Afterword: The fuss about Kelly? (Part two). A draft from some time back, posted lest we never finish

8/13/2019 Afterword: The fuss about Kelly? (Part two). A draft from some time back, posted lest we never finish

1/51

Afterword: The fuss about Kelly? (Part two).

Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position fails your egogoes with it. Colin Powell

***

Too general that, the work before, finally we think. For or it see s we ha!en"t reallygot in this ti e ha!e we, ha!en#t really got !ery near any "reasoning" as to why any ofus ight walk away fro all that sort of thing? And that besides the uni$ueness of thatsituation that %r Kelly had then, 'just found myself to be in...' And it was in that waythat %r Kelly had defended hi self briefly ba&k then as well ' at that first and ost&ru&ial, for hi (and any for the sui&ide s&enario already agree with this), o ons

o ittee hearing on ' +uly, -- . And a ost reasonable defen&e we think that&ould ha!e been e!en now as well. And one therefore he &ould ha!e /ust stu&k to

fore!er? 0ery workable if he"d only ke1t that to the fore. 2ut our an didn"t, did he,so ething else got in , and so we need to go further, it see s, if we are to ha!e anyunderstanding at all finally, any e$uation left e!en, if we &an?

And now it see s that we &ould ha!e gone further by way of the e!iden&e of Professor3awton, and by looking at what under1inned that as well. To wit not /ust what that inlarge 1art see ed based on, on dis&ussions with the Kelly fa ily then (an i 1ressionwe had gained while working our way trades 1erson like through this work, before).And, it see s now, we &ould ha!e taken ore note of what %r Kelly"s fa ily saidi ediately afterwards as well. 4hile the senti ents e51ressed by both 3awton (inhindsight, below), and %r Kelly"s fa ily (below) are si ilar6 they are not so si ilar thatthere are not so e differen&es left there for us to look at finally as well.

The Kelly fa ilies e 1hasis, following this, ight be seen to be a bit light now, andtherefore a bit unfair, 1erha1s, on another 1arty now, who though he has sin&ea1ologised, ight, really, ba&k then, ha!e /ust set so ething off for our an, so edreadful thought held ba&k. 4ith 3awton (his !iew in hindsight, slightly 7 a little ti e

after anyway), there is ore left for us to think on with. 8t is not /ust what &onstitutedthis final ste1 (in his o1inion), that is useful here, rather it is what &onstitutes su&hfinal ste1s that ight be useful now instead, should we be able to untangle fro allthis. This we &an inter1ret, think on with as well, should we find reason to?

And fitting reason ight be then, that as there ight be further dis&o!ery, it ay yetbe 1ro1itious that an in$uest has not been held yet. That as history, by its !ery nature,&an"t be de&i1hered i ediately, it takes so e ti e, and then so e. 9or should thelegal syste , another syste of in$uiry, not stand u1 in its own good ti e as well

' ral e!iden&e, that &o ittee, $uestion;answer, ' ' ), do that tohi self that be&ause of his other, he knew first hand of the hearta&he...

And that is as 3awton has suggested before (abo!e), as well, that that would not,generally, be a fa&tor. " 3e told the in$uiry that an indi!idual who had a &lose relati!ewho had &o itted sui&ide ay be ore &o fortable with taking his or her own lifebut, e$ually, with inti ate knowledge of IitsJ terrible i 1a&t ight be less likely tofollow suit."'G

(4ell, we &ould add here, so ething o!er rode that 1re set 1osition then, if that is notright= And e!en 3awton says now he did this, des1ite that).

These, Pederson"s o1inions, &ould ha!e &o e out at the in$uiry, but did not, asPederson was not 1ressed to gi!e e!iden&e to the in$uiry (and why should she ha!ebeen anyway, then?). ather she ga!e a state ent that in the &onte5t of thoseo!erseas (nonetheless in &onta&t with %r Kelly u1 till then), being asked before the' 8bid: 1.


14/51

in$uiry as to whether or not there had been any signifi&ant &hange they"d noted whilein &onta&t with our an in those last few days also? Pederson, 1ressed to a11earbefore the in$uiry this would ha!e been $uite so e testi ony then. 2ut it was 1lain,ba&k then, that she wouldn"t e!en if asked anyway. 8n fa&t she didn"t want to bena ed e!en, then. @till her na e was leaked, to the imes , 1ortrayed then as a"shadowy Eata 3ari figure" whi&h startled her, so ewhat, a11arently. @till, now she"s&o e out, talking. '

And so we ha!e a $uestion here then? This, why this fro Pederson now and orefor&ibly now as well then? 8s it si 1ly, 1erha1s, be&ause she has been tra&ked downnow then, ore effort has gone in to get her to talk(?). A bit of that aybe, aybe notso tied in with the ilitary now? @o e guilt? 4ell we &an"t say, don"t know. 2ut, 1ut

another way, again, she &ouldn"t be so sure, &ould she, so why say so, that she is sosure, and now, why now as well? ould be, &ouldn"t it, that now she realises what a!ery de&ent hu an being our an was as well then, knows the differen&e now, andindeed she has said so as well. '>

And, if that were the &ase, of late, then so eone else ight ha!e to be bla ed thenas well, it would be diffi&ult 7 as diffi&ulty as it ight ha!e been for our an as well,looking ba&k, looking in, looking on...

4e asked. abo!e, what ight ha!e fed this fear in %r Kelly? 4e re&ounted the laserlight night, now we ight e!en wonder if Pederson ight ha!e &ut %r Kelly"s steak u1for hi as well then? And then that then in any other res1e&t as well then? For,whate!er else she was, then, she was also an offi&er in the A eri&an ilitary?

4ell a "Er Toad" has said that she did /ust that, anyway, and that in another res1e&t aswell 7 that she fed our an, others there as well, dodgy intelligen&e su11osedly froon the ground in 8ra$ but not. And, Er Toad says, it was in this other res1e&t that %rKelly"s e 1loyers were &on&erned also, about this friendshi1 with Pederson. @o inother words, fro that (if there is anything in this?), his e 1loyers weren"t /ust&on&erned about his &onta&t with /ournalists then (there where a blind eye had beenturned, u1 till war anyway), rather "they" were kee1ing a good eye out on this beforethen instead. Er Toad now, as well then, this 1ublished, 1osted, after the in$uiry had&losed, before the re1ort was 1ublished though, not that this would ha!e been takenany noti&e of then anyway, still should it be now, another $uestion:

' htt1:;;www.daily ail.&o.uk;news;arti&le ' < G>;4hy 8 &ertain friend %r Kelly urdered.ht l'> htt1:;;www.telegra1h.&o.uk;news;uknews;'H < ;A eri&an tells of her friendshi1 with Kelly.ht l .


15/51

"Er. Toad 1osts on the Duardian Talk foru on - %e&e ber -- :This fro y friends on the ri!er bank:

3utton is a /igsaw 1uBBle. And like all the best 1uBBles there was a 1ie&e issing.@o e 1eo1le ha!e found the issing 1ie&e, but they kee1 trying to 1ut it inu1side down.

'


16/51


17/51

This, we thought ight ha!e been si 1le at first that we ight then see a finger1rintas well then 1ro!e, we ean, that Er Toad did indeed ha!e friends on the ri!er bank(E8G). 9ot so though, not so si 1ly so anyway.

Dabriele KraatB 4adsa&k did not a11ear before the 3utton in$uiry, but she was, likePederson, inter!iewed and her na e, like Pederson"s, did &o e u1 during the in$uiry,in a different way though.

8t is re&orded that Assistant hief onstable Page was asked about her (Pederson),asked about so e aterial listed as "Dabriella"s &on&erns" after that as well then.

These (sti&k with "&on&erns" here), were three 1ages of handwritten aterial found in

%r Kelly"s brief&ase when it was sear&hed, there fro so e ti e before then.

ne 1age, the third (of Dabriella"s), is a!ailable, but it is 1urely te&hni&al. The othertwo are e bargoed as 1ersonal. There is one, ore fro Dabriella, so ewhat1ersonal, fro his 1ersonal ail as well though. First, A Page as re1orted in the

elegraph though (and this gi!es us so e ba&kground as well):

"The Assistant hief onstable of Tha es 0alley Poli&e, Ei&hael Page, told the 3utton 8n$uirythat offi&ers had in!estigated all %r Kelly"s &onta&ts in the last days of his life, in&luding Eiss

Pederson.3e said although she would not gi!e offi&ers a state ent, a re&ord was ade of her inter!iewbut it added nothing that was of rele!an&e to his in$uiry into %r Kelly"s death.Poli&e also s1oke to another wo an who was &lose to %r Kelly through his work. Dabriella KraB4adsak, an offi&er in the Der an ar y, had worked with hi for a nu ber of years in 8ra$, andhad also been in &onta&t with hi in the days before his death.%r Kelly e51ressed to her &on&erns about the effi&a&y of the wea1ons ins1e&tion 1rogra e in8ra$..." H

9e5t, the 3utton in$uiry line:"' A. Mes.

@ee link to these, end of, he &uss about )elly* 2efore.H htt1:;;www.telegra1h.&o.uk;news;uknews;'H < ;A eri&an tells of her friendshi1 with Kelly.ht l


18/51

'< . 4ho is she?- A. Dabriella KraB 4adsak is an offi&er in the Der an ar y.' @he worked alongside %r Kelly in 8ra$ for a nu ber of

years and had been in &onta&t with %r Kelly in the days before his death as indeed she had been for so e years

H before that. . 4as she able to gi!e any rele!ant e!iden&e?

--' A. 9othing that furthered y in$uiries at all.

. There was a do&u ent T0P; ; - headed Dabriella"s &on&erns . 4as she able to e51lain what this eant to

H you? A. Mes, indeed y Lord. A11arently the do&u ent refers to

G a &on!ersation or &on!ersations that she had with %r Kelly between +une 'Hth and the ' th, and a11arently

> refers to %r Kelly"s assess ent of the effi&a&y of the< ins1e&tion 1rogra e in 8ra$. 3en&e, 8 think there is'- a heading there whi&h says onfiden&e of legiti a&y and'' deterren&e effe&t 6 and a11arently around the issues

' that %r Kelly has re&orded there and re&orded nu bers' along ea&h side of, they were dis&ussing those issues'H and assessing i 1a&t of the 1rogra e..."

Finally, here, and this relating to this do&u ent T0P; ; - again, headed Dabriella"s&on&erns its &lassifi&ation then, ; rds of this, arked 1ersonal, not se&ret 7 so e&on&erns of a 1ersonal nature, it follows, had been e51ressed therein, then (yes; no?):

"C5hibit D34;'; handwritten list entitled Dabriele"s &on&erns not for release 1ersonalinfor ation; T0P; ;--'< 7 -- -." G

This 1ersonal. And so ha!e we got anywhere then, with Toad"s &ontention that therewas so e sort of double in!ol!e ent here, that so ething else &o es between Kelly;Pederson, their "friendshi1" about then?

Last, this se&tion, the one 1ersonal e ail between Dabriele and %r Kelly, note bargoed, and whi&h ay, or ay not, be in two 1arts (to u&h reda&ted to besure). 8n this e ail, our an, has see ingly s1ent near a week in her &o 1any

so eti e before then (4adsak"s), and a1ologises, here, for being a little subduedthen, thanks her for being so understanding as well:

"Frorn: %a!id Kell N @ent: +une -- '- > IA EondayJ

To:@ub/e&t: Tele1honeDabriele,8 ho1e that the weekend was good 8 got ba&k late and it has been diffi&ult sin&eEy tele1 hone is out of order y 1ersonal nu berQstill works and of &ourse y obile

25 htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --


19/51

Thanks

I8t"s 1ossible this 1art, below, is earlier, not sure, or of when?J

Thanks for a great week 8 had a lot on y ind so 8 know that 8 was a little subdued thanks forbeing /ustyou

2est wishes,%a!id."

3ere we &ould be at the heart of so e understanding, so e hu an think we think.@till that would not see so for all though as that this e ail e5ists at all, for us toadd, that is 1robably only eant, of &ourse, to show us that our an was feeling a bits&rewed anyway, around then... a different &onte5t entirely 1ossible of &ourse.

@o this, fro Er Toad, we find, is only in 1arts useful now (this the reason we"!e ke1t1arts to one side so far as well).

@till, useful, last, here, is the suggestion of 1erha1s another &onte5t anyway. Eore,1erha1s, for ru ination on the 1art of our an ba&k then, and the e ail, /ust abo!e,

ight hint at so ething /ust like that as well?

onte5t wise this would be another side a down side, not an u1side. And to begin

with Er Toad suggests, and obligingly, that 1ersons ha!e got this u1side down anyway7 that o11osing the only downside in town, for our an, generally agreed u1on:

"3utton is a /igsaw 1uBBle IToad says, abo!eJ. And like all the best 1uBBles I&an we 1ut "intown?"J there was a 1ie&e issing. @o e 1eo1le ha!e found the issing 1ie&e, but they kee1trying to 1ut it in u1side down Ithat"s all...J.

f 1ri ary interest to us fro Er Toad (8 ean how far &an we go with Pederson, itight be hard to fet&h her ba&k fro afar as well6 Dilligan we &ould still grill though, a

1ie&e of 3addo&k RSR), ight be this instead (fro abo!e again):"Eay -- Dilligan inter!iews senior e ber of 3ED, who akes the a 1bell H inute&lai "off the re&ord". Dilligan &annot run the story without a &reditable sour&e, so is 1ointed toKelly as "unattributable" Eo% sour&e. Dilligan goes to Kelly, tells hi he knows the H inute&lai is fi&titious and 1lays the "na e ga e", then goes ho e and writes u1 his 1ie&e o!ernightusing info fro sour&e ' effe&ti!ely attributed to Kelly. Kelly is baffled by Dilligan"s inter!iewIthe authorshi1J, but on&e Dilligan"s 1ie&e goes out he realises he has been set u1. 3e writes toEo% to ad it the unauthorised inter!iew but denies he is the original sour&e of Dilligan"sinfor ation... "

And &o on sense, we"d say, would tend to su11ort this. That in that Dilligan &ould

htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --


20/51

hardly ha!e en!isaged his story hi self (they 1layed the na e ga e 7 indeed= Firstna e out a 1bell? >). 8t is indeed feasible then that this idea &a e his way by way ofanother (?):

"Ask hi , why don"t you, Kelly, about that, he has an o1inion about so e of this, /ustnot saying yet, that"s all=" ( ur 1un&tuation). @o e other 1erson 1erha1s then, and nofan of a 1bell in 1arti&ular either then. @o e history there, aybe, then so es&ore to settle, 1erha1s, e!en? 2y our Er Toad e!en, landed hi self on&e...?

Last here, this business of a na esake of %r Kelly"s as well now, &o ing out with thisidea, that 1erha1s %r Kelly was a 4alter Eitty ty1e that ty1e instead of whate!erother ty1e he ight ha!e been. 2lair then, so e inferred, was behind this as well? 9ot

the 22 web site, this ti e anyway:"2lair under 1ressure o!er Eitty re ark:

The 1ri e inister is fa&ing &alls to sa&k his s1okes an for referring to go!ern ent wea1onsins1e&tor %r %a!id Kelly as a 4alter Eitty &hara&ter.

To Kelly ade the re arks during what %owning @treet regarded as off the re&ord&on!ersations with /ournalists about the 3utton in$uiry into the s&ientist"s death.

n Tuesday, Er Kelly said he dee1ly regretted aking the &o ents and a1ologisedunreser!edly to %r Kelly"s widow and fa ily...IFurther down, we &an all get &aughtJ

8 dee1ly regret, therefore Ithis Kelly didJ, that what 8 thought was a 1ri!ate &on!ersation with a /ournalist last week has led to further 1ubli& &ontro!ersy..." <

This, %r Kelly"s wife, +ani&e, took 1arti&ular e5&e1tion to as well, and well she ightha!e, indeed. And, well, here, that being of no 1arti&ular insight either then, we thinkwe &an at least add fro that, then, that there was no, then, &o on all 4hitehallgossi1 going around about then, about our an and any other wo an. And on gossi1,being the sub/e&t of, 1erha1s Toad, did he identify with this, and in so doing has he

identified hi self as well then? 4ell he ight ha!e ( ).

And now, notwithstanding all that, the fear, so e know it, would still ha!e been e!er1resent, with our an anyway. 3e"d entioned it again, to 2rou&her 7 that he ightbe found dead near ho e (sa e to Pederson before then), u1dated, not a thought thathas gone away then.

9ow why the ti ing of this attered to his fa ily later, we &an"t say either yet? Thatthis was one year before then (that he said this to 2rou&her), not early -- , but early

> efer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, p. '-G.< htt1:;;news.bb&.&o.uk; ;hi;ukNnews;1oliti&s; ' HG .st


21/51

-- , instead,that see s a key. 9ot then, /ust before war, that therefore not indi&ati!eof any 1arti&ular state of ind then? That it was the stress then, and the strain, thehearings again, and one in 1arti&ular, that got their an down a1art fro that hewould ha!e &o1ed...? @a e as he &o1ed with the fear, entioned again, we ightsu11ose, well they i agined so? 2ut yes, a &hange, in de eanour, outlook, woulddefinitely ha!e &o e about then, would ha!e definitely been noti&eable.

***

he passion for truth is silenced by answers that have the undisputed weight of

authority. ' -

4ell, not so far has this been the &ase anyway. And so worthy of 3ollywood itself,what"s left o!er here. And that sort treat ent, surely, &an"t be that far away either?

ussell rowe, 1erha1s, in the s1ot, he ore or less an Aussie now (Kiwi a&tually), theright an 1erha1s for this. And he looks the 1art, like our an at ti es as well. 4ouldyou ind?

4hy he e!en &a e &lose to 1laying another Kelly in Australia (another na esake ofour ans"), 9ed, ba&k when (in -- a&tually) another taken down in a fight that he

(9ed), 1ossibly thought was still fair, so ehow, right u1 until his end. "@u&h is life," hesaid. 8t is said that he said so anyway. That role (so e 1arting that), taken finally by3eath Ledger though, another Australian a&tor died -->, of an a&&idental o!erdose,it is said. f who it has also been said that he always 1ut too u&h into his rolesalso.

9ao i 4atts, &o star with Ledger in 9ed Kelly, would also 1lay 0alerie Pla e in &air+ame released in -'- as well. And now this is e!en getting rounder, sounder, for&o e to think, again, now, Pla e"s last /ob with the 8A (her &areer ended /ust then,three days out fro our an"s, by her being outed, a&&ording to this fil anyway, &air+ame ), was to 1ull an 8ra$i s&ientist out of 8ra$ who &ould ha!e said, a11arently, u&hthe sa e to the world as our an ight ha!e said if he"d got ba&k in there (8ra$), aswell (and nobody &ould ha!e been sure he wouldn"t ha!e, now... that being that therewas, now, no 4E% left to s1eak of e!en, by then, that the ins1e&tion regi e had been

ore su&&essful than had been i agined before then. That, of &ourse, a story on itsown. This a story in itself as well. @till, 0P "outed" three days before %K was "offed".Phew, so e ba&k story, that, yes, &ould that be &onne&ted. Mes, but not fro here,

- Paul Tilli&h. Theologian.


22/51

that is unlikely. @o ba&k to this s1ot that we are still in, now, instead.

fear ends***

starts.+et back.

Mes, that, this, get ba&k= @1ot. 9ow this "dark a&tor"s" e ail instead, why not that e ail sentalong with others at around '' '>a that last orning (they know this, all in a bun&h, fro3utton e!iden&e)? That the only of its kind though, that we know of. And on that A Page saidhe s1ent two onths trying to get to the botto of that also 7 before the 3utton in$uiry,again).

own. This a story in itself as well. @till, 0P "outed" three days before %K was "offed".Phew, so e ba&k story, that, yes, &ould that be &onne&ted. Mes, but not fro here,that is unlikely. @o ba&k to this s1ot that we are still in, now, instead.

fear ends***

starts.+et back.

Mes, that, this, get ba&k= @1ot. 9ow this "dark a&tor"s" e ail instead, why not thate ail sent along with others at around '' '>a that last orning (they know this, allin a "bun&h", fro 3utton e!iden&e, in&luding fro A Page ' )? That the only of itskind though, that we know of. And on that A Page said he s1ent &onsiderable ti eon that also, &onsidering "inter1retations" and aking "e5tensi!e en$uiries" aroundthose as well (before the 3utton in$uiry, again ).

Perha1s the only one of its ty1e then? C5&e1t, then, we do know, that %r Kelly alsosent what has been des&ribed as a "&o bati!e" e ail to a &olleague before he wentoff on his walk later that day, his last outing (this he de&ided on that day also,a&&ording to 3awton H. That should be ob!ious though, we"d say).

These e ails, they are not all a!ailable this dark a&tors one a!ailable only, 1ossibly,be&ause it was sent to +udy Eiller at the -ew ork imes who &o ented on it,re1orting, by way of Ers Kelly, that the &onte5t was no ore than a to do with "offi&ialsat the Einistry of %efen&e and OK intelligen&e agen&ies" they were with s1arring o!erinter1retations of wea1ons re1orts:

"4ea1ons e51ert %r %a!id Kelly told of U any dark a&tors 1laying ga esV in an e ail to a /ournalist hours before his sui&ide, it was re1orted today.

' htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --.ht 8bid: efer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. ''H.

H 8bid: 1. '- .


23/51

The words a11eared to refer to offi&ials at the Einistry of %efen&e and OK intelligen&e agen&ieswith who he had s1arred o!er inter1retations of wea1ons re1orts, a&&ording to the 9ew Mork

Ti es. The essage ga!e no indi&ation that he was de1ressed and said he was waiting until the endof the week before /udging how his a11earan&e before the 3ouse of o ons Foreign Affairs

o ittee had gone.

The news1a1er did not na e the re&i1ient of the e ail.8t said another asso&iate had re&ei!ed a &o bati!e essage fro %r Kelly shortly before heleft his 5fordshire ho e for the last ti e on Thursday.

The s&ientist said in the e ail that he was deter ined to o!er&o e the s&andal surroundinghi and was enthusiasti& about the 1ossibility of returning to 8ra$.%r Kelly was grilled by EPs last week o!er his &o ents to re1orters about the use ofintelligen&e in the run u1 to the war in 8ra$.3e had denied being the ain sour&e for a 22 story about &lai s that a dossier on 8ra$ hadbeen se5ed u1 to boost 1ubli& su11ort for ilitary a&tion.%r Kelly"s wife +ani&e told the 9ew Mork Ti es her husband had worked on Thursday orning ona re1ort he said he owed the Foreign ffi&e and had sent so e e ails to friends.@he said: After lun&h, he went out for a walk to stret&h his legs as he usually does.Ers Kelly said she had no indi&ation that her husband was &onte 1lating sui&ide. 2ut he hadbeen under enor ous stress, as we all had been. "

8n total that was not a&tually all though, hardly any of that ty1e of s1arring o&&urringat all, we"ll go further... 4here our an was ha!ing so e real diffi&ulty that day waso!er addressing the $uestions 1ut to hi o!er /ournalists again his le!el of &onta&t,how he would rate that, s1e&ifi&ally o!er @usan 4atts, Dilligan"s" &olleague, a&tually.9ow that"s where real stress was ki&king in. 9ow while he 1referred to 1ut her at thebotto of the list (he"d only et her on&e after all, ore than a year before 7 the listonly had to note the ones he"d et with in the last year forget about the 1hone&alls), there was so e argu ent o!er this. 3ere he wasn"t fa&ing u1 well, e!en i5ingher na e u1 on one return e ail to &olleague 4ing o ander +ohn lark G who washel1ing hi with this task, substituting her last na e for another &olleagues last na e(4ells). And, if they &ould but agree, all of this had to be addressed then returned byend of 1lay that day (these were tabled 1arlia entary $uestions fro before the FA

eeting), 1arlia ent in re&ess after then for the su er break. And real diffi&ultyhere for our an was that 4atts had ta1ed a &on!ersation with hi and he ust ha!erealised by now (or been told so e say, and that day as well so e also say...). Thusso e of that, !erbati s&ri1t, was lo&king hi in now 7 the 22 threatening to releaseso ething in te5t now, so ething they said, this a key word in all this, that wouldtransform (see Dilligan"s original 1rogra e state ent), the debate= @till, 4att"s1rogra e, -ewsnight , 2lair thought, had been " ilder Ithough,J less infla atory," >

efer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. ''H.G htt1:;;i age.guardian.&o.uk;sys files;Politi&s;do&u ents; -- ;->; >;August PE.1df

37 htt1:;;www.guardian.&o.uk;1oliti&s; --H;/an; ';huttonkey1layers.huttonre1ort> efer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. H.


24/51

and so he ight ha!e ade it through that, after that. That in hindsight of &ourse.

'% will wait until the end of the week before judging / many dark actors playinggames...'

@o here we are now, at last, shuffling with this. And here we all are al ost four onths

in now as well. 9o finds yet, we"!e said. And so nothing that &ould by then ha!e&ontinued to /ustify the ongoing &arnage &ontinuing either. 9ot that anyone was goingto 1ull ba&k fro /ustifying that $uite so o1enly e!en then, anyway... 9ot e!en be&auseof that, no they would &ast about wouldn#t they (yes, no?), e!en it out, une!enly,ho1efully. Mes, that would be the way.

And here, again, the fa&t, again, that this other Kelly did &o e u1 with this suggestionabout our an being the 4alter Eitty ty1e, well, ight we &onsider this again nowthen, in another light?

4ell, here, first off, that &ould be, we think, so e sign of that (abo!e) as well.8ndi&ati!e then (?) of an attitude that ay well ha!e begun to swirl around about thesa e ti e as that as well then?

A &hanging attitude then, and that at about the sa e ti e being, we ean, then,

when the finds re ained elusi!e, then, that near four onths in again. And that atabout the sa e ti e our an was in the do&k as well, in the hot seat (1ardon us). Andarguably he was the first, we &ould easily ake that &ase at least that at a ti e when

any 2ritons, a1art fro 2lair (are we being unfair here?), had begun to wonder howthey"d got into this war, 1oliti&ian"s in&luded, the intelligen&e ser!i&es e!en...who else?

And so here we ha!e rea&hed our an"s last day as well, weighed down by thathi self 1erha1s he was, this $uestion, that $uestion, what else?

A 1ro1osition then, here: That it ay ha!e a11eared to our an at that sa e ti ethen (this /ust an a11earan&e), that there was so e distan&ing of "others" going onnow and away fro this worrying atter of the no 4E% on the ground, a sort of getba&k fro e fa&tor at 1lay then, not fair 1lay? 9ot 2lair to be fair, either there.8 1li&it if any of that was swirling around though, of &ourse, the suggestion then thatthere had ne!er been any 1oliti&al will for the fight anyway, and that 1lainly not righteither. @till the 1ot (not 2lair 1arti&ularly, he didn"t hide behind any &olu n, but the

rest of that lot), our an ay ha!e ended u1 feeling, was ne!er going to let itself be&alled bla&k by the kettle anyway (it is said that our an"s brain &ould boil water), and


25/51

so so e say urder ensued then, be&ause of that, and so e &ontinue to say that tothis !ery day...

3ere the 1ri ary book that &lai s this, 1ublished


26/51

irrational fear of ali&e by others..." H' Eore:"A&&ording to &lini&al 1sy&hologist P. +. E&Kenna, As a noun, 1aranoia denotes a disorder whi&hhas been argued in and out of e5isten&e, and whose &lini&al features, &ourse, boundaries, and!irtually e!ery other as1e&t of whi&h is &ontro!ersial. C 1loyed as an ad/e&ti!e, 1aranoid hasbe&o e atta&hed to a di!erse set of 1resentations, fro 1aranoid s&hiBo1hrenia, through1aranoid de1ression, to 1aranoid 1ersonalityWnot to ention a otley &olle&tion of 1aranoid"1sy&hoses", "rea&tions", and "states"Wand this is to restri&t dis&ussion to fun&tional disorders.C!en when abbre!iated down to the 1refi5 1ara , the ter &ro1s u1 &ausing trouble as the&ontentious but stubbornly 1ersistent &on&e1t of 1ara1hrenia. "

LinkedH , "Para1hrenia was &oined by Karl Ludwig Kahlbau in '>G not to na e so e s1e&ifi&disorder, but to draw attention that &ertain 1sy&hiatri& disorders tend to de!elo1 at a &ertainage. Kahlbau used for instan&e to distinguish between 1ara1hrenia hebeti&a (the insanity ofthe adoles&en&e) fro 1ara1hrenia senilis (the insanity of the elders). 8n '


27/51

ends

***

H starts

After all

hara&teristi& of any of these related delusions, of &ourse, is the feeling that anythingone &ould i agine &ould ha11en. hara&teristi& of our an as he dealt with his fear,we"d say, was that he leaked a little round the edges like any of us ight. An&ientsi&knesses &ould be resurre&ted, he knew that, and ore. And ore than that 1erha1s,and this a thought, that dee1 down so e an&ient 1art of us fears si&kness ore thanwar anyway? 8 agine that, the una&&ountable at your door?

Eore on this, kee1ing in ti e with %urkhei with 7 where ight he end u1 here? 4ewould ha!e this higher le!er of fear (to begin with), this in&rease in this anything &ouldha11en any ti e grou1 in the O@A, and this statisti&ally higher in Der any and @1ainthan anywhere else to begin with? 4ould it be in&reasing religiosity then, in the O@A,or so e off shoot of that say ore faith, or that e51ressed in another way, say byless $uestioning?

The una&&ountable in&reasing anyway, that des1ite 1rayer, faith, so ething? 3ere9ed Kelly"s attitude to it all (why not) well, he was hardly a 1erson who had faith in

the syste , as in 0i&toria then, hardly afraid you ight think, ha!e thought, either (itslikely that he was at least a little though). @till, des1ite that, he did say, a11arently,before he was hanged (Eelbourne gaol), U h 4ell, su&h is life,V then. A res1e&ter offor&e also then, ore a dissenter than an assenter also, e5hibiting by that that so es&e1ti&is , so e &yni&is , ight ser!e us better finally, should life, finally, not go ourway either... That Kelly, while he would ha!e, no doubt, &ontinued on his own way hadhe es&a1ed the &onse$uen&es of his offending, been 1ardoned, would ha!e still borneu1 the sa e anyway. 4e &ould at least say that.

The O@A then, with its 1ubli& horror at ti es, the 1ubli& i agination &a1tured so e,the reins re o!ed there ore than anywhere, that leading not so u&h to ore faithnow then, rather to ore feelings of hel1lessness instead? For whate!er ne5t that ahot to1i& there.

And here, to to1 this all, late onset of these fears o&&ur ore so in wo en than inen. And ore often these o&&urren&es are related to deafness and to so&ial isolation.

@ays so ething that as well...

2a&k to our an again now though, to his fear, then, !ery real all the while. And so ebalan&ing a&t we"d say here as well then, kee1ing that at bay, out not in, &ontaining it,


28/51

and that to be aintained so ehow, and &oherently. And then, outlets re o!ed, thesebeing a&ti!ely blo&ked, his being able to talk it out (e5a 1le 2os&h H ), not u1, thestress would ha!e ounted u1, the una&&ountable ne5t= And 1arties are not best1leased about this yet. Eu&h ado &ontinues still...

2ut there, here we are, the business end of it all, and you &an"t foresee, tell anythingabout anybody until you see the under 1ressure as well e!en if only afterwards(3awton said a lay 1erson wouldn"t ha!e seen this &o ing either). And we wouldn"tha!e been able to tell anything about any of this without the out&o e of the 3uttonin$uiry either... @o we are 1oints ahead here so ehow?

And this is a little leakage as well, likely 7 lest the stress of all of it, of life"s&ontradi&tions, its see ing ounting senselessness, that whi&h we ignore, kee1 outso ehow, balan&e against this or that interest, lest these ount u1 against us in1erson as well. 8f we had our wits about us, &onstantly, half of us would surely shuffleoff s artly so ehow as well. All 1erfor an&e is a little leakage, really, in so e way,we get it out, so ehow (that or we get out?).

3ere (a little &ross oursel!es now), its fatuous isn"t it, really, to suggest that all ouran &ared about was that he ight lose his /ob, so ehow? That as an ad/e&ti!e, in

fa&t, &ould be a11lied to the whole sorry 1ro&ess and its 1ro&essing of. 9o wonderother 1arties are still &ross, want so e other 1arty brought to book o!er this so ehow

still. The e51lanations, the out&o e, so e dis&onne&t there yet? A !ague feeling1ersists... a &liff ahead...?

***

Mes, aybe but now (and hard to lea!e that i age behind totally we know as well but this should at least be "sobering" ore odern so&iologi&al thought infor s usnow), while we ay well ha!e ended u1 with a &ause, a set of &onditions, we are notne&essarily talking, nowadays, about &ausation also. That not the &ase now at all, after

all.For what we &ould gras1 if we are to 1ro&eed fro here (on fro %urkhei HH), is the"near double in!ol!e ent of indi!iduals and institutions" (the so&iety we kee1) now that as u&h as e!er in our daily li!es fro now on as well.

H 2os&h: "Yat one ti e he said he liked talking to e Ithey talked al ost daily in&luding on that lastorning as wellJ be&ause 8 had a I oreJ international 1ers1e&ti!e IthatJ in &ontrast to but &o 1li ented

his te&hni&al ba&kground... the 1ress, e!eryone... fo&ussed on the wea1on as a s oking gun IbutJ it wasthe 1rogra es Ihe feared, be&auseJ 1rogra es Ithere had always been so e e!iden&e of theseJi 1lied intent..." 3utton in$uiry,

htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --


29/51

And for o1eners here (on to this) "knowledge" while it ight be useful6 while it ightindeed e$uate to 1ower (we ight think we &ould 1re!ent an o&&urren&e with that,1re!ent atta&k e!en) this is not ne&essarily e 1owering at all, after all. And that forthe following reasoning now....

For, "although IDiddens" 1uts it this wayJ knowledge ay be an i 1ortant ad/un&t to1ower, it is not the sa e as 1ower Ithat asJ our knowledge of history IisJ alwaystentati!e Iis alwaysJ in&o 1lete..." And that &o on sense we ight now about thatas well.

Further: "4e do not /ust li!e in history... our understanding of history is an integral 1artof what that history is." (There is so e re1rodu&tion then, so e re &onstru&tion of ourinstitutions, eaning, in this sense, our so&ial li!es, based on this).

Detting there, so ewhere near so e understanding here, %urkhei (our father inso&iology, it is said), has also been &riti&ised for his &lai : That his "so&ial fa&ts," albeitinteresting, illu inating (the out&o e of study &an often end u1 running &ounter tointuition, &an turn us round), these out&o es are not the sa e as laws of nature then(a natural s&ien&e this ight ha!e been, he ho1ed), that as hu an beings &an &hangeof their own !olition, ight, do... That su&h as 1arti&les, ato s, the substanti!ebuilding blo&ks of life, &an"t, won"t, don"t...

9ow, here, Didden"s de1loys the sort of i agery that 1re&eding so&iology en/oyed, note 1loyed nowadays, ne!er the less still useful to oursel!es now, for our 1ur1oseshere, es1e&ially so:

"To s1eak of the "re1rodu&tion" of so&ial &ondu&t or so&ial syste s is to s1eak of the re1etitionof si ilar 1atterns of a&ti!ity by a&tors se1arated fro ea&h other in ti e and s1a&e. 8t is !eryi 1ortant to stress this 1oint, be&ause u&h so&ial theory 7 in&luding that of %urkhei 7 is1er!aded by the tenden&y to think in ter s of 1hysi&al i agery, a tenden&y whi&h &an ha!eda aging &onse$uen&es. @o&ial syste s in!ol!e 1atterns of relationshi1s a ong indi!idualsand grou1s. Eany so&iologists 1i&ture these 1atterns as rather like the walls of a building, orthe skeleton of a body. This is isleading be&ause it i 1lies too stati& or un&hanging an i ageof what so&ieties are like: be&ause it does not indi&ate that the 1atterning of so&ial syste s

only e5ists in so far as indi!iduals a&ti!ely re1eat 1arti&ular for s of &ondu&t fro one ti e and1la&e to another.8f we were to use this sort of i agery at all, we should ha!e to say that so&ial syste s are likebuildings that are at e!ery o ent &onstantly being re&onstru&ted by the !ery bri&ks that&o 1ose the IthenJ."" H

Thus (if we ight a&&e1t this, as gi!en), we are building with bri&ks fro below usthen, yet not fro any 1arti&ular &ourse either then...

@till the bri&k, any bri&k, has to be there for us to gras1 it then doesn"t it. As we ha!edone re the "dark a&tor"s" e ail abo!e us, its eaning at last. And as has been donebelow us now as well.

45 8bid, fro Diddens, fro his "... 0rief but Critical %ntroduction1' (' ), to @o&iology.


30/51

H ends

***

5 strange starts

8n the wake of a book &lai ing urder (before, footnote ,1. ), was done, the Kelly fa ily &alledfor "&al ".HG Dood &all. And using Diddens" i agery we &an see now how we get to this othersort of &all as often as we do as well then

@till the bri&k, any bri&k, has to be there for us to gras1 it then doesn"t it. As we ha!edone re the "dark a&tor"s" e ail abo!e us, its eaning at last. And as has been donebelow us now as well.

H ends

***

strange starts

8n the wake of a book &lai ing urder (before, footnote < ,1. ), was done, the Kellyfa ily &alled for "&al ".H Dood &all. And using Diddens" i agery we &an see now howwe get to this other sort of &all as often as we do as well then.

For half baked, that work gras1ed to begin with at the bri&ks /ust at hand. There wasthe $uestion of the no 4E%, whi&h then led to the $uestion of who had the ost to

lose then, should that be&o e a11arent too soon then? This, then, be&a e the grou1of 8ra$i"s who had issiled e!eryone all along then. 9o will for this war on the 1art ofany others then, this way.

And then, of &ourse, it had been agreed our an &ould go ba&k to 8ra$ the end of thefollowing week, and that he was "keen" for that as well (why 4ing o ander larkhad said so, and that his flight had been booked as well no &at&hes en!isaged with!isas or anything like that again then... H>).

There was one bri&k this work did rea&h $uite so e way for though, and this was1retty i 1ressi!e we ust ad it, a bou$uet. The 2ritish, this way, &o!ered this

urder u1 then that due to %r Kelly ha!ing !isited a site while working in 8ra$ in' 4ing o ander lark e51lained these diffi&ulties before 7 see his e!iden&e athtt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --


31/51

o!er long gun barrels there, Pro/e&t 2abylon H Er Ea1les: @o after you had written your bit in Eay and +une

%r Kelly: 8 forgot about it.< Er Ea1les: you had nothing ore to do with it. 8 /ust wanted to ask you a &ou1le ore

$uestions sin&e you are here. 4hen you were a wea1ons ins1e&tor with O9@ E in 8ra$ 8 onlygot this fro news1a1er re1orts and you &an tell e if it is not true you were shown by an8ra$i general or inister a site in e!iden&e that 8ra$ had tested a radiologi&al wea1on, orsought to test a radiologi&al wea1on, a dirty bo b 8 su11ose in the /argon.%r Kelly: n one ins1e&tion that 8 led the 8ra$i authorities asked that there should be a s1e&ialbriefing to the tea and at that ission, whi&h was an inter!iew ission, thea&knowledge ent was ade by Deneral Fahi @haheen, together with 2rigadier 3aifa, that theyhad undertaken e51eri ents with radiologi&al wea1ons in ' . 8 ha!e been to the site sin&ebut not to in!estigate the radiation.

>- Er Ea1les: Mou did not go to the site at the ti e?%r Kelly: 9ot at the ti e. 8 ha!e been there sin&e to in!estigate other &lai s.

>' Er Ea1les: 9ot in '


32/51

> Er Ea1les: 8s there so e reason why it was left out?%r Kelly: Cssentially it had to be a &on&ise a&&ount and you &annot in&lude e!erything.Er Ea1les: A dirty nu&lear bo b 8 would ha!e thought was 1retty signifi&ant yself."

*** Mes, "signifi&ant," to this other author 2aker, anyway, who has sin&e, a11arently, "tabled a

o ons $uestion" asking for ore - 7 as u&h onto this now, as urder before. @till that was

so e rea&h. 2ut in short this an has 1robably got a bit &arried away there.

3ere, e!en 9i&k ufford, who re!iewed this work, wondered why this an didn"t sto1 where he&ould ha!e before urder? 3e had, 2aker, ad itted that it was "1lausible" that %r Kelly hadtaken his own life, but then he went on? 2ut then, ufford, in his re!iew, went a little strangehi self 7 in suggesting that others with so e res1onsibility for all this fuss had es&a1ed&riti&is , had e erged uns&athed, whilst others who hadn"t shouldn"t ha!e:

"Y sifting through testi ony fro 1arlia entary in$uiries Ias we ha!e as wellJ, whi&h he&o bines with his own resear&h, 2aker e51oses 7 ore thoroughly than e!er before 7 ago!ern ent so deter ined to build a &ase for going to war that it either lied or was unable todistinguish truth fro fi&tion. 8t had to &ross a legal threshold of 1roof before our own ar edfor&es would agree to fight. 3en&e %owning @treet su oned u1 Uintelligen&eV that was little

ore than hearsay or downright bogus. The now infa ous H inute warning of a &he i&alatta&k &a e fro a dubious single sour&e. The &lai that @adda Ian A eri&an &lai J wassho11ing for yellow &ake uraniu in 9iger was based on forged do&u ents. @adda #s obiles all1o5 laboratories turned out to be trailers for filling hydrogen balloons, 1art of an artillerysyste sold by 2ritain to 8ra$ in ' .

" e arkably, as 2aker re inds us, the 1rotagonists are still in offi&e. +ohn @&arlett, the&hair an of the +oint 8ntelligen&e o ittee, has been 1ro oted to &hief of E8G6 Deoff 3oon isnow &hief whi16 +a&k @traw, the /usti&e se&retary and lord &han&ellor6 and, 1erha1s ostgallingly, Tony 2lair is now a 1ea&e en!oy. Eeanwhile, the 3utton in$uiry skewered en whowere largely inno&ent. Dreg %yke, Da!yn %a!ies and Andrew Dilligan left the 22 ." '

@ti&king to a 1oint, the reason for the 3utton in$uiry (the &on&ern was our an"sde ise), this thought (&ri e?), that the 3utton in$uiry "skewered en who werelargely inno&ent", would ha!e been hard to ba&k u1 had ufford to read a little ore ofwhat he was writing about and we"ll &o e to that.

***

9ow, were we to &lai that hearings, in$uiries, get us anywhere (we wonderedbefore), well, fro the 3utton in$uiry, we ha!e a&tually got &loser to 1oints worthin&or1orating into our general understanding of this atter now, that fa&tor as well...

Taking a wider !iew (short ter here), we should 1erha1s e!en allow now, that as a lotof infor ation &an take so e ti e to refle&t u1on ( ore ti e to refle&t u1on than

ight be allowed for in any 1arti&ular ti e fra e), it ight well then be this !ery a&t,this &olle&ting together of aterial, data, ight !ery well be what atters ost in the

50 @ee the @trange %eath of %a!id Kelly, by 9or an 2aker. e!iewed by 9i&k ufford. he Sunday imes , 9o!e ber'', -- (for referen&e to this): htt1:;;dr da!id kelly.blogs1ot.&o.nB; -- N''N-'Nar&hi!e.ht l

' 8bid.


33/51

long run (thinking Diddens... "our understanding of history often tentati!e, in&o 1lete,"that ha!ing ra ifi&ations in the long run. 4e always will now, won"t we (?), ha!e the1otential, to de!elo1 further footnotes for further in$uiry (we"re doing it now), frothat. %igitised, a&&ess there, keywords &an get us in there as well.

2a&k to that, ufford, his re!iew (abo!e). 4ere we to /udge, now, if %r Kelly &ould e!erha!e had any basis to say that the @e1te ber dossier was transfor ed 1er se. as 1erDilligan"s re1ort on his Today 1rogra e, then it would ha!e to be the &ase, wouldn"tit, that our an had also seen, then, the dossier both before and after thattransfor ation had taken 1la&e, and that late in the day for hi to ha!e beendefiniti!e on that as well then, we ean, here...

4hen Ann 3artley, gi!ing e!iden&e at the 3utton in$uiry was 1ressed, she was1ressed to the 1oint where she realised that our an had (herself being the &hair ofthe se&ond &o ittee that our an attended as well then, this 8ntelligen&e and@e&urity &o ittee, the day after the FA o ittee hearing, there where our anhad &lai ed again, as he had the day before, that he had only e!er had li ited in1utinto this dossier anyway, and that only early on, and that only his &ontribution also,the histori&al &ha1ter, ), not aware of that herself before. %inge ans (&ounsel for the3utton in$uiry), got that out of her, this way:

E @ 4898F C% A99 TAML (&alled) C5a ined by E %89DCEA9@:ITaylor answeringJ: "...The 1art of the dossier that he I%r KellyJ had had so e &onne&tion withwas the general ba&kground 1art of the dossier, whi&h 8 think had been &o issioned ba&kfro the Foreign ffi&e side before things were brought together.

. 4hat be&o es 1art , the &ha1ter on the history?A. The ba&kground, yes, at a u&h earlier stage.

. That was your understanding on the o ittee?A. Mes. That is what he told us.

. %id anyone tell you: hang on a inute, that is not entirely right, he was in!ol!ed on '-th@e1te ber &o entingon growth edia and he was in!ol!ed on '


34/51

H "Yat the end of our &on!ersation on . @o you had a few ore tele1hone &on!ersations?< A. Mes, we s1oke through the ne5t about e!ery day during'- that ti e.

'' . %id you s1eak about the Dilligan 1ie&e at all or about' the Dilligan situation?' A. 4ell, 8 re e ber talking to hi , 8 think it was the ne5t'H day, the 22 had 1ut sorry, the Eo% had 1ut out' a state ent Iabout a 1erson who had &o e forwards, not na ing %r Kelly, but suggestingthat this 1erson who ay be being alluded to by Dilligan, none the less did not belie!e he wasthe sour&e of all that Dilligan was &lai ing he had been "told"J and then the 22 had 1ut out'G a &ounterstate ent, and then sorry, 8 there was' a 22 &ounterstate ent and another Eo% state ent6 and'> 8 was 8 had two of those. ne of the Eo% state ents'< and the 22 one 8 do not re e ber but 8 &ould go

- through 8 was reading through to hi , and we kind of ' were trying to ake sense, you know, what were they

trying to &orrelate. 8t see ed a bit &onfusing or so, but at one 1oint he did say, be&ause 8 entioned in theH 22 state ent that @usan 4atts was brought in there, the

22 state ent had entioned @usan 4atts

' . ould you sto1 there for a o ent? ould we go to A2;'; '>. 4e &an 1erha1s see what the state ent is. This is a state ent issued by the 22 , 8 think, on

H . 8 think you &an see, at the foot of the 1age, there is< a referen&e to @usan 4atts. %o you see this?'- A. ight, yes.'' . %o you re&ognise this state ent as the 22 state ent?' A. Mes. That was it, yes. 8 &o ented to hi that notes' were de1osited in the 22 legal de1art ent and, you'H know, had he seen those, be&ause 8 do not know what the' nature of &orres1onden&e was between whate!er. And also'G 8 entioned that 8 read that se&tion out to hi , and' he was !ery so ewhat indignant and said: well, what'> does she ha!e to do with this?'< . Mou read that se&tion out?

- A. Mes.' . an you &larify whi&h 1arti&ular se&tion you read out to

hi ? A. 4hat we do know is that Er Dilligan"s notes and a&&ount

H of what he was told are !ery si ilar to the notes of a &on!ersation @usan 4atts, s&ien&e editor of 9ewsnight,

H' had with her sour&e whi&h led to the 9ewsnight re1orts

of +une and H. . @o you read that to hi and he is indignant?

H A. And he says: what does she ha!e to do with this?"

IThey get on to the 22 state ent now...J


35/51

' i&hard @a brook, %ire&tor of 9ews, had been told the na e ... And 8 read this out to hi at so e 1oint during this

H ti e: 4hile the 1ost held by the sour&e is known also to

G Dreg %yke, the &or1oration"s %ire&tor Deneral ... 8 read that to hi and 8 said they are said to ha!e

> been assured by his knowledge, with one e5e&uti!e< boasting that dis&losure of his identity would transfor'- the debate.

n this here, though, e!en if the 22 had 1ublished 4att"s ta1e re&ording, thistrans&ri1tion did not &ontain any e51ression anything like transfor ed either (/udge thisfor yourself though, at ). 9or did %r Kelly, on that ta1e, 1oint in 1arti&ular towards

a 1bell o!er any as1e&t of this atter, and &ertainly no ore than did 4atts. ather this&on!ersation, with 4atts (2os&h e 1hasises this &on!ersationalist as1e&t herself, abo!e,

her ty1e of &onta&t with %r Kelly, res1e&tfully), was ore friendly we would suggest now,ore that than u&h else. A &on!ersation 1ra&ti&ally, that was a&tually about the

ins1e&tion 1ro&ess to begin with then as well, ore a &hat about u sfield (%efen&e@e&retary, O@), to begin with a&tually, and about whate!er u sfield ight &o e out withne5t (at that ti e u sfield was a&tually suggesting that the 4E% ay ha!e beendestroyed before war...). 8n fa&t the &on!ersation (this) started and finished with interest inthat, hi , as well. And in fa&t we &ould, e!en, string this &on!ersation out with so e&aden&e added in now (not that we would wish to o!erly stret&h this bow), as this does

show a drift in te 1o:

Keywords; talks2li5 by %K

u s by %K u s by @4u s by @4a 1 by @4a 1 by @4

a 1 by @4a 1 by @4a 1 by %K a 1 by %K

2li5 by @4u s by @4

@ada by @4@ada by %K

2li5 by @4htt1:;;www.the hutton in$uiry.org.uk;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing trans -.ht

53 htt1:;;i age.guardian.&o.uk;sys files;Politi&s;do&u ents; -- ;->;' ;s/wN'N-- --H .1df.


36/51

u s by @4u s by @4

2lair by @4***

Dilligan"s release now, as broad&ast, the "transfor ed" &lai , The oday 1rogra e on

< Eay:

8 ha!e s1oken to a 2ritish offi&ial who was in!ol!ed in the 1re1aration of the dossier and hetold e that until the week before it was 1ublished the draft dossier 1rodu&ed by theintelligen&e ser!i&es adds little to what was already known. 3e said "8t was transfor ed theweek before it was 1ublished to ake it se5ier". The &lassi& e5a 1le was the state ent that4E% were ready for use in H inutes. That infor ation was not in the original draft. 8t wasin&luded in the dossier against their wishes be&ause it wasn"t reliable.

That (abo!e), was brought u1 at the FA &o ittee hearing as well, this a!ailable !ia3utton e!iden&e again H:

" G Er Po1e Ito %r KellyJ: Er Dilligan said in his arti&le in the ail on Sunday of ' +une 8 askedhi , the sour&e, how this transfor ation ha11ened... "

8 ask you? 9ow:

This &on!ersation insertion again then, ours and fro that sa e arti&le again then,1i&ked u1 after that by the +uardian :

"4hat Andrew Dilligan said in the ail on Sunday Iin the +uardian J"Andrew Dilligan re1eats the allegations in his &olu n in the ail on Sunday on +une ', gi!ing

ore details of the se&ret eeting at a &entral London hotel with his sour&e.4e started off by oaning about the railways... after about half an hour Iafter so e

&on!ersation?J the story e ergeIedJ that would do inate the headlines I days laterJ for H>hours... ruin Tony 2lair"s 2asra away day Ithat day as wellJ... " G

***

And, so now, fair 1lay, as the Cnglish say regards this. n and on with this transfor1hraseology of &ourse, but lets now, underline, unders&ore this &on!ersationalisas1e&t in here now as well then. @ee s fair. n with this fro our an"s a11earan&ebefore this %ntelligence and Security committee again now then:

I O89J: "Y in the trans&ri1t of Dilligan"s in the final seg ent he said thewords of his sour&e were that it was transfor ed in a week before it was 1ublished to

ake it Zse5ier", that didn"t &o e fro you then?% KCLLM: The word Ztransfor ed" is not so ething that would ha!e o&&urred to ein ter s of the do&u ent, first of all 8 had not seen the earlier drafts of it, so 8 wouldn"tknow whether it had been transfor ed or not, the do&u ent itself is a !ery sober, wellwritten, there is no e oti!e language in it, it"s fa&tual, 8 don"t see it as beingZtransfor ed" .

54 htt1:;;www.1ubli&ations.1arlia ent.uk;1a;& -- - ;& sele&t;& faff;u&'- i;u&'- - .ht .55 8bid:

G htt1:;;www.guardian.&o.uk; edia; -- ;/ul; ; ailonsunday.ira$dossier


37/51

E8 3ACL EATC@: 2ut you wouldn"t des&ribe it as Zse5y"?Page of % KCLLM: 8 think the Zforty fi!e inutes" for i 1a&t is the only. that"s the only bitthat that would be the &ase.

+AEC@ A 2OT39 T: 2ut Zse5ier" is that a word you would use?

% KCLLM: 8t is a word 8 would use, 8 use it on o&&asions. +AEC@ A 2OT39 T: 8s it a word you did use?% KCLLM: 8 &annot re&all on that o&&asion.

+AEC@ A 2OT39 T: 2ut you ight ha!e done?% KCLLM: 8t"s 1ossible, yes.ALA9 2C8T3: 4hat were the words that ade you re&ognise the $uotation as beingyours?% KCLLM: 4hi&h $uotation are we talking about?

ALA9 2C8T3: Mou said when you read the trans&ri1t again you said you re&ognised it .% KCLLM: 8t was the -[. + M C O89 : 2ut in the trans&ri1t Dilligan also said that the words of his sour&e saysthat it was Ztransfor ed" Idid he? 2eforeJ in your answer you see to ha!e indi&ated !ery&learly that thatdid not &o e fro you.% KCLLM: 8 don"t belie!e it &a e fro e.

Last here, %r Kelly, there, finished, saying, through his ba&kground, he found hi self in

a strange 1osition as well at ti es:' G Er Po1e: 4hen you et Er Dilligan on Eay did you feel at the ti e that you were

doing anything untoward, that you were brea&hing the &onfiden&e that is e51e&ted of youwithin your /ob?%r Kelly: 9o. 8 think it has been agreed by the Einistry of %efen&e there was no se&urity brea&hin!ol!ed in the intera&tions 8 had.

' Er Po1e: %o you think, in your e51erien&e, that there is a wides1read &ulture in the Eo%and, 1erha1s, in the intelligen&e and se&urity ser!i&es of 1eo1le s1eaking in an unoffi&ial&a1a&ity to /ournalists? ertainly the i 1ression 8 got fro Er Dilligan was that that was awides1read &ulture that /ournalists would ha!e a nu ber of &onta&ts in the Eo% or in these&urity ser!i&es. 8s that your e51erien&e?%r Kelly: 8t is not y e51erien&e but 8 think you ha!e to re&ognise that 8 ha!e a strangeba&kground in the sense that 8 o1erated for ten years internationally intera&ting with theinternational 1ress and was well known to the 1ress and had $uite a lot of &onta&t. 8 think 8 aso ewhat unusual in ter s of the 1eo1le who ha!e an interest in that situation..." >

They belie!ed hi . 4hy wouldn"t you, at that 1oint. And, as1e&ts of that, sit right inthis, we think still. Fair 1lay or what then? And now what 3utton &a e out with finallyas well, finally, as he &a e to regard all this then. First 1rin&i1les, a noted belief,1ra&tise of 2lair"s, when addressing &o 1le5 $uestions, he has said


38/51

"UThe dossier was 1re1ared and drafted by a s all tea of the assess ent staff of the +8 . Er +ohn @&arlett, the &hair an of the +8 , had the o!erall res1onsibility for the drafting of thedossier.

The H inutes &lai was based on a re1ort whi&h was re&ei!ed by the @8@ fro a sour&ewhi&h that ser!i&e regarded as reliable Iat that ti eJ. Therefore, whether or not at so e ti e inthe future the re1ort on whi&h the H inute &lai was based on is shown to be unreliable, theallegation re1orted by Er Dilligan on < Eay -- that the go!ern ent 1robably knew that theH inute &lai was wrong before the go!ern ent de&ided to 1ut it in the dossier was anallegation whi&h was unfounded...

"As the dossier was one to be 1resented to, and read by, Parlia ent, and the 1ubli&, and wasnot an intelligen&e assess ent to be &onsidered only by the go!ern ent, 8 do not &onsider thatit was i 1ro1er for Er @&arlett and the +8 to take into a&&ount suggestions as to drafting adeby '- %owning @treet and to ado1t these suggestions if they were &onsistent with theintelligen&e a!ailable to the +8 ..." G-

The intelligen&e a!ailable at that ti e, the key e51ression there, the go!ern ententitled to in&lude that as well, their 1rerogati!e to as well, and fair enough that aswell, at the risk of so e ba&k &hat on that, said anyway, on this day.

***

4hat the 22 ne!er did ha!e, unfortunately for so e of the , was an honest enoughstory, whi&h was why they wanted to "transfor the debate" 7 o!e on a little if they&ould, the sel!es, fro the original story... All they had if they &ouldn"t o!e on alittle was that as %r Kelly had talked to 4atts (they had this ta1ed)6 ergo, then theythought they &ould &ontinue to say that he did say what we say he said to Dilliganthen... 9ot good enough though, a long bow, so e huffing and bluffing there. For 2lair,the story, it si 1ly &ould not stand, it would ha!e been bad for orale. This led to the22 "s hair an Da!yn %a!ies and its dire&tor general, Dreg %yke bowing out finally,as they had foreseen their end $uite early on, we"d say, no atter that 2lair said theyneedn#t ha!e, resigned. That a load of hy1e as well, really, "in ty1e". 9ot the endanyway, not really=

***4hat we would say now is that our an ne!er saw hi self as a whistle blower eithernow. That so e wistfulness on the 1art of another, others. These &on!ersations (keynow?), with Dilligan and 4atts, with others as well, sound ore like /ust that really. 8nthe loo1 and kee1ing in the loo1, ne!er u&h ore than that to any of this on our

an"s 1art. 8n fa&t %r Kelly said as u&h to the FA &o ittee as well, that that waswhy he was interested in eeting with Dilligan again hi self (below). @ounded,sounds, too 1at though, we ight su11ose...

Though re&i1ro&ity is the ter , isn"t it (?), that anthro1ologists use for this ty1e of a&t.

G- efer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. .


39/51

4hy e!en ufford, ha!ing tagged hi so (ha!ing $uoted hi , the first to do so), whythat ystified hi , see ed a strange thing to do, as well? ( ead 2os&h, : , 3uttonin$uiry again G').G

@trange ends

*** Too 1at this &on!ersationalist as1e&t 1erha1s, but this is what our an did say on thisanyway this fro this FA &o ittee eeting again, the day before the ne5t, fro3utton e!iden&e again, and in this %r Kelly e 1hasises the ter &on!ersation, adinfinitu hi self, key, 1erha1s, again (?):

"%r Kelly: The out&o e of the first eeting 8 had with hi IDilliganJ in February was that hewould 1ro!ide e with feedba&k fro his !isit to 8ra$, sin&e 8 a interested in 8ra$, interestedin other 1eo1le"s 1ers1e&ti!es on 8ra$ and the 1ro&ess. That was the reason for eeting withhi , to get feedba&k on that !isit.

' Er lner: 4as this not a two way 1ro&ess, that you wanted also to &o uni&ate otherthings to Er Dilligan?%r Kelly: 9o.

Er lner: 8t was si 1ly a /ournalist fishing for infor ation that you had got and youwanted to gi!e to hi ?%r Kelly: 9o, it was an o&&asion on whi&h 8 e51e&ted to get infor ation about 8ra$, about so eof the 1ersonalities that he either had en&ountered or atte 1ted to en&ounter, his e51erien&esduring the war itself and the e51erien&es he had with 8ra$i inders when he was a&ting as a

/ournalist before the war. Er lner: b!iously you ha!e read Er Dilligan"s a&&ounts of the eeting, in&luding the

e!iden&e that he ga!e to this o ittee. 8s there anything in Er Dilligan"s a&&ounts that youdis1ute?%r Kelly: 8 think you would ha!e to ask e the s1e&ifi& $uestion.

H Er lner: Mou ha!e ob!iously read it.%r Kelly: 8 ha!e read it.

Er lner: 8s there anything there that suggests Er Dilligan was 1erha1s being &areful withthe truth?%r Kelly: 8t is not a fa&tual re&ord of y intera&tion with hi , the &hara&ter of it, whi&h isa&tually diffi&ult to dis&ern fro the a&&ount that is 1resented there. 8t is not one that 8re&ognise as being &on!ersations 8 had with hi . There was one 1art of it whi&h alerted e tothat, whi&h was the &o ent about the - 1er &ent 1robability of 8ra$ a&tually 1ossessing&he i&al wea1ons, that is the sort of thing 8 ight ha!e said to hi .

G Er lner: eally Er Dilligan"s story was basi&ally about drafts of dossiers being &hanged,being se5ed u1 . %id you infer to Er Dilligan in any way, sha1e or for that he ight ha!e

isre1resented what you said?

%r Kelly: Ey &on!ersation with hi was 1ri arily about 8ra$, about his e51erien&es in 8ra$ andthe &onse$uen&es of the war, whi&h was the failure to use wea1ons of ass destru&tion duringthe war and the failure by Eay to find su&h wea1ons. That was the 1ri ary &on!ersationthat 8 had with hi ..." G

***Ei5, now, 8nstead.

G' htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --


40/51

There, we ho1e we ha!en"t blunted our 1oint by &onstantly adding ore and that into the i5.2ut, a further 1oint we would like to add now is that while nothing well 1ointed is e!er wasted,you still need the raw aterials to i5 the ortar with, to get the right &onsisten&y, thatulti ately of benefit to us all, a&&ording to Diddens before (his wall, also), anyway...

And yes too 1at that 1erha1s, but 1erha1s we &an get further with this ter re&i1ro&ity nowinstead, that a ter that so&ial anthro1ologists use to des&ribe the study of this 7 of howso&ieties and tribes re&i1ro&ate goods and ser!i&es, said to be able to hel1 us understandhu an relationshi1s, how they work, at the ost basi& le!el...

There are other for s as well, su&h as " oral" when 1ersons ight re&i1ro&ate towards othersalong the lines of what they think is orally a11ro1riate, har ful e!en.

And there is the "balan&ed" for , when the relationshi1 between the two "e5&hanges" is oreinfor al and the e51e&tation of return ay not ha!e a s1e&ifi& ti e fra e.

And breaking down balan&ed we ha!e negati!e and 1ositi!e as1e&ts of this as well now withthe 1ositi!e the in&lination is; would be, to gi!e ba&k in a &o o1erati!e anner6 with thenegati!e the in&lination is; would be, to "get ba&k" at so eone, but that with no e51e&tation ofany gain, aterial or otherwise. GH

8n this instan&e, &ase if you like, that re&i1ro&ity was at 1lay &ould ha!e been e!iden&ed at leasta little by %r Kelly"s e51lanation to this FA &o ittee again then, fro the re&ord, /ust beforewe got into this &on!ersationalist as1e&t at 1lay last there.

H' hair an: 4hat did you think the oti!es were of Er Dilligan and others in seeking to&onta&t you?%r Kelly: Are we talking s1e&ifi&ally of Er Dilligan?

H hair an: Mes.%r Kelly: The a11roa&h by Er Dilligan was to &onsult with e before his !isit to 8ra$ as abroad&aster. 3e wished to know &ertain as1e&ts of 8ra$, the O9E 08 ins1e&tion 1ro&ess, so eof the 1ersonalities that are asso&iated with the 1rogra e should he en&ounter the , so e

of the sites that are in!ol!ed in the 1rogra e. Mou ay re e ber that /ust before the warthe 8ra$i Do!ern ent was in!iting /ournalists to !isit the sites so they &ould see, a&&ording to8ra$i &lai s, that there was no illi&it a&ti!ity o&&urring..."G

And in return, %r Kelly was saying, they et again. A stout defen&e.

And yes, that, but 1erha1s that a little too 1at also. 2ut then we do ha!e an"unbalan&ed" for of this (re&i1ro&ity), to o!e us on a little if we &an be o!ed(1ardon us), this as e!iden&ed by 2os&h, 3utton e!iden&e, yet again:

64 htt1:;;www.ehow.&o ;fa&tsNG' '' GNre&i1ro&ity anthro1ologyN.ht l.htt1:;;en.wiki1edia.org;wiki; e&i1ro&ityN(so&ialN1sy&hology).65 http://www.publications.parliament.u /pa/cm200203/cmselect/cm!a!!/uc1025"i/uc102502.htm


41/51

Hearing Transcripts

' Thursday, Hth @e1te ber -- ('-. - a ) E @ L808A 2 @ 3 (&alled)

H C5a ined by E K9 \...H

'G . n ' th +uly, Thursday, did you talk to hi that day?' A. Mes. 3e tele1honed e about id orning. 8 think it'> was around '-.H or so, but the tele1hone re&ords ay'< show e 1erha1s. And he tele1honed e be&ause he was

- 1re1aring a list of /ournalists, whi&h he had to do for' the Foreign Affairs o ittee. And he asked e to hel1

hi with the na e of a /ournalist that he thought 8 would know. 8t was so eone he et a long ti e ago and

H had o!ed on. 8 was able to hel1 hi with that na e. 3e was telling e he was 1re1aring a list. 3e see ed in

HG' a $uandary be&ause he says: well we were talking about this, and he said: well, 8 think 8 a /ust going

to ention all of the . 8t was a tone of !oi&e 8 ne!erH really heard hi s1eak about.

. 4hat was that tone of !oi&e?G A. 8t was kind of like a s1ite or re!engefulness: 8 a /ust

going to list the all, kind of thing. 8 ne!er heard> hi be like that. Al ost i ediately he would &all ba&k< and in a atter of se&onds he then &a e ba&k and he'- says: but then he said: but not all of those would be'' rele!ant to the ' . The $uestion?' A. The $uestion that he had to deal with.'H L % 3OTT 9: @orry, did he tele1hone you ba&k again or is' this the sa e 'G A. The sa e &on!ersation. 8 a saying in the senten&e' where he e51ressed this unusual feeling, in a few'> se&onds he &hanged he see ed to ha!e &o e away fro'< it. f &ourse, 8 a that is the 8 felt that at

- the ti e, but in light of so e of the e!iden&e gi!en by' the 1rofessor se!eral days ago, this also heightened

e heightened y attention to it. GG

"Onbalan&ed" that definitely, a "negati!e" for of re&i1ro&ity, as we know it now, as weha!e res1e&tfully sub itted already 7 this in that there would ha!e been no gain," aterial or otherwise" fro that a&tion, nor would any san&tion that would affe&tanyone else, follow su&h a dis&losure either.

2os&h alerted then, to what though, and by the 1rofessor"s e!iden&e as well? Andthere had been no sign of de1ressi!e illness, or of 1sy&hiatri& &o 1laint, 3awton hade!iden&ed fro asking round. 3e had gone into all the "ins" and "outs" of why a 1erson

ight? 3e had offered, in hindsight (so ething fro before, to the fore) then, this

notion that our an would ha!e been "filled with a 1rofound sense of ho1elessness"GGhtt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk; --


42/51

then, and then added "/ob" to that, whi&h by no eans was ne&essarily under threat?

@o ething else here then, 2os&h alerted to it also, 3awton did it, alerted 2os&h toso ething else that is always there, all about us, yet only di ly 1er&ei!ed,

o entarily, by so e, ne!er o ent to o ent, e!er, by anyone. These things, this,

we take for granted, but they aren"t granted at all. 4e"!e worked for the , as theywork for us as well. And as they do, so long as they do (we &an go on, we know...).

Another way now, instead then. 3ow i 1ortant were these relationshi1s, threatened,to our an then, at that 1oint, at any 1oint at all then? 4ell not before then, and allwas well then, we &an take that as so. 2os&h again, fro abo!e on till ention of hisgetting ba&k to work again "if" (as fro before):

" Y And he was not sure what to do be&ause not all the /ournalists that he

H was listing would ne&essarily be rele!ant to the $uestion that he had to answer. And 8 suggested: well,H' why do you not /ust add a senten&e at the botto ?

E K9 \: @aying? A. @aying so ething to the effe&t that if any so that he

H &ould say to /ournalists: if they saw the list, saw their na e on it and were &on&erned why their na e was

G on there, then 8 said: you &ould always say you had written a senten&e $ualifying their na es, you know,

> that not whi&h he &ould say: well, not all of the< abo!e /ournalists were rele!ant to this $uestion or'- so ething to that effe&t.'' . %id you ha!e any further &on!ersations with %r Kelly?' A. Mes. Again, 8 thought 8 wanted to get hi to talk' about 8ra$ no, sorry, he entioned that the Eo% had'H asked hi to go out to 8ra$ the ne5t day... "G

These relationshi1s, that the threat then, to hi , and that by his own hand 1ossibly ifhe didn"t wat&h out? 8rrational, definitely, and e!en now he i agined so e ongoingrelationshi1 there, &ontinuing, or was that being realisti& now then?

And if not, what then, how &aught u1 in this then, was our an, hadn"t been takingoney, no one has e!er suggested that (not 2rit 1ress e!en, yet), so e other for ofre uneration, for of &o 1ensation at stake then, instead?

Cnds.

67 #bi$


43/51

one has e!er suggested that (not 2rit 1ress e!en, yet), so e other for ofre uneration, for of &o 1ensation at stake then, instead?

Cnds. G starts

"@o&ial an" (%urkhei su11osedG>), "su1eri 1oses hi self u1on 1hysi&al an. @o&ialan ne&essarily 1resu11oses a so&iety whi&h he e51resses or ser!es. 8f this dissol!es,

if we &an no longer feel it in e5isten&e and a&tion about and abo!e us, whate!er isso&ial in us is de1ri!ed of all ob/e&ti!e foundation... Thus we are bereft of reasons fore5isten&e: for the only life to whi&h we &ould &ling no longer &orres1onds to anythinga&tual6 the only e5isten&e still based u1on reality no longer eets our needs... @othere is nothing ore for our efforts to lay hold of, and we feel the lose the sel!esin e 1tiness..."

That would also ean, then, that %urkhei 1resu11osed a ti e before so&ial an aswe know hi now as well then? And yes, he did, finally, in his work, he #lementary&orms of the 3eligious "ife ('< ), wherein the abo!e a5i sits.

8n order that we ight a11ly this work, these ideas, for our 1ur1oses as well then, we

a&knowledge here that we are 1ara1hrasing fro Anthony (2aron) Diddens, ore wellknown te5t (than his &riti&al intro, fro before), Capitalism and odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of ar41 !urkheim and a4 (eber ('< '), substantially aswell then. Though o b!iously, as we ha!e our own 1ur1oses here, our own way of1utting things, that would be allowed, generally, anyway.

8t would be agreed, we ho1e, that a disordered state of ind is essentially ane51lanation, at a &ertain 1oint, for an a&t su&h as self har , har to others as well

then. 3ere we would like to rea&h so e further understanding of the abo!e a5ithen, whi&h while it ight sound right, still stands on its own, /ust 1ut like that.

8ts but left to add to that, that %urkhei , while often in argu ent, so to s1eak, with&onte 1oraries (1ersons as interested as hi self in modernity , as so&iologist"s 1utthat, our odern day state, states), is also said (Diddens" says so), to ha!e beenhea!ily influen&ed by, or interested in anyway, the work of early anthro1ologists aswell. And that, fa&tor, suits our 1ur1ose /ust as well.

***

68 2eginning of this .


44/51

8n the history of hu an thought, %urkhei thought, there was nothing so o11osed asthe idea that the world &ould be s1lit so &o 1letely into two into a &on&ern with the

aterial (our earthly &on&erns, &onditions), and the di!ine (so ething uni!ersal,su1ernatural), and that su&h notions &ould then e5ist side by side also...

%efining this "other" then, the "s1e&ial &hara&ter" of the "sa&red", %urkhei sur isedthat ,

"Y surrounded by ritual 1res&ri1tions and 1rohibitions whi&h enfor&e this se1aration... a religionis ne!er si 1ly a set of beliefs" anyway. This way %urkhei rea&hes his definition of religion:as, "a unified ( solidaire ) syste of beliefs and 1ra&tises relati!e to sa&red things... beliefs and1ra&tises whi&h unite into a single oral &o unity &alled a &hur&h Ihe eant broadlyJ allthose who adhere to the ." G<

%urkhei was also saying, we belie!e, and as in this a5i abo!e, that these beliefsand 1ra&tises &a e first as well then 7 well first before this so&ial an he talks of

anyway. 2efore that we would ha!e essentially been alone, getting along /ust, about,beings, likely in fa ily siBed grou1s, fore ost &on&erned, daily, with the ost basi& ofneeds, fending for oursel!es then basi&ally, then &o bining at ti es of less want withother grou1s and so&ially at that, %urkhei su11osed, as well then?

To ba&k that u1 (he did this later, though these ideas infor ed his earlier work),%urkhei had a grou1 in ind then, a grou1 that had long held on to an establishedset of beliefs, 1ra&tises as well then the, "si 1lest and ost 1ri iti!e religion knowntoday, " - he said then, "Australian tote is ". Further ore this too was a religion by hisdefinition (broad).

***First, before this, why did %urkhei feel he needed to ba&k that u1 then? 4ell (we"llbegin with this), %urkhei "relied" (Diddens), on a writer, @&haffle ' , to begin with, whore/e&ted a &on&e1t of the indi!idual in "so&iety" seen as freer and ha11ier than whenbonded to so&iety (that a &on&e1t of ousseau"s 7 the ha11y nati!e wants nothing,

so ething like that).

" n the &ontrary (Diddens; @&haffle here): "C!erything that akes hu an life higherthan the le!el of ani al e5isten&e is deri!ed fro the a&&u ulated &ultural andte&hnologi&al wealth of so&iety. 8f this be re o!ed fro an, "then you will ha!ere o!ed at the sa e ti e all that akes us truly hu an Ias wellJ"." This (Diddens),&ould easily be ba&ked u1 by referen&e to "language Ilanguages differing diale&ts

G< Capitalism and odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of ar41 !urkheim and a4 (eber

('< '), 1, '- .- 8bid.71 Albert Cberhard Friedri&h @&h]ffle ('> '7'


45/51

indi&ate differing so&ial ba&kgrounds we"d note as wellJ, oney" as well, these 1ree5isting...

Ear5 (this an aside), 1ut forwards so ething like that as well 7 that we would only befree in our ani al fun&tions if &hained to industry, so ething like that... but then hedis&arded it? 9ot original enough he ay ha!e worried, nothing e!er ade of that, byhi , after that. n his own tra&k, we know, though under the influen&e of %arwin on&e it is said as well that he wrote to hi offering to dedi&ate the first !olu e ofCapital (f irst 1ublished in Der an, '>G ), to hi . 2ut this was de&lined. H

This sort of thought, all of it, thought i 1ortant anyway, a de!elo1 ent, at the sa eti e @&haffle was ha!ing a dig at so&iology, its origins as well, 1erha1s, suggesting

then, 1erha1s, that that sort of s&ien&e ight be ore of a Der an thing anyway,wasn"t it?

%urkhei ay well ha!e thought that that dire&tion ight be a bit e5tre e as wellthough after disse&ting deter ined theories su&h as that laws of e&ono i&s woulda11ly regardless of whether or not "nations" or "states" e!en "e5isted" Iso ewhatesoteri&, infe&ting thought, %urkhei ight ha!e though?J, su11osing "only the1resen&e of indi!iduals who e5&hange their 1rodu&ts..." then &o ing out with

so ething like this hi self: That, "the work of the Der an authors has shown that it isfunda entally istaken to 1ro&eed in IthatJ way, as if hu an life &ould be redu&ed toa few intelle&tually for ulated (dedu&ti!e) a5i s. ather we ust begin withreality..="

%urkhei did like one 4undt though, another Der an thinker, his work #thik , a basi&&ontribution of 4undt"s being to ha!e shown, "the basi& signifi&an&e of religiousinstitutions in so&iety 7 ha!ing shown that, "1ri iti!e religions &ontain two sorts ofinterrelated 1heno ena: a set of " eta1hysi&al Iwithout aterial for or substan&eJs1e&ulations on the nature and order of things" on the one hand I6J and rules of&ondu&t and oral dis&i1line on the other... through 1ro!iding ideals to be stri!en for,religion is a for&e for aking so&ial unity." G

72 Capitalism and odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of ar41 !urkheim and a4 (eber('< '), 1, G .73 harles obert %arwin ('>- < book, On the Origin of Species , o!er&o ing earlierre/e&tion of his ideas then, ha!ing &on!in&ingly 1ut his &ase then.

HCapitalism and odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of ar41 !urkheim and a4 (eber('< '), footnote H, 1. GG.75 #bi$ 69.

G 8bid -.


46/51

A &riti&is of 4undt though(there had to be one), was that 4undt had failed, though,to "1er&ei!e" there was a dual &hara&ter here 7 sure the 1ositi!e attra&tion to an idealwas a for&e for aking so&ial unity, but for there to be so&ial unity there was anobligatory side to the deal as well then, another unintelligible for&e o1erating (whi&h

ight be ade intelligible by noting 1arti&ular 1heno enon as they ight differ indiffering s1heres).

As in nowadays %urkhei would say that religious senti ents, senti ent 1er se, ha!etransfor ed into for s of " oral authority". Further that this authority has su&h 1oweras was bestowed it ba&k then still 7 well not so strongly a&tually, but strong enoughstill, anyway, to be seen (that so&iologies real business as well).

2a&k to this otenism then, the origin (?), of this, before we di!erged there. Features ofthat, whi&h still stand out, being the Eayan ruins, their sy bolis sur!i!ing, the 9orthA eri&an &ir&ular dan&es as well, around their 1oles, their tote s, hen&e the origin ofthis ter , those dan&es still featuring to this day. > (An a1t e5a 1le that as well then,for another day).

This defer ent to the su1ernatural, to oral 1ower now as well, then? "A s1e&ifi&

feature" in the instan&e of this Australian so&iety, then, is that ea&h &lan grou1 isknown by the, "na e of a aterial ob/e&t," this a totem. This ob/e&t, further, is"belie!ed" to ha!e !ery s1e&ial 1ro1erties


47/51

shares in the religiosity of the tote . And there"s also the re1resentation of this ob/e&twhi&h they &arry about the sel!es as well then?

The &on&lusion, after that: That, "no one of the three sorts of sa&red ob/e&ts Ithetote 6 the e bers of the &lan6 its e ble J deri!es its sa&red &hara&ter fro eitherof the others, sin&e they all share a &o on religiosity." Therefore: "Their sa&red&hara&ter e anates fro a for&e whi&h e bra&es the all IgenerallyJ, a for&e whi&hthey all 1artially share in, but whi&h is nonetheless se1arate fro the " generally. >-

8n order then, to dis&o!er the sour&e of this general religion, there ust be a sour&e tothis general energy as well then? As it is not, &ouldn"t be, the a&tual tote itself

oreo!er, "the re1resentation of the tote is usually regarded as ore sa&red than

the ob/e&t itself"6 1ro!ing that "the tote is abo!e all a sy bol, a utual e51ression ofso ething else" >' what else &ould this be?

For %urkhei , that ends u1 with religious senti ent &o /oined with religious sy bolis "&reated and re&reated in ItheJ &ere onial". The Australian so&ieties 1ass through

alternate &y&les, in one of whi&h kinshi1 grou1s li!e se1arately, gi!ing o!er the wholeof its a&ti!ity to e&ono i& ends, and in the other of whi&h e bers of &lans or1hratries Irelated &lan grou1sJ asse ble together for a definite 1eriod (whi&h ay be

as short as a few days or ay last se!eral onths). This latter 1hase... an o&&asion for1ubli& &ere onial, whi&h usually has a highly intense and e otional &hara&ter." >

8n these &ere onials then, a&&ording to %urkhei , en would feel, "o!er1owered by afor&e greater than the sel!es IthisJ, whi&h results fro the &olle&ti!e effer!es&en&e ofthe o&&asion. The indi!idual is &on!eyed into a world whi&h a11ears to be utterlydifferent to that of the e!eryday... Awareness of the di!ine is born out of this &olle&ti!efer ent, and so is the &on&e1tion of its se1arateness fro , and its su1eriority to, thee!eryday world of the profane I%urkhei "s ter for thisJ." >

Take all that away and we ight su11ose oursel!es now that we"d be ba&k to s$uareone as well then. 4ith nothing to /u 1 u1 and down about, to shout ab

Documents

Afterword: The fuss about Kelly? (Part two). A draft from some time back, posted lest we never finish