#1
Just why is it that vital evidence, which could solve the mystery of the death of the Govt. weapons inspector, Dr. David Kelly, will be kept under wraps for 70 years? This in itself is a highly unusual decision and yet the Ministry of Justice are unable to explain the legal basis for this order.
As this presumably incriminating evidence will now remain a state secret for all this time, one wonders just who is being protected?
Furthermore, if indeed foul play is expected, should we then perhaps start looking a bit closer at a few other untimely deaths amongst politicians that were outspoken about the Iraq war etc. ( ie., Robin Cook, Tony Banks? )
Just a thought!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#2
70 years does make it seem like there's something very serious to hide. Maybe because those involved are still alive and their children are likely to be affected by any exposure to the true facts.
It seemed dodgy at the time, now it seems much, much worse.
Roger
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#3
Lots of conspiracy theories there John reminiscent of the Cold War. Conspiracy theories always become popular after a period of time when our citizenry find things hard to accept, like Elvis being still alive, or the whole 'first man on the moon' episode being nothing more than a Hollywood backlot.
Makes for fun filled pages in newspapers, but I guess its just possible that David Kelly simply killed himself as many other have..end of. I believe he slit just one wrist and waited.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#4
Lots of evidence to the contary Paul, but some has never come to light - and won't now for 70 years.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#5
Realy though why does this have to be secret
hope theres good reason
usually in 70 years time its no good to anyone prob why
where as if released today would help families etc
#6
There are a couple of things in it for me:
1 - I think sometimes we expect to have access to too much information, we read daily about the depths of someones private life just because they have been the victim of a crime, or have endured violence. We expect to know all about people as a right, to mine their privacy for our own prurient entertainment, and that is simply wrong.
2 - However, some things are in the public interest and in order to protect and nurture justice and fairness some things should be public. This is probably one of them. Hiding information about this poor mans death for so long does foster doubts about the circumstances and that can breed trouble.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#7
BERN;
Your second point hit's nail on the head. it's when governments hide behind things that stops info getting out.
thats wrong.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
never come across anything like 70 years before, must be pretty devastating stuff.
totally unfair on the family of dr kelly.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#9
Without a reason to withold the evidence it gives the impression there was something sinister going on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#10
Paul, I take your point about the "conspiracy" theories, but where this particular case differs from many others is the fact that there is so much conflicting evidence. In fact there is so much it would take a long time to post it all here.
Furthermore, the people that are saying that he was murdered are intelligent professional people, not your usual weirdo looneys.
By all accounts, David Kelly was a decent honorable man and he deserves better than this. The more one delves into this case the more it becomes fairly clear that this certainly was no "suicide".
Roger, just a quickie, when you say "Maybe because those involved are still alive and their children are likely to be affected by any exposure to the true facts", are you meaning, for example, children of former Govt. staff?
If so, surely we can`t hide the truth just so we don`t upset their children. At the end of the day if foul play and murder is proved then those involved must be brought to account regardless of children surely?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
I dont go for consiracy theories but something about the Kelly affairs stinks...
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#12
I don't know John, I was trying to think of reasons why 70 years - speculation if you like; we all speculate on things don't we ?
Roger
#13
Thanks Roger. To be honest, I think I jumped the gun in asking you that question in the first place! Having had a second look at your previous posting I could see that you were only coming up with a possible idea as to why the 70 year decision may have been made.
Will we ever know what part Mr. "nothing to do with me guv" Blair played in this tragedy? Probably not. However, due to his new found religion I suppose the only guy that might find out will be his priest.
I would imagine that when Blair first enters the old confessional box he will certainly need to take a packed lunch and thermos with him!
#14
Something to cover his backside might be useful too John.
#15
I watched some of the Prescott enquiry interview the other day. I cannot stand the man persoanlly, but I have to concede, he was very good speaking to the tribunal "off the cuff". However, when it came to eulogising about Tony Blair, he read the words from a script. Hmm..
#16
Say`s it all really Sid!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
the one saving grace about lord prescott is that he is loyal, an attribute missing in the average politician.
#18
What? Loyal to Jaguar? Sorry, loyal TWO Jaguar. Sorry Howard, couldn't resist.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#19
He made a lot of plain speaking at t he enquiry
and lets be fair it was an enquiry so he would also want notes and why not
#20
Come on Keith, why would Presser need notes to say how good Blair was? He answered all the other enquiry questions superbly and with the right amount of humour too. But, when it came to speaking about your Tony, he didn't refer to notes, he READ them aloud.