BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
reli...@yahoo.com
The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the way
the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the lessons of
the David Kelly affair.
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in to
give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton inquiry?
After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly decided
to repudiated and scapegoat him. Few long-time observers of my fellow
bahais will believe for a second that the truth will be learned from
UK NSA member Barney Leith, who issued a letter on July 20 prohibiting
UK Baha'is from speaking to the media. His comments should be weighed
in the context of ESSENTIAL READING - Two introductory articles on
Baha'i fundamentalism and censorship - See links below
"Barney Leith, secretary of the National Spiritual assembly of
Britain, who knew Dr Kelly and will testify before the Hutton inquiry
about the impact of the Baha'i faith had on him, said he could not
know whether the scientist might have taken his own life because of
guilt. But he added: "The teachings of the Baha'i faith strongly
emphasise the importance of ... keeping one's word."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1027373,00.html
EVIDENCE grows... Dr. David Kelly & the Baha'i Faith
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
Paul Hammond
> BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
> The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
>
> The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the way
> the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the lessons of
> the David Kelly affair.
> http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
>
> I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in to
> give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton inquiry?
>
> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly decided
> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
Are you STILL lying about this?
The Baha'i Faith has not, and will not "repudiate and scapegoat"
Dr Kelly - on the contrary, they have said nothing against
him.
Have you seen anything that says different?
Paul
reli...@yahoo.com
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 27/11/03 3:44 pm:
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> news:<a38fb763.03112...@posting.google.com>...
>> BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
>> The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
>>
>> The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the
way
>> the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the lessons
of
>> the David Kelly affair.
>> http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
>>
>> I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in to
>> give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton
inquiry?
>>
>> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly
decided
>> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
>
> Are you STILL lying about this?
I am not the one who lied at the Hutton Inquiry.
>
> The Baha'i Faith has not, and will not "repudiate and scapegoat"
> Dr Kelly - on the contrary, they have said nothing against
> him.
Yes they have
> Have you seen anything that says different?
Yes, here is the proof were one baha'is contradicts another.
Roger Kingdon versus Barney Leith's Account
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly100502.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE WELL: Incredibly, many have accepted, without the slightest
hesitation, suspicion, and, apparently, investigation, the claims by
the fundamentalists among my fellow baha'is regarding David Kelly's
talk at the home of Geeta and Roger Kingdon. It should be carefully
considered to what extent Barney Leith's July 20 letter prohibiting
Baha'is from talking with the press influenced the comments here. The
timeline should also be carefully investigated since the possibility
exists that local Baha'is revealed that the October 2002 meeting took
place prior to Barney Leith's July 20 letter. Notice too that the only
Baha'i being interviewed by Lord Hutton is the author of that
prohibition and Secretary of the UK NSA. Obviously, Barnabus Leith and
Roger Kingdon have very different accounts and only one can be the
truth:
"Roger Kingdon told The Observer last night that Kelly expressed his
unhappiness with how the document was being interpreted, saying the
intelligence information supplied was accurate, but indicating that he
was uncomfortable about how it was being represented."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006711,00.html
or
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly100502.htm
Barnabus Leith, UK NSA Secretary:
Media exposure 'led to Kelly suicide'
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday September 2, 2003
"...Earlier the court heard testimony from Barnabus Leith, the
secretary of
the national spiritual assembly of the Baha'i faith, who denied media
reports that Dr Kelly had addressed a Baha'i meeting on the September
dossier.
"Mr Leith said that the scientist was always "particularly discreet"
and
that although Dr Kelly did address a meeting in Oxfordshire about his
work as a
weapons inspector, it was not a Baha'i faith meeting and he neither
mentioned the dossier nor was asked about it....
"Mr Leith revealed that Dr Kelly joined the religion - founded by an
Iranian
prophet in the 19th century - while in California in September 1999."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1034240,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're unfamiliar with hikmat and taqiya in either a Muslim or
Baha'i context, it's basically the "wisdom" of lying and dissimulating
when necessary to protect yourself or the faith..... Outside observers
should be especially careful and alert to Hikmat & Taqiya, "wisdom"
and dissimulation, key Baha'i concepts
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/hikmatMENU.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE WELL: See FULL TEXT for Roger Kingdon's account below. My
comments interwoven here with Barnabus Leith's testimony before the
Hutton Inquiry, EXTRACTS:
24 A. You use the word "progress", it is not really
25 a progression.
89
1 Q. Sorry.
2 A. Because there is no career structure, as it were.
One can be re-elected EVERY YEAR, for decades, which is
the way it actually works in the Baha'i Faith, much complained
about by "liberal Baha'is," but there's no career structure....
Please, someone inform his Lordship that he's been duped.
8 Q. I think you wanted to comment on an article in
9 a newspaper which claimed that Dr Kelly had spoken about
10 his work. Did Dr Kelly speak about his work, as far as
11 you knew?
I.e., Lord Hutton had been told ahead of time that Leith
wanted to refute Roger Kingdon's claim, note, not the newspaper's,
that Kelly HAD discussed the dossier....
12 A. He did not, or at least he did not ever in my hearing
13 and I understand from the Baha'is in Abingdon that he
14 did not at Baha'i meetings talk about his work.
THEY said otherwise earlier in public.... According to
them, Kelly had spoken about the dossier IN THEIR
HEARING and had been questioned about it. Leith
knows that and hence his equivocation. Was Leith in the WC?
He was
15 extremely discreet. The particular press comment
16 claimed that he had spoken at a Baha'i meeting
17 critically about the September dossier.
WRONG. Roger Kingdon claimed.... The press reported
his claim. Time to interview the interviewer or author of
article.... Time to interview ALL 30 of those at that meeting....
This was not in
18 fact the case. I was at that meeting.
Barnabus Leith is the author of the gag order issued on
July 20 from the UK NSA.... As a fundamentalist, on the
career ladder/structure, he's completely untrustworthy.
It was not
19 a meeting organised by the Baha'i local assembly, it was
20 privately organised and he was invited to speak to an
21 audience of Baha'is and non-Baha'is about his work as
22 a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998; and he
23 did so with the aid of slides. He did not mention the
24 dossier. Nobody asked him about the dossier.
And 30 people just happened to be Baha'i? Kelly didn't
think he was addressing a Baha'i gathering? How many
non-Bahais were there? Who called around to organize
the meeting? It wasn't the Local Spiritual Assembly as
usual? Or members thereof? Hence, other Baha'is would
have certainly believed they were attending a Baha'i
meeting. Roger Kingdon clearly thought, implied, and said
as much....
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans27.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL TEXT of Roger Kingdon's account:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1006711,00.html
***BEGIN ARTICLE***
Revealed: Kelly told church of dossier fears
Scientist briefed Hoon days before attack on Iraq
Jason Burke and Kamal Ahmed
Sunday July 27, 2003
The Observer
David Kelly spoke openly to fellow members of a religious sect about
his
concerns over the 'interpretation' of intelligence material in the
Government's September dossier on whether Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction.
As the dead scientists' family yesterday met the senior law lord
appointed to head the judicial inquiry into the affair, remarkable new
details emerged of Kelly's views on the dossier during a discussion
with
worshippers of the Bahai faith, a Persian religion that promotes
global
peace, inter-racial harmony and self-discipline.
The disclosure of new evidence about his 'unhappiness' with the
dossier
came as it was revealed last night that Geoff Hoon, the Defence
Secretary, had a private lunch with the weapons scientist shortly
before
the Iraq conflict, undermining government claims that Kelly was a
middle-ranking official with little access to intelligence.
Hoon met Kelly to discuss Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction.
Although it is not clear whether Kelly raised his concerns about the
use
of intelligence to make the case for war, it is unusual for a member
of
the Cabinet to meet officials unless they have high levels of
information unlikely to be known by the Minister.
Kelly, who joined the 5000-strong British followers of the Bahai faith
in 1999, made his comments at the home of Geeta and Roger Kingdon, two
fellow worshippers, in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, on 5 October last year.
Also present were around 30 other invited Bahai guests.
Kelly gave a 40-minute talk, which was accompanied with a slide show,
about his work as a weapons inspector in Iraq. He ended with a
question-
and-answer session on the intelligence dossier, which had been made
public 10 days earlier as part of what opponents claim was a
government
attempt to swing public opinion behind war on Iraq.
Roger Kingdon told The Observer last night that Kelly expressed his
unhappiness with how the document was being interpreted, saying the
intelligence information supplied was accurate, but indicating that he
was uncomfortable about how it was being represented.
At the time of the discussion, newspapers and broadcasters were
reporting, with government guidance, that the document proved that the
Iraqi military could deploy chemical and biological weapons at 45
minutes' notice; that there had been recent attempts by the Iraqis to
acquire 'significant quantities of uranium from Africa'; and that Iraq
could produce a nuclear weapon in 'between one and two years' if
Saddam's Hussein's agents obtained bomb-grade uranium and other
components.
The Sun reacted with the headline: 'He's got 'em... Let's get him.'
Critically, however, Kingdon said it was unclear whether Kelly was
saying that he was unhappy at the way the document had been presented
by
the government, or at the way it had been interpreted by the media, or
both.
'I asked him what he thought of [the dossier]. It was clear that he
was
happy with the factual content but less happy... and felt
frustrated...
by the way it had been interpreted... But he did not say who by.'
Kingdon said Kelly was 'ambiguous' about exactly who he blamed for the
misrepresentation of the dossier. '[He] expressed frustration at how
it
was interpreted but did not say by whom,' he said.
The news that he talked so openly will be seized on by those who have
been trying to paint the scientist as a maverick with an inappropriate
taste for talking about his work.
However, Kelly's friends attribute it to his personal determination to
ensure that the problems of weapons proliferation was properly
understood by the public and the media.
The disclosures last night added fresh intrigue to the crisis that has
engulfed the government and the BBC since the Ministry of Defence
scientist's body was found two miles from his home in Southmoor,
Oxfordshire, on 18 July. Kelly, 59, bled to death after slashing his
left wrist.
Lord Hutton, who was appointed by Tony Blair to carry out a judicial
inquiry into the events surrounding Kelly's death, yesterday visited
his
widow, Janice, and her three daughters before starting to hear
evidence
in a case that is likely to last six weeks. Friends of the family
indicated last night that they were unlikely to make any public
comment
until the inquiry was completed.
Kelly, who was employed by the Ministry, though he had frequent
contact
with the security services, appears to have often briefed journalists
on
the hunt for WMD programmes in Iraq and elsewhere. It was one such
discussion, with Andrew Gilligan of the BBC in a hotel in London
earlier
this year, which eventually led to the disclosure of his name to the
media and his suicide.
The Observer has also learned that Kelly was vetted by the Ministry of
Defence and MI5 in the months before his death. As a senior official
at
the top secret chemical and biological weapons research centre at
Porton
Down, Kelly was subject to so-called 'developed vetting'.
This enhanced level of checks tests for which involve comprehensive
interviews with colleagues, superiors and other associates, is usually
only reviewed every three years. A more cursory check, of police and
financial records, is carried out every year. It is unclear which vet
ting procedure was carried out on Kelly earlier this year.
There have been reports - denied by his family - that Kelly had been
suffering from depression for some time. Ministry of Defence officials
said last night that vetting, conducted by a special section in York,
is
largely focused on security issues and that a medical problem, unless
entered on medical records, might not be detected. However, one former
colleague of Kelly told The Observer that the scientist would have
been
subject to a high degree of scrutiny. 'This is someone with access to
the highest levels of intelligence and who, through his work at Porton
Down, worked closely with extremely dangerous substances,' he said.
'They would have been, or should have been, watching him closely.'
Kingdon said that Kelly was a strong admirer of Hans Blix, the Swedish
head of the United Nations weapons inspection programme who was
criticised by American hawks for being too moderate. Blix is known to
be
committed to the idea that inspections offer a better alternative to
international disputes over weapons of mass destruction than war.
Bahai officials said they are discussing funeral plans with Dr Kelly's
family. 'Bahais locally are in touch with the family and are offering
whatever support they can to Mrs Kelly,' one said.
'We're working very closely with the family to have a funeral in
accordance with the family's needs and Dr Kelly's life,' he said.
Meanwhile, Sky News and ITN are making legal representations to Lord
Hutton in a bid to have television cameras admitted to the inquiry
hearings, a Sky spokeswoman said yesterday.
The secretary to the inquiry, Lee Hughes, announced last Thursday that
the judge had decided TV and radio broadcasts would be limited to the
opening and closing statements.
***END ARTICLE***
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly100502.htm
>
> Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.03112...@posting.google.com, Paul
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 27/11/03 3:44 pm:
>
> > reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > news:<a38fb763.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> >> BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
> >> The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
> >>
> >> The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the
> way
> >> the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the lessons
> of
> >> the David Kelly affair.
> >> http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
> >>
> >> I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in to
> >> give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton
> inquiry?
> >>
> >> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly
> decided
> >> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
> >
> > Are you STILL lying about this?
>
> I am not the one who lied at the Hutton Inquiry.
>
Give us the quotes then, liar.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.03112...@posting.google.com, Paul
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 27/11/03 3:44 pm:
>
> > reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > news:<a38fb763.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> >> BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
> >> The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
> >>
> >> The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the
> way
> >> the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the lessons
> of
> >> the David Kelly affair.
