IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

snip
If you change a documents wording (by adding or removing words, so that it
then reads completely decently it has been altered to meet your needs,
FACT.


That should have read -
....then reads completely differently it has been altered to meet your
needs....

'IMM' is going to love that typo !..

IMM fodder
 

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

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

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in
a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government

Oh the poor ******* is brainwahsed. He is not old enough to experince
how
inept this bunch of self interest goons are.

Read Who Runs Britain and Who Own Britain. read them well. You can
move
your lips when reading if you like.

You're slipping IMM. It's taken you nearly 3 days to introduce land
ownership to this thread. You must be slowing up.

Super important point. Look at the Guardian 22.01.04. The top 7 landowners
get around 40 million a year in subsidies. Highlights the bias to the
rich.

IMM fodder
 

Dave Plowman wrote:


But IMM simply disagrees with everyone, since only he is infallible. He
should be the next pope.




I thought he WAS the last pope...

IMM fodder
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

Another one in cloud cuckoo land. This is the best government in
living memory.


And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of
it.


Well, you must be pretty young if you can't remember just how many
ordinary people's lives Thatcher and her pals ruined. Or, of course, very
rich.



Or how many were ruined by tha labour governments that preceded it...

IMM fodder
 

Jerry. wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , IMM
writes


Bliar should resign as the head of a government which operated in

this

unprincipled manner. IMO he is not fit to govern.

He has been proven not to be a liar, by a top judge.


Given the fact that (as I wrote earlier) that Hutton came from what you
call a snotty university, how can YOU of all people have any faith in
what he says?

If a snot says they were above board, it means they could not prove
otherwise. If they could they would. Duh!



You really do not understand what 'Terms of reference' mean.
Under the terms of reference Load Hutton had to work to (imposed by HMG and
himself) he came to almost the only conclusion he could.



No even unde hose terms, he could have been a lot more critical of bliar
and Campbell. He chose not to be.

IMM fodder
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps the
majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the viewing
figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a TV, it's
only fair the majority is catered for.

That is not, though, what the BBC is there for, nor what its licence
fee funding is intended to achieve. Commerical channels chase ratings
in order to generate advertising revenue: that's the right place for
mindless/populist "entertainment". The BBC does not *need* to compete
with such dross, and it would be entirely within its charter not to do
so.

I can't remember the exact wording of the BBC charter (perhaps Dave P does)
but it goes something like ...to inform, educate and entertain...

Now you might not like the order in which it does those things but the BBC
has as much right to do them as any other broadcaster. What does annoy me is
how BBC 1 and BBC 2 are competing with each other, if you watch the 10 pm
news on BBC 1 (including your own regions news out put etc.) you than miss
the start of newsnight on BBC 2 for example.

IMM fodder
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:19:48 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:19:28 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of
it.

You are being unbelievably generous!

I tend to think our IMM has the memory retention capability of a
goldfish. Must be real nice getting up each morning in a different
bedroom!


Research has it that that is about 8 seconds.........

LOL, Andy you are a hoot.



You really are acting like a fish out of water, flapping your tail and
gulping air, oh I forgot you are a fish out of water !

IMM fodder
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

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

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government

Oh the poor ******* is brainwahsed. He is not old enough to experince how
inept this bunch of self interest goons are.

Read Who Runs Britain and Who Own Britain. read them well. If you can
move
your lips when reading if you like.


LOL, Can 'IMM' read, (s)he certainly can't read context. :~(

IMM fodder
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Jerry." wrote in message
...
snip


Go and read the Hutton report FFS and stop being an utter plank !

You are reading it? You sad *******. This is storm in a teacup. A
nothing
issue. The power of media is awesome at times, look what it has done
to
him.


Well, if not reading it means I'll be so ill informed as you are I'm
glad
that I'm a sad *******,

Are you glad to be brainwashed to, and unable to see cons and lack commons
sense too.?


How can I be brainwashed by reading the report you are saying is a good
report and hold in high respect ? Unless you are have also been brainwashed
too....

You utter plank !

IMM fodder
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

snip

LOL, You really should read the Huttion report, I am, and I have
never
even
set foot in the local Tory party office.

Send the money by post do you?

Unlike you I don't support any political party, in anyway.

You jest of course.


No, deadly serious I'm afraid. I do use my vote though.

IMM fodder
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

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

writes

snip
[ re WMDs in iraq ]

We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things.

But the whole country is available to inspect and they have been
searching hard since they invaded


And they can question (in what ever manner they like in effect) those
who
allegedly designed and built them - yet they still have not found
anything,
not even a trace of them.

The point is they had them, had used them and had them until recently.
They
could,be hidden somewhere. It is big place.

And I suppose you also think NASA will find little green men on Mars, even
though NASA say that it is 99.9999E % certain they won't !..

They could have had all sorts of things, the fact (that is becoming more
evident by the day) is that they didn't - which means the intel' that said
they did have them was wrong, if they can be so wrong in this matter who
says they are not getting other (possibly more important) natters wrong.


You are influenced by tabloids. You can't think or see the big picture.
You are sad.


You were obviously talking to yourself when you typed those remarks, You
have admitted to not reading the Hutton report and have admitted to reading
a Tabloid, and you still argue the toss.

IMM fodder
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Kelly said "days". YES DAYS!!!!!!! He said week then days, which
mean
less
than 7. Are you that thick!

And the government said 45 minutes,

Read back at my attempt to explain something very simple to you.



And you should read back over this thread were many people have tried to
explain that you are wrong and that the time quoted by HMG for deployment
and firing of the WMDs was 45 minutes. It doesn't matter how many times you
say otherwise the FACTS are contained in the original HMG document.

IMM fodder
 

geoff wrote:


I suggest that everyone arguing in this thread should read it, including
IMM (if you have any problems with the big words, I'm sure there are
people who can help you out)

Although not really diy related, it can be found at:

http://www.uk-diy.org



Excellent mate.


have fun

IMM fodder
 

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps
the majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the
viewing figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a
TV, it's only fair the majority is catered for.

That is not, though, what the BBC is there for, nor what its licence
fee funding is intended to achieve. Commerical channels chase ratings
in order to generate advertising revenue: that's the right place for
mindless/populist "entertainment". The BBC does not *need* to compete
with such dross, and it would be entirely within its charter not to do
so.

This argument is put many times, but if the BBC concentrated on minority
interests, its funding would be withdrawn in short order - there is
already a high level of public opinion that would like to see the end of
the licence.

Perhaps there's space for a subscription channel that only makes the
programmes you want to watch, but I'd guess you'll have to set it up and
run it yourself. ;-)

Actually, it appears that the BBC is increasingly putting the
programming that I would prefer to watch on channels that are funded
from the licence fee, but I cannot receive ... :-(

Things like the Clark Diaries? Very good it is too, It's scheduled for a
repeat on BBC2, IIRC.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

IMM fodder
 

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well, you must be pretty young if you can't remember just how many
ordinary people's lives Thatcher and her pals ruined. Or, of course,
very rich.

Or how many were ruined by tha labour governments that preceded it...

Nice to have some examples, rather than rhetoric.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip more crap

You really do not understand what is being discussed here and I doubt you
will ever be able to. :~(

You can't see your way through the crap.

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

snip

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

It certainly does......

LOL, and I bet I know which Tabloid IMM reads...

Have a guess.



So you admit to reading a Tabloid then,

No.

the reason for your ignorance is
coming clearer now...

IMM fodder
 

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

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

It certainly does......

LOL, and I bet I know which Tabloid IMM reads...

Have a guess.

Bunty ?

Maxie, good one, LOL.

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:42:15 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
It's interesting to note, that we have people with views from
across
the political spectrum, and those who feel that Baroness Thatcher
was
equally misbehaved in her day, yet the only person who seems to
be
supporting Teflon Tony is yourself. Doesn't that strike you
as
a
little odd?

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

Well, I don't read any papers and get all my news from the BBC. And
am
a
socialist. But am perfectly aware that on the broader issue of WOMD
Blair
either lied, was very badly advised,

He did not lie. Badly advised by many intelligence depts, maybe. HE did
not
lie or sex up the document.

Well what the hell do you call altering the wording of a perfectly good,
if
lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.

It was not sexed up, Hutton said so.

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Kelly said "days". YES DAYS!!!!!!! He said week then days, which
mean
less
than 7. Are you that thick!

And the government said 45 minutes,

Read back at my attempt to explain something very simple to you.



And you should read back over this thread were many people have tried to
explain that you are wrong and that the time quoted by HMG for deployment
and firing of the WMDs was 45 minutes. It doesn't matter how many times
you
say otherwise the FACTS are contained in the original HMG document.

Read back at my attempt to explain something very simple to you.

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

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

writes

snip
[ re WMDs in iraq ]

We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things.

But the whole country is available to inspect and they have been
searching hard since they invaded


And they can question (in what ever manner they like in effect) those
who
allegedly designed and built them - yet they still have not found
anything,
not even a trace of them.

The point is they had them, had used them and had them until recently.
They
could,be hidden somewhere. It is big place.

And I suppose you also think NASA will find little green men on Mars, even
though NASA say that it is 99.9999E % certain they won't !..

Did NASA sex it up?

You are influenced by tabloids. You can't think or see the big picture. You
are sad.

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

snip

LOL, You really should read the Huttion report, I am, and I have
never
even
set foot in the local Tory party office.

Send the money by post do you?

Unlike you I don't support any political party, in anyway.

You jest of course.

No, deadly serious I'm afraid. I do use my vote though.

I think I know who for. How sad.

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

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

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in
a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government

Oh the poor ******* is brainwahsed. He is not old enough to experince
how
inept this bunch of self interest goons are.

Read Who Runs Britain and Who Own Britain. read them well. If you can
move
your lips when reading if you like.


LOL, Can 'IMM' read, (s)he certainly can't read context. :~(

Have you ordered the books yet?

IMM fodder
 

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:19:48 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:19:28 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound
of
it.

You are being unbelievably generous!

I tend to think our IMM has the memory retention capability of a
goldfish. Must be real nice getting up each morning in a different
bedroom!


Research has it that that is about 8 seconds.........

LOL, Andy you are a hoot.

You really are acting like a fish out of water, flapping your tail and
gulping air, oh I forgot you are a fish out of water !

LOL, Jerry you are a hoot.

IMM fodder
 

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

The unions had nothing to do
with the decline of British industry.

Can we borrow those rose tinted specs
of yours when you are finished
with them....?

Another one brainwashed by the right wing press.

We are talking about those same unions
that had brought about the demise
of two governments aren't we?

No union brought down any government at all.

The ones responsible for the winter of discontent?

What discontent?

Thatcher legislated them to neutrality
and we went even further downhill. So it
wasn't unions.

So you are saying that compared to
the 70's we have slipped even further
downhill?

No I am not. In the 1980s and early 90s unions were neutral and the country
went to the dogs. We had 100s on the streets living in make shift shanty
towns.

That's odd - I seem to recall from another posting of yours
that "the economy is stronger than any time in living memory".

Blair has done a wonderful job.

IMM fodder
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:30:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



He did not lie. Badly advised by many intelligence depts, maybe. HE did
not
lie or sex up the document.

Well what the hell do you call altering the wording of a perfectly good,
if
lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.

It was not sexed up, Hutton said so.

Must be right then.......
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM fodder
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:40:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

The unions had nothing to do
with the decline of British industry.

Can we borrow those rose tinted specs
of yours when you are finished
with them....?

Another one brainwashed by the right wing press.

We are talking about those same unions
that had brought about the demise
of two governments aren't we?

No union brought down any government at all.

The ones responsible for the winter of discontent?

What discontent?

You are kidding, of course.....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelin...scontent.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/petrol/sto...367803,00.html

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page127.asp




Blair has done a wonderful job.


..... at what he does best. He certainly has you fooled, doesn't he?
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM fodder
 

In message , IMM
writes


And they can question (in what ever manner they like in effect) those
who
allegedly designed and built them - yet they still have not found
anything,
not even a trace of them.

The point is they had them, had used them and had them until recently.
They
could,be hidden somewhere. It is big place.

And I suppose you also think NASA will find little green men on Mars, even
though NASA say that it is 99.9999E % certain they won't !..

Did NASA sex it up?

You are influenced by tabloids. You can't think or see the big picture. You
are sad.

From here, it looks to me that you're the one who can't see the big
picture. Everything you've posted in this thread indicates that you
really don't have a clue
--
geoff

IMM fodder
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Yeah, They can't even tell a towel head from a sand ****** on fox news,
allegedly...


Try watching it before you comment, I don't think it's perfect, but it is
the only news channel in the english speaking world which presents both
sides without a left wing bias. It also asks the questions many of us would
like answered and hammers the point home when an obfuscation is provided.
Try watching and listening to Bill O'reilly and see if you don't agree with
the questions he is asking.
In the Iraq episode, it was watched by more people than any other
channel, does this not tell you something. I watched the BBC at the same
period and felt ashamed to be British.

Regards
Capitol

IMM fodder
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:40:50 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Yeah, They can't even tell a towel head from a sand ****** on fox news,
allegedly...


Try watching it before you comment, I don't think it's perfect, but it is
the only news channel in the english speaking world which presents both
sides without a left wing bias

.... so presumably you like Fox News's overwhelmingly right wing bias?

It also asks the questions many of us would
like answered and hammers the point home when an obfuscation is provided.
Try watching and listening to Bill O'reilly and see if you don't agree with
the questions he is asking.
In the Iraq episode, it was watched by more people than any other
channel, does this not tell you something.

It tells me to be profoundly depressed about the sources of "news"
that seem to be preferred by the citizenry of the US of A -- I suspect
that there's a connection between this statistic and the reported
believe of large portions of the American population that the result
of the war in Iraq is that "we got the guy who did 9/11".

I watched the BBC at the same
period and felt ashamed to be British.

Contrary to the beliefs of the loony right, including the editors of
several particularly nasty tabloid newspapers, the BBC's N&CA output
is not only of exceedingly high quality, its the only internationally
recognized news organization that really does cover the views of all
sides without bias. To prefer Fox over the BBC is to show a desire to
hear *only* a right-wing, (neo)conservative slant on what's happening
in the world.

Julian

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

IMM fodder
 

Dave Plowman wrote in message
Nice to have some examples, rather than rhetoric.

Just try looking at the disposable incomes from 1979 onwards and what they
can purchase( apart from houses!). Today's living standards( whilst
declining under Bliar and Brown since 1997) are far and away better than in
1979. The Tories( apart from Thatcher), as a whole were economically
incompetent at managing the economy (as a result of trusting the treasury
opinion of the day?) and their rank and file politicians(lawyers?) lacked
any real economic understanding. The Thatcher government was absolutely
correct in trying to preserve a low tax environment and achieved far more
than any government before or since. The Tories failed miserably once the
incompetents Major and Clark took over. Brown learned from the US experience
of the early 1990s and realised that in a recession it is essential to
reduce interest rates to try to maintain economic activity. I was in the US
at this time, and on the whole, there was no significant recession. He has
followed this course and it has been very successful. However, the present
"tax the average income earner" to fund inefficient government spending
programmes and achieve the socialist state so beloved of Scottish
politicians is, I believe, about to fall apart, as the wealth producing part
of the economy( making things) is either rushing offshore(call centres etc)
or investing in other countries. The tax grab from individuals has, I
believe, risen by 50% since 1997 and there is virtually nothing to show for
it. It's nice to see good economic activity, but unless there is some
incentive for greedy individuals to establish businesses here, there will be
no real growth. With a budget deficit of £50B this year, falling income and
corporation tax revenues, increasing interest rates and taxes, the outlook
looks grim. I'd be interested to see the real figures for Scottish
unemployment rates for the last 12 months, my impression is that they are
rising quite rapidly, apart from the people involved in not finishing the
Scottish Parliament building!

Regards
Capitol

IMM fodder
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:30:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



He did not lie. Badly advised by many intelligence depts, maybe. HE
did
not
lie or sex up the document.

Well what the hell do you call altering the wording of a perfectly
good,
if
lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.

It was not sexed up, Hutton said so.

Must be right then.......

Of course.

IMM fodder
 

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


And they can question (in what ever manner they like in effect)
those
who
allegedly designed and built them - yet they still have not found
anything,
not even a trace of them.

The point is they had them, had used them and had them until
recently.
They
could,be hidden somewhere. It is big place.

And I suppose you also think NASA will find little green men on Mars,
even
though NASA say that it is 99.9999E % certain they won't !..

Did NASA sex it up?

You are influenced by tabloids. You can't think or see the big picture.
You
are sad.

From here, it looks to me that you're the one who can't see the big
picture. Everything you've posted in this thread indicates that you
really don't have a clue

Maxie, you are mixed up.

IMM fodder
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:40:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

The unions had nothing to do
with the decline of British industry.

Can we borrow those rose tinted specs
of yours when you are finished
with them....?

Another one brainwashed by the right wing press.

We are talking about those same unions
that had brought about the demise
of two governments aren't we?

No union brought down any government at all.

The ones responsible for the winter of discontent?

What discontent?

You are kidding, of course.....

Not at all. The 1979 winter was a normal winter. The odd inconvenience
here and there for some people. Raving right tabloids said there was lots
of discontent. Hogwash!

Blair has done a wonderful job.

.... at what he does best.

Running the country well. Very, very well!!!!!

That Hutton report was fantastic wasn't it? Great report.

IMM fodder
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:08:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:40:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

The unions had nothing to do
with the decline of British industry.

Can we borrow those rose tinted specs
of yours when you are finished
with them....?

Another one brainwashed by the right wing press.

We are talking about those same unions
that had brought about the demise
of two governments aren't we?

No union brought down any government at all.

The ones responsible for the winter of discontent?

What discontent?

You are kidding, of course.....

Not at all. The 1979 winter was a normal winter. The odd inconvenience
here and there for some people. Raving right tabloids said there was lots
of discontent. Hogwash!

Like The Guardian for example?


Blair has done a wonderful job.

.... at what he does best.

Running the country well. Very, very well!!!!!

That Hutton report was fantastic wasn't it? Great report.

Have you actually read through it?
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM fodder
 

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman wrote in message
Nice to have some examples, rather than rhetoric.

Just try looking at the disposable incomes from 1979 onwards and what they
can purchase( apart from houses!). Today's living standards( whilst
declining under Bliar and Brown since 1997) are far and away better than
in
1979. The Tories( apart from Thatcher),

You are mad! Thatcher?

He said she was to create a meritocracy. The parasites in the
establishment - jobs for boys keep the rich happy brigade - were scared
stiff that the gravy train would end. I thought a meritocracy from a Tory.
Unheard of of. This is against the class strata of what they uphold. The
Tories uphold a ruling class and land in the hand of the few leaching off
the rest. When she left the public school/Oxbridge parasites were still in
charge, holding all the top civil service jobs, military, judiciary,
academia, etc. She utterly failed.

Every Tory government since the war has left the country in an economic
mess, while Labour have left office with it sound. FACT!

IMM fodder
 

IMM wrote:

lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.


It was not sexed up, Hutton said so.

So you are saying that Hutton must be lying then?

The fact the document was massaged by downing street is a known fact
that is not open to debate - they published the evidence themselves on
their own web site.

Demonstrating their grasp of all things IT, they released the MS Word
document complete with its (hidden embedded) list of recent editors and
revisions still in it:-

http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm


--
Cheers,

John.

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

IMM fodder
 

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

lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.


It was not sexed up, Hutton said so.

So you are saying that Hutton must be lying then?

He said specifically that the document was not sexed up.

IMM fodder
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:08:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:40:34 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

The unions had nothing to do
with the decline of British industry.

Can we borrow those rose tinted specs
of yours when you are finished
with them....?

Another one brainwashed by the right wing press.

We are talking about those same unions
that had brought about the demise
of two governments aren't we?

No union brought down any government at all.

The ones responsible for the winter of discontent?

What discontent?

You are kidding, of course.....

Not at all. The 1979 winter was a normal winter. The odd inconvenience
here and there for some people. Raving right tabloids said there was
lots
of discontent. Hogwash!

Like The Guardian for example?


Blair has done a wonderful job.

.... at what he does best.

Running the country well. Very, very well!!!!!

That Hutton report was fantastic wasn't it? Great report.

Have you actually read through it?

I heard him on TV and read a summary. great report. Hit the nail on the
head. great report.

IMM fodder
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:45:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




I heard him on TV and read a summary. great report. Hit the nail on the
head. great report.

So you haven't read it.....

Like the selection of evidence, the summary is selective as
well........
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl