but the trouble with this article, like others, is not WHAT is said but HOW it is said and WHAT is NOT said. This article is selective in its reporting of detail and leaves out information that is known, which might cast some light on some situations. We have to ask, WHY do these people continually not provide all the information? In my opinion, it can only be that there is an agenda. In line with the Guardian's 'usual' line on 'balance', I assume that there will be a right of reply. However, I'm not holding my breath!