BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 08:30 AM

When Blair appointed Hutton to head the whitewash, he said,
" It is important that he does what we ask him to do. I do not think it would be sensible to do any more". And he did.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 06:51 AM

From Today's Guardian (If it went to the West End they'd call it Whitewash.

I particularly love

For the press benches, this was all too much. Several journalists began first to sniff, then to snort and finally to chuckle their derision. Jeremy Paxman, for once barred from asking questions, was shaking his head in bemusement as each new finding in favour of the government came down from the bench. When Mr Scarlett's subconscious was introduced, the room seemed to vibrate with mockery.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 05:42 AM

How predictable people should see this as a whitewash. Hutton's remit was to determine the events surrounding Dr Kelly's death, and not any wider issues. Charles Kennedy is right to pursue the need for a further enquiry and the Government and all other players should be held to account. Journalism in this country stinks - it is a series of soundbites strung together with no thought to the consequences. The arrogance of the press continues to astound me, yet still they are in denial when the finger was pointed their way. Pursue the truth about the Iraq War by all means, but don't expect to read it in the press or see it on the TV screen, anymore than you will hear it in the House of Commons. I for one are am heartily sick of picking through out of context sensationalised soundbites, which have themselves been sexed up by bad reporting to sell newspapers or tv programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 05:31 AM

Folkiedave: That 'World at One' newscast was covered in the 'Diary' section of today's Guardian. For those who don't know, that section is very light-hearted and perhaps more of a comic than serious writing. Nevertheless, here's what it says:

Hats off, first of all, to Lord Hutton for such a splendidly balanced report. Quickest out of the traps for the gloaters yesterday was ex defence minister John Glbert. He excelled himself on The World at One by seeming to hint at an illicit connection between BBC head of news Richard Sambrook and Newsnight's Susan Watts (now on maternity leave), speaking darkly of their "relationship". When presenter Nick Clarke asked what he meant, Lord G replied he knew exactly what he meant - at which point Clarke cut him off to avoid broadcasting a major libel. Marvellous work, Marina tells Lord G, but what were you on about? "Well, they got it totally wrong ... I mean, the presenter was so ignorant of the background that he tought I was talking about some kind of sexual relationship." Well, it did sound that way, to be honest. "Look, do YOU have any idea of the background of this?" What, the fact she hired her own lawyers as she felt under pressure from Sambrook? "Ah, well you do know then," he says. Marina points out that "relationship" sounds questionable. "Well, if one unfortunate word slipped out ..." It's difficult, live broadcasting, isn't it? Perhaps you should've scripted your two-way to avoid the risk of a monsterous howler? "Er, ... yes, I quite see."
Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 05:11 AM

Hutton can report until he is blue in the face but anyone with half an ounce of gumption who has followed the "shennanigans" of the major players in this sad tale will know what to believe. I understand that Hutton says it is legitimate for the Cabinet to demand re-presentations of Intelligence reports for its` own end; in other words to present to Parliament reports that look more attractive. I venture to suggest this borders on dishonesty or "sexing up" and when there is clear evidence of government "gurus" (Campbell et al) pursuing a policy of "f-----g" a journalist rather than offering a case to negate his report, one wonders whatever next? I also understand his report says Dr.Kelly what not entitled to officailly advise Milligan yet there are records on film of that expert sitting on high level media briefings throughout the world on WMD.
What are they like?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 05:04 AM

Even though the report may have an effect on the parties directly involved, I don't think it will do anything to change the "positions" of the general public regardless of what those were based on. People were laughing about it in the pub I went to last night.

For my part, I didn't from the outset, believe the report went far enough and believe we still need an inquiry into why our intelligence was so fundamentally flawed (surely no one can seriously believe the 45 minutes cliam was accurate).

My position has hardened if anything as I see the report as a complete an utter whitewash - I'd predicted it would be defensive of the government but not to that extreme. Rather than convincing me of the honesty of this government, and in particular that of Tony Blair, it has convinced me of how good we can be at whitewashing. I don't suppose it will make any difference at my level as I had already vowed I will never vote for a Labour government while Tony Blair remains in power.

I may be wrong but I now predict years of unrest and more costs before the matter settles. Maybe in 30 years time the truth about the whole Iraq issue will emerge...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jan 04 - 02:53 AM

There do seem to be a number of problems with the Hutton report, without raising any war issues, whether it was or wasn't fixed and so on. The 6.07 broadcast by Gilligan was something like "My source toldme X and my source, who is Y, is in my opinion reliable". (My italics, but the reference to the source was certainly in the broadcast) Hutton has concluded that X and Y were both false but that whether it was said by 'the source' is unprovable by Gilligan's notes.

Much of the media seems to be claiming that Hutton found Gilligan's statement false: it did not, it found it unproven.

Gilligan made, I gather, a further 18 broadcasts on that day without repeating the particular offending words. One way of interpreting this is that Gilligan himself did not regard them as the main point at issue. Had he repeated the same allegation throughout the day I agree the Government would have needed to respond in some way, but as the offending remarks had apparently been dropped within an hour or two even by Gilligan, it is at least worth considering whether the Government's response was proportionate or even the main cause that the statement became a story in its own right. Hutton does not seem to have investigated this.

Finally, and perhaps most seriously, I wonder about the suggestion that Gilligan's editor should have checked the script before the broadcast. This appears pretty innocuious and even perhaps self-evident, but I find it very difficult to see how this fits in with a 24-hour news culture where speed of response is one of the critical issues. I can see such an approach meaning that all UK 24-hour news broadcasts end up with a culture where everyone needs to confirm all statements with their superiors with the delays that implies, whereas non-UK broadcasts would be following different rules. That could have a long-term effect on the UKs competitiveness in the field. (I do, of course, agree that accuracy of response is also an important criteria.)

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Gareth
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 07:37 PM

Hmmm ! - There are a number of matters the report did not cover.

Not in any order.

1/. To what extent was Gilligan's employment with Associated News, the publishers of the Daily and Sunday Mail dependent upon him 'producing' anti-Blair stories, and using his repute as a BBC reporter to "evidence" them.

2/. Why did the Conservative and Unionist Party, and the Liberal Party acept the raw intelligence data (they were given, it under "Privy Council" conditions.)??? Was Kennedy drunk ??. Was IDS covering up his wifes non working time sheets ????

3/. Why did the lunatic fringe acept that, to use thier words, "Saddam had WMD because we (insert your bogyman) sold him them", and now say that there were not any ???.

4/.Why should any Government ignore the worst possibility, where the lives of inocents are involved ?????


No doubt the conspiracy theorists will have a field day and here is my contibution.

DR Kelly was murdered by a conspiracy of Saddam Hussain loyalists in the UK to distract from his oppinion tht Iraq had WMD's, and to divert attention from the mass graves then being uncovered.

Where was George Galloway that day ????

I think we should be told.

Gareth
(Yes - In my name!)

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Ed.
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 03:49 PM

The Government chose the referee so what other result could we have expected?

Perhaps more importantly, they also chose the terms of reference i.e. don't investigate WMDs or the what the '45 minute' claim really meant.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 03:32 PM

There was an interview with ?? on the "World At One" and the person being interviewed was about to say something about Sue Watts - the BBC2 reporter who also spoke to David Kelly.

He was rapidly shut up by the interviewer. The speaker certainly said something like "...did you not know she.......".

Now, what was all that about?

Dave
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 03:23 PM

Teribus: Jim's post certainly confirms your prediction. No surprise there.

I was delighted to see the report exonerate Tony Blair.

Any fair listener who heard David Kay's testimony today before the Intelligence Committee of the U. S. Senate would agree that the whole world thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. And that includes France and Germany. Kay also stated that it is conceivable that some might be found (but he doubts they will).

With or without weapons of mass destruction, removing Saddam from power was still justified (IMO).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 02:52 PM

The Government chose the referee so what other result could we have expected?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 02:46 PM

Just a few
ONE
TWO
THREE
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 02:27 PM

Well, I told you so, read further up the Thread.
What a parcel of scum-bags this Labour government is, scraping home by 5 votes as they ensure that only the rich can now afford an education, there own party members are beginning to see the light.

Throughout the centuries,The Brits may not have produced great painters, but they are unsurpassed as whitewashers.

Hutton`s report,an amazing conclusion by a first class creep.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST,The Stage Manager (stranded by snow at work)
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 01:14 PM

The Hutton Report makes me feel very uneasy., the country has gone to war, thousands are dead. Iraq is in ruins. The Chairman of the BBC has been forced to resign. Soldiers and civilians are still losing their lives, and not a hint of a WMD has been found. An eminent scientist is driven to suicide, and it is the BBC which is apparently at fault.

Hutton says "… in the context of Mr Gilligan's report, "sexed up" would be understood to mean the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable. This allegation is unfounded."

Unfounded?   How unfounded? Does this now mean that no one is allowed to question anything that H M Government convinces itself is true, regardless of what the patently observable facts might be?

I wonder would the BBC have avoided this embarrassment if its management had not lead it to "dumb down", and move to more tabloid formats in the drive for ratings.

SM

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 10:52 AM

Peter K (Fionn) Ref your post of 23 Jul 03 - 08:28 PM


"While the BBC, as an organisation, may aspire to the highest standards of ethics and integrity, some of it's employees obviously do not."(Teribus)

"There's nothing obvious about it, Teribus. Sounds to me like you've swallowed one hysterical rant too many in Murdoch's Sun. But cling to your prejudice if that's what makes you happy - and remember to keep your head in the sand when the Hutton inquiry reports, in case it contains anytning that might spoil your day." (Fionn)

From what has been reported so far Peter K - there's nothing spoiling my day with regard to the contents of the Report.

But Oh yeah - that'll be because it's a fix.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 04 - 10:29 AM

Refresh as Hutton Report now out.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 05:53 AM

Nice letter in todays's Guardian referring to Tony Blair's appearance before Hutton this week, by a Peter Cahill in Leeds:

What a novel and ingenious defence: "If I'd been lying, I would have had to resign. I haven't resigned, so I can't have been lying, can I?" We're all convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 05:38 AM

An important addition to this Thread, Tony Blair`s chief aide and spin-doctor supreme Alastair Campbell resinged his post yesterday.
This will suit Blair as it takes some of the blame away from him for the death of David Kelly.
The latest Poll on Channel 4 TV asking if you trust the Prime Minister, gave a 90 per cent NO. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:46 PM

Well there's more than one meaning for the word ring!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 02:59 PM

Except in real terms they aren't held in public. The media provide the circuses. And the Government tries to act as ring master.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 02:38 PM

As circuses are no longer PC, perhaps we could rework the old saw about all it takes to keep the people happy is bread, and circuses, and replace it with bread and public enquiries. Just as valid today, as it was in the days of the Roman Empire.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM

I think that the term "a whitewash", for a report on a public scandal that exonerates the authorities, should be superseded by the term "a Widgery". It would serve as a reminder that is, sadly, not unfair to be a little sceptical about this kind of operation.

I would imagine that Widgery might have made a very similar statement to Lord Hutton about his terms of reference. And he probably went to his grave perfectly satisfied that he had carried out his responsibilities honourably and satisfactorily.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 01:18 PM

Interviewed on BBC NI on Saturday Roy Hattersley was scathing on Blair`s choice.
Hattersley commenting on The Inquiry stated that this Inquiry was such that no one will be summoned to attend, their apperance will be on a voluntary basis.
What Inquiry?. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 01:10 PM

Ah, now Widgery, another master whitewasher, Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 10:30 AM

Lord Hutton's statement outlining his terms of reference for the Inquiry:

The government has invited me to conduct an investigation into the tragic death of Dr David Kelly which has brought such great sorrow to his wife and children.

My terms of reference are these:

"Urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly."

The government has further stated that it will provide me with the fullest cooperation and that it expects all other authorities and parties to do the same.

I make it clear that it will be for me to decide as I think right within my terms of reference the matters which will be the subject of my investigation.

I intend to sit in public in the near future to state how I intend to conduct the inquiry and to consider the extent to which interested parties and bodies should be represented by counsel or solicitors.

In deciding on the date when I will sit I will obviously wish to take into account the date of Dr Kelly's funeral and the timing of the inquest into his death.

After that preliminary sitting I intend to conduct the inquiry with expedition and to report as soon as possible.

It is also my intention to conduct the inquiry mostly in public.

I have appointed Mr James Dingemans QC to act as Counsel to the Inquiry and Mr Lee Hughes of the Department of Constitutional Affairs will be the Secretary to the Inquiry."

How's about giving the man a chance before you pre-judge his efforts?

Or is that a bit too radical a view to take for some in this Forum?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 10:06 AM

Widgery?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 08:02 AM

Here's what Roy Hattersley (ex-deputy leader of the Labour Party) commenbted about this in today's Guardian - "So why was Lord Hutton chosen?":

"...So, if he remains true to form, we can expect his inquiry to end as so many inquiries have ended. The report will be balanced and judicious, as is always the case. No one will be unfairly blamed, as they never are. But when was the last time a judicial inquiry was explicitly critical of a minister's integrity or the honesty of a senior civil servant? Not Franks on the Falklands war and certainly not Scott on arms to Iraq. On the rare occasions when that happens, the report is a sensation. We are at least allowed to wonder if, when Lord Hutton was adjudged to be "appropriate", the appointing authority recalled that sensation is not his style.

Which is a polite way of predicting a whitewash.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:26 AM

No response from Blairs instructions to Hutton?, just the usual personal welshing from Gareth. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 03:09 AM

Lord Chancellor that's better; now we're really talking Tony's cronies. Definitely impartial then?!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 03 - 02:40 AM

Thought Lord Hutton was selected and appointed by the Lord Chancellor - Not the Prime Minister.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:07 PM

The signature on IRA communications "regreting" the "accidental" loss of life. As you know perfectly well.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 11:05 AM

I wasn't talking about judges, ard macha, I was talking about reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:38 AM

Gareth, I thought you would have denied Blair had made that statment. Who is P O`Neill?, I do remember an Irish scrum half with that name. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:16 AM

Ard Mhacha. Joe Stalin would not have needed to issue that warning. Trouble is your views have become so twisted that you do not believe anything unless it is signed by "P O'Neill"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 06:13 AM

And another thing, Blair confirmed that he will co-operate fully with the investigation and is prepared to break off his family holiday in Babrbados if necessary, and in case Hutton isn`t fully aware why he was appointed, Blair stated, "It is important that he [Hutton] does what we asked him to do. I do not think it would be sensible to do any more".

Joe Stalin would have thought twice over issusing that warning. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 03 - 03:12 AM

McGrath, I live in the sick six and biased bigots acting as Judges have always acted on behalf of the British Government. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 06:11 PM

Sorry -- "most Jews are crooks" is still a generalization because it doesn't offer evidence that the majority are, and limits exceptions to the minority. Unless you have proof, you cannot make a blanket statement like that. IMO of course.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 06:10 PM

Correct

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 01:19 PM

So if someone who had run into some dishonest people who were Jewish, were to declare that "most Jews are crooks" that would not be a generalisation because it allows for exceptions?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM

Should have added Lord Hutton is the Judge appointed by Blair to head THE INQUIRY. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 12:37 PM

The Judge appointed by Blair and Co is far right Ulster Unionist Lord Hutton.
This man defended the British Gorvernment when the Irish Government took the Brits to The European Court of Human Rights on the treatment of internees, the European Court ruled in favour of the Irish.

He also lost out in the Super-grass trials giving combined sentences of over 1000 years on the evidence of a paid informer, the appeals were all won.

This man name is synominous with all things smelling of the establishment, you can be damm sure Blair knew who he was appointing, he sure as hell won`t rock the boat. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:13 AM

A generalisation makes no exceptions. Saying the majority accepts that there MAY be exceptions. No defence required.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:38 AM

Fionn,

Read what I wrote:

"...Andrew Gilligan, writing as a "Mail" reporter, uses the same interview material in such a way as to make it possible for anyone who knew Dr. Kelly, knew is work, or, who worked with him, to easily identify the source as Dr. Kelly."

The qualifications as to who would be capable of identifying Dr. Kelly in the above are clearly stated, which makes your latest opening remark -
"Teribus, you must be the only Mail reader who managed to suss Kelly's identity from that article." - rather ridiculous.

MGoH,

On the subject of reporters, both Goik and myself are speaking from past experience, I also believe that Ard Mhacha has voiced similar views again from personal experience and from noting the difference observing incidents and comparing his own observations to what is subsequently reported. You can only speak as you find - I know that for my own part, I would never willingly talk to any reporter in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 08:28 PM

Teribus, you must be the only Mail reader who managed to suss Kelly's identity from that article. Good of you to keep it to yourself for all those weeks before Kelly owned up.

While the BBC, as an organisation, may aspire to the highest standards of ethics and integrity, some of it's employees obviously do not. There's nothing obvious about it, Teribus. Sounds to me like you've swallowed one hysterical rant too many in Murdoch's Sun. But cling to your prejudice if that's what makes you happy - and remember to keep your head in the sand when the Hutton inquiry reports, in case it contains anytning that might spoil your day.

Giok, why not just admit you made a silly generalisation that you can't begin to defend?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 03:02 PM

Folk singers score pretty badly on those lists too.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:57 PM

Well Kevin we'll agree to differ on this one, I can't resist however in parting, reminding you of where journalists come on the list of least liked people; about on a par with politicians.
Surely they can't all be wrong?? ;-)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:26 PM

And as someone who worked got ten years as a journalist and has a son who is a reporter, you'll understand why I think that saying "a majority of journalists are scum" is just crap.

It's no different from saying a majority of Americans are scum, for example. Or Jews or Catholics or bald-headed men. And in all those cases it'd be perfectly easy to find lots of examples to prove the point. Except they wouldn't prove the point.

It's true enough, the way the newspaper industry is structured - ownership and control, production schedules, staffing levels, all knds of stuff like that - get in the way of journalists doing the kind of good work the majority would like to do, and that shows up in mistakes and in shoddy editing and sensational hackwork. But none of that is essentially different from what we get in the rest of this society generally.

I suppose you could say "the majority of human beings are scum", which would be equally valid - but I'd disagree with that too.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:07 PM

Kevin I did say the majority, and not all. Granted many reporters are working as hacks on local papers, but the MAJORITY of them would sell their parents parent, for a job on a national paper.
As one who has suffered at the hands of unscrupulous journos, believe me when I say that I know what I'm talking about.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 09:55 AM

"Kill the messenger"

Why David Kelly chose to kill himself (assuming that he did) is something people can only speculate about. However pressure from his employers is far more likely to be a signifant factor in triggering whatever it was that apparently have made him decide that he'd sooner be dead than anything the media did.

It must be a very frightening thing to realise that you have made enemies of ruthless and powerful rulers who are in a position to take away so many things you value.