This is the fourth page of your comments on the Hutton inquiry.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
 |  Nothing the enquiry has uncovered points to any real secret or earth shattering information revealed by Kelly  |
What is all the fuss about? Nothing the enquiry has uncovered points to any real secret or earth shattering information revealed by Kelly. Which is probably why Gilligan "sexed" it up. Kelly was guilty of allowing his self importance to be flattered by the media and providing the journalist with something to embellish for his personal ratings. All the other stuff floating around is just padding. Kelly clearly felt taken for a fool and a ride by Gilligan. Great pity but he was the one who spoke to the press.
Keith Nicholls, England Here's my question. How can we trust the BBC (or its website) to accurately report the news, or to express the views of the public, when the organization itself is clearly implicated in perpetuating a blatant lie? Millions come to this web site for impartial news reporting and it is abundantly clear that, in this case above all, they will not get it. The only difference is that we don't know the names or faces of the BBC's spin doctors.
Paul Smith, Scotland
It is surprising to read so many comments suggesting that Dr Kelly 'exposed the lies of the government'. The evidence from the inquiry suggests that Dr Kelly believed the war on Iraq was necessary, supported the government's policy and was not in a position to know whether or not the 45 minute claim was right or wrong. Similarly, those comments suggesting that this enquiry proves that the government was lying seem little short of hysterical. The 45 minute claim came from the intelligence services and the government was told by the most senior intelligence officer that it should be taken seriously. In the circumstances, how has the government lied if it has simply followed the advice it received?
Simon, UK
| Something doesn't add up, but I hope the inquiry will get to it |
The oddest aspect of the tragic death of Dr. Kelly is this: people with no history of psychiatric disorders generally do not kill themselves because they are upset, or feel betrayed, or whatever we are being told was the case with Dr. Kelly. The inquiry heard that Dr. Kelly had no history of depression, and other than seeming a little upset (as might one expect of a person under stress), was quite normal in his behaviour. It just doesn't make sense. Every day many people are placed under intense scrutiny by the media, many are embarrassed, humiliated, betrayed, hurt. Unless they have real mental health issues - and then only rarely - they don't commit suicide. Something doesn't add up, but I hope the inquiry will get to it. Either Dr. Kelly committed suicide for reasons far more devastating than have yet been revealed, or something else is going on.
Ali Abunimah, USA Did the police trace how Dr Kelly "obtained" Coproxamol? Did he get it from his doctor? Family member? Or legally (illegally) from a chemist? I found it strange that they did not follow up on this evidence.
Joe H, USA
The point has been well made in these emails that this inquiry is a sideshow. I believe that the PM used this dossier to justify to us, the electorate, the need to go to war. I don't believe that war was necessary, dossier or not. I feel there is a higher agenda at work. This dossier is worth its weight in gold: it 'justified' the need for war and now it distracts us away from the real question: why did we really go to war? Who really benefited from it? The inquiry also serves the purpose of, quite frankly, boring us all to tears about the whole issue. We're all beginning to hope it will all go away and soon. I suppose that's politics ... create a diversion that matches the enormity of the truth you want to hide!
Bob, UK
| There used to be a time when decent men in government would resign over matters of principal and truth |
There used to be a time when decent men in government would resign over matters of principal and truth. Lord Carrington resigned after the Falklands not because of personal failings but because of the failings of the department he was responsible for. Hoon and his minions in the MOD don't know the meaning of the words decency or honour. Otherwise we would have had several resignations by now following Mrs Kelly's moving testimony.
Colin Knight, Germany One of the duties of care that the MOD had to Dr. Kelly was to protect him from the likelihood of a media pack surrounding his home.
What is really surreal is when some sections of the media criticise the government for disclosing Dr. Kelly's name when they would see nothing wrong with having their staff harass him in his home.
Michael Hennigan, Ireland
It is very clear that Dr Kelly expressed to the BBC that the government had made every effort to ensure that an appropriate level of public concern was raised to make the case for war. BBC then sexed up their story. MoD had nowhere to turn because they approved the text. So they opened it up to throw it back at No 10 by inference. Something had to give.
Paul Ainsworth, UK
About 20 years ago, in an overseas territory, I was in a similar position to that occupied by Dr Kelly. My professional opinion was that people were being put at risk by a failure to recognise scientific and technical realities. Spokesmen lied. I was criticised by UK trained career civil servants as having "too high professional and personal ethics". Normal contact with press and public became intolerable and put me under intense pressure as I struggled between line management and my own conscience. In the end I was rescued by public opinion and leaks by others. One thing for sure however, one can never talk revealingly to the press without authority as [1] it would be unprofessional and [2] they will leave you high and dry.
Dr Denis McNicholl, UK
| We have to accept that Mr Kelly crossed the line |
What is the point of spending so much money on this inquiry when all it achieves is a few recommendations and maybe condemnation at the end? We have to accept that Mr Kelly crossed the line and paid the price. We also have to accept that wars are always fought for economic reasons and WMD was just an excuse to justify monopolisation of Middle Eastern oil supplies.
