tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post4728253072593152413..comments2023-10-18T17:03:47.698+01:00Comments on Surely some mistake?: David Aaronovitch: expert on liesTim Wilkinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-63438391289943945182011-06-12T09:20:32.748+01:002011-06-12T09:20:32.748+01:00Some one else who needs keeping an eye on is Simon...Some one else who needs keeping an eye on is Simon Hoggart. He wrote the following piece:<br /><br />The real scandal of David Kelly's death<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/09/david-kelly-new-inquest-ruled-out?INTCMP=SRCH<br /><br />In it Hoggart said the following:<br /><br />"Mr Grieve acknowledged there were generally sane people who thought differently from him, "but the evidence is overwhelming that it was suicide that caused Dr Kelly's death."<br /><br />"To prove it, he produced a 60-page "schedule", which rebuts 169 points made by the people who believe the murder-by-the state theory. You can find it online."<br /><br />Thing is Hoggart didn't provide a link and I have not been able to find online this mysterious "169 point rebuttal".<br /><br />So was Hoggart mistaken or did he know that such a document didn't exist but said it did anyway in order to falsely assure the many who he would hope couldn't be arsed to check?<br />If he did that would be deception undertaken with deliberation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-20500759055468954522011-06-12T08:25:58.031+01:002011-06-12T08:25:58.031+01:00The new term Aaronovitch has introduced for those ...The new term Aaronovitch has introduced for those who have questions is "violent innocence"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-47596833324071947102011-05-27T11:17:58.887+01:002011-05-27T11:17:58.887+01:00Have written about DA's latest, Here: http://c...Have written about DA's latest, Here: http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/david-aaronovitch-doesnt-get-enough-of.html <br /><br />Would love you to read and possibly comment? Will link to your blog. <br />Thanks,<br />PhilipaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-28838482838756897922011-05-26T17:41:26.556+01:002011-05-26T17:41:26.556+01:00Not 'defensive innocence': violent innocen...Not 'defensive innocence': <i>violent</i> innocence - nice.Tim Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-49932706917166021252011-05-25T20:54:46.430+01:002011-05-25T20:54:46.430+01:00Yeah, that journalists feel they can just "re...Yeah, that journalists feel they can just "retract" somebody else's claims is mildly sinister. Honigsbaum even refers to them as "<i>my comments</i>" and appears they're "<i>canards</i>". Is he suggesting that the witnesses never existed or is the idea that evidence sometimes conflicts with a - apologies for the word - "narrative" alien to the guy...bensixhttp://bensix.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-44439469487593099752011-05-25T19:19:05.928+01:002011-05-25T19:19:05.928+01:00bensix, no I still haven't done the VH review;...bensix, no I still haven't done the VH review; the only version of it is a kind of draft done on that long 'Aaro breaks America' comment thread on Aaro Watch. I should get back to it, but it's so riddled with that kind of thing it's a pretty daunting task - and since I'm not an authoritative-recommendatory reviewer but only a persuasive-critical one, detail is everything - whatever I leave out is something I let DA get away with, which rankles. <br /><br />One rich vein of 'error' currently represented by healthy sprigs of post-its protruding from the pages of my copy of VH is DA's habit of reporting people's claims that their post has been interfered with etc. Not only does he fail to give any credence to such claims whatsoever, inviting his readers to join him in tacitly supposing such a claim ridiculous, he calculates he can get away with actually raising such reports, without further comment, as evidence of lack of credibility (due, presumably, to supposed paranoid delusion). Needless to say no evidence is supplied for any of this.<br /><br />Also, I'm not surprised Aaro concentrates on Honigsbaum - he was good enouigh to do a <a href="http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.com/2010/08/spurious-retraction-syndrome-or-do-you.html" rel="nofollow">spurious retraction</a> routine in regard to his own report of eyewitness testimony - by much hemming and hawing, and handwringing about how unfortunate it is that he should have reported something that may be of use to CTists, he's provided a statement that can be used to pretend it was all a silly mistake (see 'fog of war'; 'until we have the full picture', etc.).<br /><br />In other words, Honigsbaum is cherry-picked as the best case, with other much more inconvenient sources (including H's) ignored - but he provides a very poor case, since he wasn't a witness, and didn't even actually clearly retract anything.Tim Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-62294333276057179552011-05-25T17:35:31.356+01:002011-05-25T17:35:31.356+01:00felix - yes, I think I mentioned the family angle ...felix - yes, I think I mentioned the family angle in a previous post - probably the piss and wind Aaronovitch/Kelly one. It's not up to them, end of story. But AFAIK, 'the family' means Mrs Kelly (maybe the children?). I'm fairly sure I remember at least one other family member saying that they wanted more investigvation.<br /><br />Also a bit annoying that Powers allowed Aaro to get away with calling him a liar (in claiming that he didn't 'know' what the Kelly family wanted). But I suppose he is secure enough in his status not to need to do too much protesting there, and stick to the point.<br /><br />Aaro did an especially blatant bit of 'read-ahead' too, getting very thoughtcrimey and psychiatric about it - 'but secretly, you do have a theory, don't you Mr Powers you fucking nutter'...<br /><br />He has a new name for those who insist without scare quotes that they are just asking questions or, as in this case, demanding questions be asked: 'Defensive innocence' which is a less catchy and far less useful version of 'passive-agressive'. <br /><br />The key idea that isn't quite asserted is that those who think the case is not closed do so because they have some exogenous beliefs about what happened, which distorts their assessment of the evidence (not like DA, Rentoul etc., of course, who would never have any prejudice, and never ever say anything like 'there was no conspiracy therefore this contemporaneous credible eyewitness statement is wrong, mumble mumble).<br /><br />He got that bit of instant jargon from the same psychoanalyst friend - he always pretends is more than one: 'psychoanalysts friends tell me..', but I think he relies on just the one - who cooked up some speculation for him about the comfortingness of paranoia blah blah., for Voodoo Histories. DA thus able to present 'some bullshit his mate helpfully came up with' as 'a psychological theory'.Tim Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-11645426938222263352011-05-24T12:15:21.811+01:002011-05-24T12:15:21.811+01:00Did you ever review Voodoo Histories?
It has more...Did you ever review <i>Voodoo Histories</i>?<br /><br />It has more outright errors than I'd picked up when I had a stab at it. For example, he mentions accounts suggesting that the 7/7 bombs went off beneath the carriages and claims that "<i>all reports</i>" stemmed from a piece by Mark Honigsbaum. Yet, turning to Nafeez Ahmed's <i>The London Bombings</i> one finds several other sources quoted.<br /><br />What makes this worse is that Ahmed's book is cited in the bibliography. He read a whole book, made one point about its claims and stuffed it. Not quite debunking...bensixhttp://bensix.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-7577674092280132412011-05-23T23:41:53.260+01:002011-05-23T23:41:53.260+01:00Tim, have a look at Aaronovitch debating with Mich...Tim, have a look at Aaronovitch debating with Michael Powers Q.C. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011lst3/The_Daily_Politics_23_05_2011/" rel="nofollow"> at about 12.22 here</a> on the Kelly Inquest. Aaro deviously invokes one of the original medical signatories who has since changed his tune , based on, basically nothing. Aaro also uses the fact that the family apparently don't want an inquest to prevent further investigation into the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death (for whatever reason). <br />Of course, for example, if I had some bodies buried under my patio (or whatever) of course I might not want any case reopened. I think it is nothing to do with the family that due process should be followed. What think you?felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363991252776819712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-66540048073380408892011-05-17T10:12:19.082+01:002011-05-17T10:12:19.082+01:00Indeed. What are the odds that Aaro would have ret...Indeed. What are the odds that Aaro would have retracted before being found out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-91793350673352364262011-05-16T17:43:51.829+01:002011-05-16T17:43:51.829+01:00Difficult to ignore when that's some creative ...Difficult to ignore when that's some creative reporting there by Aaro, only retracted by circumstance rather than integrity? Surely some mistake?!Philipahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440234602399886097noreply@blogger.com