BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harold Jones at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 3/12/03 1:47 am:
 
> The Daily Telegraph on the 1st August:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/01/nkell01.xml
> 
> 
> Roger Kingdon, a fellow member of the Baha'i group in Abingdon,
> Oxfordshire, attended by Dr Kelly, said: "I will remember him as a
> person of tremendous integrity and self containment."

Well Dr Kelly did *not* show this side of his "tremendous integrity
and self containment" at the government select committe? Why did Dr
Kelly  not tell them what he told Rodger Kington that he was  not so
happy with how the material ( september intelligence dossier) had been
interpreted." Instead Dr Kelly used equivocal language with intent to
deceive the select committe that he not discussed the dossier with BBC
journalist Andrew Gilligan. "Lying was not easy for Dr Kelly, who was
regarded by all who knew him as a man of integrity with a scientist's
regard for accuracy and the truth".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/01/nkell01.xml
But the tape of a telephone conversation by him and Susan Watts
(another BBC journalist) was the smoking gun to prove Dr Kelly had
told lies. Two days later he committed suicide. This proves the
nonsense some Baha'is seem to think that a good Bahai like Dr Kelly
cant tell a lie is a load of tosh.
> 
> Dr Kelly, he said, had given a talk to the group about his experiences
> as a weapons inspector in Iraq in October last year, after the dossier
> had been published.
> 
> Mr Kingdon said: "He had no doubt that they [the Iraqis] had biological
> and chemical weapons. He didn't comment on that while everyone else
> was there, but separately I asked him - because the dossier had just come
> out.
> 
> "He said he had been sitting with Jack Straw when the dossier was released
> to
> the public. It was clear that David Kelly was largely happy with the
> material in
> the dossier, but he was not so happy with how the material had been
> interpreted."

So the question-and-answer session on the *intelligence dossier* has
been excluded in this later " Telegraph" article?  You would agree
usually a question-and-answer session is centered around  what is
discussed in a talk?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006711,00.html
If the Observer were not told by Rodger Kington that (a
question-and-answer session on the *intelligence dossier*) happened,
why would a journalist include such an inportant piece of information
if it was an untruth?

" Kelly gave a 40-minute talk, which was accompanied with a slide
show, about his work as a weapons inspector in Iraq. He ended with a
question-and-answer session on the intelligence dossier, which had
been made public 10 days earlier as part of what opponents claim was a
government attempt to swing public opinion behind war on Iraq.

Roger Kingdon told The Observer last night that Kelly expressed his
unhappiness with how the document was being interpreted, saying the
intelligence information supplied was accurate, but indicating that he
was uncomfortable about how it was being represented".
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006711,00.html

Surely if this had have happened to me I would be on to the newspaper
like a shot and request they print a disclaimer that I never told the
journalist this. Why did Rodger Kington not do so?  I am sure you
would agree telling another newspaper the same story (but deleting the
Q & A bit on the dossier) story is not the same as a
disclaimer?..............Errol
 
> 
> see also the same paper on the 27th August:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/27/uhain.xml
> 
> 
> "...he had discussed the issue with Roger Kingdon, a fellow member of the
> Baha'i
> faith, following a meeting of believers in Mr Kingdon's home..."
> 
> 
> Regards, harold.
> 
>