Masood Soorie, UK Those individuals interested in playing the blame game are likely to be disappointed by the final determination of Lord Hutton. There is either more than enough blame to go around on all sides or there is not enough evidence to place the blame for these tragic events on any one party. Despite the likely murky determination, it is evident that the one individual who could have prevented this sad tale from becoming reality at any number of junctures was Dr. Kelly.
Ian Reynolds, USA
This inquiry is totally unnecessary. It is very simple to understand that Dr. Kelly committed suicide because he felt betrayed by both the government and Andrew Gilligan. There is no WMD in Iraq and the more the talk on this issue the clearer it becomes that Prime Minister Blair lied to the public.
Taumal, Bangladesh
And also let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died at Saddam's hand. This is a battle between the pro-war and anti-war camps by proxy, nothing more. Does anyone really think the BBC was impartial or failing impartially equally 'hard' on both the anti and pro war camps? The anti-war camp was just glad to have the BBC on their side.
George Eldon, UK
My thoughts are with Mrs Kelly and her family and friends. Mr Kelly was simply doing what he thought was right and a pompous man made sure that he was made to feel like a traitor to Britain in a very public manner. Good luck Mr Hutton in finding the truth, the only truth that will be 100% accurate is a good man has lost his life through his attempts at being honest and fair, possibly teaching those he worked with an important lesson.
Emma, England
The fundamental problem is that no one working for the UK government has the freedom to publicly express their personal views on any issue relevant to their expertise. This restriction has become outdated, unworkable and dangerous.
Colin, UK
Whilst his approach is admirable, anyone who believes that Hutton will truly get to the base facts surrounding this affair is utterly naive. There is no such thing as "true democracy".
Steve, UK
| The only way for the government to get out of this mess is to produce real, concrete evidence of actual WMD in Iraq |
George claims that it was the press and media who demanded all the information. By my recollection, it was the government who kept insisting that the BBC give away their source, which the BBC steadfastly refused to do. Then the government, having turned a run-of-the-mill story into a huge deal, made sure that Dr. Kelly was "outed" and did their best to discredit him. The government used the press, rather than vice versa, to divert attention from the fact that they went to war on the flimsiest basis to keep Tony Blair on chummy terms with the Americans. The only way for the government to get out of this mess is to produce real, concrete evidence of actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't hold your breath...
Laura, UK The Beeb is desperate to defend and justify a report that was clearly WRONG -"sexed up". Let us not forget that the starting point of this whole tragedy was Gilligan's report. The testimonies so far (including the Kelly family appearances) point to the act that Gilligan got things wrong! The Beeb should apologise and retract - and THEN we can focus on what the government did right or wrong. Downing Street may have exaggerated the case for war - perhaps they did - but in the specific matter of Dr. Kelly's death, the lion's share of the blame lies first with the BBC, and second (and sadly, but the truth must be told) with the late scientist himself. Every civil servant knows that the press is best avoided. David Kelly contributed to the pressure that built up on him. It is just unfortunate that things ended up the way they did.
David, The Netherlands
In the weeks that this has taken up so far have we really achieved anything? Do we really know anymore? It's a tragedy, so we must blame someone. So therefore we could ruin the career of a journalist, a manager in the BBC, a civil servant, or a politician. Who knows, who cares so long as someone is to blame. Brilliant, and what exactly does it achieve? So far it seems that a man whose career, or reputation was threatened could not cope and decided to end it all. So why not do it to someone else then? The enquiry will present someone's version of the "truth", but the truth has many sides to it, and I wonder which side will be presented for us! Just how many victims do we need?
Peter, UK
It has been suggested we should not forget that a man has died as a result of the matters surrounding the Hutton inquiry. I beg to differ. Over six thousand Iraqi civilians, over ten thousand Iraqi troops, over three hundred coalition forces and a weapons inspector have died. A hell of a price to pay for Blair's rhetoric. If any blame should be attributed to the BBC, it can only be in part associated with the sad death of Dr Kelly. The rest are down to Mr Blair.
David M, England
| Dr Kelly appears to have been sacrificed without hesitation, a casualty to the greater good |
Please allow me to express my deepest sympathy to Dr Kelly's family. Dr Kelly had the right to protection by his employer. This poor man and his family were subject to immense pressure by a Government that relies heavily on spin. I honestly believe that Dr Kelly's conscience would not allow him to stay silent, while certain members of the Government made exaggerated claims to the strategic military capability of Iraq in order to alarm PM to vote for war. Dr Kelly appears to have been sacrificed without hesitation, a casualty to the greater good as the Government would see it. However history has always taught us; " the ends can never justify the means".
Brian Ash, UK We should try not to let emotion rule judgement. For example the documents on the Hutton website show very clearly that Dr Kelly was 'a middle ranking official'- that was his grade - to say otherwise would have been to lie. He was a senior scientific adviser, but does not appear to have had access to the drafting/re-drafting of the dossier - not surprisingly as this was an intelligence role. The MOD did name him, but on the other hand some people had already guessed his identity - probably because Susan Watts sources are very likely to be scientists as she is a science correspondent. This inquiry is not simple and we should wait for the Hutton verdict before condemning anyone - even politicians. However it appears to me that many anti war people are just going to cry 'whitewash' no matter what the outcome.
Mark, UK
What really shocks me in reading some of the comments shown is the indifference shown towards the death of Dr Kelly. He did a great service to the UK by going to the BBC and exposing the lies that the government were telling about Iraq. His memory should be honoured. I cannot really believe that there can be one person left who still thinks that the war with Iraq was justified. In fact I think that the families of those soldiers killed should take legal action against the UK government for the unlawful killing of their husbands and sons.
Vivienne Newsome, Ireland
Lord Hutton's main conclusion should be that the present inquiry does not give sufficient scope to address the questions that have been raised time and again over the government's motives and actions, and that such an enquiry should now begin. Such a conclusion is within his remit, and could not be turned down.
Graham O'Reilly, France
Let's not forget all the comments about the "glare of publicity", "the media spotlight", "managing press reaction", "keeping his name out of the press". It is the press and media who have demanded all the information, it is they who created the pressure. It was from them that Dr Kelly fled to Cornwall, it was to avoid the media that Mrs Kelly requested a video link to Lord Hutton's enquiry. The Media, including the BBC, must accept a lot of the blame for Dr Kelly's death.
Tony Blair's guilt is that he encouraged the press; he chose to ignore Parliament and to work with the press instead. Now he will suffer at the hands of the media, that greedy all devouring beast, only interested in itself, its self-aggrandisement, and greater status. News and comment may be their product but profit is their aim.
George, UK
| They have all wriggled and squirmed, distorted and told various shades of the truth |
I have many thoughts on the entire process leading up to and after the war. But my general feelings are what a mess. I think the government, BBC and the intelligence services have shown themselves up badly (or perhaps as they truly are). They have all wriggled and squirmed, distorted and told various shades of the truth. I do think this government should go and as soon as possible, not that the next one would be much different.
I think the entire system treated Dr Kelly very badly. Perhaps it was ill advised for him to express his concerns in our 'free country'. I am not surprised at the way the institutions treated him or reacted, they are only interested in themselves or kidding the rest of us to do and believe what they tell us.
Robert, UK What saddens me is the culture of blame we have adopted in this country. This was an unfortunate suicide of a man under pressure who had made a bad career mistake. The Government did nothing wrong; Gilligan did what all journalists do. Kelly chose to speak to the BBC and in my view must take responsibility for the content of the story that was ultimately broadcasted. Why are we so desperate to find someone else to blame?
Andy G, UK
All this humbug about David Kelly being 'let down' by the MOD! Anyone who has had anything to do with government will know that when there might be the slightest chance of anything like bad news sticking to a department they would drop David Kelly or anyone else like a hot brick! Come on wise up - that's what spin is all about.
Martin Davidson, Scotland
Alistair Campbell's resignation at the weekend was superbly timed to fill the Sunday Newspapers with stories of "Is this the end of Spin?" and other such stuff - all successfully redirecting the weekend stories from the reality of what in my view the British Government has done to lead us into an unjustified war where many people have died. If Mr Campbell hoped that "his story" would throw up a smoke screen to dilute the impact of Mrs Kelly and her family's testimony to the Hutton inquiry yesterday, then I am delighted today to note that the last spin failed to spin enough.
John Shillingford, Germany
I was extremely saddened by Dr Kelly's death. Trying to heap all the blame at the door of the government is not only unfair, it is disingenuous. It is clear that there are various coalescing agendas with the common goal of unseating Mr Blair's government. From the BBC, an organisation determined to deflect criticisms for its fabricated journalism that set off the unfortunate chain of events as far as Kelly was concerned, to the opposition who are merely shamefully playing politics with a tragic situation. All our sympathy must go to Dr Kelly's family, however, all through this saga, I have continued to ponder how a family man could justify taking his own life whatever the circumstances? I hope Hutton would be brave enough to call a spade a spade and not give in to this ridiculous clamour for scapegoats.
Wilson Onyeka, UK
Blair's motive to "sex-up" the dossier was to persuade the country that it should be completely against this war, by making the country feel threatened.
The motive for BBC to sex up reporting: None
Case closed
Jonathan, Ireland
| What kind of democratic government have we got that stands up and says "It wasn't me, I didn't do anything wrong?" |
This whole Iraq scandal brings to mind an old saying about people who point the finger of accusation should remember that their other three fingers are pointing at themselves.
What kind of democratic government have we got that stands up and says "It wasn't me, I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't name names, I was only doing what I was told." The only way that Blair and co are going to accept responsibility for all the innocent deaths in Iraq is when they are resoundingly voted out of office in the - hopefully imminent - elections.
Huw Hennessy, London The key question for the Hutton enquiry is whether it was part of Dr Kelly's job to talk to the press? If not, then why was formal disciplinary action not taken? If it was, then as a civil servant was he obliged to say only what his political masters wanted him to say?
Ian P, England
It makes me ashamed to be British when I hear of how this man was treated. The government should hold its head in shame.
Marina Thomson, Scotland
So far the picture is this: Dr Kelly undoubtedly did commit suicide (he wasn't bumped off by secret agents as some people have asserted) and it was because of the strain of public exposure. He probably agreed with the decision to go to war, but he felt that the dossier had been "sexed up" and he was a stickler for accuracy.
It was wrong, and quite unnecessary to name him. The government should take full responsibility for that blunder. It is a disgraceful way to treat a brilliant and hard-working public servant and it is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the Blair government. A regime change in Britain is now required. Gordon Brown would do.
Jon G, UK
Janice Kelly's testimony is the first one that sounds like the unvarnished truth.
John Chapman, Belgium
| Lord Hutton will withstand any pressure to permit a cover-up |
I believe Lord Hutton will withstand any pressure to permit a cover-up. He owes that to the world (this "civilised" world we hear so much about) and to Dr Kelly's family in particular. I feel very strongly that Dr Kelly was a dignified, dedicated scientist who was not treated with the respect he deserved.
Pauline Agnew, Spain We should 'trust' the relevant parts of the state to act in our interest. Unfortunately, we've reached a point where most people don't really trust politicians, the various media or civil servants. Quite honestly, when I hear one of them telling me to look at something, my reaction is to wonder what they've got hidden behind their backs.
Steve, UK
The PM, Defence Secretary and those other senior figures in Downing St involved in this affair have all sought to hide behind the actions of others and/or have suddenly lost their memories at awkward moments. How shallow and self serving they all appear in contrast to Mrs Kelly. If any of these apologists for human beings had integrity or decency, they would resign without further delay.
Stephen, Scotland
| Dr Kelly and many others have been caught in the middle of a management game |
What seems to have been missed in the inquiry are the disastrous consequences of fragmenting the public sector into agencies. Dr Kelly and many others have been caught in the middle of a management game, where no-one has a clear view as to who their employers are. It has happened in power companies and railways (see Potters Bar and Hatfield) but to see this in the FO/MOD really brings home the stupidity of it all.
Peter G, UK The inquiry ignores the crucial point. Why did we go to war when there were no WMD? The death of Dr Kelly was a tragedy but pales into insignificance compared to the thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of coalition troops killed or injured in an unnecessary war. There was an inquiry into why we went to war after the Falklands why not after the invasion of Iraq?
Neal Bebbington, Cambridge, UK
Why are we still debating whether or not the UK Government sexed up the report? Don't we already know that there was no imminent threat to the UK or USA? Isn't that enough to answer the question whether the public was misled and whether there was undue pressure on sexing up the report? Our problem is that some of us believe they have the right to kill the others only because they suspect the others may have bad intentions towards them, or possess useful resources or strategic location, or merely because of personal vendetta. The so-called "pre-emptive regime change" doctrine represents mad imperialistic terrorism of the XXI Century that may lead all of us to yet another catastrophe. Let's stop provoking each other and bullying each other but instead let's talk.
Maria Szonert, USA
Maria Szonert, USA - The reason that we are still debating the "sexing up" of this dossier in the UK is because it is important. Whilst I agree with the rest of your comments, I also believe that it is important for MPs and the public to have confidence in the process through which the majority of decisions that affect our lives are taken, and at the moment that confidence has been severely knocked. It is not just about the substance, it is about the process. If our government chose to go into conflict in good faith based on the information that it was presented, that is one thing. It is a totally different issue if the UK Government was led into war under false pretences based on exaggeration and maybe even lies planted on behalf of the ruling party in order to get what they wanted by underhanded means.
Zoe, Wales
| Maybe the truth will out after this inquiry |
This week should show what pressures Doctor Kelly was put under, also the truth and not spin. So far has been a character assassination by the Government and the BBC, all blaming other people. Maybe the truth will out after this inquiry, somehow I doubt it myself. Not until Mr Blair himself resigns and takes everyone responsible with him!
Colin Bartlett, Oxford Why is everyone afraid to say what is becoming increasingly evident - that Dr Kelly had evidently been indiscreet in his dealings with the press and was overcome by the enormity of the repercussions? Sad though his death was, it does not exonerate him from the charge of indiscretion. I am tired of the media trying to lay the blame at everyone else's door. We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions.
Jackie Ryan, England
Was Saddam a threat? Did he have WMD? A party in government in power is elected to make decisions, based on fact and presumed hunches. Sometimes in hindsight you could say that the opposite action was better, but you have to act on the information you have to hand at the time.
Steve, UK
| Tony Blair and George Bush were obsessed with the belief that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world |
It's very clear to me that both Tony Blair and George Bush were obsessed with the belief that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world, and that war was therefore fully justified regardless of the unprecedented public opposition. I strongly suspect that in these circumstances the intelligence community will be more inclined to tell the leadership what they want to hear, rather than the opposite. I hope the Hutton inquiry will address the climate of expectation in which all of this took place, and not just the individual actions and decisions.
David Wright, UK People observing this inquiry fall into three distinct camps. Those who believe that the Government has been telling the truth from the outset and have heard nothing to change their minds and those who feel the same way about the BBC and its position. What of the third camp? They are so giddy from the constant spin and counter spin, that they end up totally switched off. In what way is that different from the usual protracted run up to political elections?
John Matthews, UK
This is deplorable. David Kelly had no chance, it must have seemed like the whole world was against him. The government, right up to the prime minister, his employers in the MOD, it sickens me to think these people believe they have the right to treat people this way. If this had happened in the private sector, those at the top would be facing criminal charges. Blair, Hoon and Campbell, out of an act of decency, should resign now.
Paul, West Yorks, UK
| I can see no reason why Tony Blair and co would lie to save themselves |
Having read the news reports from the Hutton Enquiry, I have to agree with Patrick, UK (below), that the BBC does have some explaining to do. I know that many people don't trust governments, and believe that they lie a lot - but to me, I can see no reason why Tony Blair and co would lie to save themselves. The PM has a level of authority that he wouldn't be stupid enough to risk his job and career by telling lies. The BBC on the other hand can do, since the media will always twist the truth to suit themselves.
Lee Bumstead, UK Yesterday Blair gave another of his impassioned rhetorical statements when he told the Hutton Inquiry that he would have resigned if the Gilligan broadcast had been correct. This seems to be his technique: full-on righteousness, which we are encouraged to applaud or see him fall from grace. Surely a more measured approach in which facts and figures replaced evangelical fervour would win more respect? Blair's lack of a proper sense of proportion seems to me to be a fundamental flaw of his premiership.
Andy, UK
So let me get this straight. The Prime Minister of this country - a man lest we forget with his finger on the nuclear button - has absolutely no idea what his subordinates are doing or saying to the press. He has no idea that they were desperate to silence and then destroy a single individual who dared to blow the whistle on this '45 minutes' nonsense. He didn't know that his Official Spokesman called this man a "Walter Mitty" and spoke of playing "a game of chicken" with the BBC. Just who the hell is running the country then? The elected Prime Minister or a coterie of unelected "special advisors"? Regardless of whether or not he misled Parliament, this man is quite clearly not qualified to properly run a whelk stall, let alone the United Kingdom. Forget all this nonsense about it being the BBC's fault, there is only one option open to us. We have to get rid of this Prime Minister and get ourselves a new one, preferably one who has some remote inkling of what's going on around him.
Tony Mullen, UK
I have always been of the opinion that anything that the government or newspapers said should be treated with a pinch of salt and that the one thing that could be relied upon was the independence of the BBC. No more. Every aspect of the BBC's coverage of this debacle has been tinged with a detectable bias. Whatever the outcome of the enquiry, which I am sure we can all predict, I would hate to see the BBC's reputation for unbiased reporting being the only real casualty
Chris W, UK
Tony Blair was asked on his recent flight from Shanghai to Hong Kong whether he'd authorized the leaking of Dr. Kelly's name. According to the Independent (28/8) he replied: "Emphatically not. I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly." Now am I just unappreciative of the nuances of spin or did he not just give evidence to the exact contrary at the Hutton enquiry?
Richard, Canada
| The Hutton Enquiry is a sideshow |
The Hutton Enquiry is a sideshow. Win or lose, the 45 minute claim and poor Dr Kelly were never the central issue. The central issue is that the nation was led to war on the basis of Iraq's WMD posing a serious and current threat. If that basis proves to be false, whether by accident or design, then those who misled us to war must resign.
Geoff Taylor, UK Nothing yet has indicated why Dr Kelly killed himself, if indeed he did. As a scientist he would have experienced strong opposition to his views and would have learnt to deal with this; in fact, he could well have enjoyed putting forward controversial views. There is something that hasn't come out yet, and I suspect that he was threatened with humiliating demotion or something like that, in an undocumented form. As someone with enough reputation to stand up to the Government, he was clearly a danger to them, the more so as he spoke his mind. As the Tory opposition are so weak, I'm glad that 'Today' had the courage to stand up to the government. It will mean that the same thing never happens again.
Vic, UK
I am very disturbed by the way the BBC is reporting Blair's testimony to Hutton. If you read the whole thing its clear to me, along with other evidence, that no 10 didn't "sex up" the dossier. That is now being ignored it seems. What is now being focused on is the naming of Kelly. The BBC reporting is tightly focused on this and seems to be trying to paint a picture that Blair organised the leaking of his name. The facts seem to be he didn't authorise a leak, but that he made it clear if Kelly was suggested as the source, it should not be denied (for the reasons he states). They are two different things entirely, but the BBC seems to be intent on blurring the issue. This is not what I expect from the BBC and in my opinion it is damaging its reputation even more than it already has been. In fact I am starting to wonder if the BBC should leave the reporting to other news agencies who are not directly involved in the enquiry.
