Sunday, 31 August 2008

Dr David Kelly

Where is the inquest?

And why hasn't there already been one?
Posted by at

21 comments:

  1. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 00:23

    There was one. It was adjourned. Then they had the Hutton inquiry, which looked at the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death in far more detail than any inquest would have done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay1 September 2008 at 16:40

    Pull the other one!

    The absurd, despicable Hutton "Inquiry" did no such thing, and it was never intended to.

    Nor was its "Report" believed by anyone: not even Blairite headbangers actually thought that it was the truth; their laughable yet stomach-turning defence of it had altogether baser motives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 16:56

    I thought the Hutton Inquiry was an excellent report, actually, and I did believe it. It angered the BBC, who hate having their judgement questioned, and it angered the knee-jerk thoughtless NuLabour haters, but neither of those things makes it any less likely to be true. I have to confess that I rather enjoy it when the BBC gets slapped down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay1 September 2008 at 17:00

    Nurse, Nurse...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 17:14

    But you haven't answered barney or anonymous' points. You may have disagreed with the Hutton inquiry's findings (although incidentally, questioning the sanity of those who supported it is not particularly sophisticated) but you haven't said exactly what you want investigated that Hutton didn't cover. And I fear that you only want an inquiry if it concludes what you obviously feel- which isn't their point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Lindsay1 September 2008 at 17:20

    The Hutton "Inquiry" was not a coroner's inquest. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 17:24

    So if a coroner's request found that he died of the painkillers and cutting his wrist, you'd conclude it was all fine, and drop your opposition?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 17:26

    "The Hutton "Inquiry" was not a coroner's inquest."

    True. But it was much longer, and more detailed. What did it fail to consider which an inquest would have considered? Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Lindsay1 September 2008 at 17:33

    "Opposition" to what, Ab?

    Barney, Hutton was not the due process of law in these matters. Simple as that.

    Yes, it was also a ridiculous government whitewash. But that is not the point. The point is that it was not the due process of law in these matters. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 17:38

    well, you haven't got all riled up over a process issue surely, not if you are content that the right result was reached. So your opposition must be towards content. And I'm asking what you'd do if a "properly convened" coroner's inquest found exactly the same thing as Hutton?

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Lindsay1 September 2008 at 17:40

    "well, you haven't got all riled up over a process issue surely"

    Spoken like a true Blairite.

    "And I'm asking what you'd do if a "properly convened" coroner's inquest found exactly the same thing as Hutton?"

    I don't know what the scare marks are for there.

    Let's have it, then.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous1 September 2008 at 17:44

    But why? The original decision to have Hutton over a coroner's inquest was because the former was far lengthier and more detailed. Hutton produced an exhaustive account of Kelly's death. The burden of proof is on you to show why a coroner's inquest would be somehow different. And other than the fact that it would perhaps be proceduraly right (I don't know enough about this area to know whether you're right or not), you have nothing. And from where I stand, the colossal waste of time and money that a duplicate inquiry would represent outweighs a process issue. What matters is finding out what happened, and I believe we have that. If you think differently, then say so - with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Lindsay1 September 2008 at 17:50

    "But why?"

    It's the law.

    "The original decision to have Hutton over a coroner's inquest was because the former was far lengthier and more detailed."

    We all know the real reason. And anyway, that's not the law. The Hutton "Inquiry" has, and has never purported to have, any legal status whatever.

    "Hutton produced an exhaustive account of Kelly's death."

    Hutton put his name to whatever Alastair Campbell put in front of him, and was appointed because Blair and Campbell knew that that was what he would do. But anyway, so what? His "Inquiry" was not a coroner's inquest. That is the point.

    "The burden of proof is on you to show why a coroner's inquest would be somehow different."

    It would be the due process of law.

    "And other than the fact that it would perhaps be proceduraly right (I don't know enough about this area to know whether you're right or not), you have nothing."

    In other words, I have everything.

    "And from where I stand, the colossal waste of time and money that a duplicate inquiry would represent outweighs a process issue."

    Terrfying.

    Chilling, in fact.

    Read some history. Almost any will do for this purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  14. brian in the tamar valley1 September 2008 at 21:15

    Firstly, the inquest could have been just as long and detailed as Hutton was - think of the length of the 'Diana' inquest where the cause of death was far more self evident. Secondly, an inquest would have the power to call witnesses, Hutton didn't. Thirdly, an inquest would necessitate evidence being given under oath, Hutton couldn't do this. Fourthly an inquest of this nature would have had a jury so that the verdict wouldn't have come down to a single individual.

    So sorry anonymous, barney and ab you are quite wrong in your assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous2 September 2008 at 01:40

    Because everyone knows what happened! Gilligan lied, and the bloke died because Gilligan (working with the Lib Dem MP David Chidgey) and the Socialists decided to make him the scapegoat for the BBC - and specifically for the Government's assets therein, including Greg Dyke (DG - formerly of the International Socialists at university, where he was friends with a young Peter Hitchens) and Gavin Davies (the Chairman - formerly of Harold Wilson's sodding Policy Unit), not to mention a whole host of Blairite hacks (the self-confessed Andrew Marr and his ilk).

    If Kelly hadn't died, it's worth reflecting, Gilligan, Dyke and Davies would almost certainly all still be at the BBC, and the public would be none the wiser.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2 September 2008 at 09:42

    David, this is interesting. Can you tell me what law, if any, was broken by adjourning the inquest in favour of the Hutton inquiry? Isn't there legal provision that allows inquests to be superseded in certain circumstances?

    ReplyDelete
  17. David Lindsay2 September 2008 at 15:55

    Thank you Brian, you are spot on.

    The Hutton "Inquiry" never even made any claim to any legal status (raising serious questions about why it was conducted at public expense).

    Well, "we know some old judge who'll look into it" simply isn't good enough. It wasn't then. And it still isn't now.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous2 September 2008 at 15:59

    So you're saying the law has been broken? Surely that's not true - a perfectly legal decision was reached, and you (as is your right) disagree with it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David Lindsay2 September 2008 at 16:16

    The decision had and has no legal standing, because the "Inquiry" had no legal standing. It was just, as I said, "we know some old judge who'll look into it". And charge the rest of us for his doing so, of course.

    There are other countries like that, but who wants to be compared to them? And why are you so keen to defend this nonsense? I think we all know why.

    But it is still very odd. To have been unlawfully killed on the orders of Tony Blair is, after all, no distinction. There have been at least a million such worldwide. The number rises by the hour.

    And we *know* that they were, and are being. Yet you make such a fuss about the mere suggestion that anyone with the proper legal power and following the due process of law might so much as look into whether one more individual might have been. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous3 September 2008 at 11:11

    David, I'm warning you, stay off this topic. The security services will do anything (and I mean, ANYTHING) to prevent an inquest into David Kelly's death. We know they're already watching you. You may be in more danger than you think.

    ReplyDelete
  21. David Lindsay3 September 2008 at 18:42

    If I never blog again, then you'll know the reason why.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)