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: 1(2)345

 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:06 / 21.07.03
People that aren't alone at home if they wanted to do it? Someone who needed to psyche themselves up to do it, or wanted a long walk to decide whether they were indeed going to do something or just walk home?

Despite what was said at the top of the thread, not everything is a government conspiracy against the little people, that's giving the government credit for too much intelligence and an ability not to make huge stupid mistakes.
 
 
diz
17:36 / 21.07.03
People that aren't alone at home if they wanted to do it? Someone who needed to psyche themselves up to do it, or wanted a long walk to decide whether they were indeed going to do something or just walk home?

it doesn't fit. wrist-slitting, AFAIK, is almost universally done at home or in similarly private circumstances (motel rooms, etc), if only because it takes a reasonably long time to die that way (especially if you only slit one wrist? wtf?) and no one intent on checking out wants to stumble around in the woods slowly bleeding to death. usually its done in the bathtub so that the water can keep the blood from clotting, thereby keeping the wounds open long enough to get the job done.

people who leave home usually do something more immediate, like jumping off something.

Despite what was said at the top of the thread, not everything is a government conspiracy against the little people, that's giving the government credit for too much intelligence and an ability not to make huge stupid mistakes.

i agree that everything's not a gov't conspiracy. however, i think that given the circumstances, they should be considered the #1 suspect until there's some reason to believe otherwise.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
18:51 / 21.07.03
Words cannot adequately describe how disgusted I've become with the way Kelly's death has been treated, by the media, by the government, and to a certain extent, in this thread.

This shouldn't come as news to anyone - but David Kelly is not the first person to be hung out to dry by his employers. Not even the first by a government. And this isn't even nearly the worst, nastiest or most revolting example.

If he killed himself, which is still by far the most likely explanation for his death, then we do not know why he killed himself. There's no suicide note, no real explanation. The Foreign Affairs Committee, despite disdaining the use of kid gloves, didn't handle him that badly - the bullying charge is just bullshit. All the bluntness/harshness was directed against the reasons why he'd been called to testify - the overriding impression given by the transcripts is that they believed that he was being offered up as a scapegoat, or worse, a red herring. They actually came out on his side by the end, and Kelly's supporters say that he was drained, but in reasonably good spirits as he left. True, his career was most likely to be finished - but it isn't like he wouldn't have umpteen options to go for.

Saying that anyone - the BBC, Blair, Campbell, the FAC, the MOD, the rest of the media - 'drove' him to suicide is missing one of the most fundamental things about the nature of suicide - it's an intensely personal thing, and an intensely extreme reaction to outside events. I don't see how it can be seen as anything other than an out-of-proportion reaction to the political events we've seen unfolding over the last few weeks. And like I said - there's no note, so not even that small window into his psyche exists.

We don't know why he died. So placing any blame for it anywhere, crying "murder!", or asking who has blood on whose hands, that's just using the man's death to forward a personal political agenda, whether that's on the level of uninvolved comments and musings, as in this thread and the letters pages of the newspapers, or the more complex and involved level of national/international politics.

The only thing that is sure at this stage is that Andrew Gilligan says that he didn't misquote or misconstrue anything Kelly said, and that he was his primary source... and Kelly's interview with the FAC made it clear that he didn't consider that anything he had said to Gilligan could have been construed in that way. One of them was/is lying. But THAT is all we actually know...
 
 
diz
19:13 / 21.07.03
If he killed himself, which is still by far the most likely explanation for his death

in your opinion. i don't think the story washes, at all. the location, glaringly, and also some of the very facts that you cite (the fact that he didn't seem to be suicidal to anyone around him and that he didn't leave a note, both of which are highly unusual) - this doesn't look at all like a suicide to me, but rather like an assassination disguised (poorly) as a suicide.

evidently, we're not alone in thinking that this is an urgent issue demanding more scrutiny, since a major investigation is being opened.

that's just using the man's death to forward a personal political agenda

to be blunt, Dr. Kelly is dead. i really couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not i'm being considerate enough of his feelings if there's a chance that framing things in a certain way could help unseat a regime that's already murdered thousands of innocent people.

to be even blunter, i find your tone of moral outrage to be, quite frankly, repulsive, and suspiciously like an attempt to browbeat people raising legitimate concerns into "respectful" silence.
 
 
sleazenation
19:46 / 21.07.03
Diz says
it doesn't fit. wrist-slitting, AFAIK, is almost universally done at home or in similarly private circumstances (motel rooms, etc), if only because it takes a reasonably long time to die that way (especially if you only slit one wrist? wtf?) and no one intent on checking out wants to stumble around in the woods slowly bleeding to death. usually its done in the bathtub so that the water can keep the blood from clotting, thereby keeping the wounds open long enough to get the job done.

Dr Kelly apparently was a keen walker who knew the area very well - he knew where he would be unlikely to be disturbed. More to the point he also dosed himself up with prescription medication that would both numb the pain of his death and prevent the coting of the blood in a similar manner you describe.

people who leave home usually do something more immediate, like jumping off something.

Depends if you are a meticulous calculating individial, like a scientist, who would want to ensure that his course of actions were indeed going to be fatal - something not easy to do by jumping off something in the decidedly low rise environment of rural Oxfordshire...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:10 / 21.07.03
I was discussing this distressing matter with another poster at the weekend, and he made the point that, while anyone who supposes that the intelligence services and security forces are incapable of undertaking assassinations is deluded, there is little evidence of any sort in the public domain at the moment to suggest that this was anything other than a suicide. Until such evidence emerges or is uncovered, it seems pointless to speculate on whether or not it might have been an assassination. Such speculation can distract people from other questions, such as: why was the 45 minute claim inserted in the document when it was well known to be false?

I think that, as Jack says, the reasons behind a suicide are personal and particular to the suicide, and that to say that Dr Kelly's behaviour doesn't fit a pattern is not especially meaningful at this stage. This might have been the case for any number of reasons (as I see sleaze has pointed out) other than assassination. I don't think the point is so much that speculation is distressing to his family (though God only knows how dreadful it must be for them, as for the family of any suicide) or disrespectful to his memory; I think it's more that attempting to cherry-pick the mass of complex and confusing information which can be found on this subject, in order to make events fit a particular interpretation, is as likely to obscure what is important as it is to highlight it. No doubt more will emerge over the coming weeks which will add to knowledge about all aspects of these matters.
 
 
sleazenation
20:16 / 21.07.03
Also I'd point out that a Judicial review is a not out of the ordinary response from a government that has possiblely been implicated in driving a man to suicide.

I think Occam's razor applies here.

to be blunt, Dr. Kelly is dead. i really couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not i'm being considerate enough of his feelings if there's a chance that framing things in a certain way could help unseat a regime that's already murdered thousands of innocent people.

Don't get me wrong I am not a fan of Blair's decision to go to war or the basis on which he took the decision to go to war. However, If you baldly state as you just have that you are willing to frame things in a certain way to suit your own political ends (wrt regieme change in the UK) you are no better than the government you criticise of doing the exact same hing (ie framing information, in a way that suits their own political ends as they have done in the their dossiers and briefings).

and this is not a cheap shot for any kind of moral ground but Its also probably worth noting that while Dr Kelly's Feeling's may be irrelevant at this point his families are not,. This notion is probably going to be lost among the media frenzy and political ramifications of Dr Kelly's death.
 
 
diz
12:09 / 22.07.03
Also I'd point out that a Judicial review is a not out of the ordinary response from a government that has possiblely been implicated in driving a man to suicide.

clearly, and while i'm still genuinely suspicious in all honesty, i'm not saying that it's out of the question that this is a suicide. however, there's no point in letting Blair off the hook until it's firmly decided by a reputable authority that it isn't a suicide. i'm in favor of discrediting him, casting doubts, and letting him squirm.

However, If you baldly state as you just have that you are willing to frame things in a certain way to suit your own political ends (wrt regieme change in the UK) you are no better than the government you criticise of doing the exact same hing

actually, no, i'm criticizing them for invading another sovereign country for dubious reasons, and killing a lot of people in the process, which, last time i checked, i'm not doing.

i understand and respect your point, but i fully expect them to spin the "facts" to suit their case, and i have no problems doing the same. they have their goals and i have mine, and it's not about Truth - it ultimately boils down to my spin vs their spin.

and this is not a cheap shot for any kind of moral ground but Its also probably worth noting that while Dr Kelly's Feeling's may be irrelevant at this point his families are not,. This notion is probably going to be lost among the media frenzy and political ramifications of Dr Kelly's death.

to be honest, i kind of figure that that egg's already broken, and there isn't a lot i can do about that.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:50 / 22.07.03
It seems to me that we're going to get shitty government for as long as we're prepared to accept any argument which says the end justifies the means - so saying 'I want to use this to shake Blair even if he had nothing to do with it' is just a perpetuation of the status quo of specious political manoeuvering. Blair is annoying, but he's not the problem. The problem is the culture of (venal) political activity which places tomorrow's headlines or political convenience over today's right - and useful - action.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:08 / 22.07.03
And of course the polls show little support for Blair's government today. Tbh I should quite like to see our PM out of office because of this. Perhaps it's vindictive and on some level I wish I could be as reasonable as sleaze but I think this is yet another good reason to get rid of Blair and I hope that it's slightly more effective than the other gazillion reasons have been. He has behaved disgracefully over and over again and I'm beyond caring what gets him out. Kelly's dead and it's impossible to blame any individual for it (except Kelly, victim and perpetrator)- I hope his suicide wasn't in vain and somehow some good comes out of it. I'm prefectly aware that there is no one to run this country and equally aware that the next cabinet will be just as disgusting... I'm just beyond caring who replaces him. They probably won't be as hypocritical and he's got to go, it's just too painful to read the word Labour plastered over his head.
 
 
diz
13:20 / 22.07.03
It seems to me that we're going to get shitty government for as long as we're prepared to accept any argument which says the end justifies the means

i have little faith that we're going to get anything other than shitty government for a good long while, period. that said, it might as well be our shitty government.

to be honest, however, my cynicism is probably colored by the fact that i live in the US. perhaps i'm being naive and falling prey to "the grass looks greener on the other side" thinking, but i think that British democracy is much healthier than American democracy. as it stands right now, i don't think the patient can be saved on my side of the pond, and accordingly, i'm all for fighting as dirty as necessary when it comes to politics. the disease will have to run its course, one way or the other, and so in the meantime i'm in favor of fighting for what we can get and hamstringing the opposition whenever the opportunity presents itself.

however, it's possible that i'm projecting those attitudes onto a different situation, and if so, it's possible that i need a re-think.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:20 / 22.07.03
I'm just beyond caring who replaces him.

That's what we thought about Thatch and Major, remember? It's not enough. There has to be a future, not just a rejection of now. Same problem as revolutions, in fact. Which in turns makes me wonder whether there has ever been a revolution at all.
 
 
diz
15:52 / 22.07.03
There has to be a future, not just a rejection of now.

what was that Situationist slogan? "we will not lead - we will only detonate?"

or, of course, the simpler punk mantra "NO FUTURE."

any vision of the future essentially becomes totalitarian and unliveable and needs to be overthrown. of course, perpetual revolution isn't terribly liveable either.

some people build. others tear down. i usually wear the latter hat, but i don't honestly think one is more important than the other... ~shrug~
 
 
sleazenation
16:28 / 22.07.03
Diz said
however, there's no point in letting Blair off the hook until it's firmly decided by a reputable authority that it isn't a suicide.

Actually i don't see any point in putting Blair on the hook that isn't going to hold him - you don't put your opponent into check now when, with patience, yopu can force him into checkmate...

To reiterate what Kit-Kat was saying, there are still a lot more unanswered questions here, especially wrt the accuracy of the various dossiers and the select comittee's criticisms that there was indeed an element of spin in the dossiers' manufacture.

I think it is more profitable to persue these tangible findings, follow up other descrepancies in the coalition forces' case for war and even investigate who was responsible for sanctioning the guessing game that eventually lead to Dr Kelly's unmasking as the MoD mole than attempt to pin responsibility for an assasination that there is very little evidence of on a politician you don't much like.
 
 
diz
18:01 / 22.07.03
you don't put your opponent into check now when, with patience, yopu can force him into checkmate...

of course you do, in some case, for exactly the same strategic reasons that apply here: to restrict their range of options and put them on the defensive. a player in check may only move to get themselves out of check. this frustrates their ability to advance and can often force them to make sacrifices or move to less advantageous positions.

it's a lesson that American Democrats learned well during Clinton's second term: accuse someone of something, and it may not stick, but the accused is pretty much fucked as far as far as doing anything other than defending himself goes.

railing Blair on this sends the loud and clear message that we intend to do whatever it takes to get him out of office to punish him for Iraq. it lets everyone know that we no longer give him any sort of credibility or respect and that we quite literally regard nothing as beneath him. furthermore, people are actively working to impede his ability to govern.

Blair and his allies become tainted, the whole Blair government becomes poisoned, and Labour starts looking around for replacements.

I think it is more profitable to persue these tangible findings, follow up other descrepancies in the coalition forces' case for war and even investigate who was responsible for sanctioning the guessing game that eventually lead to Dr Kelly's unmasking as the MoD mole than attempt to pin responsibility for an assasination that there is very little evidence of on a politician you don't much like.

these are not mutually exclusive. just fucking hammer him. argue that the best case scenario here is that Blair drove a man to suicide to cover up a whole list of errors and deceptions involved in the push to war, and that the worst case scenario is that he had him killed outright. give him no wiggle room, or mercy, or credit, at all, ever.
 
 
sleazenation
19:14 / 22.07.03
As you say to extend the chess analogy placing an opponent in check can be a great way of forcing him onto the defensive - but unless you follow through with a devestating, well researched, final blow that is all you are doing - the best outcome you can hope for is a draw rather than a victory.

Just as the republicans lerned sa they kept Clinton on the defensive but failed to remove him from power until he had served his maximum term of office...

As I've said before and I will say again railing at Blair without the burden of proof is profitless if you really want to hurt him.

Worse if you start hammering, as you put it, a political enemy with inconsequential objections it only serves to subtract credibility from any valid ones you do have to make.

The blunderbuss is spreads it shot wide but the snipers rifle is more sure and ultimately more deadly.
 
 
sleazenation
19:39 / 22.07.03


argue that the best case scenario here is that Blair drove a man to suicide to cover up a whole list of errors and deceptions involved in the push to war, and that the worst case scenario is that he had him killed outright. give him no wiggle room, or mercy, or credit, at all, ever.

I don't agree with your assessment that he was driven to suicide in order to do anything - I think that he was driven to suicide by the pressure he could not handle that was brought to bare on him by the media and his political masters alike after those self same political masters perpetrated defacto leak of his name to press.

Amongst the questions that need to be asked, and are being asked, is who authorised the leak.
 
 
diz
19:43 / 22.07.03
As I've said before and I will say again railing at Blair without the burden of proof is profitless if you really want to hurt him.

not necessarily. keep him boxed in and frustrated long enough and he may very make a mistake. he was positively haggard towards the end of the prewar period just from the constant onslaught of criticism.

i mean, honestly, all he needs to do is flounder in the wrong press conference and he's fucked.

Worse if you start hammering, as you put it, a political enemy with inconsequential objections it only serves to subtract credibility from any valid ones you do have to make.

yes, but i don't know if this is an inconsequential objection.

The blunderbuss is spreads it shot wide but the snipers rifle is more sure and ultimately more deadly.

i can certainly see your side of the argument, sleaze, but you're putting a lot of faith in the idea that the opportunity to take a sniper shot is going to pop up. Blair's really cagey. i don't find it very likely that he will leave himself open to any surefire political kill-shots, but he may be able to be worn down over time.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:21 / 22.07.03
I agree with sleaze and Nick. I don't really want to be part of a political system that easily attacks someone on a serious charge with no real evidence. Taking advantage of a probable suicide no less.

Even for the unscrupulous, it is ill advised. Perpetuating dishonest politics will produce dishonest politicians. And getting rid of Blair will put Brown in power. Yippee skip.

I'm a firm believer in criticising when only when appropriate. The war in Iraq and its mendacious justifications is a good start.
 
 
sleazenation
20:45 / 22.07.03

I also think we both understand each other, we just don't agree, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
 
Rev. Orr
23:32 / 22.07.03
Glad to see that no-one is getting carried away with their own self-importance here. Of course Tony is paying attention to your concerns and your voice is going to put him sufficiently on the defensive to distract him from further war-mongering and imperialist ambition.

This focussing on the tragic death of Dr.Kelly is playing into the hands of those who would spin attention away from the original accusations and the weakness of the justification of the war. The judicial enquiry, as far as I can determine, is only looking at the treatment of Kelly and the revelation of the source of the 'Today' story. It has no remit to examine the dossier, the status of Iraqi WMD or the presentation of intelligence prior to the declaration of war. Yes, this is a mess. Yes, Campbell is in a precarious position. But, the longer the political nation argues the unknowable reasoning of a suicide, the longer it avoids confronting the issues surrounding our public reasons for waging war. What is more damaging to the governments credibility, mishandling the treatment of a whistle-blower who then took his own life, or lying to parliament, the public and the world to justify an illegal invasion?
 
 
Not Here Still
18:34 / 23.07.03
Jesus Christ all fucking mighty, kids.

Well, about all I can say is kudos to everyone for not using the phrase blood on their hands' over this one - I've winced every time anyone has used it with regard to this case, for the obvious reasons.

As a few people have noted, pushing Blair 'til he squeaks may well be possible over this - but for God's sake, somehow I think that Barbelith comes somewhere below even, say, the Framley Examiner on his list of opinion-forming literature.

And as I noted before, the very fact that this affair could end up bringing down the Government - or at least lead to the sacking of Government ministers and advisers (more of which later) - would suggest that, if an assasination was set up, it was possibly one of the most stupid things the Government could have done.

[consipracy theory] Of course, that is presuming that the *British* government, and not another one, was behind the assasination...{/conspiracy theory]

The BBC appear to have been sticking closely to their story because they have a tape of at least some of Dr Kelly's comments.

Interesting to note that the tape isn't Gilligan's, but that of Susan Watts, the science editor of Newsnight. However, the BBC are supposedly saying both Watts and Gilligan checked their notes with Kelly beforehand - which, of course, would suggest that Kelly knew that Gilligan had said 'make it sexier' in his Today report - the phrase 'sexed up' didn't appear until much later. It might also suggest that he knew he was the source when he was in front of the foreign affairs committee.

Transcript of the report that started the whole thing.

This would mean that the direct quotes used in the report -

"It was transformed in the week before it was published to make it sexier. The classic example was the claim that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes, because it wasn't reliable. Most of the things in the dossier were double-sourced, but that was single sourced, and we believe that the source was wrong."

*are* those of Kelly.

[conspiracy theory] Unless, of course, the senior and credible intelligence source quoted in the Today report is still alive, but has been able to co-erce (a) the Government into naming Kelly as the source and (b) the BBC or Gilligan into saying Kelly was too.[/conspiracy theory]

Of course, in that same Today report, Gilligan notes that Kelly was pretty damn convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction, or wepaons of mass destruction 'programmes', in Iraq.

He never said there were no weapons, just that the drive to war took some odd routes, so to speak.

So what this basically comes down to is spin, spite and a 'he said, she said' blame game.

There are a number of people in the firing line on this one.

But one person has already done his best to ensure he isn't.

Blair won't fall, his friends may well...

[conspiracy theory] And Gordon Brown will be able to take over!{/conspiracy theory]

nb: As you may have noticed, there are three conspiracy theories in here. I don't think I believe any of them, but some people do seem to be running by the maxim "All the news that fits, we'll print"
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
05:34 / 24.07.03
Am I the only person who thinks Brown would make a better prime minister?

Not a great fan of the guy... but I trust him slightly more than Mr Tony.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:41 / 24.07.03
No, I think Brown would make a terrible Prime Minister. He'd be John Major to Blair's Thatcher and considering our role wrt the US atm I really wouldn't want to see someone like Brown in power. At least with someone like Thatcher you can demonise rather than despair.

There is no one in the Labour cabinet that I would ever, ever want to lead the country (and I'd just like to make it clear, if Blunkett ever gets in I'm so moving away, maybe to work in some little bar on a beach, the sea sparkling in the bright sunlight...).
 
 
Not Here Still
16:41 / 24.07.03
[off topic] I agree with the 'stoat, Brown would make a better PM. As far as I can ascertain, he is the left wing angel to Tony Blair's third-way devil, although that's simplifying things too much, perhaps[off topic]

On topic; found out today Downing Street were forced to deny, on the record, that they had assasinated Kelly:

"Asked to dispel a conspiracy theory currently doing the rounds which claimed that Dr Kelly had been assassinated, the PMOS said he could categorically deny the suggestion." (from the Number 10 website!)

Meanwhile, the Guardian have done another interesting comment piece, headlined, spookily enough considering my first post, "What David Kelly Knew":

"Kelly was one of the toughest and most effective Unscom weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s. He was convinced Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction. As a senior adviser to both the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office on the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons he had to have access to up-to-date intelligence to do his job.

So when he told journalists he had misgivings about the government's now largely discredited September dossier it was extremely significant. If MPs on the Commons foreign affairs committee had bothered to listen to the substance of what he told them instead of scoring points in the battle between the government and the BBC - of which Kelly was a victim - they too would have heard important evidence."
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:25 / 24.07.03
just feel the need to elaborate: Brown's an economist, pure and simple. He sees everything in terms of how it will affect the country's economy. It's all maths.

Blair's a lawyer by trade. Not to diss lawyers indiscrimimately here, but he's well-versed in the art of arguing the inarguable.

Hence I trust Brown more.

I now return you to the subject at hand.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:28 / 24.07.03
Oh, and also for purposes of clarification- Anna de L, if Blunkett even looked like having a chance for the Big Chair, I wouldn't be leaving the country. I'd be finding myself a handy Grassy Knoll and a 30.06.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:34 / 27.07.03
Before Kelly's death the 'sexing up' issue seemed to have reached a crisis point. As far as I could tell, either Gilligan was lying that Kelly had said those words, or Kelly was lying when he was saying without saying that he didn't tell Gilligan that. This still needs to be sorted out, though Ali C has been very succesful in making it all about the BBC rather than the Government.
 
 
gotham island fae
14:43 / 01.08.03
UK citizens,

thoughts on Lord Hutton and his inquiry?

Lord Hutton to lead inquiry

TV coverage makes inquiry public

Inquiry begins
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:50 / 01.08.03
Anyone else notice the revelation that Dr Kelly was found with electrocardiagram pads attached to him? Decidedly odd.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
10:29 / 02.08.03
I was a bit disappointed when Hutton announced the terms of his enquiry that it seems that there's wide enough scope to find that the BBC have done something wrong, if they indeed have, but if it is the Government that are in the wrong here there is little chance that this enquiry will bring that to light, short of Geoff Hoon having a brainfart and admitting to have personally put the bullet in Doctor Kelly's head.

And what's with the Foreign Affairs Committee releasing more press statements that they feel that Gilligan lied to them? Strange that the "let's all wait and see what Lord Hutton's enquiry finds out" only gets used when reporters are asking the Government hard questions.
 
 
Seth
19:25 / 02.08.03
Anyone else notice the revelation that Dr Kelly was found with electrocardiagram pads attached to him? Decidedly odd.

I heard that, and I didn't understand it either. Anyone have any theory as to why?
 
 
Not Here Still
16:57 / 04.08.03
OPB ...lady of the flowers (sorry dear, can't be bothered typing the whole thing..): that it seems that there's wide enough scope to find that the BBC have done something wrong, if they indeed have, but if it is the Government that are in the wrong here there is little chance that this enquiry will bring that to light


Nah, at the moment I'd say Hutton looks like being a good inquisitor into all this. The terms of the inquiry are going to be enough to completely fuck up the Government, I'd say - at least two resignations of ministers or senior officials will happen as a result, or I will kick myself in the head.

Hold me to it.

Anyway, we needn't worry: Kelly was a fantasist anyway. It's true: because, well, Number 10 say so.

Christ, why not just write 'liar' on the corpse and drag it through the streets? Fucking insensitive bastards. Of course, this is being denied now...

On the subject of the electrocardiam pads: you've probably read by now he was being treated for coronary artery disease at the time.


However, some say the pads are 'unusual' while other sources are suggesting they could indicate another reason for his suicide. Another day, another theory...

The funeral's tomorrow. Geoff Hoon won't be there; it clashes with his holiday.

He may as well book the rest of his parliamentary career off, as far as I'm concerned...
 
 
danielj
11:59 / 05.08.03
do we care what govt crony said what about whom?

i don't give a monkey's whether tom kelly said something offensive about david kelly or not. am i the only one who thinks that perhaps the only effect of this story is to help us forget what we were originally all wondering - how come 'we' went to war in the first place? why do the bbc insist on pushing a govt agenda on this one? even if the govt are a little embarrassed temporarily, they're still not being asked difficult questions about the substantive issue, so they're happy. what a load of codswallop.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
12:39 / 05.08.03
(From Not Me Again's Guardian link re: Geoff Hoon's holiday):
"He takes his own family commitments very seriously," said a Labour ex-minister. "If voters want ministers on the case 365 days a year they should employ robots."

Fantastic! Why did no-one tell us before that that was an option?
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply