Wot ? No Hutton posts yet?? NM

Re: As snow jobs go .....

.. this beats the himalayas and more whitewash than on a Costa Brava timeshare (Boris Johnson) ...

a few years ago (1967) was instructed to visit the high court in edinburgh to admire scotland's foremost judge in action. the trial was the kirkaldy ballroom murder and the procurator's case rested on a witness knowing, without reference to a watch, how long an activity took. The great judge interrupted proceedings and asked the witness to advise when a minute had elapsed. He rolled the ermine from his cuff, looked at his wrist watch and said 'from now'. Whilst the judge's attention was focused on his watch, the witness did likewise on his watch and, exactly a minute later, shouted 'now'. the court collapsed in hillarity for some 10 minutes ...

if you ask me, hutton is that judge 36 years ago. to get a better grasp on human nature, a probation officer would have been better ......

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: As snow jobs go .....

I think there will be a back lash - not from the politicians - but the press - who see this as an attack on their freedom - will not let it go.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I find it hard

to imagine how Dr Kelly's family must feel about this.

They listened to all the same evidence as m'learned friend, and then they see him come to a completely different conclusion from 99% of enquiry observers. It must be gutting.

As far as I can tell Hutton is implying that the BBC is responbsible for Kelly's death.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 
Like a theatre performance

One goes to the theatre, sees a performance and has a strong view as to it's quality. The next day the paper carries a critic's comments that are diamtrically opposed to one's one, doesnt change one's own opinion. We all saw the evidence in front of Hutton and he did a v. good job eliciting this, but it is difficult to reconcile his report with the facts in front of him.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Like a theatre performance

you seem to be equating the considered opinions of a law lord acting properly in his place of work and within the framwork of english law with a retired law lord attempting to judge contemporaneous matters out of context both to his past experience and, arguably, to a context which itself was limited. the result was surely inevitable?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Come on guys credit where it\'s due

Admit it, this Hutton business has been a fantastic sideshow that has created a diversion from the real issue. i.e why did we go to war? What a smokescreen, everone talking about the BBC, Bliar back on his high horse, Campbell banging on about how he ahs been wronged blah blah blah, enough to make you vomit.

If heads are rolling at the BBC for what at worst is an error of judgement that might have ruffled a few feathers but did not get anyone killed, what will happen to the tossers in "intelligence" who we must infer completely screwed up. Perhaps when they have got their goolies in the nut cracker they may start being a little more expansive about the pressures they came under to justify war.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti war in the right circumstances (e.g.Falklands and the first gilf war), but this latest fiasco......I cannot help but think we were driven into this war by a crazed meglamanic (and George Bush). I only hope that their duplicity is exposed.

Sorry for the rant

<hr width=100% size=1>My drinking team has a sailing problem
 
Begging to differ

First point - there's nothing about law lords that makes them any more infallible than anyone else - even the pope. Indeed, you could eaasily make a case that because they are driven by very strict and highly specialist interpretations of the language of the law and of evidence, they are likely to construe (or misconstrue) things from that language that would never occur to those of us more used to using English as a means of communication, not of definition. From what I heard the ignoble lord saying yesterday, for example, I believe he got wrong the common understanding of the expression 'sexed-up', just as one example.

Secondly, as I understand it, Hutton's task was to examine and report on the circumstances which led to the death of David Kelly. Kelly died, allegedly, by his own hand because, presumably, of the intense stress the situation placed upon him. Did Hutton address how that stress was caused and how Kelly could have been protected from it? It seems to me that he did not - surprising when it is as plain as a pikestaff to the everyday observer that Kelly's employer could have and indeed should have taken measures to protect its employee, instead of exposing him.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 
Re: Spot on mate, couldn\'t agree more.nm

Two great charlatans of the week

Hutton and Nick Browne

wonder if Nick Browne was a plant from the first with a brief to turn at last possible moment to destro opposition .. wonder if he'll get Hoon's job. There is no depth that TB will not stoop to!

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
Re: Come on guys credit where it\'s due

hear hear

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
Re Exposed him to what?

The prospect of losing a cosy well paid 9-5 civil service job and being threatened with early retirement and a index linked pension.
Shame no one seemed to care during the Seventies about the people who could not face losing their jobs.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.
 
