Hutton

Len... this is silly. had Hutton been highly critical of the government you would now be holding him as a champion of the truth... as it would have accorded with your preconceived notions. The whole point is that Hutton's was an indepedent enquiry who had listened to ALL the arguments... he certainly was and is in a better position than you or me to come up with judgements on this case... until today he had received nothing but praise on his conduct of the enquiry... Are you now questioning his integrity too? The collating and outlining of the facts stand up for themselves... eg the sequence of events in the drawing up the dossier. The exhanges of emails and which bits of dossier were ammended etc. If you are questioning the conclusions he has drawn from the facts then which ones in particular and on what basis? No one suggests that the BBC were wrong to broadcast Gilligan's piece in the first place... there is a suggestion that there should have been better editorial control due to the seriousness of the allegations... who can argue with that? The problem was exacerbated because the BBC clearly failed to investigate and take seriously a valid complaint from the government.... as it turns out the central allegations that were made were not only false but also demonstrably 'sexed up' by Gilligan... the BBC have admitted as much. The people voted for this government... and in the finality can kick them out. Who holds the media to account for gross unfairness in their reporting, for incomptence on such serious scales? Would it have served democracy for Tony Blair's government to have been brought down as a result of false allegations or even incompetent journalism? Whilst always upholding up the media's right to question the government and the power brokers ... let us not forget that there is a question of balance and when whole sections of the powerful media think they can behave with utter impunity just because they dislike the policies of an elected government... than the balance has swung too far the other way... to the detriment of our democracy.

It's a 'no win' situation Gerry. The press and the sheep scream for an unbiased public enquiry, but they don't REALLY want one, what they REALLY want is an enquiry that confirms their preconceived beliefs. If it comes up with results that are contrary they then start screaming that it was a fix. What these people can't see is that they are guilty of exactly what they are accusing the enquired after of doing. But then you and I both know this don't we?

Andrew, I agree that Hutton gave the government the benefit of the doubt in much of what happened.... but where was the real evidence to the contrary?... Looking purely at the facts that have emerged it would be harsh to conclude that there were mega conspiracies at hand... An unfortunate sequence of fast moving events... the feeding frenzy of a largely anti-war press... smarminesss and defensiveness from a government under pressure... and yes... some minor mistakes perhaps... That is about it. As for the BBC, by their own admission they have been found wanting... and Gilligan, his journalistic reputation must be in complete tatters... not least for his passing on off Kelly's name as the source for the Newsnight reports... which led to Kelly's discomfort in the House of Commons. As Hutton said there was nothing to suggest that Kelly would take his own life in all of this... he clearly blamed himself for the troubles he found himself in.

Yup. I agree George. Are there not calls for another public enquiry on the war? Yesterday it was all doom and gloom for Blair.... today he is invincible yet again. As for Howard, what an unmitigated prat he made of himself today. Like Blair or loathe him, there is no one around quite like him at the moment... who can doubt that God is on his side? At least politics is not boring, eh.

1leg you are hopelessly missing the point. Hutton found just about everything wrong with the BBC and nothing wrong with the Blair goverment. Where were you when we had all those governmnt people being questioned during the eqnuiry, all the evasive answers the fudging and inconsistencys, the government leaving out information from the dossier because it would undermine their arguement, the none too subtle attempts by Cambell to sex up the dossier, where the hell were you. Sorry mate but I listened to the enquiry and read the emails and there were two things that emerged clearly. 1 the BBC was at fault and needs to sort out its act and number 2 the government was also at fault. it is totaslly ridiculus to suggest this was in any way a balanced enquiry. You yourself admit the government made mistakes, but where they f/uck is any of that in the report. even Hoon is let off the hook. give me a break. the government's case was your proverbial ugly duckling and Hutton just declared it a swan.

Len.. I think it is you who misses the point. Is it not normal government business to try and present their case in the best light they can possibly can get away with... Yours is a charge that all governments would fail... come to think of it most people... if you looked through their CV's in any detail... The particular allegations that Gilligan report on were wrong wrong wrong and had no basis in fact whatsoever... there is no need to repeat them here as everybody now accepts that. So what is the great crime that the government was guilty of so as to justify the censure you wish upon them... being shifty and evasive? Come on... these are politicians we are talking about. This dossier business is a joke. Were you convinced of the governments's case for war as a result of that dossier Did the dossier swing hordes of people onto the governments point of view... I doubt it. Were not most people still anti-war months later? Why It is only now that this document is being elevated to one of such central importance?

