BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Dr. David Kelly

  
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
Morpheus
00:21 / 29.08.03
I see this news flash is making it's final waggle through the barbarism of wanker run media. The common feeling that I get through out this thread is fear. Those of you who speculate on the validity of a possible suicide are obviously on-line embraceing the fear. Hide behind your key boards, but the assassins are behind your door. Bottom line is, if you care to believe it or not, for all given purposes Kelly was murdered. Say it with me now, you'll feel better...murdered!!! If it was by his own hand, it wasn't an accident. Now you can all sleep better. What was the time of death...you'll never know.
 
 
Linus Dunce
08:54 / 29.08.03
Ooh yes, let's have some histrionics.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:32 / 29.08.03
the BBC holds a great deal of power. it is a nominally independent international media giant supported by the british public in the form of the licence fee/tax.

I'm sorry but I happen to hold the opinion that no corporation or media group holds half as much power as a government. At the end of the day parliament could close the BBC down but the BBC cannot close parliament... sway our opinion on a party certainly but never threaten the system of government. No media giant, no company, can be as powerful as any government because they cannot make the same decisions. Companies do not run our lives.

The BBC is not supported by the public or separate from the government any more than, say, the NHS or Railtrack.

I disagree. The BBC is not just a company it is an institution and it's separate from the government. They're unable to screw with it in the same way as the NHS etc.

Has the power struggle that's going on taught you nothing? These people aren't civil servants, the BBC is an incredibly disparate organisation. The power structure is mad especially since they stopped producing their own programmes- it works like a company and not one controlled by the government.
 
 
Linus Dunce
00:20 / 31.08.03
The BBC is not just a company it is an institution and it's separate from the government.

So, for instance, the fact that Margaret Thatcher could make them describe all IRA killings as "murder" was just down to the force of her personality and nothing to do with the govt. holding the purse strings? And we get all those TV, radio and web channels, local and national, and all the content therein, for the same price a year as a cable company would charge for three months, just to carry? Do they really make that much extra money selling tapes of Fawlty Towers?

You see it as a power struggle. I see it as insurbordination.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:18 / 31.08.03
Ignatius J: Don't you think that the BBC's use of the word "murder" in reference to IRA killings as evidence of government control is a bit weak?

Back to Kelly, though. And it turns out that Kelly, while not directly advocating war, thought that The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.

So unless you are engaged in a spiralling conspiracy, where any evidence that Kelly was not assassinated is seen as further proof of a cover up, suicide seems quite likely at this point.
 
 
sleazenation
12:25 / 31.08.03
So, for instance, the fact that Margaret Thatcher could make them describe all IRA killings as "murder" was just down to the force of her personality and nothing to do with the govt. holding the purse strings? And we get all those TV, radio and web channels, local and national, and all the content therein, for the same price a year as a cable company would charge for three months, just to carry? Do they really make that much extra money selling tapes of Fawlty Towers?

You see it as a power struggle. I see it as insurbordination.

Are attempting to claim that the government is offering the BBC backhanders?
And you are claiming that the BBC has never failed to toe the government line? Don't you recall the fury Peter Snow provoked in Thatchers government during the Falklands war when he suggested that the British Government might not necessarily be telling the truth?

The BBC is seperate from government - They have no direct editorial influence (although that doesn't mean that some journalists BBC or otherwise are not susceptable to falling for scoop stories fed to them from 'government sources'). The only point at which politicians have influence over the BBC is in the shape of broadcasting legislation at at charter renewal.
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:05 / 31.08.03
The only point at which politicians have influence over the BBC is in the shape of broadcasting legislation at at charter renewal.

Well, that doesn't sound very trivial to me.

I'm not saying the BBC is receiving backhanders and I'm not saying they are solely the government's mouthpiece. This is not a conspiracy theory. Personally, I agree that Dr Kelly most likely did himself in.

I'm just saying that, to my eyes, the BBC is not the shining example of ethical independence that Brits like to believe. You may describe government influence as being down to a few gullible individuals. I would describe it as government influence full stop. You may see the Falklands, Dr Kelly, etc. as examples of independence. I see them as isolated and unusual incidents where the BBC has realised the government's position was untenable and strategically disagreed with the government to retain its own credibility and continue the status quo.

The BBC does deserve some credit. But I believe British people really must stop thinking of it as the bestest, most super broadcasting corporation in the world. It's good. But it's not that good.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:16 / 31.08.03
the BBC is not the shining example of ethical independence that Brits like to believe

Oh Please! No one's suggested that. The BBC is a media group like any other and it means they have the same level of responsibility as any other. No one would get caught up in a war between the Sun and the government... how dare no.10 try and claim that the BBC has more ethical responsibility than any tabloid paper. Of course it's not that good, quite frankly you're demeaning the British public by assuming they regard the BBC as anything more than a broadcasting service.
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:53 / 31.08.03
They are not a media group like any other, they are nationalised. And I wish I were demeaning the British public (ooh, I'm scared), but I've not met more than a handful that would describe the BBC as anything but "the best in the world." God Save Our Gracious BBC.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:59 / 31.08.03
You may see the Falklands, Dr Kelly, etc. as examples of independence. I see them as isolated and unusual incidents where the BBC has realised the government's position was untenable and strategically disagreed with the government to retain its own credibility and continue the status quo.

With respect, describing those incidents as examples where the government's position was "untenable" is to misunderstand the events in question. They were quite clearly about the BBC criticising the government when it didn't acrtually have to.

I agree that these are exceptions, and I think there is a good reason for this. The BBC is supposed to be "unbiased" (rather than ethical) and this means that it often ends up being overly cautious or at least conservative.

The idea that there is government influence on the BBC on a daily basis really is a conspiracy theory, however. Sure, pressures are exerted on the BBC by the government and by other parts of the media. There is an effect, but it is nothing as clumsy as the BBC becoming a government tool.

Having said that, the BBC is fairly unique and does a good job on the whole. It certainly compares very favourably to much of the US media, for instance.
 
 
Linus Dunce
16:24 / 31.08.03
With respect, describing those incidents as examples where the government's position was "untenable" is to misunderstand the events in question. They were quite clearly about the BBC criticising the government when it didn't acrtually have to.

Well, I don't think so. And I don't think its quite so clear that the BBC could have got away with turning a blind eye. They were not the only ones on the job and they'd have looked pretty silly if found out.

I've already written that this is not a conspiracy theory. I will underline this by saying I never wrote that there is a "day-to-day" influence. I'm just making the point that the BBC is not totally independent and that its sometime contradiction of the government does not disprove this. I'm not asking anyone to believe anything incredible, just to take a couple of steps back from weighing received opinions and reputations as means for deciding the truth.

The BBC may very well be different (e.g., use of unnamed sources and little ad revenue) than much of the media and it's not necessary to look across the Atlantic for favourable comparison. But that does not put the BBC above question.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:46 / 31.08.03
I think we can say that, in all fairness, the BBC is regarded by some as a sacred cow and there is a lot of national pride invested in it.
Lots of people think it is the "best in the world". Sure. I'd say that one could make a case, but one would have to acknowledge that the BBC is flawed. In fact, one could perhaps make a good counter argument. Thing is, Ignatius J, I don't think that you are. I mean,

Well, I don't think so. And I don't think its quite so clear that the BBC could have got away with turning a blind eye. They were not the only ones on the job and they'd have looked pretty silly if found out.

I think the BBC could easily have turned a "blind eye" in the Kelly affair. Single sourced quote, from someone who wasn't involved in the report on a serious allegation could *easily* be "reviewed" for accuracy. And if the BBC didn't run it, no one else looked like they were going to. How on earth could one describe the government position as "untenable" before the BBC furore when the majority of the press supported the government?

As for day by day inteference, that was pretty much implied in your reference to the BBC use of the word "monster" with resect to IRA killing. If that doesn't qualify as day to day interference, I don't know what does.
 
 
Linus Dunce
17:16 / 31.08.03
It was "murder," and it was to be used in all NI stories. I wouldn't call that day-to-day management, more influence on policy, but if you want to disagree, that's fine.

But, you're saying that no one in the media had known and/or said that the government had exaggerated in its public statements on danger from Iraq, that the whole of the world's TV, press and web was united in its support of Her Majesty's government in this matter and it would have been possible, no likely, that the secret could have been kept forever had it not been for Dr David Kelly? If this were true, yes, I suppose the BBC could have ignored or suppressed it.
 
 
sleazenation
18:45 / 01.09.03
Here's where the fallout will stem from Dr Kelly's delivers devestating testimony at the Hutton enquiry.

I know many in government (and probably fleet st too) who would have liked her to remain silent, but She has come out valiently defending her late husband's reputation - Surely her testimony will be one of the utmost importance once the enquiry enters the second stage.

so what do people think?
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:02 / 01.09.03
Ignatius J, I think this is threadrot but my quick response to your last point is yes. Everyone knew that the government had exaggerated and some even said so, but a leak gave the story different weight. Actually, government propoganda (about how the last round of inspections ended) regularly goes unchallenged, just as many journalists knew the case for war was weak in the extreme yet stories were largely supportive.

sleaze: Do you reckon this means that Hoon will be forced to go as a way of defusing this? I suppose it depends very much on what Hutton concludes, but I still doubt he'll deliver a strongly worded verdict.
 
 
The Natural Way
09:55 / 02.09.03
I wish the conspiracy people would just admit that all their sexy theorising gives them a hard-on.
 
