Saturday, December 05, 2009

Re-opening investigation into Dr. Kelly's death?

Brendon Abbott (Daily Star) reports, "SIX doctors are taking legal action to demand the ­inquest into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly be re-opened." David Kelly was the source for many press reports including Andrew Gilligan's for the BBC that the Iraq intel had been "sexed up." David Kelly died July 17, 2003. Simon Alford (Times of London) identifies the six doctors: "Trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, radiologist Stephen Frost, Chris Burns-Cox, who specialises in internal general medicine, and Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner, have instructed solicitors and aim to approach the Attorney General Baroness Scotland to get the case before the High Court. " Alex Watts (Sky News -- link has text and video) explains, "Lord Hutton concluded he bled to death as a result of a cut to his wrist and an overdose of painkillers. But Michael Powers QC, an expert in coroners' law, said the cut would not have caused him to bleed to death, and there was only a normal dose of co-proxamol in his body. He said that for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide there must be evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' that they intended to kill themselves. Dr Powers added: 'Suicide cannot be presumed, it has to be proven'." Andrew Alderson (Telegraph of London) adds:

The revelation of the move for a new inquest is embarrassing for the Government, particularly as it comes just two weeks into the inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot which is examining Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The doctors are applying to the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland for permission to go to the High Court for a new inquest, or the resumption of the previous inquest.
Their case rests on section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act, which allows the High Court to order a new inquest, or to resume a previous inquest, in "special cases", including cases where "it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice".
Unusually, no coroner's inquest was ever held into Dr Kelly's death. Instead, the official verdict of suicide was provided by the Hutton Inquiry, commissioned by Tony Blair, the then-Prime Minister.

On another topic, if you're not a member of this community, you can use the public e-mail account to try to get something highlighted but you need to remember a few things. First off, I didn't ask you to e-mail and I don't owe you a thing. It's not my obligation to reply to your unsolicited e-mail. And it's not my obligation to note your event, cause, article or what have you. I might note it, I might not.

If I think it's a waste of time, I'm not going to bother noting it. I may think it's a waste of time for any number of reasons. For example, offline, I know people. It's saved my ass and made me a lot of money repeatedly. So I can walk out in front of a crowd and know the mood in the room before I've stopped walking. I know what to do and how to do it and where to take it.

So if you're writing an article and you want it highlighted here and I think it's nonsense, I'm not highlighting it.

And let me explain it to you real damn slow because you seem to have comprehension issues.

You want to protest war toys? Fine. I don't have a problem with that. Years ago, I risked a failing grade in a poli sci class because the three week exercise was a war game and I do not believe we treat war as a game. So I stood my beliefs and refused to participate in something that was a healthy chunk of the grade. I went to the professor and explained why I couldn't participate and why I wouldn't be participating (even when threatened with a failing grade).

Where in your war toys article do you ever explain what's wrong with war toys?

Answer: You don't.

You're not hitting on this issue (until now) and no one else is. But you think that just saying 'War toys are bad' is enough to explain your position?

So you go to a chain store and you protest war toys (protest for reasons never given in your article) and the chain store is selected because it sells war toys.

Repeating, you've never explained why war toys are wrong in your article. Now you make it even worse because some people reading your article might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and support your cause. But you're ending your article praising the toy store for being nice to you.

First question: Is it all about you? Is all about how you're treated?

More important question: What is the point of your article?

Joe/Jo is someone who's never thought about war toys before, can't figure out why you're opposed to them, but willing to boycott them and stores that sell them for the cause . . . up until you're saying My Toys is a great store and the people are so wonderful and good to you.

Anyone on the fence about supporting your action (as undefined as your reasoning) just decided not to because you're raving over the toy store. They're such good people! So the person on the fence now has their out: "I can still shop there, I can even buy war toys, because the people are such 'good people'."

I have no idea where you learned activism but your article is weak and highly ineffective. You never establish why war toys are wrong. You never make a clear call for action. Readers can infer you're asking them not to buy war toys and to boycott stores that sell them; however, at the end of the article you're praising the store that sells them and it's 'wonderful' employees.

Your article is self-defeating.

It's confusing and it's not going to persuade or speak to anyone except someone already opposed to war toys and already refusing to purchase them. You've reached no one but you've self-stroked and maybe that was the entire point of your stupid, stupid article.

But you are the problem and you need to realize that before you write another word. You and your refusal to reach out beyond your own echo chamber are the problem.

You've written an article you think advocates for something. It does no such thing. It has no call to action and it offers no reasons for taking any stance. It exists solely to say: "Look how special I am!"

Well give yourself a gold star but stop pretending you reached anyone or you got a message out. All you did was waste your own time and the time of anyone who read it.

People who style themselves as activist and leaders better start grasping that movement building is not a vanity move.

And with this article specifically: If it's wrong to purchase war toys, then it's wrong to sell them. If it's wrong to sell them, there's no need for you to slobber over the store and the employees in the last paragraphs of your article.

This writer, no surprise, was a Barack supporter who deluded themselves. Now that the bloom is off the rose and the toast has gone flat, this Barry O groupie can't call out Barack. Reading this dopey war toys article, it became obvious that this group of people has no idea (a) how to oppose anything or (b) the realities of most people's lives.

On (b), we're all busy. That includes me. We wish we could do more and when we consider things we might add to our overloaded schedules, we're looking for any reaso to say no so if, in your 'advocacy' article, you're providing us with an out ('wonderful store! wonderful employees!') then we're going to grab it.

On (a), if you're opposed to something, you're opposed to it. If you're slobbering over what you're 'opposed' to, you really aren't opposed to it -- whether "it" is war toys, Barack's escalation or continuation of wars or what have you.

It's weak ass and it's the sort of crap we've grown to expect from Barbie Lee and Denny Kucinich. The switchboards of Congress didn't light up this week after Barry's speech. Why is that?

It's because instead of using every ounce of our being to call out the War Hawk, too many people wasted everyone's time with a bunch of slobber (and lies -- anyone calling Barry O intelligent wasn't paying attention during that awful speech which he had repeated trouble reading from the teleprompters).

You can't sort of be opposed to rape. You either are or you're not. And if you are opposed, you don't waste forever telling people how 'elequent' and 'smart' your rapist was.

By the same token you don't waste your time praising a War Hawk. The problem today isn't the people, it's what passes for 'leaders' -- and that especially includes the freak shows from NYC who have still not learned that's there's a whole world far beyond the routes of the MTA.