Friday, 11 December 2009

Was David Kelly murdered on the orders of the British Government?


I wrote this lengthy post here about Dr David Kelly in July.

Dr David Kelly was the scientist who died days after being exposed as the source of a controversial BBC story on the Iraq war.

In my post I made ref to his "suicide", his weapons works , his connection to South Africa, and a potential legal challenge by some other doctors over an inquest into his death.

Well now the 6 senior doctors in question have begun legal action to force a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly

The action is being taken because six doctors are convinced that the original verdict of suicide is unsafe and should be overturned.

Some suspect that Dr Kelly, 59, was murdered shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC story which alleged that evidence against Iraq had been "sexed up" by the Government in order to justify the 2003 invasion.

The body of Dr Kelly, who was a UN weapons inspector, was found more than six years ago in woods near his Oxfordshire home after he went out for a walk. His wrist had been slashed. He also had painkillers in his bloodstream, although not at a lethal level.

At the time of his death, Dr Kelly was under pressure because it had emerged that he had provided confidential information for the BBC story.

However, in a 13-page dossier prepared as the basis for the legal action, the doctors argue that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery in his left wrist is "highly unlikely" to have caused his death. They say a number of studies have shown that it is unusual for a patient to die from a single deep cut to the wrist.

The revelation of the move for a new inquest is embarrassing for the Government, particularly as it comes just two weeks into the inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot which is examining Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. However it is reognised INHO that the Chilcott inquiry will be another Hutton style whitwash.

The doctors are applying to the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland for permission to go to the High Court for a new inquest, or the resumption of the previous inquest.

Now excuse me here but Baroness Scotland,............the illegal immigrant employer who is such a puppet of Gordon Brown............that we think she will actually in the best interest and impartiality of the law of the land permit this..........NO NOT ME!

Their case rests on section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act, which allows the High Court to order a new inquest, or to resume a previous inquest, in "special cases", including cases where "it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice".

Unusually, no coroner's inquest was ever held into Dr Kelly's death. Instead, the official verdict of suicide was provided by the Hutton Inquiry, commissioned by Tony Blair, the then-Prime Minister.

Nicholas Gardiner, the Oxfordshire coroner, initially opened the inquest but it was Lord Falconer, then the Lord Chancellor, who ruled that Lord Hutton's inquiry would fulfil "the function of an inquest". It concluded that Dr Kelly died from a loss of blood after cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife, having earlier taken a cocktail of painkillers.

Dr Kelly had been one of the few to examine, prior to its publication, the Government dossier that declared that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which could strike Britain in 45 minutes. The claim was used by Mr Blair in 2002 as a central justification for a war against Iraq.

The Government was incensed when Dr Kelly emerged as the source for the BBC's story. He was forced to appear before television cameras giving evidence to a House of Commons committee. Later he was taken away to be interviewed by the British intelligence services in a safe-house. In a telephone call shortly before his death, Dr Kelly said he would not be surprised "if my body was found in the woods".

The doctors say the Hutton inquiry was "totally inadequate" as a means of identifying the cause of Dr Kelly's death and they are seeking to obtain Dr Kelly's autopsy report.

Their main argument is that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery in his left wrist is "highly unlikely" to have caused his death. They say a number of studies have shown that it is unusual for a patient to die from a single deep cut to the wrist.

They say the Hutton Inquiry lacked the powers of a full inquest because it did not hear evidence taken under oath, it did not have the power to subpoena witnesses and it did not have the power to summon a jury.

They also say that the proviso which enabled the Hutton Inquiry to replace an inquest has only previously been used for mass deaths, such as the Ladbroke Grove rail crash or the inquiry in the deaths of patients the hands of Dr Harold Shipman.

Many Government critics, including Norman Baker, the campaigning Liberal Democrat MP, have claimed that Dr Kelly was murdered. A film, Anthrax War, alleged that Dr Kelly, who was the head of biological defence at Porton Down, the Government's secret military research establishment in Wiltshire, "knew too much". The film claims he may have been murdered because of his links to the West's secret germ warfare programme.

Dr Stephen Frost, one of the six doctors, who has spend six years studying the case, said: "We are determined to get to the bottom of this death. We will pursue it to the very end."

Dr Michael Powers QC, a medical lawyer and another of the six experts to put their names to the 13-page dossier, has said that the evidence for Dr Kelly's suicide is "very thin". The other four signatories include consultants and experts united by a sense of concern over the lack of a full inquest: Martin Birnstingl, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin, and Dr Andrew Rouse.

At the time Dr Kelly's body was found on July 17 2003, an unopened letter marked "personal" lay on the desk of his study. It threatened him with the sack if he ever repeated his indiscretion and spoke publicly – or briefed journalists – about his work.

Government sources dismiss suggestions that Dr Kelly was murdered and they are convinced the Hutton Inquiry's verdict remains safe.

Source

Do F******g What...........Babies with Bombs

I have just read about the most absurd anti-terror tactic now to be emplyed by our police and government.

Basically anti-terror police are to monitor nurseries for Islamic radicalisation.

In an e-mail to community groups, an officer in the West Midlands counter-terrorism unit wrote: “I do hope that you will tell me about persons, of whatever age, you think may have been radicalised or be vulnerable to radicalisation ... Evidence suggests that radicalisation can take place from the age of 4.”

What evidence..........who you expect to see a child looking like this, with a hat on like this ?????




The police unit confirmed that counter-terrorist officers specially trained in identifying children and young people vulnerable to radicalisation had visited nursery schools.

We then learn that Norman Bettison, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire speaking from his booze club oooops sorry I mean on behalf of ACPO on the Government’s anti-terror strategy, said that the officer’s e-mail was a “clumsy” attempt to explain it.

'But the email says they have visited already.............this is a policy they are acting on !!!!!!!!!!'

Bit more socialist stasi policing policy.
Postman pat has kept is gob shut I notice.


Source

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Russian Coalmine Accident

Russian News Film Crew.

There was an accident at a Russian coalmine and people were accused of drinking on the job.

Using quality investigatitive techniques the interviewer is trying to see if there is any truth in the rumour, and then one of the other workers turns up unannounced.

Don't need sound, unless you can speak Russian.


Willie Rennie loves tae eat!!

Members of the 646 club can claim 400 quid a month in food with not a piece of paper to prove it.


Willie Rennie MP ( My local Lib Dem 646 club fully paid up member) loves his food whilst away from home.

Some months he even likes to claim for a bit more than the free £400.00 no receipts required exp payment.

See Here

I will bet you he puts that down to a clerical error.
Well Mr Rennie I will say this..........If you are making errors like that you had better stand down as an MP as I do not trust you, and that error shows you are not fit enough to stand as a MP. I mean how can you be trusted to represent us when error are being made like that. What elese even more serious could you make an error with.

Now that has me concerned so as a result, guess what ............... I am gonna spend a quiet evening.......just me a wee bottle of Highland Park and trawl through these few sheets.....who knows what I may come up!!!!!!

BBC Question Time...........The Ratings Whores !!!

In what appears to be a blatant bit of ratings tourism, Question Time tomorrow comes from Wootton Bassett and is set up to be completely devoted to the war in Afghanistan. The panel will consist of former head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, and former News of the Screws editor Piers "Moron" Morgan. Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell will be on, presumably to shield Bob Ainsworthless from the public, as will Salma Yaqoob, the leader of Respect.

George Galloway has already got his ha'pennyworth in the much ignored Swindon Advertiser saying that the panel is biased in favour of the war, and the local mayor is boycotting it because he wants to talk about something, indeed anything, else.



Go see The Eye for more info.

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Tiger Woods Movitvation Poster



Please Read.............PMQ PM Insults the Disabled

A friend of mine, Elizabeth has a child with a speech disability.

Basically a lovely child who is mute.

During todays PMQ's our "most respected" PM made a reference to David Cameron and I quote ''sorry he had not lost the gift of speech''.

Elizabeth is furious.

As a result she has emailed the powers that be so too speak and is now starting to protest at this statement by the PM.

The email content is here and I have hiden Elizabeths surname for her protection.


From e c XXXXXXXXX
to "SHAYLOR, Christine"
cc Advice
date Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM
subject Re; PM Brown
mailed-by googlemail.com

12:35 PM (2 hours ago)


I am offended by PM Browns' address today (PMQs') to Mr.Cameron stating he was sorry Mr.Cameron ''had not lost the gift of speech''- as a parent of a non-verbal child, I am horrified, especially seeing as Mr.Brown is parent of a disabled child also, I would like you to please advise Mr.Brown to have a Social Work assessment for his parenting skills without delay - I am also complaining to the Disability Law Service

Yours sincerely,

E.C.Lucy XXXXXXXXX




I appreciate Cameron and Brown have a loathing of each other.
However when has the political debate meant that insults have now to be traded in this manner????

So I see fully where Elizabeth is coming from.
She has asked for the content of her email to be put around and used by others as you see fit.

So please feel free to publish/post on your blogs.

I hope she gets a formal reply............would be interesting to see it.
Let me have a copy if you do please Elizabeth?

"You see I ad this gezzer in me motor and he's only gone an said"


Yesterday at the Chilcot Enquiry we were given the testimony of the former Chair of the JIC, John Scarlett.

For intelligence studies scholars, this is a good moment.

In recent times we have had the Scott Report (1996), Butler (2004) and now this inquiry, which whilst not focussed solely on intelligence will mention it a lot. And even from one days testimony, we can draw some interesting lessons, some of which are now well rehearsed.

1) We went to war despite the evidence(?)

In the absence of a formal transcript from the Inquiry (it was only yesterday) cites have to come from the time-stamps of when evidence was given. At 1502 Scarlett said that intelligence was received stating that Iraq had begun dismantling some of its WMD. He said this wasn’t a ‘game-changing’ moment as it was assumed that this was part of a concealment programme.

We might all note a classic ‘group-think’ and ‘mirroring’ moment here. ‘If I was in Saddam’s shoes, I would do x and y’.

2) That the intelligence cycle was coloured by ‘boss think’(?)

This refers to the practice of finding evidence to fit the hypothesis of a strong voice in the room. It has often been referred to in this context – a decision taken by a small group, in which there is a strong voice. But we might equally apply it to a cascade of the sort of sofa-government that Blair was so fond. If Blair had signed up to the war in March 2002 (as per the testimony of Christopher Meyer two weeks ago) then it stands to reason, in the sofa-government model, that the chair of the JIC would come under indirect pressure (consciously or unconsciously) to be ‘on message’, although at 1625 he denied that he had come under pressure to ‘firm-up’ the dossier. I’m personally not sure it would be possible to be immune from the clearly stated desire of the Prime Minister to steer this course, particularly not in the small and necessarily closed community that formed the Core Executive in the run up to war. This sort of oblique pressure would also be likely to cascade down to the Assessments Staff and interested parties. This sort of cascade and social phenomenon would help to account for the 1502 statement above, and allegations made by the MP Adam Holloway that the so-called 45 minute claim came from an Iraqi taxi driver, and that some MI6 reservations about the intelligence had been ignored.

3) It’s the end-use of intelligence product that’s the problem(?)

The evidence given yesterday seemed to criticise Tony Blair for having given too much emphasis to the notion that the intelligence on WMD was ‘beyond doubt’ and whilst Scarlett said there had been ‘no intention to manipulate the language’ on the so-called 45minute claim (1529), it is clear that it was false and was retracted after the commencement of military actions in March 2003.

I have often thought that intelligence failure is rarely the fault of, or has been rarely caused by intelligence officers – more often than not it has been a wilful or accidental failure of communication between intelligence agencies and their political masters. In this case it seems to have been a fantastic case of boss-think and group-think. And as Chilcot said: “There is a sentence which echoes for me in the prime minister’s foreword: “What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt.” I just wonder, recalling that chapter one of the Butler report, whether it is ever possible to say “assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt”.

And that is the nub of all of this. Intelligence product is not fact. Not even when it is rigorously produced. It is a best guess, and a good hypothesis. And what’s more, intelligence and the policies that it informs (or reinforces) are better considered as part of a power-equation than a scientific process. From this limited snap-shot it appears that there were some crucial errors in thinking, and some wilful movements in certain directions – but it would be an error to lay the blame at the door of our intelligence agencies; they didn’t make the decision to go to war, nor did they play – it seems – a big part in it. They were used – rather instrumentally – to convince us of the need for war, and in that it is not just ministers that need to be educated in the use of intelligence, but us too.

Blair woke up this morning and I dont think he had the best nights sleep he has ever had.

Monday, 7 December 2009

Oh Yes !!

Trafalgar Day Speeches

The 23rd October marked Trafalgar Day.
To mark the day a speech was given by several high ranking military figures.

I have noted 2 of the speakers.
Surprised no one else pointed their comments out.



General Sir David Richards, Chief of the General Staff :

"This is a war that needs to be fought and can be won.....we haven't sold it very well and we need to do better."

"If the Afghan people asked us to go tomorrow, we would have to go. We are there under a United Nations mandate."

"If we give up Afghanistan tomorrow, I absolutely guarantee you that if you are an al Qaeda memeber or Taleban, they will pour back into southern Afghanistan and they will have the freedom to plan and train and conduct operations which now they don't have."

"General McChrystal talks about 2013 (for a pull out of troops). The Chief of the Defence Staff and I have said that's pretty challenging. Being cautious military men, we're talking about 2014."

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff :

Afghanistan must not be "the template for a future UK defence structure that can do nothing but more Afghanistans.....the range of threats to UK interests is greater than that."

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails