Hutton enquiry .... establishment whitewash ???

[j-turbo2002]

j-turbo2002--

Well, I guess you told me.

Just for the record of those folks who id their nation, for the UK 4 (skirted uk, francis, firefox, calv) say whitewash, 1 (Dr. Shoe) had the affrontery to say what the investigation was really about, but faulted the report for only critizing one side, and 1 (Daz) faulted the report. For the US 3 (WarrenB, j-turbo2002, and Bubba136) praised the report. Not one US person faulted the report. Seems pretty obvious to me that Houston you have a problem, if you cannot notice and accept such a simple statistic.

Sorry, but an ad hominem attack even with a smiley face is still not an answer, nor an argument.

.........and you still screwed it up!

Instead, you are falsely accusing both WarrenB and Bubba of things that they have not done. Go back and re-read what Warren and Bubba wrote. Neither of them actually praise the report.

As far as I know, I am the only person who has praised it.

If you still think that both Warren and Bubba have praised the report I want you to go back and quote what they wrote of which gave you that idea.

Just to note, you can only use what was posted before this post. Everything posted after this post is not allowed.

For Example, I wrote the following:

I only have one thing to say about the Hutton Enquiry: Thank God for Tony Blair.

If you go back and look, you will find that neither Warren nor Bubba have written anything like this that praises the report.

Therefore, you are making false assuption about them both.

Just to note, I do not have any bad feelings towards Warren or Bubba.

[Dr. Shoe]

[quote name='"j-turbo2002

The BBC get around £2.6 billion from licence fees? When you think about this amount logically it just does not make any sense. [/quote']

Why is that?

The licence fee is £116 per year.

2.6 billion divided by 116 comes out to around 22,413,793.

I don't know how many households there are in the UK with equipment capable of receiving colour TV but taken with individual student and military accommodation the figures do add up.

(Current population is around 59.1 I think, that's an average occupancy of more than 2.6 people per household.)

Additionally, second homes (even caravans or trailers), business premises, hotels and any establishment that has a TV, video recorder or any equipment that can receive a TV signal must have a licence. This rises to around £1000 per annum if it is shown to an audience- whether they are viewing the BBC or not. Every pub or bar that shows sports coverage must strump up £100 before they even think of turning it on. Technically, you should have a licence for a radio (£15 p.a.) but this is not enforced.

Anyone who doesn't buy a licence ends up in jail.

[coolshoes]

Perhaps my reading skills are too highly refined in reading between the lines. WarrenB did write "Sorry, the BBC is far too biased." One would assume that the report was correct in its criticism of the BBC from that comment. Bubba wrote "...that the report was true...." So, again I would assume that he found the report worthy. For using the word "praise" perhaps I did go too far, but I still stand by my conclusion as stated. Also--as with you--I intend no offense to anyone. Just an observation on my part that seem of at least geographic interest. I have no idea as to the veracity of the Hutton report because I have not read it. But, Bush supporters do seem to think that it cleared both Blair and Bush in the matter of their interpretation of the risk to the world of WMD supposedly held by Saddam.

[j-turbo2002]

Okay, I never thought that I would admit to this but for the first time I actually agree with Dr. Shoe. I never thought that I would stoop that low. This is news to me. I knew that the BBC was taxpayer funded but 2.6 billion dollars worth - holy shit! Well, "hells bells" folks, there you have it. I guess that if I had to pay £116 to the lowsy BBC a year I would be calling the report whitewash too. Somebody to tell those socialist, leftist, big government safety net loosers over at the BBC to go and compete like all of the other news organizations! Or perhaps, maybe they fear competition?

[j-turbo2002]

Perhaps my reading skills are too highly refined in reading between the lines. WarrenB did write "Sorry, the BBC is far too biased." One would assume that the report was correct in its criticism of the BBC from that comment. Bubba wrote "...that the report was true...." So, again I would assume that he found the report worthy. For using the word "praise" perhaps I did go too far, but I still stand by my conclusion as stated.

This is all very nice to hear. However, you are still relying on assumptions. You are not relying on fact.

There used to be a saying:

When you assume something you make an "ass" out of both "u" and "me".

[Dr. Shoe]

Okay, I never thought that I would admit to this but for the first time I actually agree with Dr. Shoe.

I never thought that I would stoop that low.

This is news to me. I knew that the BBC was taxpayer funded but 2.6 billion dollars worth - holy shit!

Well, "hells bells" folks, there you have it. I guess that if I had to pay £116 to the lowsy BBC a year I would be calling the report whitewash too.

Somebody to tell those socialist, leftist, big government safety net loosers over at the BBC to go and compete like all of the other news organizations! Or perhaps, maybe they fear competition?

Terribly sorry. If I knew for one second that you'd be agreeing with me I'd have written something else!

Also, the licence fee is paid in pounds sterling (2.6 billion of them) which is about 4-4.5 billion dollars or so, depending on how weak the dollar is at the time). I know I split hairs but my father confuses dollars with pounds all the time!

I hate to admit it but I do agree about the losers at the BBC. They spent around a million a few years ago publishing a pamphlet for staff explaining how to open doors! If their salaries weren't handed to them through legalised extortion then they wouldn't waste any of what they do.

Another point; The BBC is not solely a news organisation (if they were they'd be bankrupt by now), they are a general broadcaster of current affairs, light entertainment, drama and the arts.

[Firefox]

This is news to me. I knew that the BBC was taxpayer funded but 2.6 billion dollars worth - holy shit!

Well, "hells bells" folks, there you have it. I guess that if I had to pay £116 to the lowsy BBC a year I would be calling the report whitewash too.

Somebody to tell those socialist, leftist, big government safety net loosers over at the BBC to go and compete like all of the other news organizations! Or perhaps, maybe they fear competition?

£ not $, as stated, so even more than you think

Re second paragraph, I struggle to understand your argument. If one is anti the licence fee and anti the BBC then surely one would be supporting the Hutton report, if one works to the basis you allude to.

Re: last paragraph. They would like to compete and host advertising, but they operate under restriction of no advertising to keep them "independent." This works fairly well when an organisation funded by Gov/taxation criticises the government as in the Gilligan report.

[stilettos]

Is this really the american view?

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

[Bubba136]

i think you have to take way o'l bubba said in context. Here's what I wrote:

God! conspiracy theories abound. You guy's would never let any amount of evidence that the report was true come between you and the conspiracies

now, that's not me saying that I thought the report was true. It is me merely saying that most of those that believe the report was a whitewash of the Hutton affair, wouldn't believe any amount of evidence that it wasn't -- no matter who said it. Their minds are made up.

And, I'm glad to know that Dr. Shoe has a father. Now, we've got to teach him the difference between dollars and pounds sterling. Could really be useful if he lives in the UK... :rofl:

[j-turbo2002]

Re second paragraph, I struggle to understand your argument.

I am indeed sorry. I should have added a or perhaps a :drinking: at the end of that sentance.

That statement has nothing to do with my stance on these issues. Instead, I was being sarcastic by making a truly false generalization about certain people in this world.

Oh, BTW, that is £2.6 billion. Are you happy now?

[j-turbo2002]

Is this really the american view?

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

Well, I cannot answer for the rest of the America.

However, that is definitely "My Word".

Oh, BTW, thanks for posting that video. Guess that I will have to start watching more Fox News.

[stilettos]

Well, I cannot answer for the rest of the America.

However, that is definitely "My Word".

Well in that case maybe you can explain to me the link to America in the Hutton Inquiry because I can't find it, and where America was mentioned in the Hutton report because I can't find that either.

[Bubba136]

A report produced by America's National Public Radio Ombudsman, Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, analyzes the BBC/Hutton affair. While not attempting to ascertain wheather or not the BBC report is factual and true, his points speak to the mistakes the BBC editors made by not applying appropriate oversight and that Reporter Gillian made throughout this entire episode by not checking his facts thoroughly and by letting his personal feeling for, and distaste of, Tony Blair and his administration get in the way of producing a report based on factual evidence. He said:

The Hutton Inquiry into the BBC concluded that the world's most reputable public broadcaster let politics get in the way of good journalism.

and follows up with his reasoning that:

Gilligan didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Lord Hutton concluded that his report was not based on any credible evidence.

Which, in my opinion is the real crux of the matter.His postulation that:

At the BBC, there seems to have been a general assumption of wrongdoing on the part of the government. No one in any position of editorial responsibility was prepared to ask the most important question in any investigative journalism: "How do we know?"

In conclusion, Mr. Dvorkin states that the BBC failed to follow the basic and very simple rules of investigative journalism. Particularly the rule that states:

Keep conjecture to a minimum. Andrew Gilligan's downfall happened when he was asked his opinion. He gave it, saying the Blair government "probably knew the intelligence was false." Wrong answer. The right answer is "I don't know, but this is what we have reported..."

The entire text of this report can be found at:http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/index.html

[j-turbo2002]

Well in that case maybe you can explain to me the link to America in the Hutton Inquiry because I can't find it, and where America was mentioned in the Hutton report because I can't find that either.

No offence here or anything but what the hell are you talking about?

Of course America is not mentioned in any Hutton anything.

Your argument is what exactly? What point are you trying to make here?

[Dr. Shoe]

The Hutton Enquiry had nothing to do with politics (at least not directly). It was an enquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, nothing more nothing less.

This is precisely why it was wrong to exclusively criticise the BBC without apportioning at least some of the blame on the MOD and the defence Minister, Mr Jeffrey Hoon (or is it Geoffrey? I've seen both spellings in the papers).

Do not forget that it was the MOD that leaked Dr Kelly's name to the press not the BBC. They could have kept it secret under The Official Secrets Act 1927. Moreover, it would have been a simple matter to have issued a "D notice" preventing media reporting of the matter. So why didn't they?

Andrew Gilligan at first tried to deny that Dr Kelly had any part in the broadcast or the research thereof. Yes it is true that they program was biased against the government and Tony Blair in particular, and the BBC should have imposed tighter controls on editorial content. Did the BBC use any discretion on the matter or did it give Mr Gilligan carte blanc to do what he wanted? If so, why?

Dr Kelly himself told the Commons Select Committee that it was not him that provided the information. So why was his name later leaked?

There were several other contributors to the program whose names have not been revealed. Why not? Are they employed directly by the MOD? (Dr Kelly was a consultant). Is the MOD continuing to protect its own staff?

I don't deny that the BBC corporately and Andrew Gilligan particularly behaved discracefully but it should also not be denied that the MOD was also at fault but this is barely touched on in the report and certainly is not mentioned in the conclusion.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter:

The MOD and the BBC were jointly to blame. Nothing to do with Tony Blair (though he should sack Hoon), nothing to do with GW Bush esq. and nothing to do with the US.

[Bubba136]

I read somewhere -- can't remember where exactly as I wasn't very interested in your BBC mess at that point in time -- that Dr. Kelly was "fingered" as the source of the information by one of the newspapers on information furnished by a contact the newspaper's reporter had inside the BBC. I don't know if that is true or not. However, the Hutton report was, apparently, a report of the results of an investigation into the the way the story was written, handled and it's aftermath and not if the information in it was true or not. Therefore the purpose of the report wasn't to determine if the intelligence was "spiced up" by the Blair administration -- which may, or may not be the case -- it was to analyze the way it BBC presented its accusation. To wit, the report found that the BBC culpable. Where's the conspiracy in this?

[stilettos]

No offence here or anything but what the hell are you talking about?

Of course America is not mentioned in any Hutton anything.

Your argument is what exactly? What point are you trying to make here?

The fox news video clip I posted seemed to suggest that the BBC were blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-America etc... You appeared to side with the fox news report so I was just asking. It seems I didn't understand the US humour.

[Bubba136]

Our Congressional Television outlet, C-SPAN, broadcasted a session that Prime Minister Tony Blair had with several members of Parliament on February 3, 2004, that prodded the PM very hard on the whole question of the state of intelligence that his government used as justification to go to war with Iraq. The Hutton report was completely disected by the PM's present. For those in the UK that might have missed this session (50 minutes long) it can be found at:Hutton Report

[j-turbo2002]

The fox news video clip I posted seemed to suggest that the BBC were blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-America etc... You appeared to side with the fox news report so I was just asking.

Well, my friend, I have watched that Fox News video clip again and the journalist (I don't know his name) makes no suggestion at all that the BBC was blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-American. I am not sure where you got this idea from.

However, I did agree with his (the journalist) opinion about the whole issue. The word "appeared" has no meaning here.

[stilettos]

Well, my friend, I have watched that Fox News video clip again and the journalist (I don't know his name) makes no suggestion at all that the BBC was blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-American. I am not sure where you got this idea from.

However, I did agree with his (the journalist) opinion about the whole issue. The word "appeared" has no meaning here.

Doesn't seem like you watched the same Fox video as I did, here is a transcript of it:

Wednesday, the British Broadcasting Corporation was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq war. A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest.

Well the first paragraph alone sets the scene and appears to suggest that this is all to do with some anti-American stance by the BBC. It continues...

The BBC -- the “Beeb” -- was one of the worst offenders in the British press because it felt entitled to not only pillory Americans and George W. Bush, but it felt entitled to lie. And when caught lying, it felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives.

Again the lying is associated with the pillory of Americans and Bush. It continues...

The incident involved the reporter Andrew Gilligan who made a fool of himself in Baghdad when the American invasion actually arrived in the Iraqi capital. Gilligan, pro-Iraqi and anti-American insisted on the air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military. Video from our own Greg Kelly of the American Army moving through Baghdad at will put the light to that.

One would be forgiven at this point for thinking that the lying incident concerned Gilligan insisting on air that "the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military". To be honest I doubt if Gilligan ever made those remarks about the Iraqi army. It continues...

After the war, back in London, Gilligan got a guy named David Kelly to tell him a few things about prewar assessments on Iraq's weapons' programs. And Gilligan exaggerated about what Kelly had told him.

Now we are getting closer to the truth and notice that lying now becomes exaggerated. It seems a bit late to start with the real story when viewers have already been primed with the anti-American BBC stuff above.

Kelly committed suicide over the story and the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie, exaggerate, because, well, the BBC knew the war was wrong and anything it could say to underscore that point had to be right.

The British government investigation slammed the BBC Wednesday and a Beeb exec resigned to show they got it.

But they don't.

So the next time you hear the BBC bragging about how much superior the Brits are delivering the news rather than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying.

I am lost for words.

[j-turbo2002]

stilettos:

Well what can I say, you have done a lot of hard work for nothing

You also have a lot of spare time on your hands.

The problem with you is that you are basing your argument on a lot of assumptions. You use words like "seems" and "appears to suggest" which is just outright wrong!

One more time:

There used to be a saying:

When you assume something you make an "ass" out of both "u" and "me".

The argument was that the fox news video clip you posted seemed to suggest that the BBC were blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-America etc...

This is not true. The journalist did not do it in the video nor is it in the transcripts. In other words, he never once directly comes out and says that the that the BBC were blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-America etc...

You however want to believe this based on what the journalist "seems" to suggest.

You are doing something very wrong my friend - you are relying on assumptions instead of facts.

[Firefox]

The video clip was clearly presented in tabloid journalism style designed to reinforce the views of large numbers of people who have difficulty in thinking for themselves. One can also recognise this journalistic style in UK newspapers such as "The Sun". No doubt there are US printed equivelants. As such, anyone viewing it would realise it was not worthy of any serious consideration whether they happened to support the views it portrayed or not.

[j-turbo2002]

stilettos:

Just to let you know - I am not trying to be mean to you.

I want an answer to the following question:

Where exactly in in that Fox News video did the reporter specifically tell the viewers that the BBC were blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-America etc?

Just to let you know, I do not care at all about how the video or the transcripts "seem" or "seem to suggest".

I want the facts - not a bunch of lame assumptions.

[j-turbo2002]

The video clip was clearly presented in tabloid journalism style designed to reinforce the views of large numbers of people who have difficulty in thinking for themselves.

One could also use the same analogy to all those masses in the UK who called the Hutton Report "Whitewash and Scapegoat".

I am talking about the "reinforcing the views views of large numbers of people who have difficulty in thinking for themselves" segment.

[Firefox]

The Hutton report was presented in more reasoned terms. So, with a document like that, you could examine the conclusions based on the evidence that was presented at the time, and form an opinion. You may be against the Hutton report or, as some are in favour. The Fox report is not in the same league and not worthy of the consideration mentioned above. It would be useful to wipe your arse on if it were in printed form. That's the case whether you support its conclusions or not. It's simply 10th rate journalism that I'm suprised anybody has actually bothered to post the URL for it.

[j-turbo2002]

Oh, yes! I know all of this! Everything that I wrote above towards your comment was all bullshit. I only wrote that segment because I knew that it would "get under your skin". Can't a guy have some fun around here? Yes, of course! That reporter in the Fox segment was giving his opinion on the whole BBC/Hutton issue. It was his opinion only and it most certainly does not represent the mass view of America. All this talk about "reinforcing the views of large numbers of people who have difficulty in thinking for themselves" is just plain garbage. I agree, Fox news is 10th rate journalism however, so is the BBC, Daily Mail, etc.

[stilettos]

stilettos:

I want an answer to the following question:

Where exactly in in that Fox News video did the reporter specifically tell the viewers that the BBC were blamed in the Hutton report for being anti-America etc?

Actually he said it with his very first sentence: "Wednesday, the British Broadcasting Corporation was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq war.

Now I'm sure you're going to say that he didn't specifically say the Hutton report but he didn't specifically say it wasn't the Hutton report. And as the only piece of news concerning the BBC on that Wednesday was the Hutton report what else could he have been speaking about. It's blindingly obvious that he is talking about the Hutton report, indeed he mentions the Hutton report later so what else could he have been talking about? How would you interpret the comment?

[j-turbo2002]

That is nice but you still have not answered my question.

Also, you are still relying on an assumption. Go back and re-read what I wrote about making assumptions.

How would I interperet the comment?

Well, I would not try to do so. If I tried to interperet that comment I would be making a false assuption. I would look like a total idiot because I would be saying something that is not true at all.

I do not know what was going on in the mind of that reporter when we made those comments. More importantly, neither do you.

Also, one more time for clarification purposes:

...that reporter in the Fox segment was giving his opinion on the whole BBC/Hutton issue. It was his opinion only and it most certainly does not represent the mass view of America...

[Bubba136]

Judging from the apathy shown by most Americans toward anything these days, I doubt there is a "mass view of most Americans" on this issue.