On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:19:44 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

Considering what his job was, who he knew, what he knew and what official
papers he might have, I suspect they (HMG, MI5/6 etc.) were in the house
before his body was even found, the investigation AIUI was handed over to
Scotland Yard (?) by the local Police force once it was known who was in
fact missing.

Which I believe supports the point I was making about no suicide note.
If he did top himself, and let's assume for the sake of argument he
did, then I would suppose it to be quite likely that he'd want to
leave his final comments somewhere, either in his pocket or in his
home where he knew they would be found.

Something doesn't add up about this death.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

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

writes

"geoff" wrote in message
news
If anyone's interested ...

"The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North
Ireland,
is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment.
A
member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all
boys
boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the
exclusive
club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British Judges are
overwhelmingly
conservative, upper class, white, male and biased, Hutton's
background
is even more compromised.

The "establishment" is predominantly Conservative leaning. Blair
put in
a
man who on the surface would cut his balls given half the chance, a
NI
protestant. Why did he do that? Because anyone looking at the
situation
could only conclude that the government did not lie. Blair had
nothing
to
loose by installing a man, on the surface, hostile to his party.

But he has lost. In giving the government a clean bill of health
over
this, (as in the Indy - "Whitewash"), there has been a total loss of
credibility

What Whitewash? The first time ever the DG and manager of the BBC has
resigned. If I thought it a whitewash I would stay and compile a list
of
where their are inaccuracies and bias. The point is that the BBC
****ed up
and then painted itself into a corner.

It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media, and
the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said, they
could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time". They
also
had WMD and USED them.

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Not much between when talking about such weapons. If Iraq wanted to WMD in
a few days and we did not have forces available to stop it - stopping them
within days is virtually impossible - then they get used and we watch. If it
is many weeks, then if the west thinks they are about to uses them, a force
cam be assembled and sent around. Even then it would be close run to stop
them. You have to get it all into perspective.

"IMM" wrote in message
...
It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media,
and
the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said,
they
could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time".
They
also
had WMD and USED them.

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Not much between when talking about such weapons. If Iraq wanted to
WMD in
a few days and we did not have forces available to stop it - stopping
them
within days is virtually impossible - then they get used and we watch.
If it
is many weeks, then if the west thinks they are about to uses them, a
force
cam be assembled and sent around. Even then it would be close run to
stop
them. You have to get it all into perspective.


Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
BillR wrote:
True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.

I hated Thatcher but that sinking was correct.. alls fair in war.
Why would she have to explain it? we were at war, it was a warship so
we
sank it... whats the problem?

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

And history seems to be repeating itself

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an inquiry,
he
did not have too, and was proven above board.


Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.

The other lot are poor losers. This government is the best we have had in
living memory. The opposition have to grasp on straws to try and
discredit
them. It is laughable to watch them.


Nah, my Dad (74 years old) can remember many better governments than this
shambolic bunch of chronic underachievers. The most damning thing about this
government is that in spite of all the good will from the country; in spite
of the favourable economic climate; in spite of an overwhelming
parliamentary majority, they have failed abysmally to deliver on any of the
major policy areas.

Democratic reform - Jenkins report shoved on the shelf, reform of the Lords
badly botched
Transport policy - no discernable policy
Welfare - no reform, still a spiraling burden on the state
Health - total number of admin and managerial staff up, number of beds down
Education - speaking as a school governor I can state with confidence that
staff spend more time on out of the classroom on admin and DfES number
crunching than they did 8 years ago. And our standards are maintained in
spite of the LEA.
Crime - well, more people are being criminalised than ever before.
Unfortunately most of them are motorists who have no alternative to driving
(see Transport policy above). Locally we have few policeman than 8 years
ago. And they spend more time on admin and paperwork than before.
Taxation - up, massively.
Business - good for business if you happen to be a large multinational with
an unhealthy focus on off-shore outsourcing
etc
etc
etc

I damn this government for doing so little, and doing it so badly.

Now on with life as a silly sideshow closes down.


Unless of course you're a member of the armed forces fighting in Iraq. In
which case I guess "Now on with death..." would be more appropriate.

Cheers
Clive

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied
during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile
country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.


You poor delusional soul. He went in to Iraq because he believed it was his
moral duty to free the Iraqis from their oppressive leadership. Storming
into an unstable region all guns blazing is not a coherent policy towards
peace. You are aware of the origins of Al Qaeda aren't you? Quite possibly
Blair also joined with the US in a gesture of solidarity, attempting to gain
favour with George W. Bush's administration. However, if that was a
motivating factor, then I'm quite sure that TB managed to convince himself
that it wasn't. The lie was to place undue emphasis on Saddam's WMD in an
effort to swing the Labour Party behind him.

And as for IDS, well I wouldn't trust him to sit the right way on a lavatory
seat.

Cheers
Clive

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media,
and
the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said,
they
could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time".
They
also
had WMD and USED them.

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Not much between when talking about such weapons.
If Iraq wanted to WMD in a few days and we did
not have forces available to stop it - stopping
them within days is virtually impossible - then
they get used and we watch. If it is many weeks,
then if the west thinks they are about to uses them, a
force cam be assembled and sent around. Even
then it would be close run to stop
them. You have to get it all into perspective.

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Just read what I read again and get the big picture. Get this tabloid mush
that is bouncing around your head and stand back and look at the situation.


January 30, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look at
what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

First, and most trumpeted, he did not find ``large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction.'' He did find, as he reported last
October, WMD-related activities, from a very active illegal missile program
to research and development (``right up until the end'') on weaponizing the
deadly poison ricin (the stuff found by London police on terrorists last
year). He discovered ``hundreds of cases'' of U.N.-prohibited and illegally
concealed activities.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

[ re Hutton inquiry ]

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an inquiry,
he
did not have too, and was proven above board.

snip

There has been no inquiry into any possible lies by Blair and his
government, the Hutton [1] inquiry only inquired into what the BBC (and
their reporter) said and to find out if it was true.

[1] Hutton ruled that to inquire about what the government has said about
WMD's and the case for war was beyond his remit.

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
BillR wrote:
True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying
through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.

I hated Thatcher but that sinking was correct.. alls fair in war.
Why would she have to explain it? we were at war, it was a warship
so
we
sank it... whats the problem?

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

And history seems to be repeating itself

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an inquiry,
he
did not have too, and was proven above board.

Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.

What crap. The report went far over the remit of Hutton. Get real

The other lot are poor losers. This government is the best we have had
in
living memory. The opposition have to grasp on straws to try and
discredit
them. It is laughable to watch them.

Nah, my Dad (74 years old) can remember
many better governments than this
shambolic bunch of chronic underachievers.

Name me one? Wison's in the 1960s wasn't too bad.

The most damning thing about this
government is that in spite of all the good will from the country; in
spite
of the favourable economic climate; in spite of an overwhelming
parliamentary majority, they have failed abysmally to deliver on any of
the
major policy areas.

Balls again. The points they outlined, they met. Newsnight had a slot on
it.

Don't guess!!!!

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.

Prove he lied.


Labour Party Election Manifesto 2001. Page 20.
http://www.labour.org.uk/ENG1.pdf
"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."

Compare with the vote on 27th Jan 2004, when the government bill passed to
its second reading by a pitiful 5 votes.

Cheers
Clive

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you
are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into
a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied
during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile
country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.

You poor delusional soul.

Don't make things up.

snip garbage

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

snip
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer place.

Well, he has not succeeded, more US troops have been killed / since / Bush
declared the war over than during the fighting in Iraq ! :~(

If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.


Yes, due to the information given to them by the present government, if that
information is wrong (and it is looking very much that it was) we need to
find out why that information was wrong.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:17:07 -0000, "BillR"
wrote:

No, we got rid of the corrupt Tories and now you can think for yourself
but
have lost the ability to do so..

Oh dear. I believe you live under a misapprehension that Labour aren't
corrupt.

At least in Thatchers day if a minister messed up he departed rapidly.
Under Bliar people tend to have jobs for life.

Like Mandelson?


Mandy held on by his fingertips for as long as he could - TWICE...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you
are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it
into
a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied
during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile
country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.

You poor delusional soul.

Don't make things up.

snip garbage


Ah the masterful IMM debating technique rears its ugly head once more. If
you're not going to challenge in a reasonable manner the points raised, then
don't bother reply. Inserting snip garbage merely highlights your own
deficiencies, and does you no favours.

Cheers
Clive

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

It will be interesting to read how much more comes out in 30 years
time.....

When no one will be interested as it was a storm in teacup.


That is simply wrong, the remit taken by Lord Hutton has made it that,
the
questions and original story was (and still is) a potential tornado
wreaking
havoc in Westminster and Whitehall.

Stop reading tabloids. This is like that silly Westland crap. Another
boring storm in a teacup.



I don't read Tabloids (unlike you it seems), unless I need to know what they
have printed, I read the source if at all possible - in this case, the WMD
document's issued by HMG and the Hutton report (inc. related documents).

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:32:17 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:19:44 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

Considering what his job was, who he knew, what he knew and what official
papers he might have, I suspect they (HMG, MI5/6 etc.) were in the house
before his body was even found, the investigation AIUI was handed over to
Scotland Yard (?) by the local Police force once it was known who was in
fact missing.

Which I believe supports the point I was making about no suicide note.
If he did top himself, and let's assume for the sake of argument he
did, then I would suppose it to be quite likely that he'd want to
leave his final comments somewhere, either in his pocket or in his
home where he knew they would be found.

Something doesn't add up about this death.


No, and that is the real tragedy of the situation.

The options would appear to be

- Suicide as a result of the situation
- Elimination by one of the UK secret service organisations
- Elimination by or on behalf of the Iraqis

Of the three, the first two would seem the more likely, so either way
the government bears the responsibility either actively or passively.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

snip

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Just read what I read again and get the big picture. Get this tabloid mush
that is bouncing around your head and stand back and look at the
situation.


January 30, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look at
what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

First, and most trumpeted, he did not find ``large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction.'' He did find, as he reported last
October, WMD-related activities,

But no weapons, never mind if they could have used within 45 minutes...

from a very active illegal missile program
to research and development (``right up until the end'') on weaponizing
the
deadly poison ricin (the stuff found by London police on terrorists last
year). He discovered ``hundreds of cases'' of U.N.-prohibited and
illegally
concealed activities.


But no weapons, never mind if they could have used within 45 minutes...

Even if he did have these weapon programs, there is no way they could nave
been deployed with 45 minutes - and that IS the reason parliament voted to
allow British forces go to war.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

[ re Hutton inquiry ]

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an inquiry,
he
did not have too, and was proven above board.

snip

There has been no inquiry into any possible lies by Blair and his
government, the Hutton [1] inquiry only inquired into what the BBC (and
their reporter) said and to find out if it was true.

Nevertheless he was proven above board. Just accept it and stop being a bad
loser.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...
snip
Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not
address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention
away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.

What crap. The report went far over the remit of Hutton. Get real

Said by someone who obviously hasn't read even a summery of the report or
what Lord Hutton said in his televised diatribe...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature
you
are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it
into
a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher
lied
during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading
hostile
country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct
an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.

You poor delusional soul.

Don't make things up.

snip garbage


Ah the masterful IMM debating technique rears its ugly head once more. If
you're not going to challenge in a reasonable manner the points raised,

They were not reasonable points, they were garbage.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

snip
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.

Well, he has not succeeded, more US troops have been killed / since / Bush
declared the war over than during the fighting in Iraq ! :~(

It's not won yet.

If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.


Yes, due to the information given to
them by the present government,

The security services you mean.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
BillR wrote:
True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying
through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.

I hated Thatcher but that sinking was correct.. alls fair in war.
Why would she have to explain it? we were at war, it was a
warship
so
we
sank it... whats the problem?

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

And history seems to be repeating itself

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an
inquiry,
he
did not have too, and was proven above board.

Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not
address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention
away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.

What crap. The report went far over the remit of Hutton. Get real

It would appear that you haven't read the report then. Little hint, Terms of
Reference, paragraph 9.

Cheers
Clive

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

snip
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.

Well, he has not succeeded, more US troops have been killed / since /
Bush
declared the war over than during the fighting in Iraq ! :~(

It's not won yet.

If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.


Yes, due to the information given to
them by the present government,

The security services you mean.


I believe you will find that the information flow is MI6 -- HMG -- HM
Opposition. The opposition does not get to see all the detail presented to
the government.

Cheers
Clive

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature
you
are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it
into
a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher
lied
during
a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading
hostile
country.
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to
conduct
an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a
safer
place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.

You poor delusional soul.

Don't make things up.

snip garbage


Ah the masterful IMM debating technique rears its ugly head once more.
If
you're not going to challenge in a reasonable manner the points raised,

They were not reasonable points, they were garbage.


So obviously you believe invading Iraq to be a positive step to peace? Fine,
we're all entitled to our opinions. However, I think you'll find the best
way to peace is not to bomb the living daylights out of percieved "enemies".
Furthermore, if invading Iraq was a positive step, how about N. Korea, Iran
et al?

You believe that the WMD motive was the sole motive? That the "regime
change" approach did not come first?

And how about this....

