"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction


Allegedly...
No one has / proved / what is causing global warming or the Ozone hole,
there is a train of though that suggests it / could / be being cause from
the other side or might be a natural Earth cycle.

A couple of years ago we were told the flooding in York was the worst for
400 years an is proof of climate change, OK, but what caused the flooding
400 years ago ? - it certainly wasn't caused by burning Hydrocarbons (one
the level we do now.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is
nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments.
After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.

Regarding Gaddafy, he was well on his way

He wasn't.


Sorry the fact is he was.
Gaddafy has been in negotiations for at least the past 5 or so years
(probably longer), these negotiations resulted in first the hand over of the
people suspected of the Pan Am 103 atrocity, the payment of compensation to
the victims relatives of Pan Am 103, and now the inspection and disarmaments
agreements.

In article , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:56:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By slamming into the Beeb, he now has stiffened the resolve of every
journalist against the Government. No government can win if the whole
media is against them. You can bet your bottom dollar that things are
being excavated with malicious glee, but until there is a legally
unassailable smoking gun, no one will publish...oh...I love it.

It will make them be more accurate in their reporting. The media is full of
lies and half truths passed off as truth.

Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put in
their books?

As the acting boss of the BBC said "nearly right is not good enough for the
BBC".




--
David

In message , RichardS
writes
It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.


Put up or shut up

Hutton report.


Baker Street

Mornington Cresent

No, no, you can't. We're playing the Whitewash rules here - 2004 2nd
amendment of.

Do I get to play the public gallery?

18th century Basra

(Star Trek series one transporter qualification)
--
geoff

wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:56:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By slamming into the Beeb, he now has stiffened the resolve of every
journalist against the Government. No government can win if the whole
media is against them. You can bet your bottom dollar that things are
being excavated with malicious glee, but until there is a legally
unassailable smoking gun, no one will publish...oh...I love it.

It will make them be more accurate in their reporting. The media is full
of
lies and half truths passed off as truth.

Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.


As the acting boss of the BBC said "nearly right is not good enough for
the
BBC".




--
David

In message , Jerry.
writes

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?


I don't think it's because he doesn't understand, more a case that he
does
not wish to understand (face the facts). :~(

You have given NO facts, except warped opinions.

Sorry, warp speed is specifically excluded under the Scotty enquiry


--
geoff

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:08:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Still conformed to a UN resolution.

You know very well that there was not UN support for the action
taken.

There was. It was in existence since 1991 and covered the current
conflict.

Oh come on. That's not reasonable, If there had been UN support, it
would have been a UN action.
snip

To be fair, IMM is / technically / correct, if you take a very long route
[1] back through successive UN resolutions they all do indeed refer back
to
that original resolution (No.1661 ?), but as you say, if there had been
actual UN support in 2003 there would have been 'UN' military forces
involved - rather than just military forces of member states.

There were no blue hats in 1991

In message , Kris
writes
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.

Keep up at the back please

Bedlam (IMM deviation)
--
geoff

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction


Allegedly...

What a silly Billy. ALL top scientists in the world say global warming is a
reality. 18C today and people packing the golf courses.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is
nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments.
After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.

Regarding Gaddafy, he was well on his way

He wasn't.


Sorry the fact is he was.

He wasn't. he was taking nuclear equipment from that Pakistani man.

geoff wrote:
In message , RichardS
writes

It was not!!!

FFS yes it was,

It was not.


Put up or shut up

Hutton report.


Baker Street

Mornington Cresent


No, no, you can't. We're playing the Whitewash rules here - 2004 2nd
amendment of.

Do I get to play the public gallery?

18th century Basra

(Star Trek series one transporter qualification)

Mudshootout.

(see the "Lone Ranger" ruling, 18th July 1972, around teatime)

In message , IMM
writes

The gold reserve is our rainy day fund, it allows the UK to operate in
the worlds money markets.

It was also sold at a rock bottom gold price

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after all


You don't think that....... No, couldn't be.....

No, ... they have intelligence

Yes Maxie does think the world is going to be ruled by reptiles with pointed
tails.

He missed that one completely, didn't he ... but then that's what I
expected
--
geoff

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:52:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
In article , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:56:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

By slamming into the Beeb, he now has stiffened the resolve of every
journalist against the Government. No government can win if the whole
media is against them. You can bet your bottom dollar that things are
being excavated with malicious glee, but until there is a legally
unassailable smoking gun, no one will publish...oh...I love it.

It will make them be more accurate in their reporting. The media is full
of
lies and half truths passed off as truth.

Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.

ROTFLMAO

Both are sensational journalists.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Jack the Lad" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:50:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I guess that if Hutton had flipped the coin the other way and
believed
the BBC's position that you would have said that it was a really bad
report??

Yes. Inaccurate reporting, and the poor checks/balances mechanisms to
ensure accuracy, that was exposed by the report. The MOD got a little
rapping for its failure to deal with the media properly. The BBC top
brass
failing to act after the reports went out is really a trivial matter,
despite all the board wanting to resign. The reports should never have
gone
out in the first place; and that is the big probem.

I hope it tightens up reporting all over, but I doubt it. They get
away
with murder. The inaccuracies and total distortions I have read over
the
years should not be allowed; one of the reasons I don't read newspapers
too
much as they are the biggest offenders. They all have to get their
acts
together, especially the TV/radio news people, as they have more
influence
than any other.

That wasn't the point I was making. That was if Hutton had come
out against the government position and Gilligan was right would you
have still felt that it was a good report? In other words, would you
have supported the government position regardless of the evidence
either way?

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl


Look A HALL why don't you change your name to R S HALL as it would be
more appropriate.
Just in case you're as thick as I think you are that's ARSEHOLE

I understand your frustration Jack

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:52:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
In article , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:56:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:

By slamming into the Beeb, he now has stiffened the resolve of
every
journalist against the Government. No government can win if the
whole
media is against them. You can bet your bottom dollar that things
are
being excavated with malicious glee, but until there is a legally
unassailable smoking gun, no one will publish...oh...I love it.

It will make them be more accurate in their reporting. The media is
full
of
lies and half truths passed off as truth.

Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.

ROTFLMAO

Both are sensational journalists.

They are not. Why don't you open your mind up for once.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Kris
writes
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.

Keep up at the back please

Bedlam (IMM deviation)

Maxie, when are you due back at the clinic?

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

The gold reserve is our rainy day fund, it allows the UK to operate
in
the worlds money markets.

It was also sold at a rock bottom gold price

It almost makes you wonder of David Icke really isn't a loony after
all


You don't think that....... No, couldn't be.....

No, ... they have intelligence

Yes Maxie does think the world is going to be ruled by reptiles with
pointed
tails.

He missed that one completely, didn't he ... but then that's what I
expected

Maxie, when is your next Ike conference?

IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Au contraire madame

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction


Maxie, I can't believe it. You actually said some sense. Well it is one of
the biggest threats, nuclear is a threat to world security...a different
thing Maxie.

que_sound_effect_of_key_being_turned

Let me guess - we can avert this disaster in waiting if we all install
500mm of loft insulation in our car ports

/que_sound_effect_of_key_being_turned

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Au contraire madame

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction


Maxie, I can't believe it. You actually said some sense. Well it is one
of
the biggest threats, nuclear is a threat to world security...a different
thing Maxie.

que_sound_effect_of_key_being_turned

Let me guess - we can avert this disaster in waiting if we all install
500mm of loft insulation in our car ports

If you think so. How about putting a paper bag over your head or probably
best for you, putting your head in the sand.

Kris wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
.. .

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?


LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?


Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.


No. The rest of us think he is John Prescott.


ATB
Kris

Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

....some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

As I said, fool or scoundrel. Take your pick.

geoff wrote:

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction


Oh don't get IMM started on house insulation again. If he had his way we
would all be ebcapsulated in cotton wool and warmed by our own farts.

So far only he givernment has achieved this effectively.

Jerry. wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction



Allegedly...
No one has / proved / what is causing global warming or the Ozone hole,
there is a train of though that suggests it / could / be being cause from
the other side or might be a natural Earth cycle.

A couple of years ago we were told the flooding in York was the worst for
400 years an is proof of climate change, OK, but what caused the flooding
400 years ago ? - it certainly wasn't caused by burning Hydrocarbons (one
the level we do now.



Might have been the great fire of London I suppose ;-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too
long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.

BTW, and the 45 minutes was only for battlefield weapons.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Kris wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:49:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
.. .

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

[ re IMM ]

Do you really not understand?

LOL, such fun. Does your missus wear a Women's Institute hat?

Is it just me that thinks IMM is a lunatic?.

No. The rest of us think he is John Prescott.

I do have good left hook.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Maxie, when is your next Ike conference?

Think you're actually rivalling those other w***ers for off topic new
threads...

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too

long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.


And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.



'Let them eat cake' eh? What a prat.

Far too mucjh of this so called government is ****ing around ,aking
'executive descisions' about things they know nothing about. Now that
wouldn't be to bad if they actually listened to people below them in teh
pyramid, who do.

The real failure of this government is the way top down decsions are
made with **** all bottom up information flow.

With no feedback, and open loop system goes rapidly off the rails.


BTW, and the 45 minutes was only for battlefield weapons.



I know that, Hoon says he knew that, Cook says he knew that.

Tony apparently did not.

This from a man who expects us to leave strategic military decisions
entirely in his hands.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too
long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.

BTW, and the 45 minutes was only for battlefield weapons.

A fact that the Prime Minister has stated *he did not know* at the
time he spoke to the HoC about the need for military action in Iraq,
and that he therefore was justifying military action - in part - on an
understanding that Iraq possessed *strategic* WMDs with 45 minute
readiness.

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too

long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.


And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need
to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.

snip brainwashed Little Middle England babble

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too
long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is
for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need
to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.

BTW, and the 45 minutes was only for battlefield weapons.

A fact that the Prime Minister has stated *he did not know* at the
time he spoke to the HoC about the need for military action in Iraq,
and that he therefore was justifying military action - in part - on an
understanding that Iraq possessed *strategic* WMDs with 45 minute
readiness.

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:45:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


BTW, and the 45 minutes was only for battlefield weapons.

A fact that the Prime Minister has stated *he did not know* at the
time he spoke to the HoC about the need for military action in Iraq,
and that he therefore was justifying military action - in part - on an
understanding that Iraq possessed *strategic* WMDs with 45 minute
readiness.

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

I don't know why I bother ... however: the UK was taken to war on a
justification based on Iraq's possession of WMDs and their readiness
to use them. Two senior government ministers have stated that they
know that the "15 minute" claim applied to battlefield weapons (which
fortunately was untrue, given the state of unreadiness of the UK
troops sent into Iraq), and not to strategic weapons. Clearly they
(Hoon and Cook) were aware of the details of intelligence reports - so
hardly an "intelligence cock up" from the persepctive of availability
to government. The PM has stated that *he* did not know this. Hardly
a "trivial point" -- *why* did he not know this? Was he not told?
Did his "advisors" conceal this, or neglect to highlight the
distinction? Was he under such stress that he did have the
information but did not understand it?

The assertion that Iraq's WMDs were of clear and present danger to
*other countries*, especially to Israel and to US-controlled oil
interests in the Gulf, was *crucial* to the argument in favour of
unilaterial military action against Iraq. If the British Prime
Minister was under the impression that intelligence related to
tactical battlefield weapons also applied to strategic capabilities,
*when this was clearly being separated in the intelligence analyses*
then his judgement must be called into question.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:45:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


BTW, and the 45 minutes was only for battlefield weapons.

A fact that the Prime Minister has stated *he did not know* at the
time he spoke to the HoC about the need for military action in Iraq,
and that he therefore was justifying military action - in part - on an
understanding that Iraq possessed *strategic* WMDs with 45 minute
readiness.

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

I don't know why I bother

You shouldn't. You haven't got it yet.

... however: the UK was taken to war on a
justification based on Iraq's possession
of WMDs and their readiness
to use them.

It was not, that was only one aspect. Kelly said they can have then within
days. That is enough in itself.

You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle Englander.
The country has far to many of these.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, IMM wrote:

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

No, he didn't. He said they wanted WMD, and that they were committed to
acquiring them, but that *if* they had stockpiles, it would take days
rather than minutes to mobilise them and use them.

Peter

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)




--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.

"Peter Ellis" wrote in message
. ac.uk...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, IMM wrote:

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

No, he didn't. He said they wanted WMD, and that they were committed to
acquiring them, but that *if* they had stockpiles, it would take days
rather than minutes to mobilise them and use them.

The BBC knew it had screwed up totally. They put out a Panorama prog to
lessen the blow to the public before the report (the BBC investigating the
BBC) and showed an unbroadcast outtake of Kelly clearly saying they could
have WMD within weeks, and the emphasis on "days".

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 01:19:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.

ROTFLMAO

Both are sensational journalists.

They are not. Why don't you open your mind up for once.

I have, believe me. I'm about as open minded as it's possible to be -
my whole approach to things is to look at all the options.

These two gentlemen are investigative journalists who do what they do
very well, no doubt. However, their desired outcome is the
sensational story. Again, in context there is nothing wrong with
that. What it means though, is that I am going to calibrate anything
that they say in those terms and not accept it at face value as you
seem prepared to do.








..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too
long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.

It's worth remembering that there is only one way to go from
there.......
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.

.... and what, oh wise and mysterious one, are the characteristics of
"Little Middle Englanders"?

(this should be fun!)

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 01:19:22 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Yes, like Paxman and Kevin Cahill, have you seen the tripe they put
in
their books?

They are research authors, not hacks you turkey.

ROTFLMAO

Both are sensational journalists.

They are not. Why don't you open your mind up for once.

I have, believe me. I'm about as open minded as it's possible to be -
my whole approach to things is to look at all the options.

These two gentlemen are investigative journalists who do what they do
very well, no doubt.

Cahill's background is research. Paxman's is political journalism, now TV
anchor man/author.

However, their desired outcome is the
sensational story.

Look at the meat. You are influenced by headlines.

not accept it at face value as you
seem prepared to do.

facts are facts. they be against what you thought all your life, so you
mentally dismiss them to give yourself a warm feeling, but they are facts.