by jenz » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:11 pm
Made good sense to me without the substitution bit actually. Unsure why one would swap, with all the attendant probs, when bribary and corruption work so well. I had heard an r.a. survivor story some time ago, in which JA was thought to be a mover. I contacted one of the 2 Guardian journalists who researched the arms and the man tale, but no-one mentioned the procurement element to his biog. Secondly I ran it past a writer who has spent a long time researching r.a., and only got the comment "it wouldn't surprise me if he were involved", but nothing specific. I think that child rape is a black and white moral issue, different from things like perjury and fraud, which leave room for interpretation . So, your information, given at the start of this thread, was revelatory. Secondly, there is the intervention of the MP para 601 Hansard. Why did he intervene in the debate except as a pre-emptive measure. And his facts are wrong. When I checked his biog., I learnt that he had voted against intervention in Iraq. As did a Minister, (resigning), who had written a reply to the survivor's constituency MP which contained another error of fact, seemingly intended to cast doubt on his story, and block moves to get the investigation re-opened. Looking forward to your web pages on Jonathon, whichever he may be. <p></p><i></i>