David Kelly. How was his death the government's fault.

Solly · July 20, 2003, 06:54

The BBC used him as a "witness", distorted his statements to provide an anti-government slant to its reporting, and necessitated his appearance before committees to explain his role.

The government by interviewing him was clearing their name. The BBC lied and deceived, so it's only fair that the government speak to the individual concerned.

Suicide can not be blamed on anyone else.

Those who should be blamed here are Andrew Gilligan for blatantly lying, and the BBC for not sacking Gilligan earlier.

Dis · July 20, 2003, 13:36

It wasn't the goverment's fault. Certainly not Blair's.

What's wrong with you crazy Brits. You are becoming worse than the U.S.

Cruddy · July 20, 2003, 13:40

But governments ultimately have responsibility for everything.

That's what governments are for, Bodds. We all need someone to slag.

Apart from tin pot dictators of other countries, of course.

Agathon · July 20, 2003, 14:37

Um - it was the government's fault because he came forward to say that it might be him (which is still not proven) and was then hung out to dry by both his own department and the government who were looking for a scapegoat. The committee questioning him told him as much when he appeared.

This man had done nothing and he was hounded to his death to save a corrupt government from having to admit it misled the public.

The BBC does not have to reveal its source under any circumstances - that is the price we pay for a free press.

Az · July 20, 2003, 14:55

It was the government's fault because they killed him. Du-h!

Unless you believe that "suicide" story.

DinoDoc · July 20, 2003, 14:56

Who are you people talking about?

asleepathewheel · July 20, 2003, 15:11

Is this the same David Kelly that produces The Practice among other shows? And why would the BBC or brits kill him, tired of cheesy singing?

lightblue · July 20, 2003, 15:15

This Dr Kelly: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=92393

The BBC has now admitted that Gilligan used Kelly as the major source. This will ease the pressure slightly of the government, and put it full on the BBC.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · July 20, 2003, 15:16

It's just a media feeding frenzy, seized upon by other political parties desperate to claw back seats at the next election.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:18

Is this the WMD whistleblower? If so, it's awfully strange that he turns up dead after shedding light to the British government's lies.

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

If so, it's awfully strange that he turns up dead after shedding light to the British government's lies.

He said nothing against the government.

The BBC used him as their "source" and yet completely misquoted, misinterpreted, and distorted his story to fit their anti-war bias.

When the government committee questioned him, his story didn't tally with that of the BBC's report.

How this is exposing a government lie I don't know.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

How this is exposing a government lie I don't know.

forgive me, I'm not informed about what the BBC said about him or what words of his they used... all I know on the subject is what I've seen on CNN and MSNBC. The American media has labeled this guy a whistle-blower who got "taken care of", before he could contradict WMD evidence.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:24

but, dear Boddykins... since you seem to think the BBC lied and was wrong, I tend to think they are correct.

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:27

Even the BBC acknowledge they are in the wrong - I doubt the American press even understand this story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3081865.stm

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:28

*****, Killer, Liar:

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:32

According to the NY Times, Kelly emailed them explaining he wasn't misquoted at all... and to beware of "many dark actors playing games". Perhaps you should have posted a picture of Blair there Boddykins.

Cruddy · July 20, 2003, 16:39

Bodds, I read that article. You misread it, because no-one from the BBC is retracting anything.

Oh! Of course, they're a "biased left wing" media organisation anyway, according to you.

If that was the case, why would they put up a web page listing their criticism?

As for Gililigan being a liar - show me an Iraqi WMD capable of being launched in 45 minutes and I'll believe Campbell.

Until then, HE is the liar.

GePap · July 20, 2003, 16:39

This whole thing is absurd.

The BBC reports that the gov. 'sexed up" the weapons Dossier by putting in the 45 minute bit, which in light of all current info, certainly was Sexing up, since it does not look like the iraqis had anything to get ready in 45 minutes, far less launch with. Where the BBC is at fault was for saying that Campbelll was the source: if he was not, that was a lie. But Campbell is not guiltless for his over the top campaing after that, and it wasn;t the BBC who kept putting pressure on Kelly, it was the government.

Campbell can eventually show he was not the one who "sexed up" the doggy dossier, but does anyone honestly (well, besides Bodd's, who is a lost cause) think that at the time it was made the "45 minute" bit was in any shape or fomr even a remotely credible claim to make? And to make the "centerpiece" of the document?

DinoDoc · July 20, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
According to the NY Times, Kelly emailed them explaining he wasn't misquoted at all... and to beware of "many dark actors playing games".

Quote:

Dr Kelly told the MPs he did not recognise Mr Gilligan's reports and evidence to the committee as being from his conversations with the BBC correspondent.

He said: "It is not a factual record of my interaction with him, the character of it, which is actually difficult to discern from the account that is presented there."

He added later: "From the conversation I had with him, I do not see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making from the comments that I made."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3082007.stm

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:41

I agree with Cruddy. So DD, Bodd's... show me proof that Iraq had WMD capable of striking London, NY, or Washington in 45 minutes, then I'll consider your BS.

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:42

Thanks Dinodoc, yet..

Quote:

BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan, the author of the report, added that Dr Kelly had not been "misquoted or misrepresented".

I suppose it's easy to lie about what someone said now that they are dead.

The BBC have more than the government to gain by "disappearing" Kelly.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

I suppose it's easy to lie about what someone said now that they are dead.

... as you are proving so

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:43

The issue here Sava isn't even really about the 45 minute thing.

DinoDoc · July 20, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I agree with Cruddy. So DD, Bodd's... show me proof

Why should I? I'm just showing that the BBC misquoted Kelly, something which you denied.

S. Kroeze · July 20, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
He said nothing against the government.

The BBC used him as their "source" and yet completely misquoted, misinterpreted, and distorted his story to fit their anti-war bias.

When the government committee questioned him, his story didn't tally with that of the BBC's report.

I am immensely pleased that 'someone' was present during the two conversations -with two independently operating journalists from the BBC- Dr. Kelly entered into about the use of British intelligence by the government!
And it is truly a relief that this 'someone' knows down to the last detail the origin of British intelligence and of ALL information provided by the Blair government.

I suppose you will testify before the independent committee that will investigate this sad affair.
I wonder why a committee is needed, since 'someone' seems to know already exactly what has happened...
Doubtless Saddams weapons will be found in the near future!

Evil Knevil · July 20, 2003, 16:45

Liar
Killer (Of Iraqis).
One bullet.

Solly · July 20, 2003, 16:46

"From the conversation I had with him, I do not see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making from the comments that I made."

Dr David Kelly.

This is what the issue is about.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Why should I?

If you ever want to rise above Fez status...

Quote:

I'm just showing that the BBC misquoted Kelly, something which you denied.

I didn't deny, I just presented evidence to the contrary. My official position is that I don't know what to believe. But since you and Bodd's seem to think the BBC erred, I'm forced to disagree because you guys are generally off-base.

GePap · July 20, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
The issue here Sava isn't even really about the 45 minute thing.

Ity isn;t? Isn;t that why Cambel went full out against the BBC, parlimentary investigations called and so forth?

The BBC does not have to reveal sources. I already said that if they attributed to Campbell something Kelly said then THAT is the BBC's sin. How would have the BBC saying Kelly was the source have leesened pressure on Kelly? Then Campbel would have gone after Kelly (as he already had), since they can;t admit that the 45 minute claim, was well, absurd.

Sava · July 20, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

"From the conversation I had with him, I do not see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making from the comments that I made."

Dr David Kelly.

This is what the issue is about.

Unfortunately, there are two sources claiming to be presenting Kelly's words, that contradict each other. I don't know what to believe. I tend to support the BBC because they reported that Blair's claims of Iraq's WMD capabilities (45 minutes) was false. I agree with that. The UK government did "sex up" the intelligence just like the US. Why should I believe this next round of lies?