"If I am honest about it, there is another reason why I feel so strongly
about this issue. It is a reason less to do with my being Prime Minister
than being a member of the Labour Party, to do with the progressive politics
in which we believe. The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is
the moral case for removing Saddam."
- Tony Blair 15th Feb 2003

Cheers
Clive

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

[ re Hutton inquiry ]

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an
inquiry,
he
did not have too, and was proven above board.

snip

There has been no inquiry into any possible lies by Blair and his
government, the Hutton [1] inquiry only inquired into what the BBC (and
their reporter) said and to find out if it was true.

Nevertheless he was proven above board. Just accept it and stop being a
bad
loser.


Who was, if you mean Blair, of course he was, the terms of reference made
that a certainty !

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

They were not reasonable points, they were garbage.


So argue the points and prove they are 'garbage', all calling them garbage
doesn't do anything other than show up the fact that you don't seem to be
able to argue your corner, and then one has to wonder why that is.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

snip
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.

Well, he has not succeeded, more US troops have been killed / since /
Bush
declared the war over than during the fighting in Iraq ! :~(

It's not won yet.

You best tell Pres' Bush that, he seems to be under the misinterpretation
that it is, even telling his troops it is...


If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.


Yes, due to the information given to
them by the present government,

The security services you mean.


No, HMG informed parliament.

If you are going to argue the toss please find out something about what you
are trying to argue about !

IMM wrote:

Prove he lied.

his lips were moving....

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:03:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


Wonder what *did* happen to Mandy?

He is, apparently, the front runner to take over from Neil Kinnock as
an EC Commissioner. (Loadsa money, expenses, large stage etc. etc.)

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

snip

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Just read what I read again and get the big picture. Get this tabloid
mush
that is bouncing around your head and stand back and look at the
situation.


January 30, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look at
what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction.

First, and most trumpeted, he did not find ``large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction.'' He did find, as he reported last
October, WMD-related activities,

But no weapons, never mind if they could have used within 45 minutes...

He did find... WMD-related activities,

Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture"

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...
snip
Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not
address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention
away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.

What crap. The report went far over the remit of Hutton. Get real

Said by someone who obviously hasn't read even a summery of the report or
what Lord Hutton said in his televised diatribe...

I listened to it, and 24 hours TV coverage of it too. Great report.

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

snip
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct
an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.

Well, he has not succeeded, more US troops have been killed / since /
Bush
declared the war over than during the fighting in Iraq ! :~(

It's not won yet.

If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.


Yes, due to the information given to
them by the present government,

The security services you mean.


I believe you will find that the information flow is MI6 -- HMG -- HM
Opposition. The opposition does not get to see all the detail presented to
the government.

Get real. They knew everything at all stages. The establishment is still
pro Tory.

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

Prove he lied.

his lips were moving....

LOL, such fun.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:47:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Of the three, the first two would seem the more likely, so either way
the government bears the responsibility either actively or passively.

I agree with you. Unfortunately I am inclined to believe that Princess
Diana's focus group may have been involved.

Bliar has blood on his hands, not just for Kelly but for all the UK
soldiers who have given their life.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

In message , IMM
writes

But he has lost. In giving the government a clean bill of health over
this, (as in the Indy - "Whitewash"), there has been a total loss of
credibility

What Whitewash? The first time ever the DG and manager of the BBC has
resigned. If I thought it a whitewash I would stay and compile a list of
where their are inaccuracies and bias. The point is that the BBC ****ed up
and then painted itself into a corner.


You really haven't taken in the previous discussion, have you

It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media, and the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said, they could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time". They also
had WMD and USED them.


What WMD?

He gassed some of his own people and invaded Iran (while being supported
by the UK and the USA)

He had tried to build up chemical and biological weapons, but these had
mainly been destroyed by the weapons inspectors or degraded years ago.
His attempts at building up a nuclear program were bombed and rendered
useless

IMM, when even George Bush is questioning the existence of WMD
(Elections are coming up, of course), it's only blind fools like you who
repeat ssuch idiotic mantras
--
geoff

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

But he has lost. In giving the government a clean bill of health over
this, (as in the Indy - "Whitewash"), there has been a total loss of
credibility

What Whitewash? The first time ever the DG and manager of the BBC has
resigned. If I thought it a whitewash I would stay and compile a list of
where there are inaccuracies and bias. The point is that the BBC ****ed
up
and then painted itself into a corner.

You really haven't taken in the previous discussion, have you

Maxie, I am objective, not brainwashed.

It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media, and the
BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said, they
could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time". They also
had WMD and USED them.

What WMD?

Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is openly used by Blair and Bush etc. I
prefer Weapons of Mass Destruction.

He gassed some of his own people
and invaded Iran (while being supported
by the UK and the USA)

He had tried to build up chemical and biological weapons, but these had
mainly been destroyed by the weapons inspectors or degraded years ago.
His attempts at building up a nuclear program were bombed and rendered
useless

Well Kelly said they can do it in days. We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things. They still had the know-how
which is the main point, not the hardware.

IMM, when even George Bush is questioning the existence of WMD
(Elections are coming up, of course), it's only blind fools like you who
repeat ssuch idiotic mantras

It is not me saying that. I only repeat what experts say. Kelly was an
expert who had been to Iraq over 40 times. Bush has distanced himself from
the intelligence people for political reasons, who furnished him, and the
British, with the findings. He is letting them take a fall. There is no
need for him to do that as the Iraqies had the potential to have WMD within
days.

The point is that they had the potential to ramp up WMD within days. Kelly
said so. It is very simple.

In message , IMM
writes

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...
snip
Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not
address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention
away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.

What crap. The report went far over the remit of Hutton. Get real

Said by someone who obviously hasn't read even a summery of the report or
what Lord Hutton said in his televised diatribe...

I listened to it, and 24 hours TV coverage of it too. Great report.


"Gilligan statement in full ...

I am today resigning from the BBC. I and everyone else involved here
have for five months admitted the mistakes we made.

We deserved criticism. Some of my story was wrong, as I admitted at the
inquiry, and I again apologise for it.

My departure is at my own initiative. But the BBC collectively has been
the victim of a grave injustice. If Lord Hutton had fairly considered
the evidence he heard, he would have concluded that most of my story was
right.

The government did sex up the dossier, transforming possibilities and
probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute
claim was the `classic example' of this; and many in the intelligence
services, including the leading expert in WMD, were unhappy about it.

Thanks to what David Kelly told me and other BBC journalists, in very
similar terms, we know now what we did not know before.

{Tribute to Kelly follows}
--
geoff

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

snip

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Just read what I read again and get the big picture. Get this tabloid
mush
that is bouncing around your head and stand back and look at the
situation.


January 30, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look
at
what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction.

First, and most trumpeted, he did not find ``large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction.'' He did find, as he reported
last
October, WMD-related activities,

But no weapons, never mind if they could have used within 45 minutes...

He did find... WMD-related activities,

Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture"


No, you should start looking at the facts, such as what words were taken out
of the original draft of the WMD document (at the request of HMG) to create
the 45 minutes claim.

In essence, this country was taken to war because there / appeared / to be a
possibility that this country (or it's protectorates) could be attacked by
WMD's within 45 minutes, not only does that claim appear to be wrong (due to
no WMD weapons having being found) but also the fact that any weapons that
the intel' were talking about were / battlefield weapons and thus only
effective over a short distance. The only person who seems to be
'tabloiding' is yourself IMM, do you read the 'The Sun' by any chance ?...

As I type this, it would appear (according to reports) that even Pres' Bush
is now doubting the Intel' and if there are any / actual / WMD's.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

They were not reasonable points, they were garbage.


So argue the points and prove they are 'garbage', all calling them garbage
doesn't do anything other than show up the fact that you don't seem to be
able to argue your corner, and then one has to wonder why that is.

It is not worth debating with idiots.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

snip
On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct
an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.

Well, he has not succeeded, more US troops have been killed / since /
Bush
declared the war over than during the fighting in Iraq ! :~(

It's not won yet.

You best tell Pres' Bush that, he seems to be under the misinterpretation
that it is, even telling his troops it is...


If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same.
They
were all for it before the conflict.


Yes, due to the information given to
them by the present government,

The security services you mean.


No, HMG informed parliament.

If you are going to argue the toss please find out something about what
you
are trying to argue about !

The info the government presented to parliament, which the others voted for,
came from the security services.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

snip

Said by someone who obviously hasn't read even a summery of the report
or
what Lord Hutton said in his televised diatribe...

I listened to it, and 24 hours TV coverage of it too. Great report.


Well you might well have listened to it, you certainly have not understood
it, that is obvious because you seem to think that Lord Hutton enquired
into WMDs when he (Lord Hutton) him self ruled himself out of doing so and
stated that in his broadcast.

If you are the typical intellect of this country, God help us ! :~(