it did show was that Kelly realised he was Gilligan's claimed source and told his name would have to be released. That was in the enquiry report as well.

> do you think that dr kelly should have kept quiet when he knew we
> were getting unreliable information?

Oh dear...go read the report please. The ONLY person who claimed information being given to the public was unreliable was ANDREW GILLIGAN. You'll notice that, if you READ THE REPORT, that his claims about the unreliabl intelligence had no basis in his own notes he made whilst talking to Dr Kelly. In fact one of the reasons why Kelly took so long to realise he was the un named source was because the claims made by Gilligan HAD NOT BEEN SAID BY KELLY.


> do you think it was acceptable that cambell had any part in the
> making of the document,when he cannot be impartial,he had a case to
> make for war and the original document didnt give good enough
> reasons?

Erm, hello? Read the report. Clearly states that the validity of the war IS NOT LINKED TO THE HUTTON REPORT. The sole link to the document was that Gilligan alledged that the information was unreliable. The Hutton Report clearly states that this accusation was false, and that at the time the information was presented it was truly believed to be accurate.

> the bbc werent blameless,gilligan didnt deliberately mix up his
> words,he was told they knew it was unreliable,he mistakenly said in a
> unscripted report that they knew it was wrong.and he should have
> corrected himself when asked.however his was a honest mistake the
> governments was most definently not.

Really? Because if YOU HAD READ THE REPORT you'd find the BBC were to blame for a great many things. In fact if you had a clue what you were talking about then you'd have remembered that Andrew Gilligan, testifying to the FAC IN NO WAY stated he was wrong in his report. In fact he was very insistent that he was truly right and that his allegations were correct. There was no "honest mistake" as you put it, but a systematic failing at many levels of the BBC, which has lead to 2 resignations so far.

> now given what i have just typed do you not think i am justified in
> being critical of the government?

No, I think anyone making such allegations should at least know an iota of what they are talking about. Be critical, sure, but if your criticisms originate from made up facts you just look an idiot.

oi darwock try answering the questions i asked.
then see if you can defend the government.

*SINGS
# are you tony blair in disguise?

Belldandy wrote:
> You do however both prove what I said that the only people questioning
> this report are those for whom it did not say what they wanted.

That might work if you knew we were the only two people questioning the report...

as far as im aware,the report to find out who was responsible for the death of a respected scientist.
if the government hadnt deliberately given out his name,he wouldnt have felt his reputation had been destroyed and he wouldnt have killed himself.