Lord Hutton
Senior law Lord Brian Hutton has published his report into the suicide of weapons expert Dr. Kelly. Dr Kelly committed suicide when this name was leaked to the press by the ministry of defence MOD.
The Hutton report Has looked into not only who was to blame for the outing of Kelly’s name but also whether the government and the intelligence services ‘sexed up’ the dossier on Iraq’s WMD’s.
All this was prompted by a reporter, Andrew Gilligan, who on BBC radio claimed the government probably knew that claims in the dossier (in particular the claim that Iraq could launch WMD’s in 45 minutes) were wrong. Dr Kelly was Gilligan’s source.
The Hutton report has found that that Gilligan’s claim was wrong and that the BBC had failed in many respects (not stopping Gilligan and not apologising to the government). Further more it concludes that the governments did not act improperly when they leaked Dr. Kelly’s name. Finally the report concludes that the government did not try to influence the report and that the joint intelligence comity acted independently and properly.
The criticism of the BBC has lead to the resignation of The corporation's chairman, Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke, the director general.
Richard Ryder, issued a statement acknowledging "serious defects in the corporation's processes and procedures" and promised major reforms.
Saying "On behalf of the BBC, I have no hesitation in apologizing unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them," Ryder said.
So everything is fine then, no impropriety at all from the government.
LOVELY
The Hutton Report
The Hutton Report
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
Tigger
Tigger
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Further more it concludes that the governments did not act improperly when they leaked Dr. Kelly’s name.
I was astonished to hear that Hutton had arrived at this conclusion, especially after hearing portions of the hearings which clearly showed the PM's people doing all but admitting to the leak. There was one particular exchange, where the government witness stated under cross examination that yes, he'd given all the hints he could to the press about Kelly as possible, and then concluded with a snarky "But that's not the same thing as telling them the name, is it?" That Hutton agreed with the witness is remarkable.
I personally think Hutton was right about the BBC not properly fact-checking the very serious allegation they made concerning the government's "sexing up" its WMD claim. On the other hand, the exoneration of the government from any wrongdoing concerning Kelly just amazes me. And Hutton's unwillingness to discuss the evidence showing how government representatives deliberately changed reports given to the press, in order to back up Blair's WMD policy, won't do the British government any good in the foreign press.
I was astonished to hear that Hutton had arrived at this conclusion, especially after hearing portions of the hearings which clearly showed the PM's people doing all but admitting to the leak. There was one particular exchange, where the government witness stated under cross examination that yes, he'd given all the hints he could to the press about Kelly as possible, and then concluded with a snarky "But that's not the same thing as telling them the name, is it?" That Hutton agreed with the witness is remarkable.
I personally think Hutton was right about the BBC not properly fact-checking the very serious allegation they made concerning the government's "sexing up" its WMD claim. On the other hand, the exoneration of the government from any wrongdoing concerning Kelly just amazes me. And Hutton's unwillingness to discuss the evidence showing how government representatives deliberately changed reports given to the press, in order to back up Blair's WMD policy, won't do the British government any good in the foreign press.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Just came across this, published early today. Note, although the ICM is a highly respected polling organization, remember that the phrasing of the results are being made by a liberal newspaper which has been extremely critical of the Blair government. Not that the poll's results are going to please Number 10 regardless, but still...
New poll reveals public mistrust
Nicholas Watt, political correspondent
Friday January 30, 2004
The Guardian
Three times as many people trust the BBC to tell the truth than trust the government, despite Lord Hutton's damning judgment, an exclusive poll by ICM for the Guardian shows.
More significantly, the survey reveals that confidence in both has been shattered. Almost half of those surveyed said they trusted neither.
In a sign that Tony Blair has failed to achieve a "bounce" from the Hutton report, the survey also found a six-point drop in support for the Iraq war to less than half of voters.
The prime minister's net personal rating was minus 17 points, with 55% of voters unhappy with his performance compared with 38% expressing satisfaction. This compared with a net rating of minus 15 points a week ago. Support for the war fell by six points from 53% a week ago to 47%, with a five-point increase in opposition, from 41% to 46%.
The survey, which polled 532 adults hours after the publication of Lord Hutton's report, found:
· 31% of voters trust the BBC "more" to tell the truth. This contrasted with 10% who trust the government more, a figure which dropped to 5% among 25 to 34-year-olds. A total of (7%) trust both. In a sign of the challenge facing Downing Street, as it tries to improve relations with the Labour party in the wake of the fiasco over university top-up fees, the poll reveals that 17% of Labour voters trust the government to tell the truth. This compares with 25% of Labour voters who trust the BBC.
· 49% believe the BBC failed to treat Dr David Kelly fairly, a figure which increased to 60% when the same question was asked about the government.
Greg Dyke may be encouraged to learn that more people believe Tony Blair should have been the one to resign. In the survey 37% said the prime minister should quit, compared with 35% who said Mr Dyke should go. Nearly a quarter of Labour voters (24%) believe the prime minister should resign, a figure which rises to 39% when the question was asked about Mr Dyke.
But nearly half of voters, 49%, believe that Andrew Gilligan, whose report triggered the row with the government, should resign. Note: Gilligan did in fact resign, later today.
Next in line is Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, whose head is demanded by 41% of voters even though he was cleared by Lord Hutton. He is followed by Gavyn Davies (38%) who resigned as BBC chairman within hours of the publication of Lord Hutton's report.
The survey may dampen celebrations in Downing Street in another area. It found that 45% of voters believe the prime minister lied over his claim that he did not authorise the leaking of Dr Kelly's name. This is a three-point improvement for the prime minister on this question, over last week's ICM poll.
This is likely to comfort Michael Howard, the Tory leader, who was criticised after the report when he attempted to remind the prime minister of his categorical denial made on a flight last July.
Voters appear to share Lord Hutton's finding that Dr Kelly behaved unwisely in meeting Gilligan.
The poll found 47% of voters believe the scientist was "at least partly the author of his own misfortune", compared with 35% who disagreed with this.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 532 adults on the evening of January 28. Interviews were conducted throughout the country by telephone and the results have been weighted to be representative of all adults.
New poll reveals public mistrust
Nicholas Watt, political correspondent
Friday January 30, 2004
The Guardian
Three times as many people trust the BBC to tell the truth than trust the government, despite Lord Hutton's damning judgment, an exclusive poll by ICM for the Guardian shows.
More significantly, the survey reveals that confidence in both has been shattered. Almost half of those surveyed said they trusted neither.
In a sign that Tony Blair has failed to achieve a "bounce" from the Hutton report, the survey also found a six-point drop in support for the Iraq war to less than half of voters.
The prime minister's net personal rating was minus 17 points, with 55% of voters unhappy with his performance compared with 38% expressing satisfaction. This compared with a net rating of minus 15 points a week ago. Support for the war fell by six points from 53% a week ago to 47%, with a five-point increase in opposition, from 41% to 46%.
The survey, which polled 532 adults hours after the publication of Lord Hutton's report, found:
· 31% of voters trust the BBC "more" to tell the truth. This contrasted with 10% who trust the government more, a figure which dropped to 5% among 25 to 34-year-olds. A total of (7%) trust both. In a sign of the challenge facing Downing Street, as it tries to improve relations with the Labour party in the wake of the fiasco over university top-up fees, the poll reveals that 17% of Labour voters trust the government to tell the truth. This compares with 25% of Labour voters who trust the BBC.
· 49% believe the BBC failed to treat Dr David Kelly fairly, a figure which increased to 60% when the same question was asked about the government.
Greg Dyke may be encouraged to learn that more people believe Tony Blair should have been the one to resign. In the survey 37% said the prime minister should quit, compared with 35% who said Mr Dyke should go. Nearly a quarter of Labour voters (24%) believe the prime minister should resign, a figure which rises to 39% when the question was asked about Mr Dyke.
But nearly half of voters, 49%, believe that Andrew Gilligan, whose report triggered the row with the government, should resign. Note: Gilligan did in fact resign, later today.
Next in line is Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, whose head is demanded by 41% of voters even though he was cleared by Lord Hutton. He is followed by Gavyn Davies (38%) who resigned as BBC chairman within hours of the publication of Lord Hutton's report.
The survey may dampen celebrations in Downing Street in another area. It found that 45% of voters believe the prime minister lied over his claim that he did not authorise the leaking of Dr Kelly's name. This is a three-point improvement for the prime minister on this question, over last week's ICM poll.
This is likely to comfort Michael Howard, the Tory leader, who was criticised after the report when he attempted to remind the prime minister of his categorical denial made on a flight last July.
Voters appear to share Lord Hutton's finding that Dr Kelly behaved unwisely in meeting Gilligan.
The poll found 47% of voters believe the scientist was "at least partly the author of his own misfortune", compared with 35% who disagreed with this.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 532 adults on the evening of January 28. Interviews were conducted throughout the country by telephone and the results have been weighted to be representative of all adults.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by Nippy
Although I didn't vote him in, I'm glad that our government has been vindicated.
Vindicated by someone that Tony Blair asked to do the report in the first place, so much for impartiality. It is nice to see that the important vote on University fees got swept away in the hysteria of the Hutton report, I mean winning by four votes is hardly a majority and the papers et al should have highlighted what a divided issue it was, instead it has been largely ignored.
I wish I could believe a single word that Blair pours forth out of every orifice but sadly he has lied a few too many times for me to believe him on any issues any more.
But hey, I wasn't going to vote for him anyway and frankly this hasn't swung my feelings either way.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
Hmmm. The impression I got was that Gilligan didn't have the evidence to back up the claims he made about the dossier being sexed up... I'm not sure that totally exonerates the government, and many political commentators have been saying as much in interviews this week.Originally posted by Tom
Finally the report concludes that the government did not try to influence the report and that the joint intelligence comity acted independently and properly.
I don't think this is the end of the government's problems. As that Guardian poll shows, even though Hutton said the government didn't do anything wrong, it has had a huge impact on the public perception of them.
Far be it from me to approve of anything Michael Howard does, but I'm rather pleased to see him pointing out that, in fact, Tony Blair did still lie to journalists. He originally denied any involvement or knowledge of the Dr Kelly "naming strategy". It later transpired that he had in fact chaired a meeting where it was discussed. Even if there wasn't any big strategy to name Dr Kelly, Blair was still lying.
Hutton was also at pains to point out that he was not addressing the accuracy of the claims made in the Iraq dossier, or the source of this so-called "intelligence", or anything about WMDs whatsoever really, as it wasn't part of his remit. It will continue to be a huge problem for the government that no WMDs have been found to justify the claims made as a basis for war. All kinds of excuses are being made, and I imagine at some point there will be an inquiry into the accuracy of British intelligence, and Geoff Hoon's neck will probably be on the line.
I am also quite amused by the fact that there may be an inquiry into the leak of the report of an inquiry into a leak.
And finally, while this is obviously a serious affair, I couldn't help but be entertained by this, from a news script which somebody must have noticed wasn't really broadcastable, since it was changed before they went on air:
It was confirmed that Dr Kelly committed suicide. His family say it must never be allowed to happen again.
Who, me?!?
I guess my overall view is: good. My personal view of the BBC is that it is ridiculously biased on most subjects, and needs a wake-up call. Sadly, the way the employees were protesting the resignation of Dyke, I don't think any real change will occur.
-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
I agree that the BBC deserved criticism for their handling of the affair, but I thought Hutton could have saved at least a little criticism for the other parties involved...
No wonder Dyke resigned. He can make a big issue about it all now, whereas if he had stayed, I imagine he would have had to be rather more meek and mild about the whole thing.
No wonder Dyke resigned. He can make a big issue about it all now, whereas if he had stayed, I imagine he would have had to be rather more meek and mild about the whole thing.
Who, me?!?
All of you seem to think that the BBC deserves criticism. Lets get a sense of proportion. The BBC might have been a bit slack in its editorial control and slow to apologise. But lets face it - you can't shackle your top reporters - if you do they produce mediocre journalism, the flip side is that they sometimes make mistakes - and Andrew Gilligan definitely made mistakes.
Personally I think the BBC made very few mistakes while Andrew Gilligan greatest sin was to betray dr. Kelly. I believe that Gilligan was right, the government knew that it was very unlikely that Iraq had any kind of serious WMD that could be fired in 45 minutes but at the moment the evidence for that is still missing. The dossier was a lash up job composed of a 10 year old student thesis, unreliable evidence stretched beyond belief and single source reports. Scarlet who chaired the joint intelligence committee JIC will surely be promoted to C for his services (in taking ownership of the dossier) to his government.
Despite the fact that Alistair Campbell pressed upon the JIC how important it was that the dossier be as strong as possible and that he made changes in wording to it, Hutton decided that there was no undue influence from the government.
Lets consider the government's role in the outing of doctor Kelly's name. Again we know that Hutton found that the government and the MOD had made no mistakes in outing dr. Kelly's name. This is DESPITE the FACT that TONY BLAIR chaired the meeting where it was decided that Kelly's name should be given to the press. So now it is most important what was said at this meeting I am sure you will agree, unfortunately the minutes where not taken ... oh.
Other crimes by lord Hutton. He concludes that Dr. Kelly was a very difficult man to help. - really? Oh thats ok then. That's why the MOD did nothing to help Dr. kelly. How do we know that he was a difficult man to help? Well his boss at the MOD said so - the man that was supposed to help him.
Hutton concluded that the BBC should not have gone with the story. So the top scientist to the MOD on Iraq's WMD comes and tells Susan Watts and Andrew Gilligan that he thinks the government have sexed up the dossier and the BBC should sit on the story?
If Tony and his friends hoped that this would draw a line under the story they are much mistaken. Rather than give us trust in the government we now believe that the judiciary is just as tainted.
Personally I think the BBC made very few mistakes while Andrew Gilligan greatest sin was to betray dr. Kelly. I believe that Gilligan was right, the government knew that it was very unlikely that Iraq had any kind of serious WMD that could be fired in 45 minutes but at the moment the evidence for that is still missing. The dossier was a lash up job composed of a 10 year old student thesis, unreliable evidence stretched beyond belief and single source reports. Scarlet who chaired the joint intelligence committee JIC will surely be promoted to C for his services (in taking ownership of the dossier) to his government.
Despite the fact that Alistair Campbell pressed upon the JIC how important it was that the dossier be as strong as possible and that he made changes in wording to it, Hutton decided that there was no undue influence from the government.
Lets consider the government's role in the outing of doctor Kelly's name. Again we know that Hutton found that the government and the MOD had made no mistakes in outing dr. Kelly's name. This is DESPITE the FACT that TONY BLAIR chaired the meeting where it was decided that Kelly's name should be given to the press. So now it is most important what was said at this meeting I am sure you will agree, unfortunately the minutes where not taken ... oh.
Other crimes by lord Hutton. He concludes that Dr. Kelly was a very difficult man to help. - really? Oh thats ok then. That's why the MOD did nothing to help Dr. kelly. How do we know that he was a difficult man to help? Well his boss at the MOD said so - the man that was supposed to help him.
Hutton concluded that the BBC should not have gone with the story. So the top scientist to the MOD on Iraq's WMD comes and tells Susan Watts and Andrew Gilligan that he thinks the government have sexed up the dossier and the BBC should sit on the story?
If Tony and his friends hoped that this would draw a line under the story they are much mistaken. Rather than give us trust in the government we now believe that the judiciary is just as tainted.
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
Tigger
Tigger
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
The latest curve to this issue are of course the remarks made before Congress by David Kay, whom Bush appointed chief weapons inspector in Iraq following its invasion, and who resigned when it was evident to him after lengthy searching that there were no WMDs. This, and Kay's known character for personal integrity (a rare commodity in Washington DC at any time), forced the president's hand, especially when his main rival in 2000 for the Republican nomination, representative John McCain, joined Democrats and select Republicans in calling for an inquiry on intelligence gathering up to the Iraqi invasion.
That in turn precipitated a 180 degree turn in Blair's policy, since the Blair government based its argument to invade upon shared intelligence of WMDs. After repeatedly declared that he would not permit an independent inquiry of the WMD issue, his government is now righteously insisting that it's a great thing to do, because it will answer everybody's questions. At the same time, Blair is trying to limit fallout by refusing to allow the inquiry to go beyond an examination of intelligence gathering, and into the field of political control of information. I'll be curious to see how each government attempts to stop this crisis from spinning out of control.
That in turn precipitated a 180 degree turn in Blair's policy, since the Blair government based its argument to invade upon shared intelligence of WMDs. After repeatedly declared that he would not permit an independent inquiry of the WMD issue, his government is now righteously insisting that it's a great thing to do, because it will answer everybody's questions. At the same time, Blair is trying to limit fallout by refusing to allow the inquiry to go beyond an examination of intelligence gathering, and into the field of political control of information. I'll be curious to see how each government attempts to stop this crisis from spinning out of control.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.