ray hutstone wrote:#177 - You seem to have unwittingly induced merriment from this forum's cognescenti of all things. That in itself ought to indicate something. The only thing I would say in response to your otherwise well reasoned post is that it's hard to blame the Guardian for reporting the news as it is presented. OK, it's not the beacon that it was in Rusbridger's day when liars like Aitken were brought to book, but it's still head and shoulders above the other bilge out there.
I haven't seen anything in the Guardian to suggest that they're doing anything other than uncritically mirroring the official state story here, RH, though it's a narrative with so many holes in it as to embarrass a colander. And that was the case with Ewen MacAskill's piece, to the point where, rather than pick up on the deliberately misleading language in Sedwill's letter, he explained it away. Besides, it seems that the Guardian online have been putting in permanent moderation any comments questioning either the paper's approach or the official version.
As for the 'cognoscenti', bless 'em, I suspect that if HMG's colour was red they'd be tearing the tale apart, and quite rightly too. But it's worth noting that their natural totalitarian tendencies show up when they accuse any dissenter of lining up with 'the enemy' (whoever that might be this week). I would hope that, should they ever find themselves on the wrong side of the law, they're unfortunate enough to encounter a jury with more respect for its lunch than for the evidence.