Who's to blame for Kelly suicide -- BBC or Blair?

[Aro]

The BBC have admitted to having a tape of the conversations between the journalists and Kelly.

Also, Gilligan checked quotes with Kelly

Gilligan is said to have made contemporaneous notes about his May 22 meeting with Dr Kelly in a central London hotel on an electronic device, which has been kept under lock and key by the BBC since its row with the government over the Iraq dossier erupted.

And since december likes opinion pieces so much, how about Don’t attack the BBC - you can’t win

What must be infuriating for Downing Street news manipulators, for that is what they are, is that they still expect the BBC to be different after all these years. “We appointed Gavyn Davies! Isn’t his wife Gordon Brown’s political aide? Isn’t Greg a party supporter? Don’t these people know we can snuff out the BBC charter next time round?” What Downing Street seems incapable of realising is that independence is so bred in the bone at the BBC that capitulating to governmental pressure would not only be impossible, but it would be wrong for everyone at the BBC, and for the national culture too, and ultimately for governments of every stripe.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
Well, so much for the much-vaunted, if quite illusory, claim that december is, at least, “polite” in GD.

*Originally posted by jjimm *
december, that’s very rude.

You Gentlemen are mistaken. In the above post, december has not trolled (for the second time in this thread alone), has not attempted to provoke, is not “rude” and has not stated it wouldn’t surprise him if I celebrated the death of 3,000 people.

There are no double standards on the SDMB and we all (Mods and Admins included) have the utmost respect for each other.

[MrThompson]

London_Calling, I know that was sarcasm, but I actually agree with what you’re literally saying - it seriously gets on my nerves the amount of abuse december gets, especially when it comes from people I normally agree with.

Bakhesh -

It might be irrelevant to you, but I’m quite concerned that my government may have illegally killed people in my name. That may not be the specific issue of this thread, but my point was how unconcerned people seem to be about hundreds of dead iraqis, but are very concerned about one dead british scientist.

That is a valid point to make, if somewhat on a tangent - all I ask is that you don’t try and mix the two issues, as happens a lot. (“I hate war, therefore everything the Government does or says is wrong.”)

As for casualties - well yeah, war sucks. Compared to the predicted months of fighting in Baghdad though, this to me was acceptable.
As to answer, the difference is the war is (arguably) justified. There can be no obvious reason for Kelly’s death, and so people are understandably upset about what’s going on at the centre of government.

Hence my use of the word essentially. I doubt very much if he would ever get tried for murder, but the end result is essentially the same.

How on earth does “essentially” change the meaning of what you’re saying? It just intensifies your statement, not alters it in any way.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**I wonder. CIA reports that they believe Saddam was reconsituting his nuke program and that the biological weapons facilities were in fact weapons facilities are known here as “bullshit.” **

Compare to dember’s record.

[december]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**A **BBC news report, timed at 17:16 GMT on Thursday, 29 May, 2003 (assuming you accept it won’t have been doctored):

I was willing to make that assumption, but now I’m not so sure. Here’s an example where the BBC rewrote a posted story in a way that significantly changed the context without noting that an edit had been made. In this case, the BBC appears to have made a correction. Still, their willingness to make a change without leaving a record of the original post is a bit troubling.

[Another_Clone]

So let me get this straight. This guy committed suicide, just to disgrace the English Prime Minister? Good God! Talk about a fucking drama queen.

I can hardly believe what I’ve just read. You are talking about an internationally-respected weapons inspector who was described by a colleague, on national television, as “welded to the truth”. In the nature of his job, he and other weapons inspectors gave similar interviews to that in which he is reported to have said the words “sexed up” documents. Several points arise:

1. Dr Kelly denied using the phrase “sexed up”. He said - and I believe him - that it was not a turn of phrase that he would use.

2. If this is true, then it casts doubt on the veracity of the details of the reported remarks. That is not to say that the reporting of the facts was completely inaccurate, just that some of it has been made more palatable for public consumption.

3. Ranged against the monolith of the BBC is another monolith, the Blair government. Since they gained office, their prime objective has been to avoid the PR catastrophes of the John Major government and clamp down with a vice-like grip on all bad press and so prevent it from becoming public. The Blair government will do whatever it takes to maintain its image. If this means that friends have to be sacrificed, so be it. Mandelson went; Campbell will have to go. Milburn has left, Cook has left, Short has left - this is a government spinning out of control.

Unfortunately anyone who gets in the way of the spinderellas receives brutal treatment. Kelly was one such. The treatment he received at the hands of the committee was savage. He was unused to the political world and was forced to give evidence to prove that he had committed an act of gross misconduct - something which was alien to the very nature of a highly principled man.

Kelly was caught between a rock (the BBC) and a hard place (the Blair government). Somewhere between those two - more likely imho to be the latter - were the hounds baying for blood. There had to be a blood-letting before anyone would be satisfied. I just hope that this dreadful turn of events - the fact that a highly principled man felt he had no course of action but to take his own life, will enable those in the BBC and more particularly the Blair government to reflect on their motives, their ambitions, and above all, to do what they tried to accuse Dr Kelly of failing to do - tell the truth.

[bonzer]

*Originally posted by Tee *
No, they’re real claims. The mobile facilites:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

…

So what’s the verdict.

Well, it seems that Kelly’s verdict on this was clear after having been shown them on his last visit to Iraq. From last Sunday’s Observer:

In one particular Kelly was definitively at odds with what both George Bush and Blair were claiming about postwar discoveries of Iraqi weapons. Both had insisted that Coalition Forces had found and identified two alleged mobile germ warfare laboratories. But Kelly had a totally different opinion, telling The Observer that he had examined the alleged labs in person and had no doubts about what they were intended for - the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons. ‘Exactly as the Iraqis described them,’ he would tell this paper.

[Tee]

wow, he was part of that. :eek: I guess he would be.

The papers reported the British verdict but not any names.

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by MrThompson *
**London_Calling, I know that was sarcasm, but I actually agree with what you’re literally saying - it seriously gets on my nerves the amount of abuse december gets, especially when it comes from people I normally agree with. **

He might get a bit less if he didn’t (politely) insult people, in the way he did to L_C in this thread.

[London_Calling]

I’m not sure it’s even that, jjimm. His big thing is tweaking someone’s nose just enought to provoke an outburst, usually of frustration pent up over a period rather than, say, indignation.

But taken in isolation, the response looks like a major overreaction.

He’s had some success with this tactic, notably in relation to Collounsbury.

So he’ll keep adding little provocations like this over time. I just hope to God I have better things to do in my retirement

[december]

Various BBC spokesmen described the source in several different ways, according to an article written by Gerald Kaufman, a Labour member of Parliament.

For, almost from the start, not only Mr. Gilligan but other BBC spokesmen had insisted that the source was, as variously described, “an intelligence service source,” “the intelligence agencies,” “an intelligence officer,” “a member of the security services,” “one senior and credible source in the intelligence services.”

The BBC’s Board of Governors, to whom the corporation is in theory accountable, on July 6 gave its imprimatur to the story in a statement, ascribing it to “senior intelligence sources” and “good contacts in the security services.” Yet Dr. Kelly, whatever his distinguished qualifications, was not, had never been, and had never claimed to be part of the security services.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105900755894546700,00.html?mod=opinion (link requires paid subscription)

Mr. Kaufman goes on to suggest that this scandal may lead to a change in the BBC’s structure.

For the BBC’s current 10-year charter period expires at the end of 2006, and before long the government will need to begin considering whether that charter should be renewed and whether funding by license should be continued, too. As recently as a year ago, it was taken for granted that charter and license fee would be renewed. Now, such an assumption might be mistaken.

All sorts of new agendas may be possible. One is a BBC, still in the public sector, that is governed not by a charter but by the same sort of communications act as the other broadcasting organizations. It cannot be ruled out that funding may come not from the license fee but from subscriptions. A minority, increasingly vocal, advocates the privatization of the BBC.

[MrThompson]

I just hope to God I have better things to do in my retirement

And this is where I see the hypocrisy - there have been a load of direct insults in this thread to him, where as he made one, perhaps not very nice, joke. Can’t you be the better man?

[SentientMeat]

BBC claim: Kelly was a senior intelligence official.
Reality: Kelly was a senior Ministry of Defence scientist with input and access to intelligence dossiers.

Government claim: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready and able to be fired within 45 minutes.
Reality: Iraq had absolutely no such capacity whatsoever.

Note that only one of these claims is being discussed here.

When he initiated his “defence by random and arbitrary attack” strategy I actually pitied Alistair Campbell, that he should resort to such a blatant attempt at misdirection. Surely nobody will fall for that, like David Blaine removing your watch so incompetently that he asked you to help him undo the catch?!

I was wrong. Here we are.

[MrThompson]

BBC claim: Kelly was a senior intelligence official.
Reality: Kelly was a senior Ministry of Defence scientist with input and access to intelligence dossiers.

But the BBC knew the difference for certain.

Government claim: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready and able to be fired within 45 minutes.
Reality: Iraq had absolutely no such capacity whatsoever.

Prove it. Cite absolute evidence.

I really wish people would stop saying things in this thread that may well be true, probably are, but that we don’t know for certain yet.

There’s also a difference in the kind of claim in that intelligence is always a judgement call.

[Avenger]

But the BBC knew the difference for certain

No they didn’t. Andrew Gilligan knew who his source was. Do you really think he went around the BBC telling everyone elwse who works there. Now, no-one has directly cited any examples, but I think it was quite possible that some BBC reporters misreported the nature of the source, although Gilligan did not. But that is only of the same magnitude of journalists of any other news organisation who may have done the same thing: slightly sloppy journalism, nothing more.

Government claim: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready and able to be fired within 45 minutes.

Prove it. Cite absolute evidence

What??? Have you really been asleep for the past four months. US and UK soldiers have been to the places that these weapons would have had to have been. They’re not there. Absloute evidence of a negative. I guess not. Do you have a shred of evidence in favour of the claim?

[MrThompson]

*Originally posted by Avenger *
**No they didn’t. Andrew Gilligan knew who his source was. Do you really think he went around the BBC telling everyone elwse who works there. Now, no-one has directly cited any examples, but I think it was quite possible that some BBC reporters misreported the nature of the source, although Gilligan did not. But that is only of the same magnitude of journalists of any other news organisation who may have done the same thing: slightly sloppy journalism, nothing more. **

Well yes, I agree completely. It’s not a gigantic issue - but it is a factual innacuracy that at least someone in the corporation should have known for sure on.

**What??? Have you really been asleep for the past four months. US and UK soldiers have been to the places that these weapons would have had to have been. They’re not there. Absloute evidence of a negative. I guess not. Do you have a shred of evidence in favour of the claim? **

I don’t really need any, since I’m not claiming anything for sure…

If you want evidence, I would say that British Intelligence would be it. Not sufficient evidence for certainty, but as I already said, enough that claiming that there was never anything there is too premature.

[yojimbo]

*Originally posted by MrThompson *
If you want evidence, I would say that British Intelligence would be it. Not sufficient evidence for certainty, but as I already said, enough that claiming that there was never anything there is too premature.

How about enough to go to war on? Remember we were told that there was evidence showing a realistic threat from weaponised material that could be launched in 45min. I don’t think it’s to premature to dismiss those claims. Weapons programmes may well be uncovered but not what was claimed IMO.

[London_Calling]

I think some folks (far from all) would benefit from stopping thinking of the BBC as one giant monolith. It isn’t, any more than, say, all ‘Palestinians’ or ‘Israel’ or ‘the French’
Anyway . . .

First question might (now) be; is Campbell setting the BBC up for a fall by leaking a story about himself he can readily deny and use as ammunition . . .: Personally, I doubt it. Andrew Marr (the reporter) is too shrewd to fall for that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3094667.stm
*“Intense speculation has grown over the future of Tony Blair’s communications director Alastair Campbell in the continuing fallout from the death of Iraq weapons expert David Kelly.

The BBC has learnt that Mr Campbell has told Mr Blair he wants to step down - but not before his name is cleared by the inquiry headed by Lord Hutton into Dr Kelly’s apparent suicide. “*

– This, then, is Campbell’s ‘Position A’. One assumes it will shift in tone and colour as matters proceed (especially as the Inquiry unfolds).
Second question might be; is this leak designed to take some of the heat off the two politicians under threat (Blair and Hoon) ?

[TwistofFate]

Second question might be; is this leak designed to take some of the heat off the two politicians under threat (Blair and Hoon) ?

If that is the case, I have absolutely no faith in the Hutton inquiry.

In fact, Inquiries involving agents of the British government regularly end up falling short of delivering full justice.

[december]

Andrew Gilligan will be spared embarassment, at least for the time being. He’s allegedly too stressed to permit his testimony to be made public. :rolleyes:

The publication of evidence from the BBC journalist at the heart of the David Kelly affair was delayed yesterday following a personal plea from the corporation’s chairman that publication might affect the journalist’s health.

In a surprise move, the Commons foreign affairs select committee said it would not publish the transcript of last Thursday’s evidence session with BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan that ended with the committee expressing serious doubts about his reliability as a witness.

Although the committee had pledged to publish the evidence this week, it reluctantly decided not to do so after Gavyn Davies, the BBC chairman, privately contacted Donald Anderson, the committee’s chairman…

Mr Davies’ office said the BBC chairman had told Mr Anderson in a letter that Mr Gilligan was “stressed”.

Following the evidence session with Mr Gilligan, Mr Anderson described the BBC reporter as “an unsatisfactory witness”, especially relating to the allegation he has made that Alastair Campbell, the prime minister’s media chief, added a claim in last September’s weapons of mass destruction dossier that Iraq could fire WMD within 45 minutes of giving an order. One of the critical questions that the transcript of Mr Gilligan’s evidence might answer is to what extent the journalist stated that the notion that Mr Campbell added the 45 minute claim was based on “a reasonable inference” or hard fact.

Tony Blair, Geoff Hoon, and Alastair Campbell will also be spared embarassment.

Yesterday’s decision by the FAC came as the government appeared to have been spared the prospect of live television coverage of this summer’s judicial grilling of Tony Blair, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary and Mr Campbell.

It looks like the British public may be forced to rely on second-hand sources.