 
Nematode
10:59 / 02.09.03
Who honestly knows what the fucks going on? You might as well have a laugh.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:08 / 02.09.03
Is that a philosophy?

Trouble is, I'm not sure the evil-government people realise they're having a laugh.
 
 
sleazenation
15:26 / 02.09.03
I think Hoon's position was already untenable before Mrs Kelly's testimony, I can't really see any way in which he can effectively deflect criticism away from himself now -
 
 
Nematode
16:14 / 02.09.03
S'pose.......
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:38 / 03.09.03
It's almost a shame if Hoon goes- I should like him to stay and the blame to fall on someone less incompetent and more of a bastard.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:06 / 03.09.03
Like Blair, you mean?

Hoon is as good as gone, let's face it; as is Gilligan.

Guardian, today: Brian Jones, a retired branch head of the defence intelligence analysis staff, told the Hutton inquiry his staff had concerns about the dossier at the centre of No 10's row with the BBC, parts of which he described as "over-egged".

But he said they had been particular concerned about the infamous 45-minute claim, which sparked the war of words between Downing Street and the BBC.

Dr Jones said the use of the word "indicated" to express the strength of the intelligence on the 45-minute claim in the main body of the dossier was "a little bit strong but I felt I could live with that".

But when it came to the executive summary and foreword he said: "I thought they were too strong."

Dr Jones told Lord Hutton that Dr Kelly, who had regular contact with his department and had the security clearance to come and go as he liked, was certainly aware of concerns among staff about the use of intelligence in the dossier.


[conspiracist] Brian Jones, eh? But he's died in his swimming pool in the sixties - or that's what they want you to think! Wooh, wooh, wake up sheeple! The lizards![/conspiracist]

I think this, more than Jancie Kelly's testimony, will fuck the Government. Janice Kelly's words gave good headline, and also strengthened what was already known about the way the MOD had handled the situation and how much pressure they put Dr Kelly under.

Few could fail to feel for the family after hearing her testimony - but it won't sink the Government on its own.

Today's testimony is a major blow, though; it shows that the report the BBC transmitted seems, more than ever, to be accurate - there were major concerns in the intelligence commitee, and someone has at last confirmed this to the inquiry.

The Government case now relies on one unscripted two-way interview at 6.07am in the morning, and the fact this suggested they 'knew the inetlligence was wrong' which was later modified. Ten seconds of broadcast appear to have launched a major vendetta between two of the cornerstones of British life, and left at least one man dead so far.

Ironically, the inquiry finding this could have cleared Gilligan - but he will probably have to go anyway now after the discovery of that e-mail he sent suggesting questions for a Lib Dem on the Foreign Affairs Committee to ask.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:10 / 03.09.03
Sorry, intelligence community, not comittee; teh intelligence committee appears to have been as muc use as the FAC (who follwoed Hoon's orders 'for a quiet life.'
 
 
Not Here Still
18:32 / 16.09.03
BBC, today: ....there were no signs of defensive injuries that would occur as a result of somebody trying to parry blows from a weapon, he said.

Neither was there evidence of the scientist being restrained, strangled or dragged to the woodland spot.

Dr Hunt said the major cause of the scientist's death were the wounds to his wrist and the overdose of prescription painkiller Coproxamol and the narrowing of arteries to his heart.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:34 / 16.09.03
Of course, the lizards told the pathologist to say that....
 
 
Not Here Still
11:51 / 25.01.04
Bumping this as I think it is likely to relevant again on, say, Wednesday...

According to Today's Observer, Blair is running a little scared about what looks set to be a tough week for him:

The media regularly talks of Blair's toughest week and even he can see the truth in that statement. On the plane he sits back and thinks. Where is he headed?

'I think in this job you spend the entire time at risk, so there is not a moment when you are not, but it is still an enormous privilege to do it,' he told The Observer. 'But I assiduously avoid deciding which is my toughest as opposed to my former toughest week, and you know there will be other tough weeks to come.

'The decision to go to war [against Iraq] was a very tough time, but it comes with the job. There is no point in worrying about it. The important thing is to do the right thing.'

Some predict he could be gone by the end of the week. Lose tuition fees, in addition to being attacked by Hutton, and resignation becomes a real issue. Will he still be the Prime Minister, running the country, on Friday?

'I have every intention of doing that, yes.'

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times piece draws a parallel with 24, the reference to Jack and friends having, of course, nothing to do with Sky One's purchase of third series rights:

For all the speculation, no politicians or pundits know for certain what Hutton will pronounce. Will he condemn the BBC, the government, or both? Will he spare Blair or throw him to the wolves? Like Jack Bauer, the central character in the television thriller 24, the prime minister is set for a rollercoaster 24 hours with the denouement still unknown. A few votes or one phrase from Hutton could see him reborn; a sudden, unexpected twist could inflict wounds that sooner or later prove fatal.

Oh, one more point: I bumped this for discussion of new angles, not for the opening of old feuds, you get me?
 
 
sleazenation
22:15 / 27.01.04
well, the Sun (no i'm not going to link to it) claim to have chatted to someone who has seen some of the conclusions of the Hutton report - they claim that it pretty much exonerates Blair and Campbell and only gives the MoD a slight rap on the knuckles whilst saying Dr Kelly was a very difficult man to help. The Sun also claim that Hutton has found the Andrew Gilligan was at fault and so were the BBC.

I'm waiting for the release of the actual report myself...
 
 
Spatula Clarke
00:09 / 28.01.04
I like the prospect of having an inquiry into the leaking of the report of the inquiry into the leaking of a name central to an inquiry into the leaking of concerns about the validity of a report.

Whoah. Made myself dizzy for a second there.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:14 / 28.01.04
Yuh, the Sun's claiming to have leaked reports that exonerate. Hmm. They would say that.

I've just been arguing about the following: Our doubts about Dr Kelly's suicide, a letter to the Guardian from some medics.

Some of the things they raise I've heard before to be fair, and while I've not talked to the docs I know about this, I can understand from other research that the wrist-slashing thing has problems.

On the other hand, the government have a clear motivation to release a report and information that indicate suicide whether or not he did. Even if the evidence is dodgy, unfortunately that doesn't indicate conspiracy. It's not that easy. And these guys don't say that the evidence indicates murder, or promote a cause of death that is murder-compatible - they just say they don't like the one that's being presented in the media. Which will be incomplete anyway (when does proper medical or scientific data ever get into the mass media?)

The problem I see is that the government have no interest in openness here, regardless of what they did. To give any credence to theories that things might not be as they say is against their interest, regardless of whether they're telling the truth or not. They don't want to set a precedent of challenge. This was the problem I had with the MMR stuff - I don't think that the evidence supports MMR => autism, but I don't think the gov's explanation was sufficient either.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:41 / 28.01.04
I'm hoping like crazy that this isn't true, if i wasn't at work I'd be in the toilets with a big wad of kleenex and the hand-cream, magicking like crazy that The Sun is either wrong or lying. I didn't expect Blair to get done for this and it's become clear that there were failings at the BBC but I can't believe from what has been explained about what Campbell, Powell and the intelligence services did that they all leave without a stain on their character.

Expect The Hutton Inquiry site to crash at lunchtime.
 
 
sleazenation
11:31 / 28.01.04
Fuck - looks like the early reports in the Sun were accurate.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:52 / 28.01.04
Thats pretty much what everyone expected, wasn't it?

He is coming down harder on the BBC than I thought he might, but I suppose someone has to bear the blame. I thought he would blame Kelly himself, but it looks like a rather technical attack on Gilligan - even though there was a great deal of substance to the allegations, the fact that they were actually, in a limited way, incorrect means that the government wins the argument.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:20 / 28.01.04
Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck

How could this happen? At the weekend everyone, including the Government, thought they were going to get shit for both the top-up fees and the Hutton report. How the fuck could they come unscathed through both? Because you just know that the Government are going to crow on this. Maybe Alistair Campbell will take a private prosecution out against Gilligan now one of the most senior judges in the country has come to the conclusion that emails asking for presentational changes to the joint Intelligence Committee don't count as interference. I wonder if you can bear to read the whole 1000 report it says that the Government did actually do dodgy things but that this was beyond the scope of his investigation so he's not going to judge them.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:28 / 28.01.04
Dude - it was a ploy to put the frighteners on the potential top-up fee rebels, by making them think that the government was in a really shaky position over Hutton as well... I bet Number 10 had a pretty good idea of what was in that report even before they saw the advance copies yesterday. All that guff about TB being in a terrible position was so much rubbish designed to scare the parliamentary Labour party into supporting the bill. I mean - if he hasn't already resigned over Iraq etc., what makes anyone think he would have done so under any circs over the bill/the Hutton enquiry? He is well known to have no principles when it comes to manipulating his party/Parliament (if indeed he has any principles of any sort whatsoever other than the prinicple of the enduring power and might of Tony Blair).
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:29 / 28.01.04
That "everyone" didn't include me. I was pretty surprised by how close the fees vote was, in the end, but most commentators were pretty confident that Blair would not come under much criticism by Hutton. I mean, why should he? He didn't want Kelly to die, and didn't act that badly toward him as far as I can see. The wider questions about the war were beyond the remit of Hutton and they always were. Blair had little to worry about personally.

Even Hoon seems ok, which is a little more surprising.
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply