» Wednesday, November 30, 2005


Asked if the Government was co-operating into the investigation about extraordinary rendition flights coming through British airports, the PMOS replied that he had not yet seen anything other than assertion in terms of the story. We had made clear that we had no evidence to corroborate allegations. However, the Foreign Secretary had written to the US, and therefore people should wait for the reply.

Put that Liberty were investigating it, and they had a short deadline, would that happen before a reply came from the US, the PMOS said that Liberty’s deadline was one that had been set only by them, and not anyone else. What was important was that we sorted out fact from speculation, and that was more important than any deadline.

Asked if the investigation would do that, rather than waiting for a letter back from the UN, the PMOS replied that what was important was that people who made allegations should produce some facts to support them.

Briefing took place at 9:00 | Search for related news


  1. Evidence of ‘Rendition’ flights is available from a number of reputable sources, including photographs at various locations, ownership details and the flight plans of the aircraft involved.

    What the PMOS is advocating is that those who allege that a crime against human rights has taken place must provide all evidence before any investigation of the allegation. Surely the whole point of an allegation is that the authorities are obliged to investigate?

    That ‘we have no evidence’ is simply not good enough and is a complete abdication of any moral and legal responsibility.

    And what would be the point of Jack’s ‘letter to the US’ if there were not sound reasons for investigation. Is he waiting for a formal reply from the CIA saying ‘it’s a fair cop guv’? before investigating? Or maybe they’ll just not bother to reply.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 1 Dec 2005 on 11:17 am | Link
  2. "We had made clear that we had no evidence to corroborate allegations"

    Have you actually LOOKED into the allegations? Of course not, why would you?

    An expected response from a government "which doesn’t comment on leaks". I especially like his closing comment; "the PMOS replied that what was important was that people who made allegations should produce some facts to support them." Simply translated; "Leave Tony’s mates the insufferable bloody Yanks alone unless you’ve got something substantial. Which you haven’t. So get stuffed."

    Now you’d imagine that a lobby journalist with cojones and spine intact would push back somewhere around this point, and ask about evidence of WMD in Iraq; or nuclear weapons in Iran; or Syrian involvement in the assassination of the Lebanese PM; all 3 allegations (and lots of others) shoved down the country’s neck sans gloves or lube and so far not a single jot of real evidence to back up a single one of the claims. Apart from, that is, some "ID" found in the tunnels on 7/7 and proving instantly who the bombers were. Funnily enough, they used exactly the same tactic on 9/11 too; remember how we were asked to believe that a completely undamaged, totally pristine passport (again, proving instantly and beyond all doubt who was to blame before anyone had even started to think about blame) managed to fall out of a jet which had just smashed into the side of a building and blew up. In the case of 7/7, we were being asked to believe they’d miraculously found surviving ID in all 4 locations – even though we were simultaneously being told that in one location at least the damage was so bad it could (and did) take days to dig the bodies out.

    I digress slightly, but only slightly. If the burden of proof the PMOS is talking about is anything like the constraints under which this government has operated for the past 5 years or so, then UFOs’ll be lifting people left, right & centre in mid-London in broad daylight before this government decides to even think about doing something – and even then they’d contact the aliens to see if they needed any help.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 1 Dec 2005 on 1:41 pm | Link
  3. Re Jack straw: See: Himmler, Speer, Goebbels, Molatov, Beria, Kissinger et al.

    Re William Straw, 17, drug dealer, "A good kid really, going up to Oxford." J Straw, home secretary.

    Re Wayne Bloggs, 17, council estate resident and drug dealer. " Yobs like this are a menace, we must lock them up." J Straw, home secretary

    Comment by THE GUILTY UNDERTAKER — 9 Dec 2005 on 1:37 am | Link
  4. ??????????????????????????
    ??????? ?? ??? naver https://www.kopi567.com/goods-13945.html

    Comment by ??????? ?? ??? naver — 27 Jan 2024 on 4:46 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


November 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Oct   Dec »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh