It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Downing Street Memos FAKE!!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:06 PM

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

Fake Downing Street memos

This reminds me of a CBS news man.....

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:14 PM
It doesn't matter if he retyped them on regular paper instead of releasing the originals on UK Government letterhead paper.

Has anyone disputed the contents of the memos?
This story has been out for a while so why hasn't Blair denied them?

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:17 PM
Uhh.. this is old news... and it doesn't mean they're fake. The original reporter admitted off the bat that they were retyped copies to protect his source. Further, they're 6 additional memos to the original 2 Downing Street memos. The originals were not retyped. I suggest you change your header or risk looking silly or fraudulent.

-koji K.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:18 PM
Umm I just checked BBC and no story like this....I question its authenticity...

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:19 PM
Blair and Bush have denied that they did what the memos say, but have not denied their authenticity.

Are there other sources on this?

I don't find an ultraconservative blog a very good source on this issue.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:35 PM
I think I see what is being said...

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

[url=;_ylt=Ar.4YURFRZzovjc17hBkVnWs0NUE;_ylu=X3o'___'A2NzN0azRvBHNlYwN3bA--]Link[/ url]

Now there is no way to verify if the copies are in fact what the "source" claims, or just what the reporter wantsyou to read...

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:40 PM
Well whether these minutes/memos had any base in reality or not, they're still never going to be able to be used as evidence for proof of wrongdoing.

Another "Fake but Accurate" moment in modern journalism.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:41 PM
Does the Official Secrets Act/UK act of Parliament 1989, have any bearing here?

Official Secrets Act
UK act of Parliament 1989, prohibiting the disclosure of confidential material from government sources by employees; it remains an absolute offence for a member or former member of the security and intelligence services (or those working closely with them) to disclose information about their work. There is no public-interest defence, and disclosure of information already in the public domain is still a crime. Journalists who repeat disclosures may also be prosecuted.

The 1989 act replaced Section 2 of an act of 1911, which had long been accused of being too wide-ranging. Prosecution under criminal law is now reserved for material that the government claims is seriously harmful to national security. Any service member wishing to complain of misconduct within the service is allowed access to an independent counsellor, in turn with access to senior ministers. Investigations under special warrants, issued by the secretary of state in such cases as terrorist acts and organized crime, are also to be regarded as absolutely secret, but the act limits the circumstances of their operation, and there is an independent commissioner and tribunal to prevent abuse of such powers.


new topics

top topics


log in