Has Ali Cambell ensured that the source sleeps with the fishes.
― Ed (dali), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:36 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:41 (twenty-two years ago)
BBC
― Ed (dali), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:42 (twenty-two years ago)
― ArfArf, Friday, 18 July 2003 08:31 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 18 July 2003 08:42 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 08:45 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 08:54 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― sb, Friday, 18 July 2003 09:10 (twenty-two years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:16 (twenty-two years ago)
the reason i don;t think it's faked is bcz that wd require the kind of cool, calculated plotting which would recognise the risks in herent in the strategy (if they knew for certain they had done EXACTLY what they were accused of, they would have front centre of their minds the worry abt WHAT IF WE'RE FOUND OUT? OUR ANGER ONLY RIVETS ATTENTION PLUS HUGELY RAISES THE STAKES)
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:32 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:36 (twenty-two years ago)
― chris (chris), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)
― kate (kate), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:44 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:47 (twenty-two years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 18 July 2003 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― kate (kate), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:08 (twenty-two years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― Alan (Alan), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:23 (twenty-two years ago)
his line was curious: he was grumpy and not very articulate, and basically taking the line that campbell had gone solo loco and was harming his boss who "we all" wished well, and that this kind of behaviour — eg campbell's tantrum — was resignation stuff
blair and bush have both enacted policy in a way that has stirred up the established political and government classes and orgs AGAINST ONE ANOTHER: they have made many of the agencies they depend on so angry with them that moles and whistleblowers are pouring out of the woodwork — how many fronts does blair think he can fight on? he keeps opening new ones!!
on the one hand, neo-imperialism blah blah: on the other, a sustained (unthinking?) assault by the administration in question on all the existing structures that can enable and sustain empires?
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 July 2003 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 18 July 2003 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)
It was crass misjudgement about how the public thinks. The public don't give a toss whether the dossier was "sexed up". Partial presentation of the facts is exactly the behaviour they expect from politicians.
Hounding the BBC is another matter. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the specific accusation, most of the electorate will believe that the BBC was trying its best to do an honest job in difficult circumstances. How do you report impartially on a war which even members of the government believe is being fought for different reasons than the ones given by the Prime Minister? Even if the BBC got it wrong in this narrow and particular instance, most people will believe its worst offence was to imply that a habitual liar might be lying. It was public relations own goal by the government right from the start, and they compounded it by hounding a particular journalist and a scientist who by all accounts was a decent, limelight-shunning professional, and who now appears to have committed suicide as a result.
None of this needed to have implications for the re-election of the government. It was always about Blair and Campbell's personal vanity. I doubt Blair recover from this. Claire Short's demand for a quick succession struck me as ludicrously out of touch with reality just a couple of weeks ago. Now it looks like the only option if the government is to survive in a condition fit to govern. If Blair is about anything more than personal ambition he will resign now.
― ArfArf, Friday, 18 July 2003 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)
The problem with this is that, if my suspicions are correct (and they are if his 'history' speech is anything to go by), Blair genuinely doesn't believe he has done anything wrong.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:17 (twenty-two years ago)
mainly i don't buy that this wz ENTIRELY calculated bcz it exactly does a lot of stuff they have always so very calculatedly avoided (such as AC putting himself in the limelight...)
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)
― ArfArf, Friday, 18 July 2003 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)
The Prime Minister's official spokesman says Tony Blair has not gone "potty".
The denial comes after Mr Blair was described as a "psychopath" in New Statesman magazine.
His spokesman describes it as a "very strange term to use" given the Prime Minister's record.
He added: "You have got to look at what the Prime Minister has achieved in the past six months in terms of handling major international issues like Iraq, in pursuing the goal of progress in the Middle East settlement, in pursuing public service delivery at home.
"I think you will see a Prime Minister who has a very clear sense of direction, who understands fully the difficult issues and the difficult decisions this country is faced with, who understands the need to maintain progress and to work through the process of investment and reform which the Government is.
"Therefore, the term 'potty', I think, is, if I may say so, potty."Psychologists and psychiatrists were invited to give their views of Mr Blair in the magazine.
It stated: "One view emerged strongly: there appears to be something worryingly adrift in the mind of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, a man who doesn't really know who or what he is.
"More technically, he is diagnosed as a psychopath capable of reinventing himself with remarkable dexterity, like an actor.
"What most people call 'spin', the routine lubricant of all political gearboxes, is, in Blair's case, eloquent self-delusion on a heroic scale."
Phew! That's a relief, then!
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:40 (twenty-two years ago)
― robin (robin), Friday, 18 July 2003 19:48 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)
― robin (robin), Friday, 18 July 2003 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 18 July 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Friday, 18 July 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)
Here's the scene the night before last. Note how his self-consciously 'relaxed' stance utterly fails to mask the inner turmoil, in contrast to her easy self-asssurance.
http://rarara.v21hosting.co.uk/photos/kellymastermind.jpg
― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 18 July 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 18 July 2003 23:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 18 July 2003 23:08 (twenty-two years ago)
I think the murdered conspiracy theories are completely unthinkable.Worst case scenario for the government i'd imagine would be suicide(because i really cant see it being a murder case)
― Ronaldo, Saturday, 19 July 2003 03:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 19 July 2003 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)
I can't see that the BBC has done anything wrong in this. It attempted to protect its source, and but for the scandalous actions of the MOD would probably have succeeded.
The Labour party will regret its short-termist and self-indulgent hostility towards the BBC. It will be much harder to complain if a future Tory administration bullies the BBC board into muting any criticism of the government. Labour may find it hard to get rid of a future Tory administration with most of the privately owned media in its pocket and a cowed BBC.
― ArfArf, Saturday, 19 July 2003 10:28 (twenty-two years ago)
― fletrejet, Saturday, 19 July 2003 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)
― piscesboy, Saturday, 19 July 2003 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Saturday, 19 July 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 19 July 2003 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)
― robin (robin), Saturday, 19 July 2003 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 19 July 2003 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 19 July 2003 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 19 July 2003 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)
― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Saturday, 19 July 2003 21:40 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 19 July 2003 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)