> >> http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
> >>
> >> I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in to
> >> give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton
> inquiry?
> >>
> >> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly
> decided
> >> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
> >
> > Are you STILL lying about this?
>
> I am not the one who lied at the Hutton Inquiry.
>
No - you lie as naturally as you breath.
>
> > The Baha'i Faith has not, and will not "repudiate and scapegoat"
> > Dr Kelly - on the contrary, they have said nothing against
> > him.
>
> Yes they have
>
No they haven't.
> > Have you seen anything that says different?
>
> Yes, here is the proof were one baha'is contradicts another.
>
I tell you what - you produce here the text where the Baha'is
"repudiated" or "scapegoated" Dr Kelly, and I will apologise to
you.
In the meantime, if you are still lying about what Dr Kelly
said, I will call you a worm.
Ok?
Produce the proof, or shut the fuck up. Okay?
Paul
reli...@yahoo.com
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 27/11/03 11:32 pm:
>> I am not the one who lied at the Hutton Inquiry.
> Give us the quotes then, liar.
Roger Kingdon versus Barney Leith's Account
reli...@yahoo.com
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 27/11/03 11:38 pm:
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message
> news:<a38fb763.03112...@posting.google.com>...
>> in article c977f97b.03112...@posting.google.com, Paul
>> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 27/11/03 3:44 pm:
>>
>>> reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message
>>> news:<a38fb763.03112...@posting.google.com>...
>>>> BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
>>>> The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
>>>>
>>>> The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the
>> way
>>>> the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the
lessons
>> of
>>>> the David Kelly affair.
>>>> http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in
to
>>>> give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton
>> inquiry?
>>>>
>>>> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly
>> decided
>>>> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
>>>
>>> Are you STILL lying about this?
>>
>> I am not the one who lied at the Hutton Inquiry.
>>
>
> No - you lie as naturally as you breath.
>
>>
>>> The Baha'i Faith has not, and will not "repudiate and scapegoat"
>>> Dr Kelly - on the contrary, they have said nothing against
>>> him.
>>
>> Yes they have
>>
>
> No they haven't.
>
>>> Have you seen anything that says different?
>>
>> Yes, here is the proof were one baha'is contradicts another.
>>
>
> I tell you what - you produce here the text where the Baha'is
> "repudiated" or "scapegoated" Dr Kelly, and I will apologise to
> you.
>
> In the meantime, if you are still lying about what Dr Kelly
> said, I will call you a worm.
>
> Ok?
>
> Produce the proof, or shut the fuck up. Okay?
>
> Paul
Roger Kingdon versus Barney Leith's Account
Pat Kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair'
> The Scotsman, UK - 6 hours ago
>
> The head of the BBC has warned ministers not to try to change the way
> the corporation is regulated, insisting it was learning the lessons of
> the David Kelly affair.
> http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2228606
>
> I wonder if Barney Leith (Secretary of the UK NSA) was called in to
> give his advice after his exellent preformance at the Hutton inquiry?
>
> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly decided
> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
I don't see that the AO got any more out of David Kelly, in his life, than
your typical Baha'i, certainly your continuous droning about his suicide
and the fact of his religious affiliation, has probably generated unusual
amounts of publicity for the BF, but I really doubt that the AO asked him
to pioneer to some remote place, donate a million pounds, or, in any other
way, tried to exploit him. If I am wrong about this, please do show me
some testimony, perhaps his wife's statement to Lord Hutton, which
demonstrates that the AO exploited him.
I don't see much for repudiation or scapegoating. For example, if the AO
were to repudiate him, I'd have expected Barney to say that he really was
_not_ a Baha'i. I'm not aware of that. Again, if you have some facts
consistent with this charge, please do show it.
> Few long-time observers of my fellow
> bahais
George, you have _no_ fellow Baha'is. Since you've resigned you've been
after the BF, referred to 'Abdu'l Baha as "noddy", and, of course,
persisted in being yourself; if you are a Baha'i, you are alone.
> will believe for a second that the truth will be learned from
> UK NSA member Barney Leith, who issued a letter on July 20 prohibiting
> UK Baha'is from speaking to the media. His comments should be weighed
> in the context of ESSENTIAL READING -
That appears puzzling. If you say he is unreliable, why would you also
say that his comments are Essential Reading - this seems inconsistent with
your previous warning that he is unreliable.
> Two introductory articles on
> Baha'i fundamentalism and censorship - See links below
>
> "Barney Leith, secretary of the National Spiritual assembly of
> Britain, who knew Dr Kelly and will testify before the Hutton inquiry
> about the impact of the Baha'i faith had on him, said he could not
> know whether the scientist might have taken his own life because of
> guilt. But he added: "The teachings of the Baha'i faith strongly
> emphasise the importance of ... keeping one's word."
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1027373,00.html
>
> EVIDENCE grows... Dr. David Kelly & the Baha'i Faith
> http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
Fred's web site? But you say that Barney is unreliable?
Paul Hammond
SCAPEGOATING? REPUDIATING? None of that here, liar.
Paul
Susan Maneck
>your typical Baha'i, certainly your continuous droning about his suicide
>and the fact of his religious affiliation, has probably generated unusual
>amounts of publicity for the BF,
Dear Paul,
Apparently it has. I understand that firesides at Oxford University started
attracting as many as fifty seekers at a time since the Kelly Affair.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
reli...@yahoo.com
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 28/11/03 1:10 am:
> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly decided
> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
>
> George, you have _no_ fellow Baha'is.
First of all PH and you extract statements from Fred's website I
inclosed then You go ahead and accuse me of writing them. Can you not
read properly?...........................Errol
reli...@yahoo.com
Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 28/11/03 3:33 am:
>>>>>> After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly
>> decided
>>>>>> to repudiated and scapegoat him.
>>>>>
Well then read it again, only this time open your eyes.....Errol
>
> Paul
reli...@yahoo.com
at sma...@aol.com wrote on 28/11/03 5:35 am:
>> I don't see that the AO got any more out of David Kelly, in his
life, than
>> your typical Baha'i, certainly your continuous droning about his
suicide
>> and the fact of his religious affiliation, has probably generated
unusual
>> amounts of publicity for the BF,
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Apparently it has. I understand that firesides at Oxford University started
> attracting as many as fifty seekers at a time since the Kelly Affair.
What are they all listening to, a tape of Dr Kellys talk given to 30
bahai back in October 2002, when he was invited to a fireside at the
home of Geeta and Roger Kingdon?. Investigation of the truth I
hope.....Errol
Paul Hammond
This is George reprinting what Fred says. Fred still wants
to *be* a bad bad bahooey.
Of course, Fred still has extracts from George's earlier
posts in his website, where he calls the way George used
to attack him "evidence of Baha'i hate-speech".
> > will believe for a second that the truth will be learned from
> > UK NSA member Barney Leith, who issued a letter on July 20 prohibiting
> > UK Baha'is from speaking to the media. His comments should be weighed
> > in the context of ESSENTIAL READING -
>
> That appears puzzling. If you say he is unreliable, why would you also
> say that his comments are Essential Reading - this seems inconsistent with
> your previous warning that he is unreliable.
>
> > Two introductory articles on
> > Baha'i fundamentalism and censorship - See links below
> >
> > "Barney Leith, secretary of the National Spiritual assembly of
> > Britain, who knew Dr Kelly and will testify before the Hutton inquiry
> > about the impact of the Baha'i faith had on him, said he could not
> > know whether the scientist might have taken his own life because of
> > guilt. But he added: "The teachings of the Baha'i faith strongly
> > emphasise the importance of ... keeping one's word."
> > http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1027373,00.html
> >
> > EVIDENCE grows... Dr. David Kelly & the Baha'i Faith
> > http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
>
> Fred's web site? But you say that Barney is unreliable?
Error also thinks that Dr Kelly has been called a traitor
in the mainstream media, and not only in his imagination,
because there was a Blake's 7 episode called "Traitor"
in Season four of that excellent TV series.
Go figure.
Paul
Paul Hammond
THis is PK, not PH.
You are still lying about the Baha'is "scapegoating" or
"repudiating" Dr Kelly. There have been no statements
from Baha'is about Dr Kelly that can be so characterised.
Of course, you yourself have scapegoated and repudiated
him, even called him a traitor, and then cried crocodile
tears about the pain of his widow - but then you are
a shameless liar.
Paul
Paul Hammond
SCAPEGOATING? REPUDIATING? Nope, none of that here, and I
have no need to read it again. i saw plenty of this kind of
bollocks from you before Kelly was even cold in his grave.
Your lies have not changed, or somehow become more palatable in
the intervening months.
Paul
Paul Hammond
You know what firesides are about, Error. They are
about learning a few basic facts about the Baha'i Faith.
Maybe they've got room for one more, and you could become
a little better informed yourself??
Paul
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a38fb763.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > in article 3FC6A090...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
> > kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 28/11/03 1:10 am:
> >
> > > After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly decided
> > > to repudiated and scapegoat him.
> >
> > >
> > > George, you have _no_ fellow Baha'is.
> >
> > First of all PH and you extract statements from Fred's website I
> > inclosed then You go ahead and accuse me of writing them. Can you not
> > read properly?...........................Errol
>
> THis is PK, not PH.
>
Paul, hahahaha! THIS is PK; you're PH!
Was that Dilbert's 14th "Words of Wisdom", which applies here?
http://www.shanemcdonald.com/laughs/l-dilbert.html
I was rather startled, too, to read that you and I had been to Fred's website, extracting
statements, and then accusing George of writing them. OBVIOUSLY, it was the sPaCe-aLiEnS, yet
again, writing these things, not our George, no.
No, George, I _can read properly. Learn to write - some day - or let the space aliens write for
you; it doesn't matter much to me.
- Pat
Pat Kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article c977f97b.03112...@posting.google.com, Paul
> Hammond at paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 28/11/03 3:33 am:
>
> (snip)
> >> Roger Kingdon have very different accounts and only one can be the
> >> truth:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > SCAPEGOATING? REPUDIATING? None of that here, liar.
>
> Well then read it again, only this time open your eyes.....Errol
> >
Perhaps you could somehow highlight the scapegoating and repudiating part?
BTW, the fact that Roger Kingdon's early statement in the press does not agree
completely with Barney's statement, does not mean that anyone was scapegoating
or repudiating. Often, as events occur, people have immediate reaction and
commentary, and a few weeks later, when they've had time to review their notes,
and the relevant correpsondence, they see details which they overlooked in
their immediate reaction to the main event.
So, here is Barney's statement to the Hutton Inquiry; the Questioner is Mr.
Dingemans.
19 Q. Can you tell his Lordship your full name?
20 A. I am John Barnabus Leith.
21 Q. What is your occupation?
22 A. I am the Secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of
23 the Baha'is of the United Kingdom.
24 Q. The Baha'i faith is a religion, is that right?
25 A. That is correct, yes.
86
1 Q. When did it start?
2 A. The Baha'i faith started in the middle of the 19th
3 Century in the country now known as Iran and was founded
4 by a figure we consider to be a prophet of God who had
5 the title of Baha'u'llah or Glory of God.
6 Q. What is the Baha'i attitude to other religions?
7 A. The Baha'i faith is that all the great religions come
8 from the same source, namely from God, so we are very
9 happy to work with and welcoming towards people of other
10 faiths.
11 Q. Does that include every other religion,Christian,
12 Jewish, Muslim?
13 A. Yes, all the great religions, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist. We
14 believe they all come from the same source. We believe
15 there is a historical chain of religions and that
16 Baha'u'llah is the latest of the messengers of God.
17 Q. We have heard that Dr Kelly, after he converted to the
18 Baha'i religion, started reading the Koran. Would that
19 be something consistent with the Baha'i religion?
20 A. It would. I did not know that until I read Mrs Kelly's
21 evidence, but yes, it would be perfectly consistent.
22 I know Baha'is are in fact encouraged to read the Koran.
23 Q. And also other religious books, the Bible, the Koran?
24 A. Yes indeed, I know that Baha'is read the scriptures of
25 all the great religions in addition to our own Baha'i
87
1 scriptures.
2 Q. How many Baha'is are there in the world?
3 A. Somewhere between 5 and 6 million. It is difficult to
4 have an exact count because many of the Baha'is of the
5 world live in very poor countries and statistics are not
6 easily kept.
7 Q. Is there a formal structure if you are a Baha'i?
8 A. Yes, we have. The affairs of our faith are governed by
9 elected councils at local level, at national and
10 international level. We have no priests or ministers so
11 we are not, as has been referred to in some of the
12 press, a church. We do not consider ourselves to be
13 a church. We do not have an ecclesiastical structure.
14 Q. How do you get elected as a member of a local body?
15 A. Well, each year on 21st April the Baha'is in each
16 locality elect nine of their members to serve on what is
17 called the local Spiritual Assembly, which is the local
18 governing council for that locality, and their term of
19 office is for one year. Those who serve on these bodies
20 can be re-elected any number of times. But nobody
21 stands for election and there is no canvassing, there is
22 no nomination. It is a secret ballot.
23 Q. So you just vote for someone else who is in the same
24 community as you?
25 A. Yes, each person in the locality has nine votes, and so
88
1 they exercise those nine votes; and out of all -- the
2 nine people who receive the most votes out of all the
3 votes cast serve on the local assembly for that year.
4 Q. And why 21st April? Is that a significant day?
5 A. It is a significant day, yes, it marks a particular
6 historic occasion in the history of the Baha'i faith.
7 Q. Which is?
8 A. Which is the Baha'u'llah who had been exiled to Baghdad
9 in 1853 from his native Persia announced his mission in
10 1863, in other words 10 years after he had arrived in
11 Baghdad, he announced his mission to a number of his
12 very close followers and associates on that day in 1863.
13 Q. What mission did he announce?
14 A. That he had come to bring a message from God, that the
15 message that God wished the world to have at this
16 particular time is that all human beings of whatever
17 ethnic group, whatever creed, whatever language,
18 wherever they live in the world are all part of a single
19 human family and that the work of this time is to make
20 that a reality.
21 Q. And if you had been elected on the local level, how
22 would one then progress to a national and international
23 level?
24 A. You use the word "progress", it is not really
25 a progression.
89
1 Q. Sorry.
2 A. Because there is no career structure, as it were.
3 Again, the national body is elected by delegates who
4 are, in turn, elected by Baha'is at local level. So it
5 is a two stage election for the national governing
6 council, so that the local Baha'is elect delegates, the
7 delegates go to our national convention and there the
8 delegates, of whom there are 95, each year vote for the
9 national assembly on the same principle as the voting
10 for the local Spiritual Assembly.
11 Q. And what do you know of Dr Kelly's conversion to the
12 Baha'i faith?
13 A. Our records show that he became a Baha'i in
14 September 1999 in the United States. At first we
15 thought that he had become a Baha'i in New York but
16 subsequently it became clear that he actually became
17 a Baha'i in California; and I understand from what
18 I read in The Times that there was a Baha'i in Monterey,
19 California.
20 Q. If you do not know from your own knowledge ...
21 A. I do not know that.
22 Q. He became a Baha'i in the United States?
23 A. He certainly became a Baha'i in the United States, yes.
24 Q. Did he then follow the religion back in Oxfordshire?
25 A. Yes did, yes.
90
1 Q. How did he do that?
2 A. He attended meetings organised by the local Spiritual
3 Assembly of the Baha'is of the Vale of White Horse.
4 That local assembly, at that time, covered the whole
5 administrative district of the Vale of White Horse.
6 Q. Is that one of the 95 districts?
7 A. No, this is the local government district of the Vale of
8 White Horse. The local assembly covered that whole area
9 and they organised the usual range of Baha'i meetings
10 including regular prayer meetings and discussion
11 meetings and other such meetings which he attended.
12 Q. And did he have any -- was he elected on to the --
13 A. He was, yes. He was a member of the local Spiritual
14 Assembly of the Vale of White Horse for a time, less
15 than a year I think, I am not sure of the exact time.
16 Q. That is one of the nine?
17 A. He was one of the nine within that locality.
18 Q. Did he have any role in --
19 A. He served for a time as the treasurer of that local
20 Spiritual Assembly.
21 Q. How long did he do that for?
22 A. I could not tell you the exact length of time but I know
23 it was fairly brief.
24 Q. On the Baha'i faith website there is a little heading
25 relating to suicide. Has that always been there or was
91
1 that put up, as it were, after Dr Kelly's death?
2 A. May I ask which website?
3 Q. It is the baha'i.org.uk. It says this:
4 "Baha'i leave questions of forgiveness and judgment
5 to God."
6 A. That was put up subsequent to Dr Kelly's death.
7 Q. To explain the thing?
8 A. Correct, yes.
9 Q. If I can just read the extract and ask you to comment on
10 it:
11 "Suicide is always tragic because it cuts life
12 short, but people who suffer hardship and distress
13 deserve compassion."
14 Can you just help his Lordship with the Baha'i
15 attitude to suicide?
16 A. Indeed. The act of suicide is condemned in the Baha'i
17 writings because it is an undue curtailment of the life
18 that should be lived to the full. However, Baha'is and
19 the Baha'i institutions do not and never would take
20 a condemnatory attitude to people who unfortunately
21 commit suicide. Quite the opposite. There would be
22 a great deal of sympathy, as indeed there has been in
23 the case of Dr Kelly, and Baha'is would pray for the
24 progress of the soul of that person as they have for the
25 soul of Dr Kelly.
92
1 Q. And do the Baha'is believe in an afterlife?
2 A. Indeed, yes. We see it as a continuation of a single
3 process that begins in this life of coming ever closer
4 to God, through our normal religious practices of prayer
5 and study of the Baha'i scriptures and meditation and
6 reflection, and really attempting to live according to
7 the Baha'i teachings to the best of our ability.
8 Q. I think you wanted to comment on an article in
9 a newspaper which claimed that Dr Kelly had spoken about
10 his work. Did Dr Kelly speak about his work, as far as
11 you knew?
12 A. He did not, or at least he did not ever in my hearing
13 and I understand from the Baha'is in Abingdon that he
14 did not at Baha'i meetings talk about his work. He was
15 extremely discreet. The particular press comment
16 claimed that he had spoken at a Baha'i meeting
17 critically about the September dossier. This was not in
18 fact the case. I was at that meeting. It was not
19 a meeting organised by the Baha'i local assembly, it was
20 privately organised and he was invited to speak to an
21 audience of Baha'is and non-Baha'is about his work as
22 a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998; and he
23 did so with the aid of slides. He did not mention the
24 dossier. Nobody asked him about the dossier.
25 Q. Did you, yourself, know Dr Kelly?
93
1 A. I had met him perhaps three maybe four times. I do not
2 claim to have known him well. However, I certainly did
3 know him and he came to -- I have a house in Abingdon
4 and he came to that house and came to Baha'i meetings
5 there, and so to that extent I knew Dr Kelly and engaged
6 in conversation with him on those occasions.
7 Q. And is there anything else surrounding Dr Kelly's death
8 that you can assist his Lordship with?
9 A. I would like to say that the Baha'i community extends
10 the greatest sympathy to Mrs Kelly and to the Kelly
11 family. We do not in any way believe that there is
12 anything in the Baha'i teachings or in the life of the
13 Baha'i community that would have induced Dr Kelly to
14 commit suicide. There were allegations made that the
15 Baha'i faith condones or accepts suicide; this is not
16 the case, as I have explained, and so there is -- the
17 Baha'i community itself and the Baha'i teachings are
18 extremely positive in their ethos, very much to do with
19 the affirmation of life and the development of
20 qualities, and we do not believe that there is anything
21 in the experience that Dr Kelly would have had of the
22 community or his study of the Baha'i teachings that
23 would have led him to suppose that committing suicide
24 was a good act.
25 However, of course, as I said, we do extend the
94
1 greatest sympathy to his family and we are -- you know,
2 we are praying for the progress of his soul.
3 Q. And is there anything else you would like to say?
4 A. No. That is all. Thank you.
5 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed.
6 A. Thank you, my Lord.
7 MR DINGEMANS: Professor Hawton, please.
xxxx end of Barney Leith's statement to Lord Hutton xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans27.htm
There you have it; he didn't even repudiate the Sikhs, and at an official
hearing, too.
Barney says the meeting at the Kingdon's did address weapons inspection in
Iraq, but a) did not address the dossier, and b) it was not a Baha'i meeting,
though there were Baha'is there.
As to the question of whether the meeting at the Kingdon's addressed the
dossier, both Barney and Roger agree that David Kelly spoke from slides.
Therefore, his slides from the talk would resolve whether or not 'the dossier'
was on the agenda. It seems to me to be quite possible that David Kelly had
privately expressed some reservations about the dossier to Roger Kingdon, such
that this may have been completely correct, "Kelly expressed his unhappiness
with how the document was being interpreted, saying the intelligence
information supplied was accurate, but indicating that he was uncomfortable
about how it was being represented" w/o this unhappiness being expressed at
this meeting in Abingdon, or wherever it was.
Do let me know when you find the repudiation and scapegoating, George. I'll
try to remember to breathe through the suspense of the wait.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article 3FC6A090...@ameritel.net, Pat Kohli at
> kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 28/11/03 1:10 am:
>
> > After USING David Kelly, the bahai administration has clearly decided
> > to repudiated and scapegoat him.
>
> >
> > George, you have _no_ fellow Baha'is.
>
> First of all PH and you extract statements from Fred's website I
> inclosed
Any statements which may have been from Fred's website, in this thread,
were not extracted by me, or by Paul. If there were any such statements,
they'd have been pasted in by you, w/o appropriate annotation, by you.
> then You go ahead and accuse me of writing them. Can you not
> read properly?...........................Errol
No, George, I can read read properly. Can you not write properly?
Paul Hammond
I've read it. There is no scapegoating or repudiating
here. Just more of your lies.
Paul