h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

McKay, have you just discovered that quote? It's been plastered all over hootoo for about 5 years now.

Potholer,

">>"I'm pretty sure that more than one MP claimed that the 45 minute claim was a significant factor in their choice to vote for going to war."

"Well, I'm not responsible for the intelligence or otherwise of Members of Parliament."

No but the 45 minute claim was germane to the actual decision to go to war, regardless of whether or not it would have been relevant to your decision.

"Caving in to government pressure to do *what*?"

Pushing for the resignation of Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies for starters.

"And that government pressure was applied how?"

I believe that the BBC charter review had a lot to do with it.

>>"No but the 45 minute claim was germane to the actual decision to go to war, regardless of whether or not it would have been relevant to your decision."

Anyone claiming the 45 minute claim was important would really have to be able to explain *why*.
*Who* did they think was at risk of being attacked, *by what*, and under *what circumstances* (retaliation, unplanned unprovoked aggression, planned unprovoked aggression).

Anyone who thought '45 minutes' crucially important would also really have to explain what kinds of timescales they considered as 'dangerous' and which ones they didn't.
If there was intelligence information available suggesting that an aggressive action could be launched with a week, or a month, would that make them going to war was less justified, and if so, why?

If there hadn't been any timescale mentioned, if the intelligence hadn't arrived in time for inclusion in the final report, how many people would have asked "But could he launch weapons within an hour?"

>>"Pushing for the resignation of Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies for starters."

That'd be this Gilligan then?
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00233.html
>>"They expressed feelings of betrayal and anger over the way he tried to defend his broadcasts and the manner of his departure.

A senior manager said: "It is certain the ongoing BBC inquiry into this whole affair would have resulted in disciplinary action against Mr Gilligan. Whatever people think about his story, there was no way they could turn a blind eye to his attempts to save his own skin.""

>>"A former colleague said: "He remained a little s- to the end."

>>"Mr Dyke, who resigned from the corporation on Thursday, joined the attack on Gilligan. He told friends of his grave concerns about the way Gilligan broadcast his original report.
...
"If you listen again to the 6.07 it's a rubbishy piece of journalism. He should have been in the office but he wasn't and he messed it up."

Had Gilligan actually stood up and taken responsibility immediately, it seems quite possible that some other people might well have kept their jobs. Had he actually done his job honestly and competently in the first place, everyone at the BBC would have kept their jobs.

Potholer, I agree with you in that if I were making the decision, the 45 minute claim would not have swayed my decision, but for whatever reasons the people who were actually making the decision considered it important, and that makes the truth or otherwise of the claim important for everyone.

FWIW I suspect it swayed them not because the 45 minute thing alone was reason to go to war, but because it contributed to painting a picture of Iraq's level of military organisation and offensive capability as considerably greater than it actually turned out to be. I'm not going to strongly defend this point of view though, because it's only my guess as to what might have been going through their minds, perhaps subconsciously, when they were making their decisions.

And maybe Gilligan was a nasty piece of work. So what?

>>"Potholer, I agree with you in that if I were making the decision, the 45 minute claim would not have swayed my decision, but for whatever reasons the people who were actually making the decision considered it important, and that makes the truth or otherwise of the claim important for everyone."

For me, it rather suggests that the people involved maybe weren't the best people to make those kinds of decisions..

>>"FWIW I suspect it swayed them not because the 45 minute thing alone was reason to go to war, but because it contributed to painting a picture of Iraq's level of military organisation and offensive capability as considerably greater than it actually turned out to be."

That's possible, but I'd still wonder *who* they thought Iraq was a threat *to*. In terms of the basic military, we knew they had no air-force to speak of, rendering what tanks they had basically worthless for land attacks, and it seemed pretty obvious that even Saddam Hussain would have realised that attcking Kuwait again, or attacking Saudi Arabia would be effectively suicidal.
In terms of WMDs, pretty much the only things which would seem important were whether they had any, and whether they had the intention to use them, (and against who). If anything, information that they were soon to acquire them (or acquire better ones, or better delivery systems) would seem the best reason for an attack - if someone already has them ready-to-use, and you think they're likely to use them, wouldn't that tend to put people off attacking?

It seems we're in violent agreement!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

Is this bad boy relative to our ocnvo here?

Very much so FB. The WMD discussion has been great, boys, but that story is more in line with the original post.

What is it with the veil anyway? It's nothing to do with Islam. There's been a huge rise in them since 9/11, coincidence?

You know how in the US, when times get tough, we always call upon the memories of our glorious "founding fathers" for wisdom/guidance/inspiration?

I think you Brits need to do that, in your own unique way. Except you're lucky, b/c the people I have in mind are still alive. You need to get the surviving members of Monty Python together, and start a full time satirical campaign on all of your current events. It could offend everyone, it would be great.

Or, another idea would be a British/UK-centric version of theonion or southpark or the dailyshow.

Well, there is the whole 'use religion to support/enforce some cultural practice' thing.

I'm a bit uncertain, and thinking out loud here. Personally, I don't have an absolute objection to individual adults freely choosing to wear veils in situations where they don't present a problem for other people interacting with them or identifying them. However, the whole issue of coercion is a very tricky one.
If someone chooses to wear a veil in a culture where to *not* do so would lead them to be considered anything from 'a bit fast' to 'asking for it' (or even dishonouring a family enough to justify their death), it's not exactly what I'd call a free choice of an individual.

If I'm not allowed to wear a mask or a motorbike helmet in a bank or filling station, at the very least, I think it would be fair for people to be required to remove veils there, at passport control, when using cashpoints, etc.

However, people who choose to wear a veil have to accept that people will form opinions of them based on their choice. Someone can't demand the right to wear a veil *and* have people think no differently of them any more than someone can wear anything else, revealing or concealing, and demand that other people aren't influenced by what they wear.

I'm trying to think of situations where it would be generally acceptable for *me* to wear a mask, whether a perfectly plain nondescript face, or something more like a veil, and short of my being a burns victim, I'm not sure I can think of any. I can certainly think of many situations where I'd be expected or required *not* to wear one.
I guess the 'identity' issue would be lessened if I wasn't allowed out in public without a chaperone, who could do the identity-requiring stuff for me, though that would be rather a restrictive situation, and not one I'd be happy with.

These clothes were designed for people living in the desert, to keep the sand out of the eyes. How many sandstorms are there in Dewsbury?

The woman tonight on Channel 4 News, (who I think I recognise from MPACUK), argued that it isn't a barrier to communication because there was no communication before. Her feelings were that it was incumbent upon British Society to build bridges.

Am I missing something?

With reference to the thread title, maybe we should just realise that these people want to be different, they want barriers and they want British Society to stay at arms length.

>>"Her feelings were that it was incumbent upon British Society to build bridges."

Isn't it *kind* of a bridge to say "Yes, you *can* settle here"?

"How many sandstorms are there in Dewsbury?"

235

http://www.google.com/search?q=sandstorm+dewsbury&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Seriously though, would you complain about me dressing like a biker (all leather, etc) if I then got in a minivan and drove away?

I don't think we want to assign allowed clothing based on function...

It seems the rules change when things are based on imaginary friends - "And a political rival - Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes - questioned whether it was Mr Straw's place to question the way that members of the public dressed.

"I don't think it's the job for somebody who represents the whole community to say to somebody who comes through the door, 'Do you mind if you dress differently in order to talk to me?'," Mr Hughes said. "

Except of course if you want to wear a hood in a shopping centre, or a helmet into the bank, or even a hat into a bar, I've been asked to take mine off because it obscures the camera.

We routinely accept discrimination based on clothing though. Some pubs and even Motorway Service Stations ban football colours. It's understood that they are provocative and can cause tempers to flare.

There are certain societal "dress rules". You don't go to an interview in shorts or visit your granny in a gimp suit. Some people do, of course, but they do so as an act of rebellion. That's what the punk movement was all about after all.

Are Muslim women in Niquabs deliberately seeking to shock? Do they secretly delight in the outrage in the press? It seems their dress code gets ever more extreme. First headscarves, then Burkas, then Niquabs and finally screening off their eyes and wearing gloves. I think they are getting exactly the reaction they seek.

In which case, what do they hope to achieve?

>>"In which case, what do they hope to achieve?"

Some people may like the feeling of anonymity.
Some may feel pressured into wearing one or other form of clothing.
*Some* people like feeling [potentially] persecuted - it makes them feel somehow validated.
Maybe others feel that they will improve their standing in their own community (which may be the only thing they actually feel (or have been told) they have of value) if they go over the top in demonstrating their supposed allegiance.

If someone expects some people will respect them more for behaving a certain way, that have to accept that it may have the opposite effect on other people - one person may think "What a gloriously devout woman!", while another may think "Is she really that much of a doormat?".

Well yes it is certainly more difficult to talk to someone with their face covered, and it comes across as somewhat isolationist to me - shutting society out as it were. I'm disappointed that people do it, but it is their perogative I suppose. Of course, there are perfectly polite ways to ask if you can talk to someone's face.