tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post3120843823746400236..comments2024-03-16T19:31:50.303+00:00Comments on Tony's Musings: Fundamentalist Interpretations of the In Camera DebateTonyTheProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10486414706261508994noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-69873632827209397982012-08-14T22:01:27.094+00:002012-08-14T22:01:27.094+00:00Stuart wrote, "Lewis, Frank Walker, Ian Le Ma...Stuart wrote, "Lewis, Frank Walker, Ian Le Marquand etc, have all said very similar things to Lewis. Essentially, the repeated claim has been that the suspension of Graham Power was "justified" because of the Met report."<br /><br />In any attempt to address the larger issue, that fact overrides the importance of any precise wording used by Lewis. The consistent citing of the Met Report for the purpose of justifying the suspension of Mr Power was a tactic used by the government to commit a grave injustice. <br /><br />Mr Lewis was not alone in not wanting his in camera inconsistency exposed. That seems to me to be the primary reason for the protectives stance taken by him and by others over the issue, and the reason for not addressing the "discrepancy" during further investigations.<br /><br />ElleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-2769270160105316842012-08-14T19:09:22.651+00:002012-08-14T19:09:22.651+00:00Stuart wrote, "Lewis, Frank Walker, Ian Le Ma...Stuart wrote, "Lewis, Frank Walker, Ian Le Marquand etc, have all said very similar things to Lewis. Essentially, the repeated claim has been that the suspension of Graham Power was "justified" because of the Met report."<br /><br />In any attempt to establish the most relevant truth, that fact overrides the concern over the precise wording of Mr lewis, does it not?<br /><br />Elle<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-26711586811295807992012-08-14T15:22:50.997+00:002012-08-14T15:22:50.997+00:00If Lewis had not seen the Met Report, then he base...If Lewis had not seen the Met Report, then he based his decision without the full facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-7912635488019367552012-08-14T11:17:57.803+00:002012-08-14T11:17:57.803+00:00I'm pretty sure the transcript has not been am...I'm pretty sure the transcript has not been amended, but I do have to take a historical distance. <br /><br />Without access to the primary source myself, that possibility has to be considered.TonyTheProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10486414706261508994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-30195939533217983982012-08-14T11:05:06.581+00:002012-08-14T11:05:06.581+00:00Tony, another very insightful posting.
An observa...Tony, another very insightful posting.<br /><br />An observation; you say this:<br /><br />"Now it may be that the leaked transcript has itself been amended (which obviously cannot be ruled out), but this highlights the problem which I see as the key - the inability to verify statements made in camera without referring to those statements."<br /><br />I can confirm in this case - as one of the key participants in the in-camera debate in question - that the transcript has not been amended. It is accurate as published.<br /><br />There is another relevant consideration; we are not only considering the words of Andrew Lewis as spoken in that in-camera debate - although that debate is, of course, centrally important. Lewis, Frank Walker, Ian Le Marquand etc, have all said very similar things to Lewis. Essentially, the repeated claim has been that the suspension of Graham Power was "justified" because of the Met report. <br /><br />The truth is, the suspension of Graham Power was never justified - including and expressly, not justified by any Met report.<br /><br />Stuart Ex-Senator Stuart Syvrethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133826278608795054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9095270985170721876.post-5567964020742690232012-08-14T10:03:34.737+00:002012-08-14T10:03:34.737+00:00Tony
An interesting erudite and, as usual, dispass...Tony<br />An interesting erudite and, as usual, dispassionate analysis!<br />The proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus, however, will surely not draw the same fine distinctions. The clear understanding that I have, based on the information available, is that Lewis misled the States. Perhaps he forgot his lines in the middle of his performance, which might have given the game away. Perhaps he was simply not sufficiently skillful to be able to maintain throughout the debate the fine distinctions to which you refer in order to protect the lie ...<br />Whatever the actual details were/are the clear intention of Lewis was to somehow justify what at the time was not justifiable - in my humble opinion!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com