“and TB just listened..”

Michael White points out that, with Alastair Campbell’s diaries, the risk is partly ”is this story so heavily self-censored that it’s not worth the £25 which Hutchison’s is asking?”. But the extracts, “designed incidentally to whet the public appetite for the book without going through the perils of sensationalising serialisation rights”, include an entry from December 11, 1997 in which the focus is the differently remembered histories.. but the detail is interesting.From the extract

Of the women, I could not work out whether they really mattered, or whether they just took them round to look a bit less hard. They were tough as boots all three of them. TB was good in the use of language and captured the sense of occasion. He said we faced a choice of history – violence and despair, or peace and progress. We were all taking risks, but they are risks worth taking. He said to Adams he wanted to be able to look him in the eye, hear him say he was committed to peaceful means, and he wanted to believe him.

I was eyeing their reaction to TB the whole time, and both Adams and McG regularly let a little smile cross their lips. Mo got pissed off, volubly, when they said she wasn’t doing enough. TB was maybe not as firm as we had planned, but he did ask – which I decided not to brief, and knew they wouldn’t – whether they would be able to sign up to a settlement that did not explicitly commit to a united Ireland. Adams was OK, McGuinness was not. Adams said the prize of a lasting peace justifies the risks. Lloyd George, Balfour, Gladstone, Cromwell, they all thought they had answers of sorts. We want our answers to be the endgame. A cobbled-together agreement will not stand the test of time.

He pushed hard on prisoners being released, and the aim of total demilitarisation, and TB just listened. TB said he would not be a persuader for a united Ireland. The principle of consent was central to the process.

We’ve yet to see whether our new democratic institutions can withstand the truth..

  • While the excerpts from Alastair Campbell’s diaries hardly have any surprises about TB’s dealings with Mo Mowlam, Gerry Adams, and Martin McGuinness, I was intrigued by his admimssion that Dr. David Kelly’s killing was the worst period of his life, even worse than his own mental breakdown.

    Why would anyone be so stressed out over a suicide by a person who lied, it seems, about what you and your associates at No. 10, Downing Street had done in making up its dossier about Iraq’s WMD – what Campbell had only sought to expose to the public, see that the BBC rectified, and apologized for?

    I certainly would not have felt that badly if I had been Campbell, what Kelly apparently did to himself, unless the killing was not suicide but an assassination – what I claim in any article about the killings of both Kelly and Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, apparently Mossad ‘false flag’ operations – like the ones last week in London and at Glasgow airport.

    It’s just amazing what persons in power, both in government and the media, are able to hide successfully from the public these days.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Pete, you may or may not have seen this unrelated serving of choice Bullshit , with added bigotry and medical malpractice thrown in for good measure…

  • Thanks, Comrade Stalin, for this complete diversion at apparently my expense. I am neither a medical doctor nor one guilty of bigoty.

    Despite what you do, Dr. Kelly was clearly set up by Campbell et al., and murdered, apparently by a Mossad kidon, and no amount of bullshit by you can change the matter.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford @ 03:41 PM and @08.30 PM

    We all are entitled to our fantasies: mine is that I can think and write, and even do them at the same time.

    Where, though, is there any evidence that Kelly was done in, except by his own hand, and particularly by Mossad? Curiously, most of the internet conspiracy theories to rely on a piece at http://cryptome.org/mossad-kelly.htm, penned by someone with the name of … Trowbridge H. Ford. What a strange coincidence!

    What, precisely, the relevance of this is to this particular quotation from Campbell’s diary also eludes me.

    Nothing in this extract is new, except perhaps the interpretation of Mo Mowlem’s behaviour (and she, of course, is the only witness no longer able to give a personal account). Campbell’s view of Adams is not quite as harsh as some other accounts of this event. The treatment offered of McGuinness is definitely favourable — and that’s a man whose file Campbell could have seen.

    The authorised, unvarnished archives version will come along in just 20 years time. I may even live to read it. Meanwhile, as Trowbridge H. Ford’s associated website might say, it’s all codshit.com

  • While you can belittle my research into the assassination of Dr. David Kelly, and where it is posted all you want, Malcolm Redfellow – an example of your fantasy that you can think and write at the same time – it still stands unchallenged and unrefuted.

    For an example of other sites posting one of my articles about Kelly’s assassination, see this link:


    For other important ones on codshit.com, see these:




    The reason why I wrote them is because Britain, especially its media, has had its head up its ass when it comes to this most dirty murder from the very beginning – what I am attempting to rectify.

    And remember that I have nothing to do with the operation of codshit.com – I simply send it my articles as soon as I write them as it has proved the most efficient way to get them on the internet – what other sites have copied in considerable number, and I can provide a list of if you are interested.

    If you have any criticisms, or constructive ideas about the assassination, please pipe up.

    If not, why not pipe down?

