BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

Harold,

I will only accept your post if Roger Kingdon makes a disclaimer that
what they wrote in the Guardian newspaper (he was supposed to say) was
not what he said, and he supports everything Barney Leith said a the
Hutton Inquiry.  Until then I believe what Roger Kingdon said in the
newspaper has more truth to it than what Barney Leith said at the
Hutton Inquiry .

Errol 

in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harold Jones at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/12/03 1:26 pm:

> 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
> 
>