You give us a link to it Old Guy, if you are referring to something other than the one I linked to. Or do I take it that you are implying that there is something unreasonable about the suggestion that, if the Security Council wants to authorise military action or war, it should actually use language that says that.

All I've seen are resolutions talking about "serious consequences" and "decides to remain seized of the matter". Even someone who thinks that attacking Iraq is perfectly justified can hardly see expressions like that as carrying any significant weight or authority. They're meaningless flannel.

But that was an example I was giving of the way in which the headlines and the sound bites distort things, and how it's often possible, through the internet, to get at the facts and the press releases behind the stories. It would be equally possible to find a similar example in a very different political context.

In England at present, for example, we've been having this row over a bill which threatens to drastically restrict the right to make music. We've had statement after statement by ministers and press releases and often the newspaper stories, which have totally distorted facts that are there in black and white in the text of the bill concerned.