  • Trowbridge H. Ford @ 10:02 PM:

    Assassination (thrice)? Most dirty murder? Unchallenged and unrefuted?

    No, not quite.

    And I do not have to criticise, construct or invent: I’m prepared to accept the sad matter was thoroughly tested in public, in an inquest, by an enquiry, before the media, in the eyes of the world, and accepted by David Kelly’s family and friends. I’m not trying to make a bubble reputation based on a man’s lonely death, nor broadcasting libellous accusations of skullduggery, conspiracy and murder.

    Since it is Trowbridge H. Ford, valiant fighter for truth, against the odds and the accepted facts, do we not deserve the odd scintilla of factual evidence, rather than vague sweeping generalisation and abuse?

    I believe that Trowbridge H. Ford claims academic status: would he accept any student’s undocumented and unattributable assertions as valid research and reasoning?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Trowbridge, you are a nutter. My comment wasn’t anything to do with anything you said, or the article (as I said, “unrelated”). I was notifying Pete of a possibly interesting article.

  • Malcolm Redfellow, if you think I am on a one-man crusade over the Kelly assassination, you are most mistaken, as these links to the inquiries by Liberal MP Norman Baker and researcher Rowena Thursby demonstrate:



    I have written essays, not documented articles – what I am willing to back up in court if anyone, particularly scumbag Alastair Campbell, wants to sue me for libel.

    If you have any questions about my evidence for any of my claims, just ask.

    And I would accept the same kind of essays from my students if that was what I assigned.

    And thanks again, Comrade Stalin, for disrupting the discussion.

  • 1. The Daily Mail‘s contribution has relied largely on input from BAker and Thursby, which makes that a circular argument.

    2. Baker’s main thesis, on his own website (http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/concerns/kellymail.htm) relies on a score of rhetorical questions, circumstances, opinion, alleged failings in procedure, abuse aimed at Blair and others, but a surprising shortage of hard and pertinent evidence.

    3. Thursby is another blogger, haunter of the conspiracist web-sites, hugger-mugger with the Illuminati and “New World Order” mob, who associated herself with the Kelly campaign, and achieved a letter in the ondon Evening Standard. One of her main contributions is to suggest that paramedics are more expert than Milroy and Rutty, two of our best pathologists.

    4. Alastair Campbell sue? You should be so lucky!

  • Sorry: coffee accident. Continuing:

    5. I did and do ask for evidence, and so far have no positive response.

    6. I only wish my tutors had been so lax in their requirements for essays. I know my students didn’t get off that likely, at least if they wanted a basic “pass” grade. This is an attempt to explore serious issues, not an experiment in stream-of-consciousness creative writing.

    7. As a matter of fact, Comrade Stalin @ 07:33 PM was on topic. This whole nonsense is not.

  • I just provided the links about Baker and Thursby – and there are ones to many others who conclude that Kelly was murdered – to show that I am not alone.

    I have many differences with almost all of those who claim that Kelly was murdered because they conveniently imply that Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat did it – what makes the murder rather moot at this point since his regime is now long gone.

    Blaming the murder on Saddam largely relies upon what Gordon Thomas, the Mossad’s chief spin doctor, has claimed. He was the guy who tried to make out that Kelly was the last in a long line of microbiologists that Saddam did in, and that Kelly was buddy-buddy with the Israelis – just pure crap.

    Glad to see that you have no questions about my claims, though, and I would think that Campbell -if Kelly was not murdered, thanks to his aid and assistance – would jump at the chance to show that he is human afterall.

  • Oh, there is more drivel from you, Malcolm Redfellow.

    Since you do not ask for any evidence about my specific claims, I shall just offer this evidence about a kidon, stationed on the night of the murder in a boat moored on The Thames, being there all night to carry it out, and to see that Kelly was found dead – what the two members of the search party which found the weapons inspector’s body alluded to. (See their testimony before the Hutton Inquiry.)

    And your going on about what you and your tutors expected in an essay is totally irrelevant to me and my experience. If my students wrote total nonsense in their essays, they received a failing mark

    And I know that is required in a documented article, as my articles in Goveernment & Opposition, Political Studies, History, The Bulletin of The Institute of Historical Research, The Jouranl of Legal History, Studia Hibernica, Irish Historical Studies, Durham University Journal, etc., demonstrate.

    And to say that Dr. Kelly’s fate had nothing to do with Alastair Campbell’s diaries would result in a similar failing grade too if you wrote it in an essay for me.

  • DK

    The question is why would anyone want Kelly dead – apart from himself as he was probably going to be fired for speaking to a journalist about an intelligence document.

    All his death would do (and did) is to confirm the suspicions already aired on TV about the 45 minute claim. So, the people with the most to gain from his death are the anti-war-on-Iraq people. That would be, at the time, Saddam Hussain and CND.

  • The short answer to your question, DK, is to keep the sagging myth alive that Saddam still had WMD – what the Mossad kept going by acting as if Kelly was just the last microbiologist that Saddam’s Mukhabarat had killed, and thought that PM Blair had authorized by outing him for elimination.

    Meir Dagan thought that his kidon had this authority, the same it had back in Israel, since MI5 director Eliza Manningham-Buller had invited it in to fight the war on terrorism – what Kelly was vastly impeding.

    And Kelly was not in danger of losing his pension, and was planning more work on a book – going to Iraq to investigate further the failure to find any WMD – what the dark actors prevented by killing him, and making it look like suicide.

    This prevented the ‘sexing up’ of his intelligence from really working to the advantage of CND, etc.

  • DK

    Trow, the only two options that the public considered at his death was that it was suicide, or that Tony Blair did it to cover up his bogus WMD claims. Killing him would only confirm the latter. Why would Mossad do it to try and pin the blame on Saddam? It wouldn’t (and didn’t) work; and would be counterproductive. Unless it was a Mossad mistake – is that what you are suggesting?

    And surely Kelly wouldn’t go to Iraq again without his employer’s permission. His employers, being the MOD, unlikely to allow it.

  • Sorry, I’m going to butt out on this one, I think. Life’s just too short.

    It seems to me that the parallel thread from Campbell’s book (the events leading up to the Kelly suicide, mentioned by the BBC extract) was worth a thought, if not relevant to the original topic here. That is , lest we forget, the far more significant meeting of SF with Blair at Downing Street.

    Campbell it was who largely took the blame for the leaking of Kelly’s name in the Gilligan affair, and who has repeatedly denied it.

    Gilligan met Kelly on 22 May. On 29 May Gilligan made his “sexed-up” remarks on Radio 4. On 30 May Kelly wrote to his superior, admitting he might have been the source (but neglecting then or later to mention that he had talked to two other BBC journos). Kelly was interviewed by the MoD Personnel Director on 4 July and again on 7 July (when MoD Deputy Chief of Intelligence was also involved). On 8 July the MoD issued a statement, but did not disclose Kelly’s name. On 9 July Pam Teare, the MoD Director of News (strange title!), had received a direct query from the Financial Times to confirm Kelly’s name.

    Kelly was before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15 July. The impression Kelly left the Committee allowed them to criticise the MoD and exculpate Kelly as Gilligan’s source. Intentionally or not, Kelly had misled the Committee. Kelly was dead just two days later. On 20 July the BBC admitted that Kelly was Gilligan’s source.

    Those amount to the outline facts. Anything else is deduction or speculation.

    What Campbell’s diary adds is that Campbell’s resignation was already agreed with Blair on 28 May. It also shows that Campbell, with a previous record of instability, was deeply shaken by Kelly’s death. What I have read of the Diaries so far does not shine much additional light, except to portray Campbell as very human (see the way he reacts to Diana’s wooing and cup-of-tea) and even quite likeable.

    In point of fact there were others who could well have been the source of that FT leak: Defence Secretary Hoon (who probably did not have the contacts), John Scarlett (Chair of JIC, who probably did), Peter Watkins (Hoon’s Private Secretary), Jonathan Powell (Blair’s Chief of Staff), Pam Teare must all be in the frame. Since Blair was out of the country by then, the couriers were acting in the name of their principal. One person does come out with some credit: Deputy PM Prescott apologised to Kelly’s widow, and attended the funeral.

    Now can we get on with the rest of life?

  • Actually, the public didn’t officially consider anything about the killing.

    PM Blair took the cause of death away from an inquest, and gave the responsibility to flunkey Hutton. He simply delegated the cause of death to suicide expert, Dr. Keith Hawton, and he behaved as expected.

    Killing Kelly, if it had been done successfully, would have undermined his second-thoughts about Saddam not having WMD – and not oblied Blair to cover it up.

    I do believe that the Mossad acted without due care and attention – made a mistake, if you like, as Kelly turned out to be more trouble dead than alive. Read, for example, what Rafael Eitan thought the Mossad’s job is when the PM outs a terrorist.

    And what you say about his not being allowed to go to Iraq, if he had not been murdered, greatly undermines any claims that he was seriously stressed, especially economically.

  • Yokel

    Conspiracy for everything haven’t ya Trowbridge.

    Did you know that my local delivery milkman works for BOSS still. You think they’d be gone no, he’s involved in black propoganda operations still.

    Don’t think that buying milk from the local supermarket is wise either..did you know know.

    Tesco – CIA front
    Sainsbury – MI5 front
    Spar – Mossad front
    Centra – Shin Bet front

    Don’t get me started on ASDA…

  • Garibaldy


    I’d be quite interested in reading about Dicey, who you said you had written on. Can you post the dates of your IHS article and stuff here please?

  • Oh, you are back again, Malcolm Redfellow, with more spin aka drivel.

    In your deceptive accounting of the outing of Kelly, you tastefully leave out the meeting at No. 10, Downing Street, chaired by the PM, on July 8th which set the whole process going, as the Hutton Inquiry established, starting in paragraph 23 of this link:


    And to believe anything else important from Campbell, like his planned resignation before the whole crisis started, is simply simple-minded.

    In sum, none of us should get back to our normal lives until the spinning stops, and the truth is established, especially about Kelly’s murder.

  • Happy to oblige, Garibaldy.

    The reference to the article you specifically asked about is this:

    “Dicey’s conversion to unionism,” IHS, Vol. XVIII, no. 72, Sept. 1973, pp. 552-82.

    But you must remember that this kicked off a furious debate between me and Christopher Harvie, especially about the authorship of many articles in The Nation – what I claimed Dicey wrote, and Harvie said were done by several others, particularly Alfred Webb.

    I believe I finally won the argument when Eire-Ireland published my article, “A. V. Dicey’s Articles in The Nation of New York: A Final Note,” Vol. XXIV, no. 2, pp. 43-51.

    It showed that The Nation’s full list of reporters at the time, about 150 in all, as I recall, made no mention of Webb – what D. C. Haskell went to great lengths to cover up when he published who wrote what for it: The Nation, Volumes 1-105, New York, 1865-1917: Indexes of Titles and Contributors (New York Public Library, 2 vols., 1951, 1953)

    What Dicey wrote and did for The Nation’s E. L. Godkin was most instrumental in ultimately defeating Home Rule – what not only Harvie but also Dicey biographer Richard Cosgrove have bent over backwards to cover up.

  • Garibaldy

    Thanks for that Trow. Look forward to reading it.

  • < >

    Au contraire: I took the trouble to scan the records of just those two meetings, on 7th and 8th July. The official minutes are available (allow me to correct the hyperlink) at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter03.htm, from paragraph 60.

    It defeats me that any evidence of dirty-work-at-the-crossroads appears therein. Unless, of course, someone (Mossad? Little Green Men?) was eavesdropping, and available to provide a reliable alternative account.

    As for Campbell’s agreed date of resignation, this is not news. Fiona Millar (Campbell’s partner) announced her departure on 26 May — allegedly because of the Cheriegate fuss. There was considerable gossip among the chattering classes at the time as to when Campbell would follow. The Daily Telegraph of 25 July 2003 reported:
    After telling the Prime Minister on April 7 that he was ready to go, and discussing a strategy for his departure, he waited several weeks before doing something about it. He even went as far as drafting a press release announcing his resignation. It was ready on May 28.

    The facts, ma’am, only the facts.

    Now I really must employ my time to some practical use.

  • I have tried your link twice, Malcolm Redfellow, and have come up with nothing.

    And the bits about Alastair’s resignation after the shit hit the fan with Kelly’s murder – what could easily be made to appear to be true through back dating other items – and Fiona Millar’s contemporary moves are just more spin.

    In sum, I do agree with your changing your actions so as to be of some practical use.

  • DK

    Trow – try this. Malcolm had a comma, which was screwing things up:


  • And I find the link I provided much more convincing and authoritative. I don’t know why it cannot appear, but it is on the hutton site under rulings in January.

  • Here is the January statement by Hutton again starting at paragraph 23, showing that No. 10 completely controlled the outing of Kelly:


  • Thanks, Garibaldy, for your request regarding my article about A. V. Dicey in Irish Historical Studies, as it got me reviewing all the other articles I had written about him around 30 years ago in Poltical Studies, Eire-Ireland, Studies, Studia Hibernica, and Mid-America.

    It was almost like reading the research of an entirely different person, as I have moved on to all kinds of different concerns, though I would not change a word about what I have written about Dicey et al.

    You have made my day, if not several or perhaps a few weeks.

    Thanks again.

  • Thanks, Garibaldy, for making my day, if not several days or weeks, by making me recall what I had written about A. V. Dicey also in Political Studies, Studia Hibernica, Eire-Ireland, Studies, and Mid-America around 30 years ago.

    It was like reading the research of an entirely different person, as I have moved on to many, entirely different subjects since.

    It was like being introduced to myself again, and I would not change a word in the introductions.

  • Sorry to indulge in a bit of yesteryear, one still close to my heart – but the double posting occurred because I found nothing after the first one, only to find two when I reposted.

    For those still interested in the apparent assassination of Dr. Kelly, and why Malcolm Redfellow was so economical with the truth about what happened at Downing Street on July 8th – the same day that Judith Miller was encouraged to out another troublemaker over the preventive war in Iraq – Valerie Palme – see this site which proves that many more are interested in my articles than just codshit.com:


    Scroll down the page about half way.