www.express.co.uk/posts/view/111971/Kelly-s-book-of-secrets

Just goes to show that you only get killed if you genuinely have a smoking gun story in your locker.

Most Conspiracy Theorists are just researchers - so they are no danger to anyone because they can be ridiculed or threatened or set up or locked up under the Mental Health Act.

Scientists however with intimate knowledge HAVE TO BE KILLED to silence them. DAVID KELLY is the highest profile man to be murdered by the STATE but not the only one.

It is worth considering whether those who "Discover the truth" about who they work for - do go off their trolley ( David Shaylor - Icke ) when they realise what the true agenda actually is. This is because of the guilt they must initially feel when they realise that the World is not quite as it seems from the "media stream" that we are fed.

I expect ALL of you reading this cant understand why WAR continues to exist in our so called "Civilised" world ? and why half the World is starving when the other half has too much. These things dont make sense when supposedly our leaders are so "Clever" and "enlightened" and according to their own PR they want to "CHANGE" things.

For those who have lived since the Second World War - these are the same PR messages that have come out time after time.....yet the World is no safer and the hungry are still hungry. Despite charity as well.

The World is ruled by the NWO - their grip is weakening - but they do rule the World. They create WARS and through their media stories create conflict between all of us - they also block any aid and arm both sides in developing countries through their companies.

War = Peace. Giving up our rights = Freedom. These are their mottos - which the general public has lapped up for years. But no longer : it is time for true change - from within all of us. Not from a leader or a pressure group - just individuals waking up and saying NO MORE. When enough people have woken up and we are the majority then things will be different.

"Most Conspiracy Theorists are just researchers - so they are no danger to anyone because they can be ridiculed or threatened or set up or locked up under the Mental Health Act."

Let me just be clear about what you are saying here, BR.
Are you seriously describing David Kelly as a Conspiracy Theorist?
The capitals, by the way, are yours, not mine.

The Government consider him a Conspiracy Theorist. I suggest you read a) That article and then travel over the World's main whistleblower site at Project Camelot and you will see that David Kelly is highly revered by other Conspiracy Theorists.

Conspiracy Theorists start researching usually because of PERSONAL experience of something that is not right -and they look for the truth.

David Kelly realised that Weapons of Mass Destruction did not exist and he could have brought down the Blair government with what he knew.

There is loads of evidence to show that he did not commit suicide. Not least that his body had not "taken" the supposed drug overdose according to the autopsy.

Conspiracy Theorists are also called TRUTHERS - the negative spin on Conspiracy Theorists comes from the media ( e.g Tin foil hats - geeks - living with their parents ) The actual truth about Conspiracy Theorists is that the majority are highly educated with many of them being Professors or Doctors or having research qualifications already........

I dont see myself as a Conspiracy Theorist - but I do have the degrees in research from the top two Universities in the UK to prove my academic abilities. Does not make me a better person I might add. But if you want to discuss Conspiracy Theory then I come from a Political Historian background and have studied Nationalism as part of a research project at London University and Cambridge University. That included looking at National Socialism ( Nazi ) from Primary Documents ( not the stuff you find in your local libary )

Historians are always the first to be hassled by the Police in a dictatorship of any sort ( The Intelligentsia ) because we threaten their power. Especially if we write or go public.

interesting that you studied National Socialism from original documents.

I first got a real interest in it after getting a job as assistant locations manager on the Winds of War ,the first real 'mini-series' that starred the wonderful Robert Mitchum.

This was a dream job. With the locations manager we hired a sports car and toured Britain for 4 weeks scouting locations-a village to look like Poland, a house to double as Chequers and so on.

We did a lot of research at a little centre run by a very old Jewish man in St John's Wood. The Nazi documents this guy had were amazing..stacks and stacks, shelves full and tipping over. Piled up on the floor. Rooms and rooms of the stuff. He was the main British contact for the Simon Weisentahl Centre helping to track down Nazi war criminals.

It's only in recent years that we have come to see the Nazi regime was the opposite to the myth of German superior methodical plodding but rather a ramshackle beaurocracy that would have fallen in a heap with or without WW2.

Apart form a few years of weapons building (the worst non prouctive enterprise) the German economy would have collapsed fairly quickly.

Bernie Ecclestone got it hopelessly wrong as well with his flippant line.

Oh yes..and certainly David Kelly was murdered.

"The Government consider him a Conspiracy Theorist."
They do? Evidence, please. Just one piece will do. I don't need anything from Cabinet level or anything...Just one teenzy quote from someone qualified to speak for "The Government". Anyone will do. As long as they are a recognised government source and as much as hint that they "consider David Kelly a conspiracy theorist". I've never been aware of anyone in the government - or even remotely close to it - who is capable of so stupidly going into the culpability game, but that's not really evidence of anything. So I'll ask you once again. Evidence, please.

"The Government" would certainly consider you a "Conspiracy Theorist" no matter what you say here. Given that transparently obvious fact, why do you state that you aren't one, but {by your own definition} David Kelly was.

"David Kelly is highly revered by other{my italics} Conspiracy Theorists."
The operative word here is "other". Other than whom? You've told us you're not one, so put into any kind of context you must mean Kelly himself. Yet you've failed to even begin to establish Kelly's personal credentials as a conspiracy theorist.

"David Kelly realised that Weapons of Mass Destruction did not exist and he could have brought down the Blair government with what he knew."

That didn't take much "realising". Scott Ritter could have {and did} "realise" much the same thing. So did the entire team of UN Weapons Inspectors. None of them were at all shy of stating prior to March 2003 that the evidence of WMDs was nonexistant much more publicly than David Kelly was ever likely to. Strangely enough, they're all still alive. You're seriously suggesting that the British government would kill one of its own scientists while the UN {which is a NWO puppet, right?} was incapable of leaning on Hans Blix and telling him that if he and his team didn't shut up if they'd end up dead?

"Conspiracy Theorists are also called TRUTHERS - "

Who by? certainly not me. Certainly not by anyone I know and not by anyone I'm aware of outside the conspiracy theorist fraternity. If they're called that at all, I'd suggest that the nomenclature is self styled.

"the negative spin on Conspiracy Theorists comes from the media ( e.g Tin foil hats - geeks - living with their parents )

I can't believe you just said that. It's so completely off the wall that it actually begs for something equally wacky to follow it... You're genuinely suggesting that a typical example of someone who fails to subscribe to conspiracy theory {sorry, truth} is a tin foil hat wearing geek who lives at home with their parents? That's a huge number of people you either insulted or domestically confused. Would you like to try again?

"The actual truth about Conspiracy Theorists is that the majority are highly educated with many of them being Professors or Doctors or having research qualifications already........"

Strangely enough, you actually CAN eclipse your previous incredulous generalisation. The "majority"? By what percentage? How can you possiby even begin to know that? Is there, somewhere, a register of Conspiracy Theorist's academic qualifications? Who collates and quantifies the data?
You're not a conspiracy theorist yourself, yet you claim such intimate knowledge of how well qualified "the majority" are? Ummm.
Evidence, please.

"I dont see myself as a Conspiracy Theorist - "

I've already been there, but it's worth revisiting.
If you're not a conspiracy theorist how come you spend so much time promoting conspiracy theories? Give us a definition of what a conspiracy theorist actually is {you didn't do a very good job last time} and what makes you not one.

..."but I do have the degrees in research from the top two Universities in the UK to prove my academic abilities. Does not make me a better person I might add. "

Well, we have your word for that.

"But if you want to discuss Conspiracy Theory then I come from a Political Historian background"

Shouldn't that be "a Political History background"? So does David Starkie. I doubt very much whether your version of reality would have any resonances for him or anything he'd recognise as "political history".

"...and have studied Nationalism as part of a research project at London University and Cambridge University."

Again, we'll take your word for that. I'd have said that a serious academic would have used one of the following phrases;
"and have studied Nationalism as part of a research project at London and Cambridge Universities."
or
"and have studied Nationalism as part of a research project at the Universities of London and Cambridge ."
or even;
"and have studied Nationalism as part of research projects at the Universities of London and Cambridge ."
But maybe we'll just accept that the written part of any academic work you were responsible for simply wasn't required to be clear. Which would be a remarkable thing, don't you think, at either of the "top two" universities in the country, let alone both of them.

"...That included looking at National Socialism ( Nazi ) {sic- should that be Nazism?} from Primary Documents ( not the stuff you find in your local libary )"

They're known as Primary Source Documents by real scholars, and {as one yourself} therefore I'm sure that you'll be aware that any genuine research - I mean real scholarly stuff of the calibre that'll stand up to the rigours of peer review needs those invaluable primary sources citing if the research is to withstand scrutiny rather than be simply dismissed as the groundless ramblings of a lunatic This is something even a first year researcher knows. Why, my dear chap, have you forgotten it so readily?

"Historians are always the first to be hassled by the Police in a dictatorship of any sort ( The Intelligentsia ) because we threaten their power. Especially if we write or go public."

We? We? Either you're paranoid or have a vastly inflated sense of your standing within the state. BR, I'm sure you're a lovely bloke, and I love to have a beer with you and put the world to rights. However stating that the government would think that you "threaten their power" is perhaps going too far. As is your implicit suggestion of inclusion within the ranks of "the intelligentsia". Are you certain that your wished to carry that implication within your posting? If not, you might like to revise what you have written because it makes you sound like someone who needs to feel important or posessed of some kind of special knowledge not open to the rest of we great unwashed.
Incidentally, I did read the Express article. It wasn't exactly an exploration of a government assassination, was it? Sure it reported what conspiracy theorists believe. But there was no endorsement of that belief, and it's unlikely that anyone reading it will take away anything that will change their minds about the circumstances of David Kelly's death. I'm not at all happy with official expanation of David Kelly's death myself. And I'm not so niaive as to believe that political assassination isn't a tool in the hands of the dark ops sections of our secret services. But if the truth is ever to be got at it needs proper research. Not simply you - or anyone else - going around addressing people as if you are provably right when that simply isn't the case. Not all of us are prepared to swallow wholesale whatever conspiracy theorists throw at us because so much of it is so completely lacking in empirical qualifications. And so much of it is demonstrable bollocks.

I repeat the call for evidence, BR. Backed up by cited primary source references.

My gut feeling is that David Kelly was killed by establishment shady figures.

It will never be proved (they are too good at their jobs).

strictly speaking-there is a government source : Norman Baker MP

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488667/...stigating-death.html

however we don't know his proof etc but as JK says, the security services are bloody good at their jobs and can get away with-murder !

We can't take an Express article as gospel but it does allude to the reason Kelly may have been killed as being-far from the clean-skin we have been led to believe he was , it was the fact he may have discovered that WMDs were going to be planted and was going to rollover and expose the fact.

But who knows ?. The fact the war was illegal and there have been so many dreadful things done..the people like Blair who sell their souls for power know that those behind the throne pulling levers can get away with anything.

"strictly speaking-there is a government source : Norman Baker MP"

Oh dear, Veritas, that's a tad weak, isn't it? Norman Baker may be a source. He may be a source who's an MP. He may even have a front bench position. In fact, he does. A Liberal one. For transport. A "government source" means someone actually IN the government, not someone in opposition.. And I asked for a government source which confirms BR's statement that he was viewed as a "conspiracy theorist" by the government.

Norman Baker has a view, and its an understandable one given all the circumstances. But I'd put it to you that even he wouldn't claim to be speaking on behalf of the government.

Once again... empirical evidence. Please.

I qualified my source as anything he presented being not provable although people do tend to look to MPs as a person who can get the truth out.

I don't know what happened..I just think the probabilities are that Kelly was most likely murdered and that everything surrounded the Hutton enquiry was so shonky that it it was a farce.

Baker does point to some absurdities in the Hutton shambles-no fingerprints taken on the knife he was alleged to have used or the bottle of water he was supposed to have drunk from..there a plenty of clues that on all probability show no real investigation was taken by police into Kelly's death which one can conclude that was the way it was meant to be.

Plus every potential suicide these days knows you slash your wrists downwards -not from side to side and only kids making a dramatic statement still use that method which rarely works.

That is similar to so many other great conspiracy cases like JFK's murder where the post-mortem of the most famous assassination in history was bungled.

In all probability- Kelly was murdered and there isn't the slightest proof that he suicided and if there is..please show. Certainly the Hutton Report solves nothing.

And as I said-if a government can conspire to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis..what's one dead scientist in the scheme of things ?

We are surrounded by real conspiracies..government being one..just working out who what and where is the difficulty.

Locked Out. Many thanks for your critique of my Grammatical skills. Academics in all areas are quite often hard to read because grammar is not a strong point in research. But if it makes you happy to try and belittle my writing on blogs then that is fine.

This is a discussion forum where generally people give opinions. For anyone to provide primary evidence would mean access to enquiries and often secret documents. You know full well that for many things that is not going to be provided on King of Hits the blog.

Therefore I find your requests slightly strange - because you are now saying that for someone to have an opinion they need to have the actual source. Whereas for most of us on here we have to rely on secondary evidence for most of our opinions on Government and events.

The only people who have access to the Primary Sources are those in power.

Therefore your argument actually means that nothing on this forum or any other on the internet has any academic rigour.

That may be true in some respects if you want to discuss say current Government policy at the level of say research into National Socialism where some of the documentary evidence is available.

You question my "Qualifications" but I can assure you that several people posting on here know me and know that those qualifications are true. So how about you telling us about your qualifications on which you base your comments. I doubt if you would say reveal which degree at which University you have obtained....but until you do how do we know that you are not just reading a GCSE textbook on History about sources or cut and pasting some Wiki about "Evidence" onto this forum.

I am genuinely interested in why you have spent so much time refuting my hypothesis that David Kelly was murdered and "Where" you are coming from.

"I am genuinely interested in why you have spent so much time refuting my hypothesis that David Kelly was murdered and "Where" you are coming from..."

This is the only bit of your posting which really counts. But I'll address the others anyway later.

I haven't spent any time at all refuting your "hypothesis". I've spent time refuting that what you so often claim as "fact" is in fact opinion, as you yourself now realise. You never say "I think". You never say "In my opinion". What you do do is lay in front of this discussion board repeatedly the latter as if it should be plain to all that it's the former. As you say, this IS a discussion board. Very few people discuss your postings, let alone anylise them. I'd have thought you would welcome the engagement. It would be helpful to those {like me} who do bother to read your threads if in future you made clear that all you are doing here is presenting opinions. That way people have the opportunity to engage what you say rather than just take it as read that that's what happened....

Now then. Onto the rest;

"Many thanks for your critique of my Grammatical skills. Academics in all areas are quite often hard to read because grammar is not a strong point in research. But if it makes you happy to try and belittle my writing on blogs then that is fine."

On the contrary, grammatical skills, and their correct usage, are an essential of communication. If you don't write clearly your message is either misinterpreted or misunderstood. Any written work must be plainly, clearly and correctly communicated to the reader for this reason quite apart from anything else. As it appears that I have misunderstood or misinterpreted what you have written, it should be easy to see I'm right. I'm not trying to belittle you, where would be the point in that? I enjoy writing here because of the freedom to express opinion without worrying about judgment. It would make little sense for me to get so heavily involved in that sort of sophistry.

"This is a discussion forum where generally people give opinions. For anyone to provide primary evidence would mean access to enquiries and often secret documents. You know full well that for many things that is not going to be provided on King of Hits the blog."

Then why do you pitch things the way you do? My dear chap, as I've pointed out to you already, you never engage in discussion in this way. You simply present things as if they're undeniably true. That's at the hub of my argument. And to say that you can't quote primary sources on a blog is ludicrous. If, for instance, you were to say to me that there's no evidence to suggest that Jesus really existed {I know, you'd never say that...} I'd say that there is, and quote you Josephus as a primary source. If you were to tell me that the Emperor Hadrian never had a secretary I'd tell you you're wrong and quote Suetonius as a primary source. There's nothing... nothing... to stop you quotong primary sources other than the fact that you constantly make allegations which are unsubstantiated and cannot be supported by any real evidence. That's my issue.

"Therefore I find your requests slightly strange - because you are now saying that for someone to have an opinion they need to have the actual source. Whereas for most of us on here we have to rely on secondary evidence for most of our opinions on Government and events."

No, I'm saying that if someone is going to make a statement they should be prepared to back it up with something other than platitudes. Is that really that unreasonable? And we can easily form opinions on government and events by our own judgment of their actions, where there is no need for evidence, primary or secondary source.

"The only people who have access to the Primary Sources are those in power."

While that's true it shouldn't stop people forming their own judgement on current events without the need for conspiracy theory. Just because all the facts in the Kelly case don't add up doesn't automatically mean that we should assume that MI5 got rid of him. The fact that every single one of his fellow weapons inspectors is still alive and free to talk would rather suggest that we shouldn't assume that.

"Therefore your argument actually means that nothing on this forum or any other on the internet has any academic rigour"

No it doesn't. Discussion is one thing. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the presentation of allegation as established fact is not discussion. And I could point you to lots of discussion forums where people back up their arguments with things like "according to..." or "to quote...".

"That may be true in some respects if you want to discuss say current Government policy at the level of say research into National Socialism where some of the documentary evidence is available."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. All government policy - at least at a parliamentary level - is backed up by white papers, green papers, bills and statute law. In fact we have primarly sources for every piece of legislation the government produces. Plus the House of Commons is open to scrutiny by anyone with access to the neccessary TV channel.

"You question my "Qualifications" but I can assure you that several people posting on here know me and know that those qualifications are true. So how about you telling us about your qualifications on which you base your comments. I doubt if you would say reveal which degree at which University you have obtained....but until you do how do we know that you are not just reading a GCSE textbook on History about sources or cut and pasting some Wiki about "Evidence" onto this forum."

I haven't questioned your qualifications, merely suggested that you should apply what you learned in gaining them. My own qualifications don't really come into it, however I'm perfectly happy to disclose no great academic achievements on my part, only 7 O levels. Does that matter? You may be sure that my words, however, are entirely my own. I doubt if you could find any Wiki article that could so comprehensively engage your postings line by line. The
etiquette of good, scholarly research is well known enough not to require plagiarism by anyone. Equally, I doubt that you will find anything I've written in a GCSE history textbook. Probably because nothing I've so far written would be likely to be covered by such a volume.

1. Whenever I start a thread I put a link to an actual source. In this thread I have done that.

2. When I comment on a source ( Whether Primary - Secondary - or media ) and give an opinion I dont give an opinion as fact. No opinion is a fact. I dont present any opinion as fact.

3. I have worked in Government in the UK in Policy. I have signed the Official Secrets Act and I have worked directly on the business of Government that you mention. I did this under the Major government. The primary sources are the meetings that create the Green Papers etc. The people who write these. These papers only reflect what is discussed and presented as policy and what "they" can get away with !

I am discussing my grammar - my qualifications - my job history with you on this forum in public. I hope that shows to you that I am an open and transparent person. I have been posting on the Tipsheet since 1999 on a regular basis - BR means Board Regular by the way.

4. I back up my posts with platitudes. Well as I said before I always link to a story and then give my opinion which is what a message board is surely about.
When I comment on other people's threads I am quite simply commenting on their source.

This is what I call free speech.

I am impressed with your command of the English Language which is excellent. But just being good at English and presenting things in a certain way does not make a "View" or "opinion" or a "fact" more compelling.

Strangely you do not provide a source for any of your "opinions" about my postings. You do not point out a single post where I have done what your opinion is saying that I have done. Does this mean you dont have any evidence for your opinion about me ?

5. So finally please can you point out the threads that I have started which dont have a source in them on which I have given my opinion. I am genuinely interested in which threads you think I have presented "my opinion" as fact.

As you can see from this thread I am willing to debate anything and I certainly respect what you say.

Right on cue.

I think that though Locked Out does not believe me then perhaps you need to read this : 13 Scientists and Friends of David Kelly have now launched a campaign.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199109...id-Kellys-death.html

I would say that this is conclusive that there are major problems with the LIE that he killed himself. He was murdered.

Quote Number One;
"Let me just be clear about what you are saying here, B R.
Are you seriously describing David Kelly as a Conspiracy Theorist?
The capitals, by the way, are yours, not mine."

Quote Number Two;
"I'm not at all happy with official expanation of David Kelly's death myself."

As usual, my friend, your arguments are spurious. You claim I "don't believe you", and in many cases {such as your plainly ludicrous idea that Britain and the US have a device which enables them to see into the future}, you're right. However, as Quote Number Two, taken from this page illustrates, I'm far from convinced that in this, as in many other cases, that our government is not telling us the truth.
My reason for challenging you in the way I have is that you are mixing reasonable arguments, such as the one surrounding the death of Kelly, with plainly insane rantings about David Bowie, Nazi states and UFOs {oh, and the seeing-into-the-future device which led to the US ramming two of its own jets into one of its own high prestige buildings while attacking another of its own high prestige buildings with one of its own rockets and then pretending it was another of its own jets} and conflating them together as if they all shared the same degree of credence. They don't. In fact in terms of believability they're as far polarised from each other as seriously suspicious death and utterly incredulous, mouth-breathing bullshit can be.
I originally asked you for a quote which backed up your claim that the government regarded Kelly as a "conspiracy theorist". You have failed to do this.
You presumably feel the need to get me to respond to your postings, given that this is at least the second time that you have namechecked me. Why is this? You think that if you throw enough lunacy at me I'll catch some of it myself? Away with you, you strange individual...

When you lose the argument rule number one - ridicule the person !!

You have ignored the last post in which 13 very high ranking doctors have agreed TOTALLY with what I have said.

They have looked at the medical evidence and come to the conclusion that Dr KELLY was murdered by the Government.

In addition Liberal MP Norman Baker has written a long book coming to the same conclusion.

in addition there was NO CORONER's REPORT into his death and the official verdict was from TONY BLAIR's HUXLEY report.

I might also add that this forum is a bit of fun sometimes !!!

But this topic is serious and I think you need to look at the article by the Doctors. Whom I am sure you wont ridicule !

"When you lose the argument rule number one - ridicule the person !!"

I've lost the argument? Which one? I've said repeatedly that I share your view that there is something deeply fishy about the way Dr Kelly met his end. I have no beef with your conclusions here. It's your inconsistent logic and flawed thinking that I take issue with. It's those elements I ridicule rather than the person. But then again, who IS the person? I have difficulty recognising your position{s} as belonging in the space occupied by only one man.

One moment you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist.
The next you refer to conspiracy theorists as "we".

You claim that conspiracy theorists are also known as "truthers". Then a couple of days later that is no longer the case.

You claim to have inside knowledge of the US secret service. Your source?
"my daughter works for a company that has connections with Dick Cheney."
You'll pardon, of course, a sardonic smirk here.

You can't back up your claim that Milliband told you {or someone, apparently} that the British and US governments have "Stargates" which allow them to see into the future.

You make much of Gordon Brown's statements on the relationship between the war on the Taliban and issues of British domestic national security, flagging them up as if their sudden appearance in some way proves something you've "revealed" to us here. Which would be fine if Brown and others haven't been saying exactly the same things for years.

And you've entirely failed to recognise my own position throughout this thread;

"I think that though Locked Out does not believe me then perhaps you need to read this : 13 Scientists and Friends of David Kelly have now launched a campaign."

If you had read ANYTHING I've written here other than what it has pleased to to take as ad hominem you would see that I have no problem with the basic premise that MI5 might have been involved with Dr Kelly's death. I repeat, however, that conclusions like this should be reached in a considered way. Not simply because they suit the causes of whichever conspiracy theorist has impressed you this week.

If you believe that I have lost the argument it's because I'm arguing from a position of consistency. Something which, it's clear, you have little personal relationship with.

there are aspects of Kelly's death that are disturbing and the Hutton investigation appears to be extraordinarily slack.

The fact there was no coronial enquiry which is always independant- not that they can't be fixed-but it's things like this give ride to people's mistrust of the process.

Add in other troubling things like no fingerprints being taken on the water bottle or tablet blister packs. Particularly in such a high profile case.

onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4904.shtml

The PLOT THICKENS. Thank you Locked OUt and Veritas - good points.

Consider this : why is the UK government grabbing so much DNA ?

Read the article and see that DR KELLY and a colleague were working on DNA MARKERS for BIOLOGICAL WARFARE.

In other words drugs that would attack certain people with certain DNA markers in a WARFARE situation.

If the GOVERNMENT holds our DNA records then it means that if they "fell" into the wrong hands then whole groups of people could be killed just by putting something in their breakfast or in the air. It would look RANDOM to the outside world but would kill them.

Very very clever and more effective than "poisons" based Biological attack which effect everyone and basically risk the life of the attacker as well. Harder to carry out as well.

KELLY could have been threatening to reveal in his book this research - having had enough of the way the Government was using their work ( UK and USA )

More than any other death in recent times we need a public enquiry into a ) His death and b) The Claims now being made about him going public about other things apart from Iraq.

Possibly Blair/UK Government did not murder him. Possibly it was a "higher power"........