'Not Nine to Five' and this is not a distraction
ram | 24.07.2003 03:00 | Analysis
Is there a UK media award for the double distraction?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1004789,00.html
The killing of Saddam's sons won't divert attention for long .....
__The world, let alone Iraq, would really have been a safer place had David Kelly been allowed to do his job. __ !!!!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1004789,00.html The killing of Saddam's sons won't divert attention for long .....
__The world, let alone Iraq, would really have been a safer place had David Kelly been allowed to do his job. __ !!!!
What are these people like?
Guardian does the double this morning.
'Don't get distracted but we will distract you or even brainwash you!'
Classic pig media.
The same paper which proclaimed once in 1999,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3910639,00.html
"....It (Porton Down) boasts that its scientists are working for peace, love and understanding with the International Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - which, by some strange coincidence, employs apartheid's and Britain's old friend Dr Davey...."
No mention Kelly's head of Microbiology stint there when Iraqis were being invited over. Either the commentator in saying 'how safe a place the world would have been!!!!' is a total ignorant fool (which I doubt) or a pig.
A good analysis of the state of the pig media will be to compare this excellent question raised and answered in the Glascow Herald.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-7-19103-0-27-14.html
------------------
" ....Why did the BBC describe Dr Kelly as an "intelligence source?"
One BBC reporter claims it could have been a "slip of the tongue" - Dr Kelly was a source with access to some intelligence documents. However, others believe the BBC was simply misrepresenting its source to make the story more credible.
The term is usually used to describe someone within the intelligence services. Dr Kelly worked in the MoD and was paid by the Foreign Office, he was not a "spook". It was this distinction that so infuriated Downing Street, which absolutely rejected the claim that intelligence sources believed No 10 had tried to make the Iraq dossier "sexier".
The BBC last night clarified its stance on Dr David Kelly and his role in the affair.
A spokeswoman said: "Dr Kelly was an intelligence source which is defined as someone who has credible knowledge of intelligence material.
"As opposed to an intelligence services source which is someone who works in intelligence."
------------------
OK, slip of the tongue!
Military Intelligence when abbreviated does NOT rhyme with 'Nine to Five' (or is it Nine to Six?) ....This is simply disgusting. There has to be an end to all this bullshit or we will never go forward as humans.
Guardian does the double this morning.
'Don't get distracted but we will distract you or even brainwash you!'
Classic pig media.
The same paper which proclaimed once in 1999,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3910639,00.html "....It (Porton Down) boasts that its scientists are working for peace, love and understanding with the International Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - which, by some strange coincidence, employs apartheid's and Britain's old friend Dr Davey...."
No mention Kelly's head of Microbiology stint there when Iraqis were being invited over. Either the commentator in saying 'how safe a place the world would have been!!!!' is a total ignorant fool (which I doubt) or a pig.
A good analysis of the state of the pig media will be to compare this excellent question raised and answered in the Glascow Herald.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-7-19103-0-27-14.html ------------------
" ....Why did the BBC describe Dr Kelly as an "intelligence source?"
One BBC reporter claims it could have been a "slip of the tongue" - Dr Kelly was a source with access to some intelligence documents. However, others believe the BBC was simply misrepresenting its source to make the story more credible.
The term is usually used to describe someone within the intelligence services. Dr Kelly worked in the MoD and was paid by the Foreign Office, he was not a "spook". It was this distinction that so infuriated Downing Street, which absolutely rejected the claim that intelligence sources believed No 10 had tried to make the Iraq dossier "sexier".
The BBC last night clarified its stance on Dr David Kelly and his role in the affair.
A spokeswoman said: "Dr Kelly was an intelligence source which is defined as someone who has credible knowledge of intelligence material.
"As opposed to an intelligence services source which is someone who works in intelligence."
------------------
OK, slip of the tongue!
Military Intelligence when abbreviated does NOT rhyme with 'Nine to Five' (or is it Nine to Six?) ....This is simply disgusting. There has to be an end to all this bullshit or we will never go forward as humans.
ram