Tony Blair adresses Congress

[Paul Hanson]

What's so stupid about having different policies in different areas?

[Solly]

Depends on the area of policy I would imagine. I'm sure Iain will venture more deeply into this now that you've posed the question.

Next, anyone feel proud seeing Blair's speech? Can you imagine Kennedy or Duncan-Smith being offered the opportunity of making one? No. The fact is that for Blair's slightly odd view of tax-and-spend, he is the most credible political leader we could have at the moment, or have had for a long while.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boddington's

Next, anyone feel proud seeing Blair's speech? Can you imagine Kennedy or Duncan-Smith being offered the opportunity of making one? No. The fact is that for Blair's slightly odd view of tax-and-spend, he is the most credible political leader we could have at the moment, or have had for a long while.

Are you mad?

His government has just hounded a man to death in its zeal to exonerate itself by violating the freedom of the press.

What a great leader!

[Solly]

I await the trial of Tony Blair for murder with suspense.

Perhaps Gilligan could be a witness.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boddington's
I await the trial of Tony Blair for murder with suspense.

Perhaps Gilligan could be a witness.

No one is suggesting he murdered the man.

But..

He tried to force the BBC to give up its source which is anathema to the idea of a free press.

He had his MPs grill this man and tell him that he was a scapegoat.

He basically tried to dump his own incompetence on this poor man who'd never done anything wrong - and hounded the man to suicide.

Doesn't smell fishy to you?

Well I imagine neither would the week old corpse of a sturgeon.

[Solly]

He tried to force the BBC to give up its source which is anathema to the idea of a free press.

The witness came forward of his own choosing. The BBC didn't "give him up" and neither did the government expose him.

He voluntarily came forward, while at the same time stating that what he did say was not along the lines of that reported by the BBC.

If the guy was not the source, all the BBC needed to do was state as such. That still protects the anonymity of the actual source doesn't it. Yet their failure to do this shows that Kelly was indeed the person Gilligan spoke to.

So in conclusion, if anyone is in trouble over this, it would be Andrew Gilligan for distorting a witness's statements in order to produce a report that went along with his anti-government views.

The BBC is not a free press. It is governed by its charter. That states it has to be unbiased. There are therefore serious question marks over its abuse of this charter.