Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


David Kelly microbiologist and games death
July 20, 2003 2:09 AM   Subscribe

Kelly warned of 'dark actors playing games Dr David Kelly's recent death has the British press in an uproar. Kelly was the former head of biological inspections in Iraq for the UN mission, Unscom, former deputy head of Porton Down and the Ministry of Defence's senior adviser on biological defence. In July 2002. According to reports the Carlyle Group took a 34% stake in QinetiQ which was splitoff in 2001 from the Porton Down research lab and is now a private company according to this story The Carlyle Group is profiled here in this explosive explosive Dutch expose (note the first 1.48 minutes are in Dutch the rest is in English Since David Kelly was himself a micro-biologist in the past connected to Porton Down does he have any connection (as some have claimed: including a radio show I heard this evening) to the 11 or so micro-biologists that have died mysterious deaths after the 911 event? These deaths and there timelines are are extensively documented around the web.Including the following web page----(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/)---- Is this is an area some creative journalists need to investigate?
posted by thedailygrowl (48 comments total)

 
Given the Carlyle Group's portfolio, I'd bet that a large number of people who post here are themselves only a few degrees of separation from the company.
posted by shoos at 2:52 AM on July 20, 2003


so, metafilter killed him?
posted by quonsar at 2:57 AM on July 20, 2003


Breaking news: BBC confirms that Kelly was the source of the comments reported by Gilligan in the Today radio programme, and in the Mail On Sunday, and for a report on BBC's Newsnight.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:39 AM on July 20, 2003


I'm not sure if this post is a parody of the circuitous, distracted writing style amatuer conspiracy theorists use, or if it is, in fact, another example of that style. Fabulous either way.
posted by raaka at 4:28 AM on July 20, 2003


Let's rewrite this post, shall we?

Dr. David Kelly, expert on bioterrorism, recently committed suicide. Kelly, previously Head of Microbiology at Porton Down, and past advisor on biochemical weapons to UNSCOM, believed that Iraq acquired anthrax from an American lab, and was in posession of WMD. Dr. Kelly was the secret BBC source for stories that claimed that an Iraqi weapons dossier was sexed up.

Random information that doesn't have anything to do with the post: machinations of government and private industries, un-sourced stuff about death of a bunch of microbiologists, September 11th Something-Something.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 5:24 AM on July 20, 2003


I'd forgotten about the news of mysterious microbiologist deaths... here's a link to a globe and mail article for those who are interested.

Pretty strange stuff...
posted by Stuart_R at 6:08 AM on July 20, 2003


Is this is an area some creative journalists need to investigate?
....I would prefer it if the journalists were not creative.
posted by aramaic at 6:09 AM on July 20, 2003


It was the one-armed man.
posted by angry modem at 6:14 AM on July 20, 2003


That story about the 11 dead microbiologists is odd - no links made between them, just a list of mysterious and utterly pedestrian recent deaths. Not sure what to make of it. What's the average microbiologist death rate anyway?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:20 AM on July 20, 2003


The BBC (known to play fast and loose with the truth when it suits their agenda) interviewed the well respected Kelly and now, post-mortem, claims that he was their "deep throat."

Here's the money quote of Kelly's when asked if it was him, under oath, in a parliamentary committee:

"``I believe I am not the main source,'' Kelly told the committee Tuesday. ``From the conversation I had, I don't see how (Gilligan) could make the authoritative statement he was making.'' "

Did Kelly find out that Gilligan _was_ citing him as the source, find out that his reputation was in tatters as either A) He was the source and a liar or B) it wouldn't matter because once his name came out as the source at the Beeb, the beeb would be believed?

Blood on the hands of the Beeb, I'd say. I still can't see how this is blood on the hands of Blair or his government, which are mostly under fire for having policies that the Beeb disagrees with (in this instance).

Some creative journalist (or a parliamentary committee) really should look into the news reports on the Beeb. "Anti-government" doesn't per se mean "fair and honest" reporting, as their state sponsored charter requires.
posted by swerdloff at 6:27 AM on July 20, 2003


(and wait, let me try my hand at this conspiracy stuff...)

Bill Gates traveled to Israel and beats the 911 file. A treasure chest from Callahan's Place leaves the message. Fnord.

(Courtesy of Steve Jackson Games)
posted by swerdloff at 6:30 AM on July 20, 2003


One theory: there was a secret cabal of microbiologists behind the Anthrax attack in the USA and the CIA is killing them and/or there are internal disputes thus the suicides and homicides.
posted by stbalbach at 6:41 AM on July 20, 2003


Coincidence. Read that Lisa Belkin article and you'll think about the microbiologists and other such things in a very different way.
Something like that has to be more than coincidence, we protest. What are the odds? The mathematician will answer that even in the most unbelievable situations, the odds are actually very good. The law of large numbers says that with a large enough denominator -- in other words, in a big wide world -- stuff will happen, even very weird stuff. ''The really unusual day would be one where nothing unusual happens,'' explains Persi Diaconis, a Stanford statistician who has spent his career collecting and studying examples of coincidence. Given that there are 280 million people in the United States, he says, ''280 times a day, a one-in-a-million shot is going to occur.''

Throw your best story at him -- the one about running into your childhood playmate on a street corner in Azerbaijan or marrying a woman who has a birthmark shaped like a shooting star that is a perfect match for your own or dreaming that your great-aunt Lucy would break her collarbone hours before she actually does -- and he will nod politely and answer that such things happen all the time. In fact, he and his colleagues also warn me that although I pulled all examples in the prior sentence from thin air, I will probably get letters from readers saying one of those things actually happened to them.
posted by languagehat at 7:15 AM on July 20, 2003


Suicide?

Remember in "24" when Jamey's duplicity is discovered and she slashes her own wrist, but later Jack Bauer looks at the security tape and we see that it was really the deep cover agent Nina (who was a real cutey, darnit) who killed Jamey and made it *look* like an accident by cutting her left wrist?

Hmmm...

p.s. is the second season of "24" any good? I watched the first four hours of the first season, and then just read the plot summaries because the thought of sitting through 20 more hours of it made me tired.
posted by mecran01 at 7:16 AM on July 20, 2003


Blaming the Beeb doesn't seem appropriate to me. Yes, Kelly used his testimony to essentially say "I'm not the source." But what if Gilligan at the BBC said to him that he would never reveal that Kelly was the source? Wasn't Gilligan true and loyal to Kelly, despite the enormous pressure placed on him?

Doesn't Kelly's behavior after his testimony seem to indicate that he blames people within the British Government for selling him out, most likely in an attempt to punish him? Dark actors playing games indeed.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:39 AM on July 20, 2003


Blood on the hands of the Beeb, I'd say.

Nonsense. Gilligan's article was certainly questionable however more on that later.

Journalists have a very good reason for not revealing their sources, and that is to protect the people involved. Dr Kelly's death is what happens when sources are thrust into the public eye and are fiercely questioned by their employers.

Dr Kelly would not have committed suicide if his name had not been revealed by the MoD, it really is as simple as that. And before anyone else mentions that Kelly put himself forward, bear in mind that he had only done so assuming he would be protected from public exposure.

Oh, and Alistair Campbell is a vindictive bastard who apparently was screaming for the source's head on a stick from day one. I predict that if any heads roll over this, it'll be him.

Of course it looks like Gilligan lied. Which underlines just how pointless it was revealing the source in the first place. All the other evidence was that while the dossier was largely a work of wishful thinking, there was no evidence pointing to Campbell (or the government) being responsible for the infamous 45 minute claim. The media has ignored this absence of reinforcing evidence and has also been drawn away from the stuff Dr Kelly did say which debunks some of the dossier's claims (begging the question, if the governments foremost expert was ignored, who the hell came up with this stuff?).

It's a shame that the government is now so untrustworthy that a single news story based on a single source can cause them this much trouble. If shit sticks to them this easily, just wait until the story is true.
posted by dodgygeezer at 8:02 AM on July 20, 2003


swerdloff: the BBC were anti-government before 1997, but nobody minded then...
posted by wibbler at 8:02 AM on July 20, 2003


swerdloff, it is a bit disingenuous to lay the blame on the BBC for Kelly's death at this stage. What we do know is that the substance of Gilligan's Today reports were correct, that the government misled parliament and exaggerated claims of Saddam's capabilities. We know that the principle dispute of the government was whether it was Cambell that inserted the 45 minute claim and that in an effort to clear his name the MOD leaked Kelly's name to the press after Kelly came forward to his line manager, leading to his appearance before the select committee. Those that are against the BBC seem to be saying either one of two things, either that his death is the BBC's fault because they should have protected him by naming him (huh?) or that their report was incorrect because Kelly said he wasn't the principle source to the select committee when we now know he was. Whether that latter is the case or not is something that will surely be revealed given that a large number of material has been taken from Kelly's home and the BBC is to provide the Hutton enquiry with all the material that Watts and Gilligan took from their meetings with Kelly.
As for claims that the BBC is biased, I take great comfort from the fact that they are simultaneously accused of being both pro and anti Labour, that the web site that you linked to which accuses the BBC of being anti-American uses the fact that it's reports of US collateral damage were very forgiving as clear evidence that it is also anti-Israeli (huh?). I take great comfort from the fact that the BBC pisses off so many people by asking searching questions on a daily basis. If you were to take any single BBC in report in isolation, of course you could "prove" that they are biased. I remember a year or ago when Radio 5 had a morning long joint broadcast with a Palestinian radio station and some idiot claiming this was evidence of the BBC's pro Palestinian bias without mentioning the fact that only a week before, the same programme has been dedicated to the threat posed to Israel by Palestinian terrorists. I remember Scott Ritter on the very same Today programme that is at the centre of the current row getting audibly angry with the interviewer for daring to suggest that Ritter's claims that Iraq had no WMD was simply not true, that he could not be trusted and that Iraq clearly posed a clear and present threat to the US and UK, this from the corporation that some have pathetically dubbed the "Bagdad Broadcasting Corporation".
Those that line up to attack the BBC should perhaps look at some of the other news organisations, Sky for example who this week had a long standing reporter resign because he faked a story during the war, the "fair and balanced" coverage of the likes of Fox News and Al Jazeera, and the agenda based reporting of practically every newspaper in this country. Compare the breadth of coverage and opinion that the BBC provides to this country and the world.
I still can't see how this is blood on the hands of Blair or his government...
A man is dead because he was brought out of obscurity to clear the name of the governments chief communications officer on a single issue. He was placed under intense pressure by the MOD. Blair is in charge of the governments chief communications officer and the MOD. That's why.
posted by chill at 8:05 AM on July 20, 2003


That's right - If the Government and MOD hadn't revealed Kelly's position then nobody would be any the wiser as to who the mole was and Gilligan, like any honest journalist was right for both journalistic reasons, and Kelly's reputation, to not reveal his source.

I still can't see how this is blood on the hands of Blair or his government, which are mostly under fire for having policies that the Beeb disagrees with (in this instance).

This is nonsense - the Beeb are under fire for disagreeing with the Govt, since when was the Govt the poor and defenceless party? The beeb rightly questioned Blair's 45 minute claim - that is not disagreeing with Govt. policies, it's questioning Govt. claims.

Blair and Campbell created the 'trust' row to deflect WMD criticism - Kelly was the fall guy who spent 5 days being questioned by the MOD before he went in front of the committee - why was he a broken man at that point?

Just for good measure, Kelly did not believe that WMD could be fired within 45 minutes - the specific point Blair & Campbell have succeeded in clouding.

Some creative journalist (or a parliamentary committee) really should look into the news reports on the Beeb. "Anti-government" doesn't per se mean "fair and honest" reporting, as their state sponsored charter requires.

Pure wishful thinking on your part Swerdloff. Last time I looked 66% of the British public believed the BBC and not the Govt. The most recent parliamentary committee criticised the Govt and MOD over Kelly's situation. On the whole the British people are quite happy with the BBC - until Blair and Campbell instigated their witch hunt very few people had even considered that they were biased against the Govt. Indeed the expected line in most of the press is that the BBC is pro-Labour, filled as it is with Labour sponsoring and voting directors and Governor General.

On preview, exactly what Wibbler & Chill said.
posted by niceness at 8:14 AM on July 20, 2003


Doesn' t this remind you of Floor 13
posted by carfilhiot at 8:25 AM on July 20, 2003


It's worth noting that it was reported yesterday that Dr Kelly was threatened by the MoD with the loss of his pension - despite their public insistence that he would face no disciplinary action for talking to Gilligan. Nearing retirement, it's not hard to see how the threat of losing his job and his pension would be a frightening prospect for him. Gilligan might well face considerable blame for initially exaggerating the information Kelly provided, but the BBC has otherwise behaved in a proper manner throughout, and I don't hold with allegations of BBC impartiality - they are doing their job by questioning government claims of questionable truth. In contrast, a combination of Alastair Campbell's arrogant bullying, the committee's ferocious and humiliating interrogation and now apparent victimisation of Kelly by the MoD have not served to put the government in a good light.
posted by zygoticmynci at 8:40 AM on July 20, 2003


Dodgygeezer - if the Beeb spread lies and then tried to pin them on Kelly, then yes, the blood is on their hands. Especially if he was threatened with retaliatory action by his employers from something he didn't do or say.

As the british government is conceding:
MPS ROUND ON BBC

Dr Kelly's local MP, Robert Jackson: "If they (the BBC) had made this statement while Dr Kelly was alive, I believe he would still be alive and I think the chairman of the BBC board of governors should resign over this matter."...
MP Eric Illsley, a Labour member of the foreign affairs committee: "I think the BBC has got to look at itself long and hard now after Andrew Gilligan's latest evidence to the foreign affairs committee last Thursday."

---
How is it disingenuous to lay blame on any party at this stage, chill? The Beeb is certainly trying to lay it at Blair's doorstep, and this poster was trying to lie it on... the carlyle groups?

Follow me here:
Deep throat goes off record talking to a reporter.
Reporter falsifies part of what he said.
Deep throat denies he said what reporter purports he did, because reporter falsified part of it.
News organization refuses to do internal audit, points finger elsewhere.
Deep throat kills himself.

Who gets the blame? Deep throat? The reporter who smeared Deep Throat and ended him in bad stead with his employer?

Niceness, the Beeb is under fire for unbalanced reporting in the guise of balanced reporting. Which has been amply documented. They're a state funded organization with a state mandate. If the mandate says you must be impartial, then you must, or you lose your funding. It's not about a disagreement, it's about flawed reporting.

On the whole, Niceness, the American people are happy with Fox. I guess that makes them fair and impartial? And they trust Fox over the Beeb. Sorta circular logic if you ask me. Pure wishful thinking to believe that good ratings equate with honesty. Think: New York Times.

Dodgy, how on earth do you know why Kelly committed suicide? Did he call you? Could it be, instead, that he believed that the Beeb was about to go on the offensive, and smear him, and he couldn't handle being painted as a traitor (which he apparently wasn't?) Seems less likely, but certainly not impossible.

Bredth and a good reputation can be squandered, as the Times learned. I've got my money on the Beeb doing the same thing at the moment in this row. I think we'll find that this is the start of their Blairgate, especially, as has been contended, if this story was falsified at all, and they stood behind it.
posted by swerdloff at 8:56 AM on July 20, 2003


The most oppressive thing about the current situation is how we are now not allowed to question any sinister connections we find in this story. As I've posted (and sorry for the self-link, but I can't find it anywhere else), I have deep misgivings about the whole situation, as I mentioned on MeFi yesterday. And any misgivings and doubts we have are purely because we are fed bullsh*t from the Government constantly. Why should this, where the government are have the most to lose, be any different? Forgive the cynical aspect - it's just what we're used to.
posted by wibbler at 9:59 AM on July 20, 2003


Sounds to me like the Blair government will recieve the blame, as it appears that the family of Kelly and the BBC have an understanding.

In their press conference where they admitted that Kelly was the source, BBC director of news Richard Sambrook revealed that they only chose to give the public this information after personally speaking with the Kelly family. Apparently, the Beeb have the Kelly family's blessing to turn over all of their information that went into the Today program and Susan Watts' report on Newsnight for investigation. An inquiry by Lord Hutton will look into the facts surrounding the matter, and I suspect that the BBC will do stories that reveal the information that led to their reporting.

If the BBC had "sexed up" their report, then you'd expect that they wouldn't want to reveal their source -- and the source of their misdeeds -- so things don't look good for Blair & Campbell.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:09 AM on July 20, 2003


How is it disingenuous to lay blame on any party at this stage, chill?
For the simple reason that there are very few hard facts we know at the moment. Essentially all we know is that because of a report on the BBC that Kelly contributed to, the man was placed under intense pressure by both the media and the government leading him to take his own life. You can't from that entirely apportion blame to one party and exonerate another.
The Beeb is certainly trying to lay it at Blair's doorstep...
How can you say that? I just watched the BBC News and most of it was devoted to the role the BBC played had in Kelly's death, and interviewed a number of people that seemed to blame the BBC alone. It barely mentioned the role the government played. The press release from the BBC also failed to apportion any blame on the government and went on to say "the BBC is profoundly sorry that his involvement as our source has had such a tragic end."
posted by chill at 11:32 AM on July 20, 2003


1. Niceness, the Beeb is under fire for unbalanced reporting in the guise of balanced reporting. Which has been amply documented.

So far, we've seen one website run by two guys. If you're going to bring this to a forum, let's see the documentation. (Yeah, we all know how to use google, but it's your responsibility as the person bringing the alleged facts to the discussion to source them.)

2. This is misdirection. We're discussing Kelly's death and the possible factors responsible for it. There is exactly one story in question here, not the BBC's entire reportorial reputation.

3. Reporter falsifies part of what he said.

According to the government that he accused of wrongdoing. We have a he-said-she-said situation, and to state the British government's assertions as facts while stating that the BBC has a reputation for lying is disingenuous at best. No one but Gilligan knows what Kelly said to the BBC, and everything else is conjecture.
posted by blissbat at 11:55 AM on July 20, 2003


swerldoff: I'll see your BBC Watch with a Spotlight.

I'm with chill & others. Jumping to conclusions at this stage is for the foolhardy, the biased & the self-interested.
posted by i_cola at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2003


Just had to check my profile there - phew, didn't admit that I'm a microbiologist! And even if I was, I'm not a famous one, like those guys. And I thought all there was to fear was the damn bugs!
posted by tabbycat at 12:20 PM on July 20, 2003


Tabby - get a new job! Or at least stay away from cliffs, firearms, cars, dark alleys, fencing matches etc....
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:54 PM on July 20, 2003


Dodgygeezer - if the Beeb spread lies and then tried to pin them on Kelly, then yes, the blood is on their hands.

As you well know the BBC did not name him as the source until after he was dead.

Dodgy, how on earth do you know why Kelly committed suicide? Did he call you? Could it be, instead, that he believed that the Beeb was about to go on the offensive, and smear him

Smear their own source? That would strike me as a move of such stupidity that no one could predict it. And if you think when Kelly referred to "Dark actors playing games" he meant the BBC then you're clearly a few pawns short of a chess game.
posted by dodgygeezer at 1:13 PM on July 20, 2003


I hope I'm never in a situation so stressful that killing myself seems like a viable alternative.

If that, in fact, is what happened.
posted by mecran01 at 1:36 PM on July 20, 2003


It's VERY interesting that every time Dr Kelly's story is mentioned on the television, the BBC use the term "apparent suicide". Look at the BBC News website too - they say he was "found dead", and that he "died from a slit wrist". Very non-committal, and no mention of suicide at all. But it's been confirmed, hasn't it? Or do they know something we don't...
posted by wibbler at 2:21 PM on July 20, 2003


In fact i've just searched the site for "kelly suicide", and not once does it use the single word "suicide" - "apparent suicide", yes, and "bled to death"...
posted by wibbler at 2:26 PM on July 20, 2003


I don't really know what to make of this, so I'm taking some measures.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:37 PM on July 20, 2003


Could it be, instead, that he believed that the Beeb was about to go on the offensive, and smear him, and he couldn't handle being painted as a traitor

who knows, unfortunately. by the way, I think that Kelly's blood is on the hands of the person who named him first as the source of the report, outing him. simple as that.
and we all know who did that, so...

"apparent suicide", yes, and "bled to death"...
well, he's got a deep cut on a wrist. and a knife and painkillers were found next to the corpse.
but: no note, no eyewitnesses, so "apparent suicide" looks like serious, cautious journalism to me. we don't knowe anything about possible signs of violence on the body, drugs in the blood stream, etc
we'll have to wait for a thorough independent autopsy and a report
posted by matteo at 3:54 PM on July 20, 2003


I think that Kelly's blood is on the hands of the person who named him first as the source of the report, outing him

Indeed - that would be the MoD.


I don't think I have ever been as utterly fucking furious, ashamed and disgusted with any British Government as I am now (and I spent the Thatcher years in a blind fury).

How on Earth Blair, Hoon and Campbell can have the gall to stay in office and rule out resignation is utterly beyond me. Have we, the British people, really become so apathetic that we will allow our Government to use an innocent pawn so horribly, and lead him to his death, just so they could try and win a point on the BBC in their puerile spat?


The biggest question, I feel, is - what can we do about this? Blair and Campbell's positions are completely untenable, but they absolutely will not go. We now evidently have a PM and his familiar with absolutely no accountability or sense of perspective, proportion, or propriety. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Can we protest? Make a noise? The biggest demonstration in British history turned out against the war, and that was utterly ignored.

I passionately feel that this cannot be allowed to continue. This is a blot on the national character, and I for one feel deeply, deeply ashamed of what has transpired here. Something really has to happen here - this New Labour cabal cannot be allowed to continue to ride roughshod over the people, constitution and democracy.
posted by influx at 6:38 PM on July 20, 2003


So that's where those crop circles come from.
posted by HTuttle at 11:28 PM on July 20, 2003


wibler - they can't call it suicide until there's been an inquest.
posted by brettski at 1:47 AM on July 21, 2003


Peter Mandelson, a key ally of Mr Blair

- oh how I laughed.

(from the link provided by swervelord to the institutionally unbiased SKY)
posted by johnnyboy at 2:26 AM on July 21, 2003


swerdloff

On the whole, Niceness, the American people are happy with Fox. I guess that makes them fair and impartial? And they trust Fox over the Beeb. Sorta circular logic if you ask me. Pure wishful thinking to believe that good ratings equate with honesty. Think: New York Times.

Actually moronic logic, given the fact that the Fox folks have legally argued (and ultimately won) their right to lie. Decision here (PDF)
posted by magullo at 3:50 AM on July 21, 2003


From what I understand, Gilligan went off and did some more investigative journalism after speaking to Kelly. On the BBC (Breakfast TV) this morning, they said that he had a government source confirm the "sexing up" allegation, before they went to broadcast with the Today programme. If that's true, then I think this whole thing may backfire badly on the government.
posted by walrus at 3:56 AM on July 21, 2003


If that's true, then I think this whole thing may backfire badly on the government.
Actually, I'm beginning to think that the government is going to survive this. The government has been shown to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, the Prime Minister has been shown to have misled Parliament, Alastair Cambell has been shown to have chaired intelligence meetings and alter the dossiers in a way which adds weight to the government's claim. And yet, all the focus of the media is focussed on whether Dr Kelly uttered one single word to Andrew Gilligan - "Cambell", in other words did Kelly claim that Cambell was responsible for the specific claim that weapons could be launched in 45 minutes. A claim, incidentally, that Gilligan made in The Mail on Sunday, NOT the BBC.
The media has dropped the ball on this one, their delight at seeing the BBC on the ropes has allowed the government to avoid answering some very serious questions.
posted by chill at 4:21 AM on July 21, 2003


This morning's dark actors:
In the same National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) document which the Bush administration claimed on Friday to have been a supporting source for the "16 words" regarding Iraq, the US intelligence community says "the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States."

Here's what GW said to the nation five days after the report was released, and repeated throughout the pre-war period:
“IRAQ COULD decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,” President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. “Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”

And here's what he said during the aircraft carrier speech in May, as Saddam moved uncaptured through Iraq:
“We have removed an ally of al Qaeda,” Bush said. “No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime.”
posted by VulcanMike at 5:12 AM on July 21, 2003


(Link here)
posted by VulcanMike at 5:12 AM on July 21, 2003


Many of the British papers have laid into the BBC this morning. What have they got in common? They're all owned by Rupert Murdoch, a man hoping the government will let him buy Channel 5. Here's the Guardian article that tells all...
posted by wibbler at 6:30 AM on July 21, 2003


It's VERY interesting that every time Dr Kelly's story is mentioned on the television, the BBC use the term "apparent suicide". Look at the BBC News website too - they say he was "found dead", and that he "died from a slit wrist". Very non-committal, and no mention of suicide at all. But it's been confirmed, hasn't it? Or do they know something we don't...

Having grown up in Belfast when things that sounded too mad to be true turned out to be true, I'd feel that the implications are as they seem.
posted by jamespake at 8:27 AM on July 21, 2003


An interesting take on the affair from Ron Liddle, former editor of the Today programme which broadcast Andrew Gilligan's original report.
posted by i_cola at 8:40 AM on July 21, 2003


Thanks i_cola. That was the sanest opinion I've read about the whole debacle.
posted by walrus at 4:40 AM on July 23, 2003


« Older Campaign Donations Sway Lawmakers' Votes....   |   This... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments