Blair and the BBC

[London_Calling]

It’s a UK thing; if below doesn’t make any sense then please feel free to move on . . . I haven’t been this opinionated and animated about politics for some time. I am utterly outraged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3441181.stm
I’m now beyond angry, I haven’t been this furious for a very long time. How fucking dare Blair demand an apology in these circumstances.

I just don’t know what to say . . .

I believe it is my inalienable right as a citizen of this country to have at my disposal a robust, independent, unbiased news and current affairs network – I want and have all that guaranteed in law and by Charter and I want it funded not out of general taxation or subject to party political manipulation. And, yes, I do want it robust.

Everyone makes mistakes, ask Geoff Hoon who was also asked to apologise last week and didn’t.

I do not want self-serving c*unts like Blair and Campbell interfering with the day-to-day running of this news and current affair s network.

I feel this goes to the very root of the democracy itself; I cannot make informed decisions on issues of the day without that robust and independent source itself, or the standards it brings to the whole news ‘market’ in the UK.

I suspect and I hope this marks the beginning of the end for Tony c*nting Blair – I hope this is his Poll Tax and his ‘privatising the NHS’ (that sank Thatcher) all in one; I don’t believe this is acceptable, I do believe it demonstrates Blair has now moved beyond the political pale.

And I’m almost as angry with Greg Dyke for caving into the pressure - you’re supposed to stand up and fight you idiot, not become another pelt on Alistair Campbells belt. Idoit, idiot, idiot!

Blair, I hope and believe this really is the beginning of the end for you, you slimy, skanky big-teeth-grinning, win-at-any-price bastard. You taint everything decent you come into contact with.

I’m so, so really very angry . . I want to write more when I feel more coherent and calm.

God help me I’d like to punch his fucking lights out. And you too Campbell.

[alterego]

You think that’s bad? The Italian Prime Minister owns almost every single media outlet in Italy.
How’s that for unbiased.

[vibrotronica]

Is Blair still sticking by the “nuclear attack in 45 minutes” story? Hasn’t he gotten the “that statement is no longer operative” memo? How does he explain the utter lack of the alleged weapons he allegedly knew existed in Iraq? Why does he expect anyone to take anything he has to say seriously?

London Calling, who will publically denounce him for taking your country to war under false pretenses?

[Lamar_Mundane]

So if the BBC made up a story about you and broadcast it, and it was spread around the world as fact, you would have no problem with that? No apology necessary?

When a news service invents a story that impugns a persons character, it can hardly be called “independant, unbiased”, can it? In this case, at least, it was clearly pushing an agenda. I don’t think the resignations would be happening if they weren’t clearly at fault. This wasn’t a simple mistake.

[Bricker]

An independent review found that the BBC reported as true certain claims that were in fact unfounded. The acting chairman of the BBC acknowledged that the report highlighted serious defects in the BBC’s processes and procedures.

The Prime Minister was unfairly accused by a BBC report which was unfounded, and the result of serious defects in the BBC’s processes and procedures.

Why in heaven’s name should he not get an apology? He isn’t calling for the dismantelling of the BBC, for heaven’s sake, and even said that he expected the BBC to continue to question the government “in a proper way” - I infer that means by publishing the truth, as opposed to error.

I can’t for the life of me fathom your objection to this.

• Rick

[Reuben]

But Blair did lie! That 45 minutes claim - at that time the very centrepiece of the case for war he put to parliament and public - has long been proved to be utter horseshit, along with many others. Possibly he was misled by ‘intelligence’, but he’s a very clever man and I would bet absolutely everything I own he knew he was stretching the truth as far as he dared to. Hutton talks about No. 10 “subconsciously influencing” the JIC into providing dodgy intelligence claims, but that really is an insult to one’s own intelligence.

Certainly Robin Cook’s (then Foreign Secretary) bull-o-meter was in good working order, and he was on TV the other night providing a much more reasonable explanation for why Blair was so eager to follow America into war. According to Cook - and you’d think he’d know - Blair simply wanted to prove to George Bush that we (or himself and the Labour party at least) were still totally dependable allies.

It seems far more likely than anything else I’ve heard.

[Dead_Badger]

@Reuben

But Blair did lie! That 45 minutes claim - at that time the very centrepiece of the case for war he put to parliament and public - has long been proved to be utter horseshit, along with many others. Possibly he was misled by ‘intelligence’, but he’s a very clever man and I would bet absolutely everything I own he knew he was stretching the truth as far as he dared to. Hutton talks about No. 10 “subconsciously influencing” the JIC into providing dodgy intelligence claims, but that really is an insult to one’s own intelligence.

Well, that’s why we had a judicial inquiry, and the judge has come to the conclusion that he didn’t lie, at least in this instance. Maybe he’s being too trusting, but he has read through reams of submissions that you and I haven’t, and didn’t get to be a judge by being thick.

Yes, the 45-minutes claim has long since been proven to be crap, but the key word there is since. Personally, I’m willing to believe that this evidence was not willingly manufactured, at least not at the behest of the Prime Minister. What they are guilty of in my eyes is being far too willing to be convinced. The real shame about the Hutton report is that the terms were narrow enough to completely exonerate Blair without touching the wider questions, but at the same time forestall calls for a proper inquiry into the reasons for war. I doubt we’ll get one now, and that’s a very bad thing.

[Andy]

On Jeremy Vine’s show, Rod Liddell, the former editor of Today, said that anyone who believed Hutton’s report details and thus imagined the government was entirely innocent in this affair was being “incredibly naive”.
Of course, that constitutes proof of absolutely nothing, but I think it underlines the cynicism with which government and politicians are now considered. We now assume that the government is lying whatever it says…

[Reuben]

Ok Dead Badger, but here’s another thing:

If you were Prime Minister, wouldn’t you be absolutely furious that your own intelligence services have lied to you and caused you to unwittingly mislead the House of Commons (practically treason) and the public at large?

If it were me, I’d be mad as hell at such an appalling affront to democracy and I’d be yelling for a judicial inquiry myself.

[Celyn]

**

(Dead Badger)…The real shame about the Hutton report is that the terms were narrow enough to completely exonerate Blair without touching the wider questions, but at the same time forestall calls for a proper inquiry into the reasons for war. I doubt we’ll get one now, and that’s a very bad thing.

**
Well, that’s the important bit, isn’t it? The Hutton enquiry was to investigate the reasons for Dr. Kelly’s death, but not to address the supposed reasons for making war on Iraq, and that wild goose chase that was the hunt for weapons of mass destruction (plenty of those in the U.K., incidentally, if anyone wants to look).

The country deserves a full and independent enquiry into the circumstances surrounding Blair’s determination to follow Bush wherever he wanted to go.

I don’t always love the B.B.C., but ye gods - in general it is a Good Thing, and I’d hate to see it ruined by some ruthlessly self-serving politicians.

…

Unfortunately, the Hutton inquiry was not set up to investigate why we went to war with Iraq. Its remit was “urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly”.

The inquiry was a diversionary tactic by Tony Blair to take the spotlight off the justifications he gave for going to war. It also suited the Conservative Party who were, if anything, even more enthusiastic about invading Iraq.

Hutton has exposed the dubious morality of some in government. Whatever the fate of the various players in the tragic Kelly case, it has not dealt with the bigger issues.

…

http://owos.info/petition/hutton.php

Like London Calling, a bit too worried and angry to post very much of sense right now.
(Sorry, folks - have I lost the “quote” button, or has it vanished?)

[Lamar_Mundane]

There must be a lot more to this story than what is in the link provided.

Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly welcomed the statement, saying it meant both the BBC and the government could move on.

He said: “This for me has always been a very simple matter of an accusation that was a very serious one that was made. It has now been withdrawn, that is all I ever wanted.”

Mr Blair said he respected the BBC’s independence and expected it to continue to question the government “in a proper way”.

This hardly sounds like the government is going to dismantle the BBC and put Fox News in its place, as some of you seem to be implying.

[TwistofFate]

An independent review

Ah, if only.

[Gary_Kumquat]

Enquiry finds that BBC claims the government “sexed up” their document was false. Enquiry insists BBC management were at fault in not investigating this claim fully before it was released. Labour officials insist that BBC management should resign.

So, let’s apply this logic to some claims that definitely were false - the governments claims of Iraqi WMD’s. As such, surely Blair is at fault for not investigating this claim fully before it was released.

But somehow, I don’t expect this government to act with the same level of responsibility it demands from others.

[Avenger]

London_Calling for PM!

The evidence to the Hutton inquiry (as opposed to the laughable conclusions) was very instructive about the nature of the British Government. The only heartening thing about today has been the general reaction of contempt for the report that seems to be spreading.

[professorbiscuit]

I myself am completely speechless at the unimaginable arrogance of Tony Blair and the fuck-faced sectarian goon Hutton. The very idea that Blair thinks he can use the death of an innocent man to cover up the fact he took his country to war for no reason whatsoever other than to impress George W. Bush and his fellow bullies makes me very nearly physically sick.

Well, that’s why we had a judicial inquiry, and the judge has come to the conclusion that he didn’t lie, at least in this instance. Maybe he’s being too trusting, but he has read through reams of submissions that you and I haven’t, and didn’t get to be a judge by being thick.

Of course he’s not thick. His job was to make Tony Blair look good, and he certainly did that. The report wouldn’t have been nicer to the goverment if Tony Blair had wrote the fucking thing himself.

If you were Prime Minister, wouldn’t you be absolutely furious that your own intelligence services have lied to you and caused you to unwittingly mislead the House of Commons (practically treason) and the public at large?

So it was the British intelligence service that pressured Tony Blair into taking Britain into war? And here’s me thinking it was someting to do with a certain unelected simian-featured coke-addled fucknugget from the colonies. Ah, but of course! It was the secret services! Of course it would endanger national security to investigate them, so we’ll just have to drop the whole issue of why Britain went to war for entirely fictitious reasons.

This bullshit will not be stood for. This whole whitewash is a blatant attack on truth and transparency and will not be forgotten while Tony Blair is prime minister.

[Cervaise]

@London_Calling

…self-serving c*unts like Blair and Campbell

Crunts? Clunts? Caunts? Hmmm…

[Dead_Badger]

@professorbiscuit

Of course he’s not thick. His job was to make Tony Blair look good, and he certainly did that.

Well, this is of course your opinion to which you are entitled. The latter is factually incorrect, but never mind. Are you so convinced of your inerrancy that no reasonable person could possibly disagree? Have you read the many pages of evidence at Hutton’s disposal? Have you even seriously contemplated what the report actually covers, and what it means? Hutton had very specific terms of reference, and his report at most means that he believes that in this one very specific instance the government and the intelligence services did not knowingly insert a lie into an intelligence dossier. This is not a whitewash, this is one very narrow conclusion. He acknowledged as much, and it is difficult to see how he can be labelled a “fuck-faced sectarian goon” for not exceeding the limits of his brief. What did you expect, a p.s. saying “ooh but he’s a shifty one this Blair, gotta watch out for him”?

So it was the British intelligence service that pressured Tony Blair into taking Britain into war? And here’s me thinking it was someting to do with a certain unelected simian-featured coke-addled fucknugget from the colonies. Ah, but of course! It was the secret services! Of course it would endanger national security to investigate them, so we’ll just have to drop the whole issue of why Britain went to war for entirely fictitious reasons.

I think you need to re-read some posts here, because you’re frothing at suggestions that were never made. What is being suggested is that the desire to go to war led the search for evidence, and that this led to substantially false conclusions, whether by systematic stupidity or something more sinister. No-one has suggested that this was isolated to the intelligence services, and no-one has suggested that this is perfectly fine. What has been pointed out is that this has nothing to do with Hutton: if you believed that he was going to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the entire WMD question, you are guilty of self-delusion. Even the range of witnesses called should have indicated the scope of the inquiry to you long ago.

[fortytwo]

@London_Calling

…
…
I believe it is my inalienable right as a citizen of this country to have at my disposal a robust, independent, unbiased news and current affairs network – I want and have all that guaranteed in law and by Charter and I want it funded not out of general taxation or subject to party political manipulation. And, yes, I do want it robust.
…
…
.

I hope that’s what everyone in the UK wants too. I honestly believe that in general that’s what we get.
It may be simplistic, but if all the political parties are whinging and complaining about the BBC being too left/right wing or centre, then they are doing a good job.
The BBC is always my first port of call when a news item surfaces and it must be left alone to be truly independent.
We have no unbiased newspapers here so the BBC is our only choice.
(sorry about the lack of swear words in my post, but I’m really quite angry too )

[kaylasdad99]

@Cervaise

Crunts? Clunts? Caunts? Hmmm…

Try “Counts.”

I’d check the next Birthday Honors list if I were you.

In reality, I know nothing of such things as Birthday honors lists beyond what I can glean from Ken Follett, W. Somerset Maugham, and P. G. Wodehouse

[Bricker]

@professorbiscuit

I myself am completely speechless at the unimaginable arrogance of Tony Blair and the fuck-faced sectarian goon Hutton. The very idea that Blair thinks he can use the death of an innocent man to cover up the fact he took his country to war for no reason whatsoever other than to impress George W. Bush and his fellow bullies makes me very nearly physically sick.
.
.
.
Of course he’s not thick. His job was to make Tony Blair look good, and he certainly did that. The report wouldn’t have been nicer to the goverment if Tony Blair had wrote the fucking thing himself.
.
.
.
This bullshit will not be stood for. This whole whitewash is a blatant attack on truth and transparency and will not be forgotten while Tony Blair is prime minister.

I assume you have some objective evidence for the conclusion you seem to be offering above: that the judge was corrupt. You claim his job was to make Blair look good, rather than get at the truth. What’s the evidence for this claim?

• Rick