Speaks for itself

... until you get to the conclusions ..perhaps if a jury had been deciding matters of fact ...


(1) On the issues relating to the preparation of the Government's dossier of 24 September 2002 entitled IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, my conclusions are as follows:

(i) The dossier was prepared and drafted by a small team of the assessment staff of the JIC. Mr John Scarlett, the Chairman of the JIC, had the overall responsibility for the drafting of the dossier. The dossier, which included the 45 minutes claim, was issued by the Government on 24 September 2002 with the full approval of the JIC.

(ii) The 45 minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a source which that Service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some time in the future the report on which the 45 minutes claim was based is shown to be unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the Government decided to put it in the dossier, was an allegation which was unfounded.

(iii) The allegation was also unfounded that the reason why the 45 minutes claim was not in the original draft of the dossier was because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true. The reason why the 45 minutes claim did not appear in draft assessments or draft dossiers until 5 September 2002 was because the intelligence report on which it was based was not received by the SIS until 29 August 2002 and the JIC assessment staff did not have time to insert it in a draft until the draft of the assessment of 5 September 2002.

(iv) The true position in relation to the attitude of "the Intelligence Services" to the 45 minutes claim being inserted in the dossier was that the concerns expressed by Dr Jones were considered by higher echelons in the Intelligence Services and were not acted upon, and the JIC, the most senior body in the Intelligence Services charged with the assessment of intelligence, approved the wording in the dossier. Moreover, the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons section of the Defence Intelligence Staff, headed by Dr Brian Jones, did not argue that the intelligence relating to the 45 minutes claim should not have been included in the dossier but they did suggest that the wording in which the claim was stated in the dossier was too strong and that instead of the dossier stating "we judge" that "Iraq has:- military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them", the wording should state "intelligence suggests".

(v) Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy.

(vi) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC.

(vii) As the dossier was one to be presented to, and read by, Parliament and the public, and was not an intelligence assessment to be considered only by the Government, I do not consider that it was improper for Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting made by 10 Downing Street and to adopt those suggestions if they were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC. However I consider that the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which, whilst consistent with the available intelligence, was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment. Although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett, the other members of the JIC, and the members of the assessment staff engaged in the drafting of the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC.

(viii) The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case.


<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
Re: Speaks for itself

I'm not sure what you are saying Jimi. It seems well reasoned and conclusive to me. Even Michael Howard announced that he was prepared to accept the conclusions! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Speaks for itself

What I am saying is that the vast majority of people would conclude-

Aliistair Campbell got the JIC to insert the 45 minute claim in the report.
It was added to try and swing a parliamentary vote and sway public opinion.

Hutton makes his conclusion by taking Campbell and Scarlett's unminuted version off events as gospel. Personally I would'nt buy a used golf ball off Campbell .. and I'm sure Scarlett's pension is very secure

I also remain unconvinced that Dr Kelly committed suicide

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
Re: Speaks for itself

Dr. Kelly was under more than enough pressure to commit suicide.

The fact that the BBC was found 100% guilty of giving Tony and Alistair the mother of all diversions was only to be expected. The Hutton enquiry did exactly what it was supposed to do. He who pays the piper calls the tune...The eminent judge did the state (l'etat c'est Tony + Ali) some service.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Speaks for itself

Give over Jimi. I suspect that most people will conclude that Hutton held an enquiry, weighed up the evidence and found the BBC largely to blame. It really looks as if you are trying to distort the evidence to come to the conclusion you had arrived at before the enquiry even started.

I'm sorry, but your comment about the sad event of Dr Kelly's death shows that you must be in denial. You have no evidence to support your assertion.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Begging to differ

Just why should an employer protect an employee who had allegedly exceeded his remit in the way that allegedly happened here ? Allegedly.

The important thing here is that this enquiry (at the cost of huge sums of our money) has diverted us all from important issues. No, not the war itself - there was a time when a minor exercise like this in an uncivilised part of the world wouldnt have bothered us at all. Its the economic problems we have, the huge balance of payments deficit, the closing of manufacturing, waste in the public sector, an overlarge public sector that doesnt deliver etc that really matter

Hutton was a diversion.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

lustyd
NMEA2000 Barometer sensor (with Cerbo and Ruuvi)
Replies
18
Views
317
lustyd
lustyd
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 5
Replies
0
Views
281
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top