Ingram Breaks Chatham House Rules?

**CrapSpy** · 29-01-2007, 11:01

Adam Ingram (MinAF) was on Radio 4 the other day, and during the interview he said something along the lines of "even a group of Majors I spoke to yesterday couldn't come up with any serious equipment issues."

Now I presume he must have been giving a lecture to ICSC(L). If this was the case, has he not just broken Chatham House rules in order to win some cheap political points?

**untallguy** · 29-01-2007, 12:16

Originally Posted by CrapSpy

Now I presume he must have been giving a lecture to ICSC(L). If this was the case, has he not just broken Chatham House rules in order to win some cheap political points?

If this is the case, it would not surprise me in the slightest. When I attended a lecture he gave, it was one of the most patronising, condescending 40mins of my career (and I've been patronised by experts).

**SparkySteve** · 29-01-2007, 12:42

Originally Posted by untallguy

I've been patronised by experts.

Have you really?? How good for you, im so happy. Good on you.

**pombsen-armchair-warrior** · 29-01-2007, 12:44

Originally Posted by CrapSpy

Adam Ingram (MinAF) was on Radio 4 the other day, and during the interview he said something along the lines of "even a group of Majors I spoke to yesterday couldn't come up with any serious equipment issues."

Now I presume he must have been giving a lecture to ICSC(L). If this was the case, has he not just broken Chatham House rules in order to win some cheap political points?

I fully agree with his statement. However the fact that he was a guest of the Royal Army Tailoring Corps puts his comment into perspective.

As for breaking 'Chatham' rules - don't think this really counts as a breach.

PAW

**fas_et_gloria** · 29-01-2007, 12:53

The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

So unless he had named the Majors concerned, or refered to them by capbadge, I think he's in the clear here. Depends on whether you consider that by refering to them by miltary rank he's divulged their affiliation as being to the army... They could have been Salvation Army, for example?!

Infact that's rather more likely, really. In response to a question about military procurement, the minister gave an answer about a converstion about tuba procurement by the marching band committee of the Salvation Army, hoping that no-one would ask who the 'majors' were.

**Blogg** · 29-01-2007, 12:57

Ingram has made a career out of glib answers, spin and misrepresentation of fact. So breaking the Chatham House rule (selectively of course) would right up his street

In addition to the usual spin any Member of the Scottish Parliament is going to be in mega-BS mode anyway in dread of Thursday 3rd May 2007, the Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary Elections aka Judgement Day.

Public confidence in Tony Blair's government has slumped to an all-time low

Only 26 per cent of voters say they are "satisfied" with Mr Blair as Prime Minister, compared with 66 per cent in early 1998

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...29/npoll29.xml