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.
Feargal Mooney
1 comment:
____________________________________
It's a family newspaper. I have deleted all expletives in the sentence below.
............................................. ing bastards, including Hutton.
Viva the BBC.
Post by : Giorgio Gallawaygo (webcachew04b.cache.pol.co.uk / )
____________________________________
I saw an interview recently with a woman who Hutton jailed a few years ago. The man, allegedly, is a shit. I agreed not to think that he might allegedly be a shit until he published his report. Now he has published it he shouldn't go anywhere near a toilet lest he be flushed.
Post by : Mal Castro (webcachew04b.cache.pol.co.uk / )
____________________________________
If the fallout from this convoluted mess lasts a while, it will jeopardise the Labour Party's results in the upcoming election. Blair's top-up fees legislation only passed by 5 meager votes the day before Hutton's strange report came out. Confidence in Blair resurged after the release of the report but as the days go by, resignations happen and lawsuits are launched, the tide will turn again.
AND how dare the gov't make the comment about the value of putting Dr. Kelly's role in its "contemporary" perspective - that is, pre-suicide. Pre- and post-suicide are hard to separate after-the-fact.
Post by : (1cust208.tnt4.ottawa.on.da.uu.net / )
____________________________________
Post a Comment