The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I listened to Hutton's summary of the report when it was broadcast.
Yes the meeting was unauthorised. But they didn't just meet for coffee and a chat about the weather did they, they were obviously real concerns and presumably both felt the public needed to know.
Yes the meeting was unauthorised. But they didn't just meet for coffee and a chat about the weather did they, they were obviously real concerns and presumably both felt the public needed to know.
Belldandy wrote:
> Flockhart + Darworck. I suggest you both get a clue and go read at
> least a summary of the report before ranting on further.
>
> The inquiry found that whilst Gilligan met with Kelly - which he
> should not have - the information which Gilligan then broadcast was
> FALSE. Kelly did not, as Flockhart says, meet with him to let the
> nation know about false intelligence, because the accusation it was
> false came from Gilligan.
you clearly havent read what i just typed,kelly said unreliable,gilligan mistakenly said wrong in a unscripted report.
> Flockhart + Darworck. I suggest you both get a clue and go read at
> least a summary of the report before ranting on further.
>
> The inquiry found that whilst Gilligan met with Kelly - which he
> should not have - the information which Gilligan then broadcast was
> FALSE. Kelly did not, as Flockhart says, meet with him to let the
> nation know about false intelligence, because the accusation it was
> false came from Gilligan.
you clearly havent read what i just typed,kelly said unreliable,gilligan mistakenly said wrong in a unscripted report.
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. In Flcokhart's case he/she does not seem to have any idea what the report found in the first place...
Flockhart + Darworck. I suggest you both get a clue and go read at least a summary of the report before ranting on further.
The inquiry found that whilst Gilligan met with Kelly - which he should not have - the information which Gilligan then broadcast was FALSE. Kelly did not, as Flockhart says, meet with him to let the nation know about false intelligence, because the accusation it was false came from Gilligan.
The inquiry found that whilst Gilligan met with Kelly - which he should not have - the information which Gilligan then broadcast was FALSE. Kelly did not, as Flockhart says, meet with him to let the nation know about false intelligence, because the accusation it was false came from Gilligan.
Belldandy wrote:
> Kelly, and many many others
> from all kinds of employment sign a contract when they begin work
> that tells them certain things must not be divulged to the press
> unless they are authorised to do so.
Umm yes... he was a whistle blower. If such people only acted under authority I think the term would be 'spokesperson'. He was letting the press know because he felt he had to let the press know, whether it was right or wrong.
> Kelly, and many many others
> from all kinds of employment sign a contract when they begin work
> that tells them certain things must not be divulged to the press
> unless they are authorised to do so.
Umm yes... he was a whistle blower. If such people only acted under authority I think the term would be 'spokesperson'. He was letting the press know because he felt he had to let the press know, whether it was right or wrong.
then let me ask you this.did you think it is acceptable to play a guessing game with the identity of dr kelly?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).
do you believe that the government didnt try to release his name without being seen to release it?
do you think that dr kelly should have kept quiet when he knew we were getting unreliable information?
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?
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.
now given what i have just typed do you not think i am justified in being critical of the government?
do you believe that the government didnt try to release his name without being seen to release it?
do you think that dr kelly should have kept quiet when he knew we were getting unreliable information?
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?
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.
now given what i have just typed do you not think i am justified in being critical of the government?
I didn't say it was a whitewash and neither did C4 - Channel 4 said it must look like that to a lot of people, and it does.
It's the only news program that seems prepared to ask hard questions these days. Even BBC and ITN are turning tabloid-esque, if you ask me.
It's the only news program that seems prepared to ask hard questions these days. Even BBC and ITN are turning tabloid-esque, if you ask me.
Yep, you misunderstood.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Hinting eh? Are you and Mr Gilligan friends? I meant that at the time
> of the dossier the claim was;
>
> a)From credible intelligence
> b)Believed real at the time
> c)Inserted for valid reasons
>
> Now if you had stuck to what was said, rather than what you wanted to
> see hinted at, you'd have noticed that was all I was claiming.
Well, if that's what you say, then I misunderstood, and I apologise.
>
> Now then; wasn't it you who accused ME of saying that the report
> validates the war?
>
> Oh dear, slipping aren't we. Go back and read. I accused you of
> saying that I had said that. Which you admit to misunderstanding
> above...
Hmmm....not how I read that. Judging by the post of mine that you've avoided responding to in this thread, you simply saw the word "Validate" and assumed I was saying that the report was going to validate claims that the war was justified. Nonetheless, if I've misunderstood that too, then I apologise.
You see; it's easy to say sorry for mistakes. Now this way, I don't end up looking like a contemptible fool by arguing that black is white for 20 posts in an effort to avoid admitting error. Simple really.
>
> Hinting eh? Are you and Mr Gilligan friends? I meant that at the time
> of the dossier the claim was;
>
> a)From credible intelligence
> b)Believed real at the time
> c)Inserted for valid reasons
>
> Now if you had stuck to what was said, rather than what you wanted to
> see hinted at, you'd have noticed that was all I was claiming.
Well, if that's what you say, then I misunderstood, and I apologise.
>
> Now then; wasn't it you who accused ME of saying that the report
> validates the war?
>
> Oh dear, slipping aren't we. Go back and read. I accused you of
> saying that I had said that. Which you admit to misunderstanding
> above...
Hmmm....not how I read that. Judging by the post of mine that you've avoided responding to in this thread, you simply saw the word "Validate" and assumed I was saying that the report was going to validate claims that the war was justified. Nonetheless, if I've misunderstood that too, then I apologise.
You see; it's easy to say sorry for mistakes. Now this way, I don't end up looking like a contemptible fool by arguing that black is white for 20 posts in an effort to avoid admitting error. Simple really.
The Hutton report is a whitewash if it doesn't say what you wanted it to say. Which suggests that certain people were less interested in the truth than in destroying the government and its credibility.
Page: