Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Butler Report – Intelligence Failure watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Butler report yesterday blames no one for this failure, not even boogey man. So who is there to blame ? not blair, not intelligence? It must be the corrupt system which allowed this to happen?

    What does eveyrone think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    another inquiry, the same outcome. does the public/media want another one? maybe until they get the answer they want.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A smoke cloud over colonial capitalist foreign policy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IntelliBug)
    The Butler report yesterday blames no one for this failure, not even boogey man. So who is there to blame ? not blair, not intelligence? ...

    What does eveyrone think?
    Saddam Hussein, for being so lying and that no-one believed him even when what he said was obviously true, perhaps.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe that anyone genuinely expects a government to set up an inquiry whose report would likely finish it, or senior members of it.

    Butler didn't set out to blame individuals, Hutton didn't set out to tackle the key wider issues, so neither actually asked the fundamental questions; Butler didn't even call Campbell for god's sake!

    The other two were less important.

    I think it is scandalous that left-wing anti-war publications (I may mean the Independent ) who I usually don't mind have set out to focus on intelligence instead. Although John Scarlett may be "tainted goods" and "politicised" and thus no longer appropriate to head MI6, it is in what Bliar and Campball told him to do that the real story lies.

    The fact is, that Butler acknowledges that these vital "caveats" were removed, but then blames a "collective failing"!
    But look at the evidence:
    They weren't removed by "accident".
    No one told the newspapers to stop saying that Saddam could attack Cyprus with missiles carrying chemical or biological warheads in 45mins.
    Either this was deliberate, in which case Blair, Hoon and others should resign, or it was not intentional, but due to the "wrong" kind of pressure being put on people and the system not working, in which case someone high up the chain of command should accept responsibility for the consequences, however unintended they may have been. This again means Blair or Hoon!


    Everyone seems to lose sight of how people are still ultimately responsible, even if not directly to blame, when dealing with such serious issues, and when something has gone this wrong, and it was not due simply to the supply of wrong information in good faith, heads should roll!

    Heads should roll either because either:
    - They lied to get what they wanted.
    - The messages from the system were distorted due to their placement of undue pressure upon it, which is highly irresponsible.
    - They failed to ensure that there was a system in place that worked, and properly supplied information about something so critical.

    One of the above must have occured, if not a bit of each, and either way, it is outrageous that the only people who resigned because of this mess and attempts to reveal it are the Chairman of the BBC, the Director General of the BBC, and a reporter who made an error which was positively minor alongside those of the politicians.

    Unlike the Conservatives, I actually supported this war because of the perceived instability caused by the military capability that Tony Blair told me Saddam had.

    I feel cheated that no one has the honour to take responsibility for lying to me and 60 million others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Many of us never believed the governments 'so-called- intelligence in the first place.

    The inspection teams reported that they had never uncovered any evidence that wmd's or biological weaponry had been constructed and Hans Blinkz (or whatever the man's name is) said that Saddam Hussein would never be able to comply with resolution number whatever, which required him to hand over all such weapons as he didn't have any!

    But who listened, certainly not the US or Britain governments. They didn't want to listen, they wanted to go to war under any pretext.

    And no other political parties can take the high moral ground as they would do exactly the same thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -mb-)
    I think it is scandalous that left-wing anti-war publications (I may mean the Independent ) who I usually don't mind have set out to focus on intelligence instead. Although John Scarlett may be "tainted goods" and "politicised" and thus no longer appropriate to head MI6, it is in what Bliar and Campball told him to do that the real story lies.
    so, what did they tell him?

    The fact is, that Butler acknowledges that these vital "caveats" were removed, but then blames a "collective failing"!
    his logic seems fair from my interpretion. at the least, there is nothing to prove otherwise.

    But look at the evidence:
    [b]They weren't removed by "accident".
    they? what are you referring to?

    Everyone seems to lose sight of how people are still ultimately responsible, even if not directly to blame, when dealing with such serious issues, and when something has gone this wrong, and it was not due simply to the supply of wrong information in good faith, heads should roll!

    Heads should roll either because either:
    - They lied to get what they wanted.
    - The messages from the system were distorted due to their placement of undue pressure upon it, which is highly irresponsible.
    - They failed to ensure that there was a system in place that worked, and properly supplied information about something so critical.

    One of the above must have occured, if not a bit of each, and either way, it is outrageous that the only people who resigned because of this mess and attempts to reveal it are the Chairman of the BBC, the Director General of the BBC, and a reporter who made an error which was positively minor alongside those of the politicians.
    not an opinion id agree with exactly, but each to their own.

    Unlike the Conservatives, I actually supported this war because of the perceived instability caused by the military capability that Tony Blair told me Saddam had.

    I feel cheated that no one has the honour to take responsibility for lying to me and 60 million others.
    lying? sorry? did you read the Butler report?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Many of us never believed the governments 'so-called- intelligence in the first place.

    The inspection teams reported that they had never uncovered any evidence that wmd's or biological weaponry had been constructed and Hans Blinkz (or whatever the man's name is) said that Saddam Hussein would never be able to comply with resolution number whatever, which required him to hand over all such weapons as he didn't have any!
    Iraq was found in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 before and after the conflict.

    And no other political parties can take the high moral ground as they would do exactly the same thing.
    doesnt that tell you something?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Many of us never believed the governments 'so-called- intelligence in the first place.

    The inspection teams reported that they had never uncovered any evidence that wmd's or biological weaponry had been constructed and Hans Blinkz (or whatever the man's name is) said that Saddam Hussein would never be able to comply with resolution number whatever, which required him to hand over all such weapons as he didn't have any!
    Well, I have to say I was taken in; I assumed that anything about not-compliance was deliberate. I certainly didn't hear much in the media of Hans Blix or Mohammed al Baradi saying that the stuff wasn't there!
    I thought it was quite okay to assume that if they couldn't find them, that meant they were hidden, not that they didn't exist!

    Why did I assume this?:
    a) It didn't occur to me to look at the detail of what Resolution 1441 said, or to find out the details of the inspection reports, this was partly because...
    b) There was so much talk about WMD, that I assumed that whether there 100% truth in it all or not (naturally, I didn't have absolute faith) there would be adequate truth in it to justfy action...I have been dramatically proved wrong.

    It also bothers me that Bliar feels entitled to claim that Iraq is now a better place. I may think like a right-winger, but Robert Fisk's reports in the Independent are interesting reading.

    With all the criminals having been turned loose, power and water infrastructure being worse than before the war etc., if I was an Iraqi who wasn't too bothered about civil liberties, and wasn't a Kurd, I would rather Saddam was still there! You can find many Iraqis who will say as much,
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so, what did they tell him?
    To make his (the JIC's) report on Iraq "...one that compliments rather than conflicts with *them* [equivalent USA assessments]". This was preceded by "I am confident that we can...".

    This is the concluding sentence of a letter from Alastair Campbell to John Scarlett before the publishing of the dossier. It is just one example, but it is telling enough in itself.

    I got the letter because much of the evidence to the Hutton inquiry was freely available online at the website.

    his logic seems fair from my interpretion. at the least, there is nothing to prove otherwise.
    His logic is only fair if you accept that it is logical to investigate an issue of this magnitude at all without actually blaming any of the key individuals involved!

    they? what are you referring to?
    The caveats, I thought that was clear, sorry.

    not an opinion id agree with exactly, but each to their own.
    So you'd prefer to have lived in Iraq under Saddam where the leaders could do as they please without being accountable to anyone, then?

    lying? sorry? did you read the Butler report?
    YES! Since the Butler report claims not blame any individual..perhaps you could tell me how it can "vindicate" an individual?!.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IntelliBug)
    The Butler report yesterday blames no one for this failure, not even boogey man. So who is there to blame ? not blair, not intelligence? It must be the corrupt system which allowed this to happen?

    What does eveyrone think?
    It's Mr.Nobody's fault. Well bless my ten toes!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    another inquiry, the same outcome. does the public/media want another one? maybe until they get the answer they want.
    Or, until they are dignified with an honest answer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -mb-)
    To make his (the JIC's) report on Iraq "...one that compliments rather than conflicts with *them* [equivalent USA assessments]". This was preceded by "I am confident that we can...".
    seems fair. you need to be sure youre singing from the same hymn sheet. intelligence is shared all over the world. on such an issue, public statements and press releases are often discussed with US counterparts.

    This is the concluding sentence of a letter from Alastair Campbell to John Scarlett before the publishing of the dossier. It is just one example, but it is telling enough in itself.
    what is it telling? that they wanted to make sure that each others evidence was equally blunt? that the British report was not full of rhetoric compared to a more chilling US version? that our intelligence should seek to be comparable with the US material? that it should read aswell? that we should release the same degree of intelligence? that we should put it in laymans terms? that there should be an equivalent level of justification, theory or explanation?
    campbell said that he wanted to make changes, the wording wasnt appropriate? are you going to accuse him of making things up, based on a hunch over presentational concern?

    I got the letter because much of the evidence to the Hutton inquiry was freely available online at the website.
    evidence which i poured over and came to the same conclusions as Butler Hutton and anyone else in their courts. there were mistakes, failings, but none were to intentionally mislead either the house or the public.

    [QUOTE]his logic seems fair from my interpretion. at the least, there is nothing to prove otherwise.
    His logic is only fair if you accept that it is logical to investigate an issue of this magnitude at all without actually blaming any of the key individuals involved!
    he blames a number of parties, he blames a collective.

    The caveats, I thought that was clear, sorry.
    but you havent told us what your caveats are.

    So you'd prefer to have lived in Iraq under Saddam where the leaders could do as they please without being accountable to anyone, then?
    theres a difference between accountability and recognising ,with all of the erroneous intelligence and the error in presenting it as something for the media, there was no deliberate intention to that fact and thus, those accountable are the ones who failed to observe correct and acknowledged form, namely the JIC. Blair and Campbell are nowhere near the blame. how you deal with certain members of the JIC in such a matter, based on erroneous intelligence, is subject to opinion. Butler appears to believe there was no one person to which a number of misjudgements can be held to blaim.

    YES! Since the Butler report claims not blame any individual..perhaps you could tell me how it can "vindicate" an individual?!.
    define a lie and tell me how the Butler report confirms that application here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Or, until they are dignified with an honest answer.
    Blair didnt intentionally mislead the public. Blair didnt lie. Campbell didnt sex it up. how more honest do u need to be?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IntelliBug)
    The Butler report yesterday blames no one for this failure, not even boogey man. So who is there to blame ? not blair, not intelligence? It must be the corrupt system which allowed this to happen?

    What does eveyrone think?
    Deffinately not Blair I mean he can only work with what he was given. Maybe the itelligence services or the defence minister.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Blair didnt intentionally mislead the public. Blair didnt lie. Campbell didnt sex it up. how more honest do u need to be?
    I think some of the sexing up claim were shown to be true such as the 45 minute weapons "threat".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I think some of the sexing up claim were shown to be true such as the 45 minute weapons "threat".
    they presented it once as a single piece of intelligence. it was mentioned once by Blair in months of speech and public address. Campbell wrote to the JIC to clarify their position. Campbell reiterated that intelligence needed to be clearly stressed. this was a document for the general public not a politician or intelligence expert and thus its presentation and wording had to be kept relatively simplistic. not one inquiry has found alastair campbell guilty of any such suggestion. the decision to leave the 45 minute claim in the dossier, like its ownership, was on the part of the JIC.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    seems fair. you need to be sure youre singing from the same hymn sheet. intelligence is shared all over the world. on such an issue, public statements and press releases are often discussed with US counterparts.
    "Seems fair"! You really think that do you?
    Perhaps you would like to justify your claim that "you need to be sure that you're singing from the same hymn sheet "?
    Why do you need to be doing this?
    Why should we (the JIC in the UK) be obliged to come to the same conclusion as the USA (CIA)?
    Not all intelligence is shared between agencies, and any conclusion should be steered by the evidence available to the given committee, nothing else. Intelligence should not, under any circumstances be politicised.

    Yet Blair's government politicised it to the detriment of impartiality, and over such as critical issue, I and many others believe that warrants some appropriate resignations from those responisble.
    Campbell may not be there anymore, and I'm pleased about that, but he still hasn't admitted that he's done wrong, and that's unacceptable.

    what is it telling? that they wanted to make sure that each others evidence was equally blunt? that the British report was not full of rhetoric compared to a more chilling US version? that our intelligence should seek to be comparable with the US material? that it should read aswell? that we should release the same degree of intelligence? that we should put it in laymans terms? that there should be an equivalent level of justification, theory or explanation?
    campbell said that he wanted to make changes, the wording wasnt appropriate? are you going to accuse him of making things up, based on a hunch over presentational concern?
    Hmm, well the various aspects of the report that you claim he could have been refering to could not, by any measure, cause contradiction of the USA's reports.
    It's telling because it shows that a spin-doctor was telling an intelligence committee how to go about an assessment, and that, in itself is unacceptable.
    Butler concludes that if there was to be a JIC report, the government should not have been involved, and, if it wished to have a report with a different take on the situation, should have produced its own.
    Since such a serious error was made over a matter concerning a war, someone should admit they are responsible, and resign.

    evidence which i poured over and came to the same conclusions as Butler Hutton and anyone else in their courts. there were mistakes, failings, but none were to intentionally mislead either the house or the public.
    Well I'm happy for you that you conducted your own mini-Hutton!
    However, surely you can see that a "failing" is worthy of some resignations, when it concerns a war? If something fails, it's someones fault, even if it's indirect, the relevant minister or equivalent should resign, because the failing occured "on their watch".

    (btw. I rather think that you pored over the intelligence!)

    his logic seems fair from my interpretion. at the least, there is nothing to prove otherwise.
    he blames a number of parties, he blames a collective.
    He blames a "collective" because it wasn't in his remit to single out individuals for criticism.
    You are correct in saying that his conclusions are logical, I do not deny the validity of his report, despite the limits on it.

    but you havent told us what your caveats are.
    I mean the caveats!
    The ones everyone's talking about - the ones that highlighted the weak foundations of the intelliegence....they didn't just "fall off".
    There was either a concious decision to remove them, or a failing of communications. Both are damn serious!

    theres a difference between accountability and recognising ,with all of the erroneous intelligence and the error in presenting it as something for the media, there was no deliberate intention to that fact and thus, those accountable are the ones who failed to observe correct and acknowledged form, namely the JIC. Blair and Campbell are nowhere near the blame. how you deal with certain members of the JIC in such a matter, based on erroneous intelligence, is subject to opinion. Butler appears to believe there was no one person to which a number of misjudgements can be held to blaim.
    I'm sorry, I am not trying to be rude, but I genuinely cannot discern what the first few lines are trying to say. It's garbled and lacks punctuation.

    I can tell you that I believe that Blair et al should bear a greater burden of responsibility than the JIC.


    define a lie and tell me how the Butler report confirms that application here.
    The Butler report does not state that Blair or anyone lied.
    Neither did I say it did.

    My point was that you said:
    lying? sorry? did you read the Butler report?
    In response to me saying:
    I feel cheated that no one has the honour to take responsibility for lying to me and 60 million others.
    The Butler report didn't say that anyone didn't lie either!
    This is because it was a half-hearted inquiry to protect Blair, so it dealt with "processes and systems" not "people".

    I want to know about people, and it seems certain that somewhere along the line someone has been deceitful, or a failure of this magnitude could never have occured.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -mb-)
    "Seems fair"! You really think that do you?
    Perhaps you would like to justify your claim that "you need to be sure that you're singing from the same hymn sheet "?
    Why do you need to be doing this?
    Why should we (the JIC in the UK) be obliged to come to the same conclusion as the USA (CIA)?
    Not all intelligence is shared between agencies, and any conclusion should be steered by the evidence available to the given committee, nothing else. Intelligence should not, under any circumstances be politicised.
    the approach to the public release of intelligence had to be controlled, it had to be shown that both the US and the UK had the same approach to such release and exactly how much stress they were both willing to put on the release of intelligence. bearing in mind they shared intelligence it is quite realistic to believe they discussed the presentation of such

    Yet Blair's government
    no, the JIC.

    Campbell may not be there anymore, and I'm pleased about that, but he still hasn't admitted that he's done wrong, and that's unacceptable.
    because he hasnt done anything wrong. you havent told me exactly what he's meant to be guilty of.

    Hmm, well the various aspects of the report that you claim he could have been refering to could not, by any measure, cause contradiction of the USA's reports.
    it was compliment and conflict. presentation could conflict. depth could be complimentary. a vast difference in presentation or level of intelligence could damage the credibility of either government.

    It's telling because it shows that a spin-doctor was telling an intelligence committee how to go about an assessment, and that, in itself is unacceptable.
    no. Alastair Campbell advised the JIC as to how a document, to be released into the public domain, should be presented and worded. on the acknowledgement of the JIC, Campbell ensured that the JIC were clear and straightforward where they could and needed to be. that was precisely his job.

    Butler concludes that if there was to be a JIC report, the government should not have been involved, and, if it wished to have a report with a different take on the situation, should have produced its own.
    id be interested as to these exact comments, since a document being released on behalf of the government should be released on their terms. the JIC works on behalf of the government.

    Since such a serious error was made over a matter concerning a war, someone should admit they are responsible, and resign.
    Blair has taken responsiblity for any confusion that it may have caused. he wont resign over one single piece of intelligence that does not effect either the legality or basis for the war, that happened to be taken out of all proportion by the media.

    Well I'm happy for you that you conducted your own mini-Hutton!
    However, surely you can see that a "failing" is worthy of some resignations, when it concerns a war?
    if there were genuinely grave errors, with intent or that altered the entire case for carrying out such an operation then i would think it necessary. the very fact of the matter is that two enquiries have taken place and both have found that no hard blame can be laid at the door of 10 Downing Street. what you are now saying is you neither believe the government, the house of commons, the British intelligence services or the British judicial system.

    The Butler report does not state that Blair or anyone lied.
    Neither did I say it did.
    no, you just said he lied.

    The Butler report didn't say that anyone didn't lie either!
    This is because it was a half-hearted inquiry to protect Blair, so it dealt with "processes and systems" not "people".

    I want to know about people, and it seems certain that somewhere along the line someone has been deceitful, or a failure of this magnitude could never have occured.
    until it is proven, that remains an opinion.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the approach to the public release of intelligence had to be controlled, it had to be shown that both the US and the UK had the same approach to such release and exactly how much stress they were both willing to put on the release of intelligence. bearing in mind they shared intelligence it is quite realistic to believe they discussed the presentation of such
    This is an endorsement of Blairs typical "puppet" role alongside Bush. It's not necessary, and not healthy.

    You still refuse to address the key point that there was/is no reason why any UK intelligence report should align itself to any US report. There's no need - if they don't draw the same conclusion, then that is healthy the public at large can better evaluate the case for war. Anyway, the structure and process for producing such reports in the USA is not comparable to the UK.

    no, the JIC.[
    Are we going to have a round of "yes" "no", are we?
    There is no argument here: the JIC is/should be totally impartial - its role is simply to assimilate and evaluate intelligence to present in an easily absorbable form to any given government.
    There isn't even a reason necessarly to make it public! Although it is better to do so in the interests of "open government".
    To use it for a cheap PR stunt is scandalous, and, as I see it, is a resigning offence.

    because he hasnt done anything wrong. you havent told me exactly what he's meant to be guilty of.
    He's guilty of
    a) Having influence over policy despite being unelected
    b) Interefering in the presentation/content of an intelligence evaluation by a theoretically impartial body for political reason - so the report could be used for a purpose for which it was not directly intended; to persuade the public that we needed to go to war.

    Even if the intelligence failings are left aside, his involvement at all merits suspicion.

    it was compliment and conflict. presentation could conflict. depth could be complimentary. a vast difference in presentation or level of intelligence could damage the credibility of either government.
    No this need not damage either government, I have already said that the UK has no reason to try and mirror everthing the USA does. Remember - a candid relationship is needed. The justification for war needed healthy debate, if different evaluations of intelligence had been produced then perhaps the quality of the intelligence might have been more closely scrutinised and what we are finding out now would have been revealed at a time when it could have stopped the war.

    no. Alastair Campbell advised the JIC as to how a document, to be released into the public domain, should be presented and worded. on the acknowledgement of the JIC, Campbell ensured that the JIC were clear and straightforward where they could and needed to be. that was precisely his job.
    Well even if it wasn't just Campbell, this "advice" should not have been given, for reasons already stated. If it wasn't Campbell et al. who removed the caveats, then the JIC removed them because of pressure they were put under. Either way it was a failing of the government, for which someone should bear responsibility.


    id be interested as to these exact comments, since a document being released on behalf of the government should be released on their terms. the JIC works on behalf of the government.
    It seems that you misunderstand the JIC's role.
    Yes, the JIC works "on behalf of the government".
    No, the JIC's report should not be released "on the government's terms" - the JIC presents its assessment/evaluation of intelligence to the government. The government does not have the right to influence that report simply because they plan to make it public.

    You need to read pages 153-155 of the Butler Report, to get the conclusions on this issue. I will however quote one paragraph that articulates the recommendation I mentioned:

    (Original post by Butler Report)
    We believe that there are other options that should be examined for the ownership of drafting, for gaining the JIC’s endorsement of the intelligence material and assessments that are quoted and for subsequent ‘branding’. One is for the government of the day to draft a document, to gain the JIC’s endorsement of the intelligence material inside it and then to publish it acknowledging that it draws on intelligence but without ascribing it to the JIC. Or the Government, if it wishes to seek the JIC’s credibility and authority, could publish a document with intelligence material and the JIC’s endorsement of it shown separately. Or the JIC could prepare and publish itself a self-standing assessment, incorporating all of its normal caveats and warnings, leaving it to others to place that document within a broader policy context. This may make such documents less persuasive in making a policy case; but that is the price of using a JIC assessment. Our conclusion is that, between these options, the first is greatly preferable. Whichever route is chosen, JIC clearance of the intelligence content of any similar document will be essential.
    Earlier paragraphs explain why he concludes this...

    Get the full Butler Report here: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/.../hc898/898.pdf

    Blair has taken responsiblity for any confusion that it may have caused. he wont resign over one single piece of intelligence that does not effect either the legality or basis for the war, that happened to be taken out of all proportion by the media.
    This is more than "confusion", and if only we were just concerned with "one single piece of intelligence" then things would be simpler. :rolleyes:

    I'm not explicitly calling for Blairs resignation; other members of his governemnt may have wanted to be seen to be giving him what he "wanted", but someone has committed a resigning offence, I am sure.
    Be it Hoon, Campbell, Blair Powell, who knows...no one will find out for us!


    if there were genuinely grave errors, with intent or that altered the entire case for carrying out such an operation then i would think it necessary. the very fact of the matter is that two enquiries have taken place and both have found that no hard blame can be laid at the door of 10 Downing Street. what you are now saying is you neither believe the government, the house of commons, the British intelligence services or the British judicial system.
    No, I just don't believe either of two main reports has attempted to examnine the whole situation, and then home-in on the individuals who have made serious mistakes, or been deceitful or whatever:
    - Hutton was only really interested in Dr David Kelly and that fiasco, because he had an already narrow remit, and interpreted it narrowly.
    - Butler didn't conclude it was "best" to blame a collective - he just wasn't allowed to pick out individuals for criticism, due to the limitations of his remit!

    no, you just said he lied.
    Rubbish, I said someone lied to me; I know that I wasn't told the truth, and that was certainly through Blair's hand, though it may have been unwitting. In which case someone else lied, or committed a resigning offence.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.