The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Saw a snippet of a story yesterday live on Sky and the BBC about allegations that the British Government had bugged the offices of the UN Secretary General during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
Page:
There is this thing in our country call the Official Secrets Act. It was the most feared document you can be made to sign. If you breach it you have no rights to legal representation, they will take you to a small room in a distant place and may never bring you back.
This is a good thing was it keep secrets safe. Now whatever people think about bugging the UN you must realise that this was nessesary to help our country and that we are not the only country doing things like this. These are the things we do not think about and just let our government get on with.
The problem now is that if we do not prosecute her for breeching the act then it will lose some impact and the next time someone thinks it's alright to blab about something it could cost lives.
This is a good thing was it keep secrets safe. Now whatever people think about bugging the UN you must realise that this was nessesary to help our country and that we are not the only country doing things like this. These are the things we do not think about and just let our government get on with.
The problem now is that if we do not prosecute her for breeching the act then it will lose some impact and the next time someone thinks it's alright to blab about something it could cost lives.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'd believe Clare Short the moment she produces some
> evidence...considering you insist on evidence for WMD Light I'd have
> thought you'd apply the same standards here.
> I'd believe Clare Short the moment she produces some
> evidence...considering you insist on evidence for WMD Light I'd have
> thought you'd apply the same standards here.
Skarra wrote:
>
> The jist of what the Government said was:-
> "I'm not going to comment on the work of our security services -
> do not take that as an indication that the allegations made by Clare
> Short are true."
> So they can't simply say, no comment. People would see that as an
> admition of guilt. All they said was, i'll not comment on this
> specific case, but that doesn't mean the allegations are true.
That's not the case though, is it? Tony Blair has found the time to say how 'disappointed' he is at Short's pique-driven revelations. And the Labour party en masse are happy enough to comment. So they may be saying "We have no comment" but what is coming out is "We having no comment. Except to say that...."
Wouldn't you agree that, as the government are happy to slate Short for what she's done, but are crying off actually saying whether or not it's true, then it looks very much like they've got something to hide? I'll return to the Belldandy analogy; whenever he's asked about something, and he responds with evasions and attempts at abuse, do you think "Well, he knows what he's talking about" or "Jesus, he hasn't a clue".
>
> You've changed the subject there too; I'm not asking whether the
> media will see the difference, I'm talking about the comments made
> by
> our government. Our government have been accused of breaking
> international law, and they've commented on the allegations. In
> those
> comments, they've refused to accuse her of lying. Therefore, don't
> you think that indicates that she is telling the truth?
>
> Maybe, but look at it from the Governments point of view. If they say
> she's lying, they'd be accused of lying. If they say she was right,
> they'd be in trouble there too. So, from their point of view, the
> best thing to do is exactly what they have done.
>
Except that now EVERYONE thinks they're lying; how can it be the best thing to do when the obvious effect of this is to reduce trust in the government? The only reason I can think of that they have spent their time making personal attacks on Short rather than addressing the allegations is because if they say "She's lying", then any investigation that shows she's not will give us a clear example of government lies. I know you're pro-Labour skarra, but you're not stupid. Are you telling me that you don't think this has eroded trust in the government further still?
>
> Why isn't she a yahoo? I mean, even the Tory party have questioned
> her reasons for doing what she did. And suppose another minister
> decides to make claims, true or not, they'd be forced to answer true
> or false. As i've said, all they have done is say, i'm aware of what
> she said, but don't want to comment on specific cases. If they did,
> they would have to do the same next time. All they are abliged to do
> now is say the same, i know whats been said, and don't want to
> discuss this specific case.
Well, if she is a yahoo then why was she a cabinet minister? Admitting that she's not to be taken seriously is akin to admitting that a major screw up was made in making her a cabinet minister in the first place, no?
They'd only have to do the same next time if another former cabinet minister made the allegations if we use the strict rules of precedent. And I keep raising this and you keep denying it; THEY HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE. The Government might like to say "We have no comment", but all I keep hearing is "We have no comment, but we're disappointed that Clare Short has made these allegations". If they didn't want to comment on it, why raise start attacking Clare Short's character?
>
> I'm saying, if a minister brings such serious allegations against the
> Government, they should have some sort of proof. If she had provided
> proof, the Government probably would have commeneted in detail, but
> she didn't.
Well, if she has no proof and it really is that straightforward, why not simply say "She's lying"? After all, if she can't prove it, they've nothing to worry about, right? And it would mean that, former cabinet minister or not, she'd have been discredited from the start, right?
But that hasn't happened. Which tends to indicate that they have something to hide.
>
> Anyway, that's
> something for another thread, but the fact remains; you seem to be
> going to the far end of a fart rather than admit that there is a
> very
> strong probability that thet government has been caught out. What
> they've done is absolutely no different to the evasiveness displayed
> by Bell on the board. And bearing in mind how utterly idiotic that
> always makes him look, and how easy it is to send him into paroxysms
> of rage and "Hey, everyone here is lying" cop-outs,
> wouldn't you say that the government are looking equally as stupid
> by
> avoiding the point whilst still trying to comment on it?
>
> Not at all. In an interview, a reporter askes Blair about this issue.
> He has four choices.
>
> 1.) I don't know what your talking about.
> 2.) She's lying.
> 3.) She's right.
> 4.) We know what she said, but i don't want to comment on it.
>
> 1.) = He gets accused of lying himself.
Well if he said that he'd be said to be out of touch, so that's not even an option.
> 2.) = "
Really? Well the Hutton enquiry cleared the government of the 45 minute claim, and of embellishing the evidence they decided to use for the Case for War document. The media haven't repeated that accusation. What makes you so sure the media would accuse him of lying out of hand? And more to the point, doesn't it worry you that our government are making policy decisions based on what the media are saying? Isn't that rather like admitting that the government pander to the (largely owned by Murdoch and Turner) media?
> 3.) = He's in even worse trouble.
Yup. Which, as the balance of probabilities is that the UK did break international law, is a good thing. The rule of law is meant to be applied to all. We used it as justification for the land grab; why should any other nation be able to weasel out of it?
> 4.) = Just keeps everybody guessing until it goes away from the
> papers.
>
> If you were the Government, which would you do?
Truthfully? I wouldn't pick #4, because that means they can be accused of lying for a lot longer, and they've failed to deny it. Has it gone away from the papers? No; I'm assuming you're not so foolish as to think that if something isn't a front page headline then it's gone and forgotten. It's yet another example of Labour Lies (I shoulda been a Sun headline writer...) to dredge up at the next election.
I'll ask again though; do you really think that this affair, and the way that Labour are handling it, isn't damaging to their credibility?
>
> The jist of what the Government said was:-
> "I'm not going to comment on the work of our security services -
> do not take that as an indication that the allegations made by Clare
> Short are true."
> So they can't simply say, no comment. People would see that as an
> admition of guilt. All they said was, i'll not comment on this
> specific case, but that doesn't mean the allegations are true.
That's not the case though, is it? Tony Blair has found the time to say how 'disappointed' he is at Short's pique-driven revelations. And the Labour party en masse are happy enough to comment. So they may be saying "We have no comment" but what is coming out is "We having no comment. Except to say that...."
Wouldn't you agree that, as the government are happy to slate Short for what she's done, but are crying off actually saying whether or not it's true, then it looks very much like they've got something to hide? I'll return to the Belldandy analogy; whenever he's asked about something, and he responds with evasions and attempts at abuse, do you think "Well, he knows what he's talking about" or "Jesus, he hasn't a clue".
>
> You've changed the subject there too; I'm not asking whether the
> media will see the difference, I'm talking about the comments made
> by
> our government. Our government have been accused of breaking
> international law, and they've commented on the allegations. In
> those
> comments, they've refused to accuse her of lying. Therefore, don't
> you think that indicates that she is telling the truth?
>
> Maybe, but look at it from the Governments point of view. If they say
> she's lying, they'd be accused of lying. If they say she was right,
> they'd be in trouble there too. So, from their point of view, the
> best thing to do is exactly what they have done.
>
Except that now EVERYONE thinks they're lying; how can it be the best thing to do when the obvious effect of this is to reduce trust in the government? The only reason I can think of that they have spent their time making personal attacks on Short rather than addressing the allegations is because if they say "She's lying", then any investigation that shows she's not will give us a clear example of government lies. I know you're pro-Labour skarra, but you're not stupid. Are you telling me that you don't think this has eroded trust in the government further still?
>
> Why isn't she a yahoo? I mean, even the Tory party have questioned
> her reasons for doing what she did. And suppose another minister
> decides to make claims, true or not, they'd be forced to answer true
> or false. As i've said, all they have done is say, i'm aware of what
> she said, but don't want to comment on specific cases. If they did,
> they would have to do the same next time. All they are abliged to do
> now is say the same, i know whats been said, and don't want to
> discuss this specific case.
Well, if she is a yahoo then why was she a cabinet minister? Admitting that she's not to be taken seriously is akin to admitting that a major screw up was made in making her a cabinet minister in the first place, no?
They'd only have to do the same next time if another former cabinet minister made the allegations if we use the strict rules of precedent. And I keep raising this and you keep denying it; THEY HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE. The Government might like to say "We have no comment", but all I keep hearing is "We have no comment, but we're disappointed that Clare Short has made these allegations". If they didn't want to comment on it, why raise start attacking Clare Short's character?
>
> I'm saying, if a minister brings such serious allegations against the
> Government, they should have some sort of proof. If she had provided
> proof, the Government probably would have commeneted in detail, but
> she didn't.
Well, if she has no proof and it really is that straightforward, why not simply say "She's lying"? After all, if she can't prove it, they've nothing to worry about, right? And it would mean that, former cabinet minister or not, she'd have been discredited from the start, right?
But that hasn't happened. Which tends to indicate that they have something to hide.
>
> Anyway, that's
> something for another thread, but the fact remains; you seem to be
> going to the far end of a fart rather than admit that there is a
> very
> strong probability that thet government has been caught out. What
> they've done is absolutely no different to the evasiveness displayed
> by Bell on the board. And bearing in mind how utterly idiotic that
> always makes him look, and how easy it is to send him into paroxysms
> of rage and "Hey, everyone here is lying" cop-outs,
> wouldn't you say that the government are looking equally as stupid
> by
> avoiding the point whilst still trying to comment on it?
>
> Not at all. In an interview, a reporter askes Blair about this issue.
> He has four choices.
>
> 1.) I don't know what your talking about.
> 2.) She's lying.
> 3.) She's right.
> 4.) We know what she said, but i don't want to comment on it.
>
> 1.) = He gets accused of lying himself.
Well if he said that he'd be said to be out of touch, so that's not even an option.
> 2.) = "
Really? Well the Hutton enquiry cleared the government of the 45 minute claim, and of embellishing the evidence they decided to use for the Case for War document. The media haven't repeated that accusation. What makes you so sure the media would accuse him of lying out of hand? And more to the point, doesn't it worry you that our government are making policy decisions based on what the media are saying? Isn't that rather like admitting that the government pander to the (largely owned by Murdoch and Turner) media?
> 3.) = He's in even worse trouble.
Yup. Which, as the balance of probabilities is that the UK did break international law, is a good thing. The rule of law is meant to be applied to all. We used it as justification for the land grab; why should any other nation be able to weasel out of it?
> 4.) = Just keeps everybody guessing until it goes away from the
> papers.
>
> If you were the Government, which would you do?
Truthfully? I wouldn't pick #4, because that means they can be accused of lying for a lot longer, and they've failed to deny it. Has it gone away from the papers? No; I'm assuming you're not so foolish as to think that if something isn't a front page headline then it's gone and forgotten. It's yet another example of Labour Lies (I shoulda been a Sun headline writer...) to dredge up at the next election.
I'll ask again though; do you really think that this affair, and the way that Labour are handling it, isn't damaging to their credibility?
Light wrote:
> Except that they haven't said no comment; they've already commented
> on this, so whilst your point about the government not having to
> respond to every allegation would have had some weight had they not
> done so, they have. And in the comments they've made, they've refused
> to say she's lying.
The jist of what the Government said was:-
"I'm not going to comment on the work of our security services - do not take that as an indication that the allegations made by Clare Short are true."
So they can't simply say, no comment. People would see that as an admition of guilt. All they said was, i'll not comment on this specific case, but that doesn't mean the allegations are true.
> You've changed the subject there too; I'm not asking whether the
> media will see the difference, I'm talking about the comments made by
> our government. Our government have been accused of breaking
> international law, and they've commented on the allegations. In those
> comments, they've refused to accuse her of lying. Therefore, don't
> you think that indicates that she is telling the truth?
Maybe, but look at it from the Governments point of view. If they say she's lying, they'd be accused of lying. If they say she was right, they'd be in trouble there too. So, from their point of view, the best thing to do is exactly what they have done.
> Nope, sorry but I don't accept that for an instant. If they didn't
> want to set a precedent then they shouldn't have commented at all.
> They've commented, so that defence simply does not work. And I've
> already distinguished between a random yahoo calling the government
> names, and a former cabinet minister who was in a position of
> responsibility.
Why isn't she a yahoo? I mean, even the Tory party have questioned her reasons for doing what she did. And suppose another minister decides to make claims, true or not, they'd be forced to answer true or false. As i've said, all they have done is say, i'm aware of what she said, but don't want to comment on specific cases. If they did, they would have to do the same next time. All they are abliged to do now is say the same, i know whats been said, and don't want to discuss this specific case.
> Of course, that opens up a new debate entirely; if you're saying that
> Short's accusation is meaningless, then presumably you're saying that
> her position in the cabinet is meaningless and if that's the case
> then who actually wields the power in government.
I'm saying, if a minister brings such serious allegations against the Government, they should have some sort of proof. If she had provided proof, the Government probably would have commeneted in detail, but she didn't.
> Anyway, that's
> something for another thread, but the fact remains; you seem to be
> going to the far end of a fart rather than admit that there is a very
> strong probability that thet government has been caught out. What
> they've done is absolutely no different to the evasiveness displayed
> by Bell on the board. And bearing in mind how utterly idiotic that
> always makes him look, and how easy it is to send him into paroxysms
> of rage and "Hey, everyone here is lying" cop-outs,
> wouldn't you say that the government are looking equally as stupid by
> avoiding the point whilst still trying to comment on it?
Not at all. In an interview, a reporter askes Blair about this issue. He has four choices.
1.) I don't know what your talking about.
2.) She's lying.
3.) She's right.
4.) We know what she said, but i don't want to comment on it.
1.) = He gets accused of lying himself.
2.) = "
3.) = He's in even worse trouble.
4.) = Just keeps everybody guessing until it goes away from the papers.
If you were the Government, which would you do?
> Except that they haven't said no comment; they've already commented
> on this, so whilst your point about the government not having to
> respond to every allegation would have had some weight had they not
> done so, they have. And in the comments they've made, they've refused
> to say she's lying.
The jist of what the Government said was:-
"I'm not going to comment on the work of our security services - do not take that as an indication that the allegations made by Clare Short are true."
So they can't simply say, no comment. People would see that as an admition of guilt. All they said was, i'll not comment on this specific case, but that doesn't mean the allegations are true.
> You've changed the subject there too; I'm not asking whether the
> media will see the difference, I'm talking about the comments made by
> our government. Our government have been accused of breaking
> international law, and they've commented on the allegations. In those
> comments, they've refused to accuse her of lying. Therefore, don't
> you think that indicates that she is telling the truth?
Maybe, but look at it from the Governments point of view. If they say she's lying, they'd be accused of lying. If they say she was right, they'd be in trouble there too. So, from their point of view, the best thing to do is exactly what they have done.
> Nope, sorry but I don't accept that for an instant. If they didn't
> want to set a precedent then they shouldn't have commented at all.
> They've commented, so that defence simply does not work. And I've
> already distinguished between a random yahoo calling the government
> names, and a former cabinet minister who was in a position of
> responsibility.
Why isn't she a yahoo? I mean, even the Tory party have questioned her reasons for doing what she did. And suppose another minister decides to make claims, true or not, they'd be forced to answer true or false. As i've said, all they have done is say, i'm aware of what she said, but don't want to comment on specific cases. If they did, they would have to do the same next time. All they are abliged to do now is say the same, i know whats been said, and don't want to discuss this specific case.
> Of course, that opens up a new debate entirely; if you're saying that
> Short's accusation is meaningless, then presumably you're saying that
> her position in the cabinet is meaningless and if that's the case
> then who actually wields the power in government.
I'm saying, if a minister brings such serious allegations against the Government, they should have some sort of proof. If she had provided proof, the Government probably would have commeneted in detail, but she didn't.
> Anyway, that's
> something for another thread, but the fact remains; you seem to be
> going to the far end of a fart rather than admit that there is a very
> strong probability that thet government has been caught out. What
> they've done is absolutely no different to the evasiveness displayed
> by Bell on the board. And bearing in mind how utterly idiotic that
> always makes him look, and how easy it is to send him into paroxysms
> of rage and "Hey, everyone here is lying" cop-outs,
> wouldn't you say that the government are looking equally as stupid by
> avoiding the point whilst still trying to comment on it?
Not at all. In an interview, a reporter askes Blair about this issue. He has four choices.
1.) I don't know what your talking about.
2.) She's lying.
3.) She's right.
4.) We know what she said, but i don't want to comment on it.
1.) = He gets accused of lying himself.
2.) = "
3.) = He's in even worse trouble.
4.) = Just keeps everybody guessing until it goes away from the papers.
If you were the Government, which would you do?
Skarra wrote:
>
> To be fair, Bell has a point there. How many average people on the
> street look at internet pages? Not many. Only people like us, one's
> that care. For most, if she's not in the papers, or on TV, she's as
> good as gone.
Well, that depends; do you know all of the average people in the country? In fact, have you ever even MET an average person? The 'average' person doesn't exist, and to dismiss absolutely everyone who doesn't explicitly share your point of view, or who doesn't take the time to rant about it, is incredibly lazy thinking. Let me put it this way; I was out with a few people over the weekend. One of 'em (a friend of a friend) isn't exactly the best informed or brightest of people (or so I'd stereotyped him as). I mentioned the Hutton enquiry in passing. Turns out that this chap had followed the whole thing avidly. Despite being a true blue Sun reader, he gave his reasons for disagreeing with the pro-war assertion that Hutton clears the government of lying about all intel, and went on to explain why he thought the judgement was flawed. So that was my assumptions put in their place.
What I'm driving at is that one cannot make sweeping generalisations and underestimate people like this. Bell does, and have a look at his track record; he's been made to look like the cowardly, ignorant, blindly faithful fool that he truly is on so many occasions that he's now a parody. For Gods sake, don't start looking to him to raise valid points. Unless you know that Tom Clancy has already made them for him.
I realise how patronising this all seems; it's not meant to, I assure you. I'm just saying that for all I don't much agree with what you say, I rather like the way in which you say it (ie. you seem to always make the effort to provide evidence). To start relying on Belldandy's patented "I don't actually know anything about this so I'll mindlessly bang out something I've read in a Clancy book/Clancy Forum/Clancy online game" approach to debate is to invite a severe verbal raping.
>
> To be fair, Bell has a point there. How many average people on the
> street look at internet pages? Not many. Only people like us, one's
> that care. For most, if she's not in the papers, or on TV, she's as
> good as gone.
Well, that depends; do you know all of the average people in the country? In fact, have you ever even MET an average person? The 'average' person doesn't exist, and to dismiss absolutely everyone who doesn't explicitly share your point of view, or who doesn't take the time to rant about it, is incredibly lazy thinking. Let me put it this way; I was out with a few people over the weekend. One of 'em (a friend of a friend) isn't exactly the best informed or brightest of people (or so I'd stereotyped him as). I mentioned the Hutton enquiry in passing. Turns out that this chap had followed the whole thing avidly. Despite being a true blue Sun reader, he gave his reasons for disagreeing with the pro-war assertion that Hutton clears the government of lying about all intel, and went on to explain why he thought the judgement was flawed. So that was my assumptions put in their place.
What I'm driving at is that one cannot make sweeping generalisations and underestimate people like this. Bell does, and have a look at his track record; he's been made to look like the cowardly, ignorant, blindly faithful fool that he truly is on so many occasions that he's now a parody. For Gods sake, don't start looking to him to raise valid points. Unless you know that Tom Clancy has already made them for him.
I realise how patronising this all seems; it's not meant to, I assure you. I'm just saying that for all I don't much agree with what you say, I rather like the way in which you say it (ie. you seem to always make the effort to provide evidence). To start relying on Belldandy's patented "I don't actually know anything about this so I'll mindlessly bang out something I've read in a Clancy book/Clancy Forum/Clancy online game" approach to debate is to invite a severe verbal raping.
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> 2 things:
>
> 1 - She's an ex Cabinet Minister, not just some random yahoo. Don't
> you think that, bearing in mind her former position in government,
> it
> makes the government seem 100% guilty as charged when they refuse to
> say "She's lying", or even "She's wrong"?
>
> But would the media be able to see the difference? Probably not. If
> the Government answered this, and not another allegation in 6 months,
> i'd wager a large ammount that the media would see the 'no comment'
> line as an admission of guilt, and do their best to spread that
> message.
Except that they haven't said no comment; they've already commented on this, so whilst your point about the government not having to respond to every allegation would have had some weight had they not done so, they have. And in the comments they've made, they've refused to say she's lying.
You've changed the subject there too; I'm not asking whether the media will see the difference, I'm talking about the comments made by our government. Our government have been accused of breaking international law, and they've commented on the allegations. In those comments, they've refused to accuse her of lying. Therefore, don't you think that indicates that she is telling the truth?
>
> As i've said, it's not about time, its about the presedent(sp?) that
> would be set.
Nope, sorry but I don't accept that for an instant. If they didn't want to set a precedent then they shouldn't have commented at all. They've commented, so that defence simply does not work. And I've already distinguished between a random yahoo calling the government names, and a former cabinet minister who was in a position of responsibility.
Of course, that opens up a new debate entirely; if you're saying that Short's accusation is meaningless, then presumably you're saying that her position in the cabinet is meaningless and if that's the case then who actually wields the power in government. Anyway, that's something for another thread, but the fact remains; you seem to be going to the far end of a fart rather than admit that there is a very strong probability that thet government has been caught out. What they've done is absolutely no different to the evasiveness displayed by Bell on the board. And bearing in mind how utterly idiotic that always makes him look, and how easy it is to send him into paroxysms of rage and "Hey, everyone here is lying" cop-outs, wouldn't you say that the government are looking equally as stupid by avoiding the point whilst still trying to comment on it?
> Light wrote:
> 2 things:
>
> 1 - She's an ex Cabinet Minister, not just some random yahoo. Don't
> you think that, bearing in mind her former position in government,
> it
> makes the government seem 100% guilty as charged when they refuse to
> say "She's lying", or even "She's wrong"?
>
> But would the media be able to see the difference? Probably not. If
> the Government answered this, and not another allegation in 6 months,
> i'd wager a large ammount that the media would see the 'no comment'
> line as an admission of guilt, and do their best to spread that
> message.
Except that they haven't said no comment; they've already commented on this, so whilst your point about the government not having to respond to every allegation would have had some weight had they not done so, they have. And in the comments they've made, they've refused to say she's lying.
You've changed the subject there too; I'm not asking whether the media will see the difference, I'm talking about the comments made by our government. Our government have been accused of breaking international law, and they've commented on the allegations. In those comments, they've refused to accuse her of lying. Therefore, don't you think that indicates that she is telling the truth?
>
> As i've said, it's not about time, its about the presedent(sp?) that
> would be set.
Nope, sorry but I don't accept that for an instant. If they didn't want to set a precedent then they shouldn't have commented at all. They've commented, so that defence simply does not work. And I've already distinguished between a random yahoo calling the government names, and a former cabinet minister who was in a position of responsibility.
Of course, that opens up a new debate entirely; if you're saying that Short's accusation is meaningless, then presumably you're saying that her position in the cabinet is meaningless and if that's the case then who actually wields the power in government. Anyway, that's something for another thread, but the fact remains; you seem to be going to the far end of a fart rather than admit that there is a very strong probability that thet government has been caught out. What they've done is absolutely no different to the evasiveness displayed by Bell on the board. And bearing in mind how utterly idiotic that always makes him look, and how easy it is to send him into paroxysms of rage and "Hey, everyone here is lying" cop-outs, wouldn't you say that the government are looking equally as stupid by avoiding the point whilst still trying to comment on it?
Belldandy wrote:
> She's out of the tv newscycle and buried far from the frontpage news -
> internet news doesn't matter as far as public opinion is concerned -
> . It can break stories, but that's about it.
To be fair, Bell has a point there. How many average people on the street look at internet pages? Not many. Only people like us, one's that care. For most, if she's not in the papers, or on TV, she's as good as gone.
> She's out of the tv newscycle and buried far from the frontpage news -
> internet news doesn't matter as far as public opinion is concerned -
> . It can break stories, but that's about it.
To be fair, Bell has a point there. How many average people on the street look at internet pages? Not many. Only people like us, one's that care. For most, if she's not in the papers, or on TV, she's as good as gone.
Light wrote:
> 2 things:
>
> 1 - She's an ex Cabinet Minister, not just some random yahoo. Don't
> you think that, bearing in mind her former position in government, it
> makes the government seem 100% guilty as charged when they refuse to
> say "She's lying", or even "She's wrong"?
But would the media be able to see the difference? Probably not. If the Government answered this, and not another allegation in 6 months, i'd wager a large ammount that the media would see the 'no comment' line as an admission of guilt, and do their best to spread that message.
> 2 - Blair and numerous Labour ministers have made official comments
> on Clare Short's fit of pique. So they've noted her allegations and
> found the time to comment on them (and not one, not a single one, has
> said "She's lying"). If they can find the time to comment,
> why not find the time to actually give an answer?
As i've said, it's not about time, its about the presedent(sp?) that would be set.
> 2 things:
>
> 1 - She's an ex Cabinet Minister, not just some random yahoo. Don't
> you think that, bearing in mind her former position in government, it
> makes the government seem 100% guilty as charged when they refuse to
> say "She's lying", or even "She's wrong"?
But would the media be able to see the difference? Probably not. If the Government answered this, and not another allegation in 6 months, i'd wager a large ammount that the media would see the 'no comment' line as an admission of guilt, and do their best to spread that message.
> 2 - Blair and numerous Labour ministers have made official comments
> on Clare Short's fit of pique. So they've noted her allegations and
> found the time to comment on them (and not one, not a single one, has
> said "She's lying"). If they can find the time to comment,
> why not find the time to actually give an answer?
As i've said, it's not about time, its about the presedent(sp?) that would be set.
I'd believe Clare Short the moment she produces some evidence...considering you insist on evidence for WMD Light I'd have thought you'd apply the same standards here.
She's out of the tv newscycle and buried far from the frontpage news - internet news doesn't matter as far as public opinion is concerned - . It can break stories, but that's about it.
Page: