[willed]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

I still trust the BBC, and think that the report was practically a white-wash. Although the BBC made mistakes, the report fails to acknowledge those made by the government, and the danger is that people will see the report as vindication for the war with Iraq as a whole, which it is not.

[GG Allin]

God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb

God save the queen
She aint no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future no future
No future for you
-Sex Pistols

I know this is a silly reply I was just itching to use a Sex Pistols quote somewhere!

[ThinkInsane]

That's great raskol. You've been allowed to stay on this account because you have toned it down, but keep on topic or go elsewhere.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
That's great raskol. You've been allowed to stay on this account because you have toned it down, but keep on topic or go elsewhere.

Come on, substitute Blair for Queen.

[undotwa]

A whitewash? No wrong doing is covered up. The Hutton Report wasn't meant to be an inquiry onto the validity on going to war etc. it was purely done to investigate the circumstances of the death of David Kelly, which found the BBC primarily at fault.

It was quite clear that BBC editorial standards having been dropping over the years. Hopefully this will put an end to it, and so their editorial comments will become more constructive and balanced.

I do think however, another inquiry is needed to investigate the circumstances on going to war (I know one is being conducted in Australia, but I am not sure about Britain).

[undotwa]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb

God save the queen
She aint no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future no future
No future for you
-Sex Pistols

I know this is a silly reply I was just itching to use a Sex Pistols quote somewhere!

That is some of the most offensive trash ever written.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by undotwa:
That is some of the most offensive trash ever written.

??? That's laughable.

In the right light, study becomes insight
But the system that dissed us
Teaches us to read and write

So-called facts are fraud
They want us to allege and pledge
And bow down to their God
Lost the culture, the culture lost
Spun our minds and through time
Ignorance has taken over
We gotta take the power back
Bam, Here's the plan
Mother **** Uncle Sam
Step back, I know who I am
Raise up your ear, I'll drop the style and clear
It's the beast and lyrics they fear
The rage is relentless
We need a movement with quickness
You are the witness of change
And to counteract
We gotta take the power back

The president curriculums
I put my fist in 'em
Eurocentric every last one of 'em
See right through the red, white and blue disguise
With lecture, I puncture the structure of lies
Installed in our minds and attempting
To hold us back
We've got to take it back
'Cause holes in our spirits causin' tears and fears
One-sided stories for years and years and years
I'm inferior? Who's inferior?
Yea, we needa check the interior
Of the system who cares about only one culture
And that is why
We gotta take the power back

- RATM

That better? Both songs of rebellion.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by undotwa:
That is some of the most offensive trash ever written.

Where have you been for the last... 28 years?

"Turn down that Rock-N-Roll!!!"

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Where have you been for the last... 28 years?

"Turn down that Rock-N-Roll!!!"

Now why can't I put things so succinctly?

[daimoni]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Now why can't I put things so succinctly?

Because you quote bands like RATM? Kids these days!

Rewind and listen to Gang of Four or The Pop Group or something else less derivative.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Because you quote bands like RATM? Kids these days!

Rewind and listen to Gang of Four or The Pop Group or something else less derivative.

You're mean. I give you a compliment and you criticize my choice of lyrics. And I'm 33. I just sound like a kid in here.

I went from 1976 to 2000? as an example. It is a bit harder to find lyrics from more obscure bands.

[SimeyTheLimey]

That reminds me, why the heck doesn't the iTunes store carry bands like the Sex Pistols? I'd like to replace some of my old tapes, but I can't just download them.



It's a Rock and Roll Swindle, that's what it is.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That reminds me, why the heck doesn't the iTunes store carry bands like the Sex Pistols? I'd like to replace some of my old tapes, but I can't just download them.



It's a Rock and Roll Swindle, that's what it is.

The whole music biz is a swindle.

Good question. I don't use iTunes. If I pay for music I want CD quality. A lot of the old music though sounds just as good in MP3. Especially the punk stuff because the production quality wasn't as high. The Sex Pistols should definitely be purchased on CD though. What happens if your hard drive dies? You gotta buy the music all over again. F**K THAT.

What is the bit rate on iTunes music. 128k is crap.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
The whole music biz is a swindle.

I guess that one flew over your head.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
You're mean.

True. But I still love ya.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That reminds me, why the heck doesn't the iTunes store carry bands like the Sex Pistols? I'd like to replace some of my old tapes, but I can't just download them.

It's not very punk to pay for them.

Hey undotwa: Do you have a link for that Australian inquiry? I wasn't aware there was one.

Our conservative government has been doing it's own damage to the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Co). Is it "biased" reporting of the war to reflect what most of the population think of it? I'd say that's a failure to run propaganda.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess that one flew over your head.

I thought you were being clever!!

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by daimoni:
True. But I still love ya.

Say it like you mean it. pouting.

[Monique]

The way the BBC behave is proof that even now the most repected news organization in the world is acting like yellow journalism because the public want them to.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Monique:
The way the BBC behave is proof that even now the most repected news organization in the world is acting like yellow journalism because the public want them to.

There is a serious risk of instability in the western world now. You have a lot of people looking around having to defend positions that are really indefensible. I'm talking about people asking questions that are becoming more about the foundation of our systems of economies and policies.

I am sure that the BBC is responding to pressure by powerful people that are very concerned that this could balloon into something much larger unless somebody puts a cap on it. The propaganda machine is in high gear trying to spin this charade. Bush has made it very difficult. He has unmasked the hidden agenda behind American foreign policy.

[dialo]

Some background on hutton:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284545.html

[lil'babykitten]

The Hutton report was a whitewash. The BBC made mistakes and they have admitted that. The government has also made mistakes and they have not yet acknowledged this. Hutton was far from independent - that is why Blair chose him.
What we need is a proper independent inquiry in to the intelligence used to justify the war. Fortunately there is a lot of pressure building up on Blair to do just that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3450251.stm

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That reminds me, why the heck doesn't the iTunes store carry bands like the Sex Pistols? I'd like to replace some of my old tapes, but I can't just download them.



It's a Rock and Roll Swindle, that's what it is.

Killing Joke, more likely

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Some background on hutton:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284545.html

Wow...great job posting this (and their compiling this) only after his ruling.

If Hutton's ruling had been pro-BBC and declaring that Blair & Co.absolutely "sexed-up" the dossier, the left would be holding the ruling (and Hutton) in the highest regard.

Instead, he issues a ruling that does not serve your agenda. So the left angrily condemns both he and the report.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If Hutton's ruling had been pro-BBC and declaring that Blair & Co.absolutely "sexed-up" the dossier, the left would be holding the ruling (and Hutton) in the highest regard.

And you (and perhaps Simey) would be dismissing it entirely as some kind of liberal conspiracy by Saddam-loving elites.

Since you place such complete trust in independent inquiries, I'm curious why you aren't trumpeting the Carnegie Endowment's report on the pre-war intelligence back here at home.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Interesting, and contrarian, commentary by Martin Kettle, writing in The Guardian today on Hutton, and the UK media's 'circle-the-wagons denial of its findings.

Having read the Hutton report and most of what has been written about it, I have reached the following, strictly non-judicial, conclusions: first, that the episode illuminates a wider crisis in British journalism than the turmoil at the BBC; second, that too many journalists are in denial about this wider crisis; third, that journalists need to be at the forefront of trying to rectify it; and, fourth, that this will almost certainly not happen.

The reporting of Lord Hutton's conclusions and of the reactions to them has been meticulous. The same cannot be said of large tracts of the commentary and editorialising - nor of much of the equally kneejerk newspaper correspondence. Much of this comment has been sullied by scorn, prejudice and petulance. The more you read it, the more you get the sense that the modern journalist is prone to behaving like a child throwing its rattle out of the pram because it has not got what it wanted.

Since in some quarters it has become almost obligatory to dismiss Hutton out of hand, it is necessary to reassert that the law lord did an excellent job in conducting his inquiry so briskly and transparently, and to stress that his report is overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence he received. This is especially true of what became the crux of the inquiry: the alleged sexing up of the Iraq dossier, Andrew Gilligan's reporting and the dispute over the naming of David Kelly.

From the start, though, too many newspapers invested too heavily in a particular preferred outcome on these key points. They wanted the government found guilty on the dossier and on the naming, and they wanted Gilligan's reporting vindicated. When Hutton drew opposite conclusions, they damned his findings as perverse and his report as a whitewash. But the report's weakness was its narrowness, and to some extent its unworldliness, not the accuracy of its verdicts.

There was rattle throwing from the right of the pram - "a great disservice to the British nation" (Sir Max Hastings in the Daily Mail) - and from the left - "Lord Whitewash" (Paul "We are paid to be cynical" Routledge in the Daily Mirror). But the worst example, appropriately enough, came from the man who has a good claim to be the author of the entire problem between Downing Street and the BBC, the former Today producer Rod Liddle.
From the start, though, too many newspapers invested too heavily in a particular preferred outcome on these key points. They wanted the government found guilty on the dossier and on the naming, and they wanted Gilligan's reporting vindicated. When Hutton drew opposite conclusions, they damned his findings as perverse and his report as a whitewash. But the report's weakness was its narrowness, and to some extent its unworldliness, not the accuracy of its verdicts.

There was rattle throwing from the right of the pram - "a great disservice to the British nation" (Sir Max Hastings in the Daily Mail) - and from the left - "Lord Whitewash" (Paul "We are paid to be cynical" Routledge in the Daily Mirror). But the worst example, appropriately enough, came from the man who has a good claim to be the author of the entire problem between Downing Street and the BBC, the former Today producer Rod Liddle.

Liddle is the man who hired Gilligan. He is also the man of whom a former colleague said (as told to Today's historian): "Rob didn't want conventional stories. He wanted sexy exclusives ... I remember Rod once at a programme meeting saying 'Andrew gets great stories and some of them are even true' ... He was bored by standard BBC reporting."

Liddle's article in the current Spectator exemplifies this approach, and incarnates a great deal of what is wrong with modern journalism. Liddle's article is wrong on the facts (Lord Franks, chairman of the inquiry into the Falklands war, was not a judge, much less a law lord), sneering (Lord Hutton's Ulster brogue is mocked, and he is described as anachronistic and hopelessly naive), and unapologetic (the best Liddle can manage is that Gilligan's famous 6.07am report went "a shade too far"). Above all, Liddle's piece is arrogant, embodied in his remarkable final sentence: "I think, as a country, we've had enough of law lords."

Think about the implications of that. To Liddle's fellow practitioners of punk journalism, it can be excused as sparky, or justified on the grounds that it is what a lot of other people are saying. To criticise it is to be condemned as boring or, like Hutton, hopelessly naive. To me, though, it smacks of something bordering on journalistic fascism, in which all elected politicians are contemptible, all judges are disreputable and only journalists are capable of telling the truth, even though what passes for truth is sometimes little more than prejudice unsupported by facts.

[more]

This paragraph pretty much sums it up:

So, hats off to the Economist editorial that skewered Gilligan for a report that was "typical of much of modern British journalism, twisting or falsifying the supposed news to fit a journalist's opinion about where the truth really lies. Some in the British media have described such journalism as 'brave'. Sloppy or biased would be better words".

[theolein]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
The Hutton report was a whitewash. The BBC made mistakes and they have admitted that. The government has also made mistakes and they have not yet acknowledged this. Hutton was far from independent - that is why Blair chose him.
What we need is a proper independent inquiry in to the intelligence used to justify the war. Fortunately there is a lot of pressure building up on Blair to do just that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3450251.stm

The problem with the Hutton report, and the reason that so many are upset with it, is because a lot of the evidence to the contrary of the Britsih government's opinion, which we read and heard about while the enquiry was going on, simply didn't appear. No one in the British government was even noted, let alone crticised, for David Kelly's naming, the fact which lead to his suicide.

It most definitely wasn't the BBC, for all its faults, that named David Kelly. And if the government was completely innocent why then did Alastair Campbell when the going got hot and the public got angry? He was not blamed in the Hutton report at all, but there was a lot of testimony about his meddling in the enquiry itself.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Since you place such complete trust in independent inquiries, I'm curious why you aren't trumpeting the Carnegie Endowment's report on the pre-war intelligence back here at home.

They're only "independent" if the right wing agrees with the results.

Edit: That works for the left wing too, though.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And you (and perhaps Simey) would be dismissing it entirely as some kind of liberal conspiracy by Saddam-loving elites.

Since you place such complete trust in independent inquiries, I'm curious why you aren't trumpeting the Carnegie Endowment's report on the pre-war intelligence back here at home.

Because the intelligence on Iraq that they accuse the Bush admin of misrepresenting is the practically the same information they themselves detailed in their 2002 publication, Deadly Arsenals, including itemizations of chemical stockpiles, claims that Iraq could produce a nuke within months, accounts of Iraq's non-cooperation, etc.

They need to get their story straight.

[version]

It's funny, all of this. Was just listening to a senior Labour party MP who accused Bush of setting up Blair, because Bushy-eyed-cracker-head is going to have his enquiry after the US elections, convenient for Bushbrain, but not convenient for the upcoming UK elections later on.

The Hutton report has been slammed all over the UK, mass demonstrastions of BBC employees supporting Greg Dyke, he himself now slamming the report. Hutton himself knew he didn';t want to be responsible for being the one who ousted Blair, hence the dubious outcome. Other problems incluyde widespread evidence that Kelly was murdered, close friends, forensic experts, etc. have attacked the final report for conclysively saying it was suicide.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because the intelligence on Iraq that they accuse the Bush admin of misrepresenting is the practically the same information they themselves detailed in their 2002 publication, Deadly Arsenals, including itemizations of chemical stockpiles, claims that Iraq could produce a nuke within months, accounts of Iraq's non-cooperation, etc.

They need to get their story straight.

Um. This report quotes intelligence as part of one chapter because the overall report in on proliferation trends.

The second report actually investigates the intelligence on Iraq and compares it to what we knew, what we know and more importantly what parts were omitted and distorted by the administration, the media and various parties within the intelligence community.

Sometimes there are very simple answers if you actually pay attention.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Um. This report quotes intelligence as part of one chapter because the overall report in on proliferation trends.

The second report actually investigates the intelligence on Iraq and compares it to what we knew, what we know and more importantly what parts were omitted and distorted by the administration, the media and various parties within the intelligence community.

The first report actually lists Iraq's chemical stockpiles and discusses Iraq's nuclear ambitions and capabilites. But report #2 'determined' that the Bush admin misled the public with the very information the Carnegie Endowment themselves documented in 2002.

You can't have it both ways.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The first report actually lists Iraq's chemical stockpiles and discusses Iraq's nuclear ambitions and capabilites. But report #2 'determined' that the Bush admin misled the public with the very information the Carnegie Endowment themselves documented in 2002.

You can't have it both ways.

Here's the actual chapter on Iraq:
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/n...f)/16-Iraq.pdf

The was before UNMOVIC and simply states the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA inspections up until that point.

We knew much more by March 03. UNMOVIC had unprecedented access and, even though it was just starting, actually allowed us to see that Iraq was no longer producing bio-chem weapons, and that absolutely no production or research on nuclear weapons were or could have been restarted.

WMD in Iraq - Evidence and Implications analyzed the information we had at the time the decision to go to war was made. Deadly Arsenals discussed what we knew from the inspections ending in 1998.

Deadly Arsenals demostrated that we needed to restart the inspection process in order to resolve the questions about Iraq's past WMD programs, something that no one disputes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
We knew much more by March 03. UNMOVIC had unprecedented access and, even though it was just starting, actually allowed us to see that Iraq was no longer producing bio-chem weapons, and that absolutely no production or research on nuclear weapons were or could have been restarted.

I'd love to see a Blix quote stating that "Iraq was no longer producing bio-chem weapons, and that absolutely no production or research on nuclear weapons were or could have been restarted," because if those were the findings and conclusions, Blix surely would have stated as much.

Of course, this would be at odds with Kay's report, which claimed that Iraq's nuclear program had been restarted in 2000-2001.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Blix surely would have stated as much.

No, Blix would have stated that we needed to continue with inspections, but that there is "no evidence" that support many of the Bush admin's claims, which he did in his report.

Of course, this would be at odds with Kay's report, which claimed that Iraq's nuclear program had been restarted in 2000-2001.

Actually, it was your imagination that claimed that. Kay claimed the following:

Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term

Of course, he still probably gives them too much credit.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by willed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

I still trust the BBC, and think that the report was practically a white-wash. Although the BBC made mistakes, the report fails to acknowledge those made by the government, and the danger is that people will see the report as vindication for the war with Iraq as a whole, which it is not.

You don't become a Lord without business interests.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by dialo:
...

**SMACKDOWN**

[dialo]

So now the hutton findings are under fire from the MoD's former leading expert on WMD.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=487557

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=487951