and don't forget this: kelly was a civil servant within the MOD. he broke rank and decided to speak to gilligan without permission of his employers. as much as I detest some of today's journalism, you can't tell me that gilligan completely made up his report. Sure, he may have introduced the phrase 'sexed up' but it all came from kelly in the first place. kelly also lied to the house of commons select committee. he topped himself after he realised he was in deep shittee. The only person who can clear this up is dead. well, what a surprise, then, that blair's undies are now persil white, hoon's dept gets a slap on the ankles, and the beeb gets fucckked over remember how the beeb used to be left wing and anti-tory? oh, it still is. I was scared by this lot back in '97. seven years on, I hope everyone else is. This isn't politics, this is manipulation. Campbell, having the nerve to say the media ought to concentrate on facts! Jesus.

people only accept it spider because there is no absolute proof - in writing - that what kelly told gilligan is fact. sure, gilligan may be a crap journo but do you really think he would go to press on a complete lie? maybe kelly was wrong, but he certainly told gilligan something didn't he? also, don't forget the previous 'dossier' the one campbell and his cronies lifted off the internet. didn't you feel rather sick today when you saw blair, hoon and brown, side by side, grinning like cats in a bowl of cream while the new labour harpies screached like witches around a cauldron from the side? you are being manipulated. At least thatcher was honest about her intentions. this is government by stealth and soundbite, and the sooner it is rejected the better. shame lord sutch is dead.

At least thatcher was honest about her intentions. this is government by stealth and soundbite this is what i have been saying for months and months. Its not what they DO that i so much object to, its being told that they are doing it for a, b or c reason, when it is clear to joanna bloggs etc that they are wool pulling on a massive scale. It infuriates me that they think we are so gullible, we deserve nothing more.

'At least thatcher was honest about her intentions' Thats a myth stormy. She was honest about her intentions when it suited her and as evasive or dishonest as she pleased when it did not suit her.

"Like Blair or loathe him, there is no one around quite like him at the moment... " Er, one's quite enough thanks.

If Kelly broke rank to tell the 'truth' why did he back-track and the story end as sadly as it did... In the finality, whatever his intention, it seems it was not to 'out' the government. He did say something at that meeting... probably shooting off an opinion loosely. With better journalism it could have been the beginnings of a research into a potentially good story.... alas Gilligan blew it, not only did he get it quite wrong, he also stitched up Kelly badly in the following months, twice over. Question, was this a one-off, or was this symptomatic of a media mood of the time? I think the later.... It is a joke for cynical media hacks to charge the government at every turn with duplicity and spin when they behave demonstrably far worse themselves... except the government are answerable at elections and the media are not... such hypocrisy. If you are to proclaim yourself holier than thou let us see some objective standards that you uphold... every proffesion has theirs.

I don't understand why there is such indignation at the conduct of the Prime minister. He's no different to any of the others that have led this country. Harold Wilson gave us the 'pound in your pocket', Ted Heath gave us the three day week, Thatcher sunk a retreating warship and 'lost' the submarine's logbook, she then went on to 'steal' the 'family silver' and flog it cheap to her pals, John Major should have been sent to the tower just for being John Major and even 'the greatest Englishman', Churchill, wanted to shoot striking miners. Of all prime ministers I consider Thatcher to be the most evil. She was cunning, devious, a bully, a liar, a looter, an egomaniac and a hate-filled bitch that cared nothing for working people.

Excuse me. I hate to interupt this farrago of ill informed, subjective tripe. But. I emailed his Lordship two days ago and asked him if it would be possible to remove me completely from the 'tales. And have I received a reply? Have I ballocks. So I now publicly ask: Is it possible, your Holiness, to remove every single one of my utterances from this 'web' 'site'? Everything. Every single mention of my name. Absolutely. Everything. Because, in the future, when I sell my 'papers' to some Ivy League University for three quarters of a mil, the last thing I want is my name and talent in any way associated with you shower of intellectual lightweights.

The main culprit in all this is that fat bast,ard Gilligan, hell-bent on making a name for himself. Pity it's not the one he wanted isn't it? Here's a quote from the slug himself, '...reporters should be given a margin for error when dealing with matters of clear public interest, particularly on political issues...' What a hypocritical w.anker, he demands the right to get it wrong whilst denying Blair the same right. I'm sure Blair would see the Iraq war/WMD as political issues.

Just skim read this in a coffee break. Gilligan, due to bad notetaking and tight deadlines, messed up badly and his editors and researchers should have checked his information and made him get another source, as the allegations were so serious. The constant 24 hour nature of modern news has led to a sloppiness that perhaps didn't exist 10, 15 years ago. Gilligan was a Sunday paper journalist before going to the BBC, a scoop finder, a sensationalist, and the Today Programme did get caught out. However, to see Campbell et al cooing and parading like they did yesterday was a disgrace. In the FT today there is a story by Bob Sherwood and the headline runs: "'Intensely private' Kelly partly to blame for his own downfall." Disgraceful. It wasn't Gilligan's job and role as a journalist to do so, but he himself told the truth. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The 45 minute claim was given a prominence it should not have been given. Scarlett and Campbell were implicit in this distortion -at best- of the information they had available. Interestingly, on the day the Hutton report came out the ex US chief weapons inspector, David Kay, has said the US was 'almost all wrong' about Iraq weapons. He says: "We have sadly underestimated our human intelligence capabilities and we have tried to do it on the cheap," he says.... Coincidence that's released and buried on the same day as Hutton? Sorry, we...Errr, made a mistake...If we, errr, had more of the tax payers' money to spend on intelligence we wouldn't...Errr, have gone to war...Even though we were right to, like....Yeah. Gilligan's mistake didn't cost lives. Not even Kelly's. Within the ridiculously narrow remit of what the Hutton examination had to do, then the BBC did screw up. But that is kind of by the by, really. [%sig%]

My impression (and here, I'm happy for it to be that of a stereotypical student,) follows Tony's and Len's. There *was* a case for war, at least, and the government hasn't done anything spectacularly evil, at least compared with most governments. But all this bald-faced lying is too much to put up with, and I don't just mean for me - I don't think anyone without a hand in Labour's pocket will put up with them much longer. Blair's never looked like more of a grinning toad.

Greg Dyke's just resigned from BBC.

As usual Steve Bell sums it up for me. Hutton's a monkey. [%sig%]

Hutton said Blair didn't lie, but of course all the intelligent people here know different. It's a shame Hutton didn't interview all those here with superior knowledge. it ain't ALL bad news though. Greg Dyke was always well named and Stufart is trying hard to do us all a favour. (at least that's what he says TODAY!)

I say, "Bring on the next war!" Come on, folks, it's been nearly a year! Let's get up and at 'em! There must be some poor, downtrodden nation that needs our help defending their homeland and so forth. What are we waiting for?

Len, I think you may have the button here - and I think that people will not be fooled. A mild slap across the wrists for Blair might have been better for him - this whitewash will not wash and it all may rebound on him yet.

The trouble with this enquiry was that it was into Kelly's death not into whether we were mislead before going to war. I'd like to see that enquiry, I must say.

That's precisely what Stop the War are calling for in a protest outside the House of Commons now. Good luck to them.

Meanwhile back in the real world...

*takes his Michael Fish hat off too late, but realises that Fish did just that*

That was very expensive. Can't see them having another enquiry. Whatever Hutton said, he took 700 pages to do it, and it is extremely unfortunate that someone in the Government leaked a very simplistic summary to The Sun in advance. I have to say I'm a little surprised that Hutton was able to deduce that 'sexed-up' to an ordinary person implied that information was added knowing that information to be false, but then doesn't apply everyday usage to 'leaking' , as in Tony Blair had nothing whatsoever do to with the 'leaking' of Dr Kelly's name but simply chaired meetings at which a strategy for placing that name in the public domain was decided upon. Have to say that for me, Blair's remarks on the plane were the central part of the whole enquiry and I'm rather amazed that they formed no part of the enquiry at all. If the Government had said, "Look, we were being pressed about the source for Gilligan's quotes, we knew the name, we knew from talking to him that he did not back up Gilligan's allegations, which were pretty serious allegations, if we hadn't let the name out, we'd have been slaughtered, it is unfortunate and tragic but no more than that" then there'd be little anyone could really say in relation to that. But Blair made a remark, which no matter what the precise literal meaning of the words were, was intended to convey a meaning to people that whoever's fault it was that Kelly's name got out, it was absolutely nothing to do with him. Did Tony intend people to make semantic distinctions between 'leaking' and 'hinting in such a way as it would be obvious and then confirming when people guessed right', or did he intend people to believe that regardless of how that name got out, he had nothing at all to do with it. As for 'sexing up', the evidence was clear that throughout the drafting of that dossier, an unelected official named Alastair Campbell whose job is to make Labour look good was making presentational amendments and strengthening the emphasis on risk. Whether you think that is awful or appalling, or just what you'd expect a government to do when presenting a case for war, is a matter of personal taste, but it can't simply be ignored. I was one of the few people I knew who wasn't expecting a whitewash. I read so much of the actual evidence given that I didn't think it was possible for any conclusion other than, everyone involved has not behaved entirely properly, the Government allowed Campbell to interfere too much with what ought to have been an independent assessment of risk, Gilligan let excitement cloud his vision and tried to turn a good story into a great one and to be honest, Kelly said more than he ought to have done and panicked when he realised his name was going to come out. From the moment Campbell rang the BBC and asked for a retraction, his name was inevitably going to come out. Tony has known for ages that he would survive, but I bet Hoon can't believe it. The only reason he's stayed in post is to be a sacrificial lamb in case someone needed to be sacked...

The truth is frequently boring I am afraid.... unfounded paranoia and conspiracy theories are far more interesting and satisfying... but purely for entertainment value. The central charges over Tony Blair's and the governments integrity has been found to be unfounded... His judgement about WMD evidence and the cause for War are still open... that is a different matter of course. I wish opposers would frame their arguments in reasoned rather than shrill and unjustified accusations. The BBC, although I am a general supporter of them, have failed spectacularly in this particular case... It is clear to me that they need to learn lessons from this episode.

Come on you lot, if Kelly had not topped himself there would have been no inquiry anyway. The press are always on the lookout for trivia to build a story on. It was the press (and admittedly the government of the day also)that made such a big 'hero' story out of that ****** Jones in the Falklands war, that they ended up awarding him a VC. Now they're pushing for a Nobel prize for this guy. I might just top myself because I was the victim of a hate-fuelled petition a year ago. Would I be eligible for an award?

The BBC has not failed spectaculaly in this case 1leg. They were just doing their job of trying to probe/question the govenment of the day. they discovered something dodgy through a source and they reported it. if they hadn't many people would have accused them of cowtowing to bloody blair. god help us if now thanks to bloody hutton they cannot do their job anymore. hutton has shown he has no understanding of the role of the BBC, or journalists. the beeb is not there to prop up[ the establishment in a gentlemanyl way. itsthere to ask difficult questions and confront uncomfortable scenarios. this is a dark day for inestigatve journalism and the truth

Hear hear, Len. Don't forget that Hutton served on the Widgery Tribunal, that famous whitewash of bloody Sunday. I spent two years investigating those findings and they were a whitewash of the worst sort. Don't believe that every result from an inquiry of this sort is the unexpurgated truth. I don't know enough about Hutton to question the specifics of the findings but I fear that the end results are a little too cosy to be believable.

Gerry - that is essentially my point. I don't think that the Government in this case did anything worth lying about. What they did was present a case for war highlighting the arguments in support and marginalising the arguments against. That might not be palatable, but it is realistic. Governments have been doing that at least since Disraeli (I think) felt the need to cry "Lies, damned lies and statistics". Likewise, I don't objectively see how they could have suppressed Kelly's name once they knew it, without being accused of covering up, I think that their strategy was a genuine attempt to allow the name to come out gradually without the indignity of a press conference outing him. Nor do I think that anyone involved had the slightest idea that he would react in the way he did. But that, for me is the problem. If you on the facts did what you did and didn't really do anything wrong or underhand then the thing to do is put your hands up and say, 'this is what I did, and here's why'. I don't think that the lies and flannel were to disguise great misdeeds, but rather an indication that this Government resorts to lies and aggression rather than simply admitting that they acted in good faith and there were unfortunate consequences. I really think that with a bit of balls, Tony could have simply said, yes, I played a part in this man's name coming out, I did what I did in good faith and I'm sorry it ended this way. That wouldn't have brought down the Government. Perhaps I'm being naieve - I certainly don't expect than another mainstream party would have acted differently, we are in an age where accidents don't happen without people being sued and where public inquiries aren't supposed to ferret out the truth, they are supposed to make heads roll. I didn't think Hutton would stick to the narrow remit of 'whose fault is it that Dr Kelly died', because the answer to that was obvious at the outset, everyone involved has a tiny part to play but ultimately he took the actions he took because he wasn't able to face the consequences that a smart man should have seen were inevitable once you start telling journalists that the Government is overegging the pudding.

that's the main point in all this for me. The death has lead to the enquiry. Had he just gone mad or become depressed then we would have heard no more about it. He chose to take his life, others in the same situation would not have.

Um, I thought that was what I said above.

Look, if the Government wants to sex up a dosser then that's their business and who are we to stand in their way. In fact I would gladly get out of the way.

You've got to hand it to Tony Blair, he knows how to pick his enquiry judges.