Who murdered David Kelly?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jason, Apr 5, 2010.

?

Who murdered David Kelly?

  1. He wasn't murdered - he killed himself.

    6 vote(s)
    35.3%
  2. An Islamic group, other foreigners, little green men from Mars.

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
  3. The government, MI5, MI6, some other UK body.

    8 vote(s)
    47.1%
  1. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    This UK story has re-appeared with Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary, indicating that he would like to see a new / proper enquiry.
    Shadow Justice Secretary backs call for inquiry into death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly | Mail Online

    Dr David Kelly was the UK civil servant and weapons inspector who had the cheek not to agree with the government's stated view that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could traget Britain. He died a violent death. There is an account of his death on Wikipedia which is likely to be as impartial as any. In a nutshell the "official" view that he killed himself seems most implausible - which leads to the view that he was murdered, a view that has been advanced by some senior and influential figures.

    This poll is for UK members or worldwide members who have read about the David Kelly death. Do you think he was murdered? If so, by whom?
     
  2. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    As will all conspiracy theories in the UK, didn't the same "unknown individuals in a white Fiat" who Liz, Phil and Chuck hired to kill Princess Diana (sp?) kill David Kelly? I thought the Royal Family had a slush fund for those kinds of things.
     
  3. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,519
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    LOL Midlife - I was gna suggest Prince Phil might've had a hand in it. ;) (And Diana was killed by florists, btw - who wanted to boost trade :p).

    I personally think he was completely overwhelmed with the situation, and as a principled man just couldn't reconcile with it, and basically imploded. Was going through a stressful time myself during that period, so could totally see how things could be way too much for him. :(

    But indirectly...Tony Blair?
     
    #3 Joll, Apr 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 5, 2010
  4. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,725
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    I thought that everyone now knew that you killed Dr. Kelly. And P. Diana, Saint of this Parish.
     
  5. Sergeant_Torpedo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Jokes about violent death are never funny.
     
  6. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,519
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    Dude...no need to be sanctimonious. ;)

    I felt greatly sorry for David Kelly - and have explained what I thought happened. The first sentence was more of a response to conspiracy theorists, like Mohammed Al Fayed.

    Plus, I don't think lightening the mood is a problem - certainly doesn't mean I don't feel deep sympathy for them.
     
  7. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    The official view is that David Kelly killed himself. This happened at a time when he was put under enormous government pressure. There is certainly a view that he was driven to suicide. If this is the case then perhaps driving someone to suicide is akin to murder. But there are other views on his death.

    The death is odd in many ways. The BMJ reckon his injuries were unlikely to kill him; the paramedics noted little blood loss suggesting that they didn't kill him. There are no fingerprints on the knife he supposedly used to kill himself. His body was moved after death. An MP has written a book about the strange death and the BBC has run a programme. It is very hard to reconcile this with a suicide. The Hutton inquiry into his death has ruled that the evidence should remain secret for 70 years, and has refused to explain the reason for this decision.

    What has given the case added relevance is that we now know he was 100% right. He knew that the government's case for going to war in Iraq was a lie.

    Now the Conservatives are proposing a "proper" inquiry into his death.
     
  8. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,894
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    I dont believe anyone murdered him in the sense of actually doing it. In the sense of being driven to it by circumstances, then the blame sits firmly at the door of Mr. Blair. I think it questionable whether his death benefitted anyone except those trying to stir up trouble for the government.

    Mr Blair said that he took full responsiblity for the decision to invade Iraq and was content to be judged accordingly. Well, so be it. It is doubly unfortunate that he destroyed his own reputation over this when all in all his government was doing the right things for the country. Fundamentally I remain sceptical that any conservative government would have done anything differently in regard to bowing to US pressure to join in the war. They may have come up with a better justification for it, but that was all really about circumventing international law so I dont see they would have had much choice.
     
  9. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,519
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    I agree (unusually!).
     
  10. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    I think the Conservatives misread the situation in supporting Blair's wish to go to war. They were hampered by a report which set out that there was clear evidence that Britain was at threat - a report we now believe was a government fabrication in its key elements. With the benefit of hindsight it is very easy to say they got it wrong.

    But had they been in government I cannot conceive of the Conservatives fabricating a report with the intention of taking Britian into an illegal war. This just isn't the way Conservatives think (which is why as a group they found it inconceivable that Blair would be telling such monstrous lies to parliament). I think the Conservatives would have been better placed to influence Bush. Maybe it would all have been different.
     
  11. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Well, according to chaos theory that posits even deterministic dynamic systems are susceptible to small changes, -- for example, a butterfly's movement in the air eventually changing the weather on the other side of an ocean -- maybe things would have been different. But it's doubtful.

    The GOP and the Bush II monarchy forgot a few historical realities known by the Bush I monarchy and ignored a great deal. They forgot why Bush I did not remove Saddam Hussein from power in the first Gulf War. They ignored the Bush I era analysis that took into account that the USA risked getting stuck as an occupying enemy force unable to exercise any authority over the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim factions, which the earlier Baathist regime served as a common purpose for the pedestrian Iraqi to see fall. Even President Clinton's military advisers were keen to remember the lessons of such a recent history and analysis of the Iraqi "situation." Without the terror of Baathist control a civil war between Shi'ites (who believe in theocratic muslim rule) and Sunnis (who are prone to favor a more secular form of government) was inevitable. And although the Baathists had not come into control until the Arab Socialist Baath Party overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif in 1968 an Iraqi civlil war had been inevitable since a 1958 coup d'etat that overthrew the Hashemite Monarchy.

    The Hashemite Monarchy had been put back in place by the British after WWII and was never a popular idea among the general Iraqi population, but it was popular with the British. The coup d'etat in 1958 put General Abdul Karim Qassim in power and another military coup in 1963 followed by yet another in 1966 were basically internal military conflicts as the Iraqi population sat back and suffered. In 1968 General Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakir became the first Baathist president who was generally accepted by a mostly polarized Iraqi society of Sunnis and Shi'ites. But it was authoritarian power and killing both religious and secular anti government types on all sides (including Kurds) that actually worked to keep internal peace. Saddam, by various means, became the famous sadist leader to take over the mantle from Al-Bakir. Authoritarian governments work for a while, but when they are removed, there is a long historic precedence for civil wars, foreign occupation, and other unfortunate attempts at controlling military subdued populations from eventually forming a working government once again. And they often return to become another authoritarian State.

    Conservatives in the UK may have just sat on their thumbs (a good idea, IMHO) and done nothing, but the Bush II phase of the Bush monarchy was somewhat cavalier with power. After all, Bush II openly admitted that he had been chosen by "god" to be the President of the United States. And even if there had never been a "memo" regarding WMDs that somehow originated from UK "intelligence", the USA going back into Iraq was the safest bet in Las Vegas. Bush II's handlers had difficulty in teaching him how to exercise restraint and patience and most of his original posse was gone within 2 years of the Bush II monarchy. And I'm certain those of you in the UK know what Bush thought of diplomacy. Memo or no memo regarding WMDs would'nt have made much of a difference. Bush II was simply a poorly educated statesman (a Masters in Business Administration?) and was easily manipulated by those with a grudge on their shoulders. Does the name Dick Cheney ring a bell? He was a prime point man during Bush I and never felt that monarchy took full advantage of its range of powers.

    I, however, can well imagine someone like Margaret Thatcher being quite gung ho and supporting the USA's tragically misguided interference in Iraq. Governments are great examples of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Make a small error and all Hell breaks loose. But with regard to Iraq, I'm willing to bet the farm that it would have taken a lot more butterflies than just one (the lack of a pseudo memo regarding WMDs, for example) to have prevented the USA's invasion of Iraq. A couple of other "small change" initial conditions were already in play.

    Just sayin' :smile:
     
    #11 midlifebear, Apr 7, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2010
  12. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,894
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    In the sense that the war proved unpopular and unending, yes im sure they would rather not have been seen to have supported it.

    In any other sense it is hard to see how a right wing inclined party would not have gone along with a right wing inclined US government which was calling in a favour. This war had nothing to do with wild intelligence reports of dire threats. These all came after the decision to fight and this would have been exactly the same for the conservatives.

    you mean conservatives always believe their opponents in parliament always tell the truth? Thats not what they say publicly. Politicians, as a group, always believe that other politicians always tell the truth notwithstanding the never ending occasions when this is proved to be false?

    You didnt realise that part of the job description of a politician is to lie in such a way as not to be found out? leaving cynicism aside, one requirement of being a minister is to lie when it is in the national interest to do so. cynicism creeping back, politicians frequently equate national and personal or party interest. Blair has stated he thought it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq, therefore it was in the national interest. The same logic applies universally.

    There is absolutely no evidence the conservatives would have opposed the war. Having decided to support it, there is a remoreless logic in having to produce evidence to justify it legally. Would the conservatives have announced they were going to war and then backed down because the army was demanding a legal opinion of its legality, or would they also have magicked one up?
     
  13. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    Yes.

    UK gumbyment/security services. They're quite good at it.
     
  14. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    Actually yes - with a few caveats.

    "Misleading parliament", ie deliberately telling lies to parliament, is a very serious matter in the UK system. It is possible for MPs to make genuine mistakes (though this is still serious and they must correct them). It is possible for MPs to present just the facts they want to present - if you like they tell the truth but not the whole truth.

    But in the case of the Iraq war vote we have the PM (not a backbench MP) with a statement that has been gone over by countless lawyers and civil servants, and with a supporting speech which set out that, while some material on sources could not be released (because it would help the enemy) the materials presented set out the facts and was a fair representation of them. What we now know is that we had the most outrageous lie ever told to parliament by a serving prime minister. No one has ever before done quite this. I don't think the Conservatives could get their heads around the idea that the PM was telling such a massive, deliberate, premeditated lie. They just didn't believe it.

    Without this lie it seems inconceivable that parliament would have voted for war. Bush and the USA would have been pretty much on their own.

    The one person who could have spoken out with authority and in effect set out that the PM was lying was David Kelly. Of course this would breach his civil servant code of conduct and whatever secrecy oath he had sworn - it would have been a very serious matter and would have got him into a lot of trouble. And just then David Kelly dies.
     
  15. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,894
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    well i suppose these are the same people who thought that buying a very expensive garden ornament to house your ducks, or having you moat cleaned, were legitimate parliamentary expenses. Does show a certain lack of connection with the real world. The parliamentary expense scandal was not about the money but about the attitude which made MPs think it was OK. If they dont care whether their own expenses system is honest, why would they care about yet another official report designed to make a biased case?

    Youre basically saying conservative MPs were fooled when Liberals (also in opposition) werent and the british people werent. Doesnt say much for them. The labour cabinet wasnt fooled. I listened to Claire Short talking about cabinet reaction when she challenged the briefs on Iraq during cabinet. No one else wanted to make waves. The consrvatives could have torn the government to pieces over the war but they didnt, because they knew that if they opposed it they might actaully win in keeping Britain out, and they would not do that.

    This brings us back to what David Steel was saying about the Scottish parliament, where no party has overall control. If your actions on a vote might have a real chance of chnging the outcome then it forces you to vote the way you really think instead of stupid posturing just to attack the other pary. On this occasion, when it really affected the outcome, they voted for what they believed. Their only fig leaf now is to pretend they are fools.
     
  16. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    There is no precedent whatsoever for a PM telling a whopper of a lie such as this to parliament.

    Tony Blair took lying to a new level. The Lib Dems didn't oppose him on the grounds that he was lying, but for other reasons. Blair's Cabinet were not permitted to debate the issue (which is the reason behind Short's resignation) but they did not believe that Blair was telling the most enormous premeditated lies.

    We've had some light shed on Blair's lies. We need some light shed on the strange death of David Kelly. It was absolutely unthinkable for a PM to tell the lies Blair told, but he did it. Other things are unthinkable also.

    In passing the Scottish parliament has a different framework to the UK parliament and with its limited responsibilities just doesn't stand comparison with the UK parliament. It has indeed demonstrated that it can work without any party having a majority. But with its present framework the UK parliament will be paralysed if no party has an overall majority. Maybe the framework should be changed, but this is the reality from 7th May. If we don't have an overall majority for one party there is a slim chance of a minority administration working. But there would be enormous pressures for a Lib-Lab pact to be formalised as that is how the system works. Whatever politicians might say before the election a hung parliament is almost inevitably a Lib-Lab pact with Gord the Gormless in power.
     
  17. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,894
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    So now we know what your real job is? No one except head of MI5 would know the answer to that question.

    You know perfectly well that MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of lying. The BBC tried to say he was lying, and the director got sacked. The published reports were universally described as total drivel but proving they were lies is rather different.

    Afraid I think youre wrong there. Cabinet ministers are not sheep. There is no way Blair could have stopped them discussing it had they wanted to. QED they didnt want to. Why? They could see what rubbish was being distributed just as much as anyone else. I think this was simply a case where everyone in the room who coould be trusted knew and agreed everything which was going on. Which left our Claire talking to a room which had suddenly become strangely uncurious about a very important matter. Just as the honourable opposition also approved.

    No, it isnt. Ministers of the crown are expected to lie at need. Thats why the Queen has ministers, so she doesnt have to do it herself. I can just see Churchill telling someone who asked why 1,000,000 soldiers had suddenly turned up in his town that they were all going to France next Friday. Strictly speaking he only performed his duty as he saw it. I think he was wrong, but I suspect he still believes he was right, and others do too. Anyway, he paid the price, so why are we debating this?

    The Scots have repeatedly complained about being used as a trial run before England adopts changes.

    Why? the only advantage of an unwritten constitution is that it is very adaptable. The basic principle is that half+1 beats half in any vote, and thats it. There are no laws to change, just 600 people sit down and vote.
     
  18. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,933
    Likes Received:
    642
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    Exactly. And in a hung parliament every vote becomes a cliff hanger, and no one knows in advance what the result will be. Markets hate this. They can deal with bad decisions, but they just can't deal with not knowing in advance what the result will be.

    The Scottish hung parliament hasn't caused a catastrophe because Scotland does not have its own currency and does not have full budgetary control. As a general rule hung parliaments are a disaster. The view that is now getting a lot of popular support that somehow a hung parliament would be a good thing is terribly dangerous. If we wake up on 7th May to a hung parliament we have big problems.

    The Lib Dems are culprits. They should have agreed a pact with one of the parties that will form the government and be fighting on a joint manifesto. The idea of actively seeking a situation where who actually governs is sorted out as a post-election stitch up is the stuff of nightmares. It is gross irresponsibility from a bunch of politicians who are drunk on the idea of possibly having some power for the first time in their careers.

    The markets need a clear election result. It isn't about what people might think they want - be it left, right, lib-dem, green or monster raving loony - it is about what the markets need. There is the simplest choice at this election for a long time - either a Conservative government with a majority, or despair.
     
  19. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Mmmm. . . . a HUNG parliament . . . you folks in the UK have the most erotic form of government.

    Sorry, you can continue now.
     
  20. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,894
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    people talk about them a lot but you very rarely see one
     
Draft saved Draft deleted