Xtratime Community banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There are serious questions here around the issues of the BBC's future, (will it be regulated by an outside authority), and whether there should be another enquiry into how the intelligence community could have provided such bad information.

But personally, I'm much more concerned with whether a comedian somewhere has set this whole saga to the tune of Gilligan's Island yet? Surely someone has thought of this????

Something like...

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of fateful war.
That started on the British Isle, by way of an American boar.

The PM was a crafty guy, his spies were pretty daft.
The nation listened doubtfully, to reasons for attack..
to reasons for attack.....

The media started getting rough, it seemed Blair would be tossed.
Labour even turned on him, when Kelly was found offed
when Kelly was found offed...

Seeing this, the people cried, who's responsible for this mess?
The fingerpointing started then, here is our best guess...

There's Gilligan!
The PM too.
The Scientist.....who took his life...
The BBCeeeee
an apathetic public and Saddam....

here due to Gilligan's guile!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
Blair and the British government are 100% guilty of talking up the war. They are using this to divert attention. It is obvious that Lord Hutton is a jackass, that has his own interests at heart. He is not in a position to comment on anything about procedure at the BBC. There were no WMDs found so what is this jackass doing blaming only the BBC when it is bloody obvious that the government "sexed up" the document. Personally I couldnt give a flying **** about whether the war was justified or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't know enough about this story to argue, but I thought the point of Hutton's findings was to draw attention to unsubstantiated allegations made about Blair's intent to sex up the evidence.

You might be right, but how does that affect the BBC's obligation to be able to prove what it reports?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts
If I understood it right, the BBC had no proof (of course it such things are not written down :rolleyes: ) that the information was sexed up by the governement (which is strange because there is some indeed minor proof that Downing street 10 scratched certain bits of text to make Saddam look more agressive). Hutton's conclusion is that the intelligence service made an (honest?) mistake.

It's the oldest trick in the book.. "blame the civil servant" in the end that's why he's there for.

In the US the same thing is happening. The CIA is getting more and more blame that they misinformed the president. Strange isn't it. Bush (and in another way Blair) have decided to go to war still they need a valid reason and there all of a sudden two intelligence agencies from different countries make the same mistake and deliver exactely the information both leaders need.

Seriously how stupid do they think we are? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I didn't think Hutton made any conclusion about the nature of the intelligence service's mistake, honest or otherwise.

Hutton's job was to investigate Kelly's death, and Blair staked his career on his involvement. Questions may remain about the reasons for war, but surely the BBC owes Blair an apology over allegations made with regard to Kelly's death?

In answer to your question, governments basically think it's very hard to underestimate the stupidity of the public. In some ways, they're right.
 

·
HEY, WHA' HAPPENED?
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
"Lord" Hutton was part of the Bloody Sunday cover up. The whole Hutton report is an absolute white-wash, a public investigation fully indepedent of the government needs to be launched immediately.

Then again, it took 30 years for a proper investigation into Bloody Sunday...:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,867 Posts
Whatever you think about the reason's behind going to war, the Hutton report was not set up to look at those, but rather at an issue of journalistic ethics and methodology in a particular story. Unless a journalist has proper facts to back up their claims then he/she are guilty of fabrication and libel - or if you rather, guilty of 'sexing up' their story. It doesn't actually matter whether the story in question is true or false, if its not based on some sort of evidence then it does not stand up to scrutiny. This isn't just an issue about WMD and the iraq war, its about standards in general - news items should not be based on heresy or falsehoods, whether its on something like the EU directing that banana's have to be straight or making up stories to stir up hatred of asylum seekers or on issues like the war. Gilligan is a tabloid journalist and he used the method's of tabloid journalists in wanting to create the story rather than report it. Quality journalism, television news in general, and the BBC in particular should hold itself to higher standards than that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Exactly.

Maybe another enquiry with a different goal is a good idea, but as far as this enquiry goes, I think the job got done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,157 Posts
fangul you're a humorous character for sure.

Seriously how stupid do they think we are?
Well one version of the Bible (don't remember which one) says "the stupid are infinite in number" perhaps the respective governments are taking it to heart.
 

·
HEY, WHA' HAPPENED?
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
TB, the enquiry might be set up into the Dr Kelly question much more than the actual reasons for going to war its self, but I am still amazed that the great BBC come out covered in crap & yet the government, we are supposed to believe, are utterly & totally clean. It's preposterous. They were the ones who "leaked" Dr Kelly's name, which pretty much led him to being thrown into a spotlight he did not want.

That in turn led Dr David Kelly to slight his wrists. I cannot see why all the guilt should fall at the feet of the BBC, it's just utter rubbish.

Oh & on a sidenote, yes we should expect better from the BBC than Gilligan's report, but then look at things like Sky News or Fox News, compare it with News 24 & you will soon see how incredibly neutral the BBC are. The fact that they can even call the 2 News Inc stations "news" rather than "right wing propaganda tools" is ludicrious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,731 Posts
First of all kudos to Lord Hutton for such a splendid balanced report. The combined strengths of Blair and Alastair Cambell with all their aides would not have been able to write something more favorable to the goverment.

But after all.Hutton is an establishment man. Blair and his pal Lord Falconer knews this damn well when they installed him as head of the enquiry, what did you expect?

Still, this report can only be described as scandalus and of course, a whitewash, victimising entirelly the BBC and cleaning up the goverment. Yeah, Blair was rather innocent as far as Kelly's death is concerned (though, one cannot imagine that he did not give some kind of order while chairing these meetings) but how on the name of earth can Geoff Hoon and ESPECIALLY Cambell be let off? They practically spelled out Kelly's names to the journalists. How can Hutton come up with the conclusions he did? All Gilligan did was to claim that the goverment knew the intelligence was wrong - well, who is naive enough to believe they didnt? And the dossier WAS sexed up. Or made up entirelly. Gilligan was right and his sources were far more reliable than any other journalist coming up with crap? Why doesn't Cambell get so angry with other stories lacking clear evidence? Well, because he knows damn well that ONLY the BBC would give a fvck about procedures or what Hutton had to say. Other media would give Gilligan a pay bonus for all the publicity he stirred up. But BBC its chairman and its director general within two days- talking about head rollings. Now Blair is going to appoint someone of his trust, maybe even hand over the BBC to ofcom and soon enough the BBC will be barking up Blair's praise.

Considering that BBC excluded the other big media in the UK are Murdoch's who is on fine terms with Blair, this is effectivelly shutting up the only independent source of journalism in UK. Which is a great shame.

Justice... :rollani:
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top