not liederred.
and there's no way Kelly woulda topped himself had his political masters not leaked his name and then compunded it by making him appear for a public flagellation
[edit] oh, and what nick higham said is correct - the sun has an uncontestable bias in all this, and it's doing so purely to undermine the BBC and thus the rationale for a license fee and to pave the way for Murdoch to get into terrestrial and not have to deal with high quality (for which read expensive to match/better) opposition.
(and there's no way Kelly woulda topped himself had his political masters not leaked his name and then compunded it by making him appear for a public flagellation
[edit] oh, and what nick higham said is correct - the sun has an uncontestable bias in all this, and it's doing so purely to undermine the BBC and thus the rationale for a license fee and to pave the way for Murdoch to get into terrestrial and not have to deal with high quality (for which read expensive to match/better) opposition.
atomboy,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:14,
archived)
Lied.And it was the BBC that put Kelly in a position to be exposed, not the government.
(,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:16,
archived)
so it was the bbc wholeaked his name?
i think not. it was the government who allowed gilligan's source's name into the public domain. the one way you can't accuse gilligan of lacking journalistic integrity is in the protection of his source.
(i think not. it was the government who allowed gilligan's source's name into the public domain. the one way you can't accuse gilligan of lacking journalistic integrity is in the protection of his source.
atomboy,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 16:19,
archived)