Re: BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

There are many inaccuracies in this thread.

Firstly it is stated that Barney Leith contradicted Roger and Geeta Kingdon
yet there is no evidence for this, what Barney Leith clarified was that
David Kelly did not refer to the dossier as part of his presentation to
those gathered at the Kingdon home for that public presentation given by Dr.
David Kelly, then an active member of the Abingdon Baha'i community, about
his interesting profession.
This may appear contradictory to an article that appeared in a newspaper
which was written as an exclusive, yet the quote from Roger Kingdon is "'I
asked him what he thought of [the dossier]. It was clear that he was happy
with the factual content but less happy... and felt frustrated... by the way
it had been interpreted... But he did not say who by."... it does not say
that this was in front of the whole gathering, it is quite likely that they
would have talked both before and after the presentation as fellow Baha'i
friends and as host and presenter on the evening. The story did not last
more than a few days and didn't really surface in any major media reports
after that, it is almost certain that when other journalists clarified the
story with Roger Kingdon they heard the same version of events that Barney
Leith clarified and that the Guardian had deliberately taken his words out
of context to be sensational. Had this not been the case a non-Baha'i guest
on that evening may well have come forward and blown any kind of cover-up,
although why the Baha'i community should wish to lie about this point is
beyond me anyway.

Secondly, you say that Roger Kingdon was silenced by the National Spiritual
Assembly, again there is no evidence for this. What has been quoted is a
letter sent by the National Spiritual Assembly to the Baha'is of the Unitied
Kingdom, that's somewhere between 5 and 6 thousand people, not just those
who were gathered at the meeting. Those closest to the actual events,
including Roger Kingdon, will have been given different advise. The letter
does seem to be in response to the article in the Guardian and was most
probably to stop another case of serious mis-quoting taking place from a
Baha'i who did not know anything about Dr. David Kelly saying something
innocent in such a way that a journalist could quote it out of context to
look more sensational. Manoocher Samii for example, another member of the
Baha'i community of Abingdon, has appeared on national television and radio
several times since the event. It is most improbable that Roger Kingdon,
himself a former member of the National Spiritual Assembly, would have been
treated with the disrespect that some messages posted here imply.

The other inaccuracies are more obvious, for example "The Baha'i Technique"
which has been drawn up by a small number of people opposed to the
world-wide admisitrative system followed by most Baha'is is exactly that and
rather than being "recognised" as the Baha'i technique it is a description
totally opposite to one that any open minded indvidual who has come into
contact with the Baha'is will have. "Scapegoating and repudiating" could not
be further from the truth, if anything Baha'is have continued to use the
good name of Dr. David Kelly, the press has shown them praying for him
around the country, attending his funeral and talking about the Baha'i
beliefs he held and accepting his actions, whatever they may have been. The
Baha'i community in the UK has probably recieved new followers as a result
of them hearing how a man with such a strong reputation held to Baha'i
beliefs and hearing how the Baha'is talked of Dr. David Kelly and his
beliefs too.

regards. h