Dave Oddie, UK
| Why does everyone expect things to be black or white? Intelligence is usually murky at best |
Why does everyone expect things to be black or white? Intelligence is usually murky at best. The clearer the facts are, the more likely it is that one has waited too long to act upon them. Consider the opposite scenario: Iraq HAS WMD, one is on its way to London, the PM holds back because there are not yet incontrovertible facts, and the WMD goes off in a small boat in the Thames. The survivors would be howling for Mr. Blair's head, assuming that he still was in possession of it. Do you think that this couldn't happen? Think again. This is what we are fighting to prevent.
John Doyle, USA I am very surprised that it is not obvious to the government that the media, the BBC in this case, have a right and an obligation to report the information they have without necessarily this meaning that they agree. It seems perfectly normal to report the majority of war related news by a simple 'sources say' when the information is according to the official line. The BBC remains one of the last reliable political sources thanks to its independence and to the resulting quality of its work. The government will try to reduce this independence.
Odisseas Panopolous, Greece
A point that appears to have been missed is that the BBC (Andrew Gillingham) are being criticised for not checking out thoroughly there source (Dr Kelly) no one seems to have criticised the Government (MOD) for not checking out their Single Source (Some obscure Iraq General) as their sole reason for going to War. My vote is wholeheartedly with the BBC, keep up the good work, this event will ensure we get more open government in the future.
Gwilym Jones, UK
The PM said, shortly after the death of Dr. Kelly, that he emphatically denied the authorising the leaking of Dr. Kelly's name to the press. Yet at the Hutton Inquiry yesterday he said that he took responsibility for identifying Dr. Kelly to the press. These two statements contradict each other, so both cannot be the truth. This means that one of them is a lie. If the PM has told one lie, then surely this could mean that he has told others. How then can we believe anything that the PM says about the whole sorry Iraq invasion to be the truth? Or about anything else for that matter!
John Shannon, Hong Kong
| The BBC is in a position to present a one sided view against Tony Blair |
Through its extensive infrastructure, the BBC is in a position to present a one sided view against Tony Blair. It publishes quotes from others like Mr Duncan-Smith in order to generate anti-government sentiment. The BBC is lowering itself to shameful tactics. In my view Tony Blair remains a trustworthy character (no other politician come close) and even now, the case for war remains sound because nothing has changed and I fully expect WMD to be found later if not sooner.
Mike, Thailand The 45 minutes claim remains at the crux of this Inquiry. The dossier, in the words delivered by Blair, states that "WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them". Unless a field mortar, chemical, biological or otherwise, is to be classed as a WMD this claim is untrue. Those words are Blair's, not from the original intelligence item. The words may have been crafted by Campbell or someone else but Blair spoke them and has responsibility for their accuracy. I believe it was this statement, perhaps this statement alone, which so troubled David Kelly, a fair-minded man with deep moral convictions, who must have felt that he had to do something to correct this inaccuracy.
JohnM, LyneMeads,UK
What seems to be missed my most of your correspondents, is that Dr Kelly was a renowned world expert on WMD, and possibly the top expert of WMD in Britain. A Scientist in his position should be allowed to make his view known, not matter who is employer is. When the country is going to war about something that he is an expert on, it is his responsibility to tell the public his views on the matter. Remember he is a Scientist and an expert on WMD
Martin, Bristol, England
At some point Dr Kelly must be seen to have taken some responsibility for his actions. He looks like he acted outside his remit and the restrictions of his job. If he expressed his personal opinion then why should he have been allowed to hide behind this cloak of secrecy. If this had been anywhere but MoD his actions would have spelt immediate dismissal. His death, although terribly, terribly sad, does not remove the fact that he acted in a very incorrect way. The evidence is now pointing to the notion of a "Walter Mitty" character.
David Elliott, France
| The PM... and other senior officials have had time to prepare and agree a common approach to the inquiry |
The PM's evidence to the inquiry did not contain anything new. Obviously, he and other senior officials have had time to prepare and agree a common approach to the inquiry. In my view it all boils down to a matter of judgement. Should the "45 minutes" have been included in the dossier? My answer is NO. Should the BBC have reported the concerns about the "45 minutes"? My answer is YES. With hindsight, Downing Street could have just denied the BBC report. Full stop. Coming back to the inquiry, why does the PM choose to use the language "would have merited my resignation"? Would he have resigned or not? This is "spin" because he deliberately sets out to confuse to the general public. This is why he has lost my confidence in relation to the Iraq war.
Mr Peter Kaluba, UK A man has died and everyone from the PM down has disowned responsibility. Gilligan's story was condemned for being a 'single source' - ie. uncorroborated and No 10 went vitriolic against the BBC as a result. Then, John Scarlett said the contentious 45minutes warning intelligence was a 'single source' and second hand, and also refused to reveal the origins. Bottom line: Scarlett's source of WMD info has proved to be a dud because none have been found. Makes you think it must have been Saddam's spin-doctor Comical Ali who was Scarlett's source! Meanwhile, Blair's bravura performance of bluff and counterbluff merely makes Kelly's death all the more questionable.
Nam, UK
I think that the BBC has possibly over stated its case by Andrew Gilligan trying to interfere with the select committee's questioning of Dr Kelly. Nevertheless I urge the BBC to continue to seek after the truth. The media, with all its faults, is the only force that will reveal what is really happening in this country today.
C Adam, UK
At least it has become abundantly clear that the intelligence services rely on hearsay and the government relies on intelligence services. Even though I do not have the citizenship of US or UK, the "blue eyed" government countries, I cannot place any trust on any of that chain of information or command any more. Unfortunately it is the leader of the government that is responsible for all the mistrust or not rectifying the misinformation or decisions based at misinformation. If Blair and Bush were me they would have resigned already long time ago.
Olle Noef, Sweden
| Neither the media nor the Government can be trusted |
How can the Chairman of the BBC suggest to the Hutton enquiry that Alistair Campbell should have used some established BBC complaints process when he himself had a phone call from Tony Blair asking for the '45 minute' charge to be retracted - and Davies turned him down! Neither the media nor the Government can be trusted. Not only that, but you can't trust this site that says it reflects "the balance of views". Even if it tries to, you cannot trust it to. All journalists now have a point of view and it has become acceptable to worry less about it seeping through their journalism. More than the death of one man, more than the Iraq war, this fact will influence all our lives from now on. We will have to learn to be cynical.
Gary Sinyor, UK I am very glad that Lord Hutton and not one of Blair's cronies is running the enquiry. I feel that Blair is culpable. Blair might feel he is always right, I don't think the rest of us agree with that. I for one shall never vote labour again whilst Blair is in office.
P Tonge, UK
First, Bravo to UK for even having such an inquiry - I wish we would/could do the same in USA! I believe the US and UK 'dossiers' were "sexed up" and perhaps even distorted with blurred 'facts' to dovetail with each others. Given VP Cheney's request for US Govt research papers on Iraq oil reserves (evidenced by Judicial Watch), there was another Agenda other than the still elusive WMD at play. I don't believe, though, that PM Blair was part of that agenda I think that there were some in government that took part in the planning, approving and leaking of publicly naming Dr. Kelly - just not Mr. Blair.
Kathleen, USA
I'm no fan of spin, Campbell, or the PM, but it does begin to look as if neither the government nor its intelligence services 'sexed up' anything. The Beeb and Gilligan have some serious explaining to do, and of all the parties involved the Beeb has most to lose. No adult person has ever trusted a government, but we all thought the Beeb was utterly trustworthy. Were we wrong?
Patrick, UK
| We have a government that spun and a nit-picking press. Where's the news in that? |
Is anybody else bored with all this? I'm sorry Dr Kelly died, but I'm afraid he largely brought the pressure on himself - did he expect to be unaccountable for his breach of confidence? Other than that we have a government that spun and a nit-picking press. Where's the news in that?
Graham, UK The facts that have come out so far do not explain why David Kelly would have committed suicide. Neither has there been any information to suggest he was in a mental state that would lead to suicide.
Theodore Breton, USA
Blair has made great play of the fact that Iraq was only 45 minutes from launching WMD and that this was the primary justification for the war. However, in his evidence today he says that although seeing the draft dossier with the 45 minute reference contained within it, he felt no need to make any comment upon it. Unless I am being more than a little naive these two comments do not match.
A Wilson, UK
Tony Blair keeps stating he would resign for this reason or that reason. Why doesn't he just do it and make everyone happy.
Duncan, UK
The BBC was only one of many news organisations reporting doubts about the 'case for war'. The UK government chose to make an issue of one of the BBC reports because they felt they could win a battle about the '45 minutes' claim. We should not get caught up in this game - the issue is the government misleading the public, not just Gilligan's report.
Agnes, Netherlands
| The BBC is going to have to make some fundamental changes |
Heads should roll at the BBC for turning the once trustworthy BBC Today and PM Programmes into radio versions of the gutter press. To listen to the self-justifying BBC one could almost be led to believe that it is perfectly reasonable to level false accusations at any public figure and then proceed to shout foul and intimidation when those being persecuted try to defend themselves. The BBC appears to demand that everyone from Tony Blair down should be falling on their swords but isn't it the BBC who is at fault here? Let there be no doubt, once the smokescreens have cleared, the BBC is going to have to make some fundamental changes. How about burning John Humphreys and Andrew Gilligan at the stake for starters?
John, UK The charge is not simply whether Downing Street "inserted" the 45 minute claim, but that they deliberately presented information in a misleading manner, talking about weapons when the intelligence implied weapons programmes and talking about weapons of mass destruction when the intelligence implied mortars. This charge has received a lot of support from the evidence presented to the inquiry.
Martin Juckes, UK
I believe we are going to see an unprecedented reaction from the people of Britain if this affair is closed without any responsibility being taken by the government. Britain's involvement in the war on Iraq has been the most disturbing action taken by a government in my lifetime - but it may also be the most important. This country has suffered from acute apathy for far too long. Now we have seen that this stance can actually lead to war with a sovereign state against the wishes of the people - perhaps now more people will take politics seriously, and never again shall we have to suffer another Tony Blair - a disgrace to the nation & to the Labour party.
Nick Witcher, England
Is the Hutton Inquiry a means to attack and intimidate the BBC? It certainly seems to bring out voices calling for action against the BBC because it 'bites the hand that feeds it'. As a taxpayer, and therefore a payer of the BBC,I consider the BBC has proved its worth in standing up to this and previous governments on occasion. Not every time I'm afraid, but at least it has done so more often than the sycophantic press in the UK.
Owen Ephraim, England
| Is there no one in this government who accepts responsibility for anyone? |
Is there no one in this government who accepts responsibility for anyone? What do we pay them for? Are we honestly supposed to believe that the masters of spin were unable to control the way in which MoD press officers released Dr Kelly's name? It suited the government's purposes to have his name out in the open and they let it out when they were perfectly capable of holding it back.
Michael, UK Live point by point for the PM, no point by point for your own chairman, an extremely one sided analysis, and a refusal to retract what is surely a disproved fantasy. When does the impartial BBC that TAX PAYERS fund resume normal service, or do we all switch over? I'm no Blair fan but I can't vote Gilligan out of office.
Steve Way, UK
Why did Tony Blair feel it necessary to take hold of 'outing' Dr. Kelly. There was no need to name him. Basically, the government were using it to distract from their crumbling reasons for war, and Campbell, like the tabloid reporter that he was, was out for revenge after having been seen to be dipping his toe in matters which are far too important for his egotistical mind.
Rupert , UK
There was a former Defence Minister on Newsnight yesterday, trying to suggest Dr Kelly was probably the architect of his own misfortunes. Now this morning, I learn that Jack Cunningham has said more or less the same thing on radio. Maybe I'm being cynical, but is there an orchestrated move by the Labour machinery to besmirch Dr Kelly before this inquiry concludes? Once again, this Government is waging another campaign to pre-empt the outcome of this exercise and "spin" it in it's favour.
Jimi Falana, United Kingdom
| Let's have an end to the creeping agenda of journalists creating rather than reporting news |
I am an Australian working here and it gives me faith in the future that so many citizens in this country think it still matters if Ministers, prime Ministers, civil servants and journalists lie. Every democracy needs a therapeutic cleanse of independent, fearless public scrutiny such as this. Let's have an end to the creeping agenda of journalists creating rather than reporting news.
Cheryl, UK If Gavyn Davies thinks that a story effectively accusing the Government of taking this country to war by manipulating intelligence to suit its own argument is "routine" then perhaps HIS judgement should be called into question.
AJ Edwards, U.K.
Blair's defence is that he would have quit if this were all true? Is this some sort of joke?
Matt, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (ex. UK)
I've worked with the MoD when I served with the RAF, and dealt with senior civil servants. The MoD, like much of the civil service, is managed by highly ambitious individuals who have their own, not the country's, requirements at the forefront of their minds. Dr Kelly may have been wrong to speak to the BBC, but for Alistair Campbell to use this to protect him and the Government is shocking. Everyone is covering their backsides, instead of honestly sorting out the problems and moving on.
Neil Small, Scotland
It would appear after the Prime Minister's evidence to the Hutton inquiry that Mr Gilligan mislead the BBC, and in turn the British people.
Pat Smyth, Ireland
| At best, the British people were tricked, at worst we were lied to |
For me, the most telling moment of the inquiry to date was when John Scarlett revealed that the 45 minute claim actually referred to short and medium range battlefield weapons and not to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, although the dossier clearly framed them within the context of WMD. So at best, the British people were tricked, at worst we were lied to. That is my conclusion.
David Orton, UK Why is everyone else open to scrutiny and criticism except for the BBC? Truth stands on its own and the BBC should welcome challenges to prove its integrity. Tony Blair did not go to war based solely on the 45 minute WMD report. He should be commended for his stand against tyranny and states that sponsor terrorism.
Andrew McNeil, USA
Everyone seems to have forgotten that a man died as a result of this fiasco. All the talk about how if the BBC had retracted the story it would have blown over or that if the story was true Blair would have quit is irrelevant. Someone show me some hard evidence why an intelligent man supposedly committed suicide as a result of a report.
Charlotte, UK
Reading the accounts of the evidence of Gavin Davies I find his evidence to be a hideously weak defence of the BBC's actions. The BBC launched an unprecedented attack on the elected government of this country and clearly overstepped the mark in doing so. The refusal to even apologise let alone consider the question of resignations just confirms what a bunch of self righteous, pig heads are running the BBC and does nothing to restore confidence in the BBC. Just what does it take to admit that the BBC were wrong? To say that an apology would compromise the independence of the BBC is ridiculous. Not to apologise when they were clearly so wrong may not undermine independence but it does undermine its credibility which is worse in my view.
Laurence Mathers
| To pin this on the government is ridiculous |
I do not believe Tony Blair is a warmonger. I think it foolish to suggest that "enhancing" a document in order to go to war, was the government's strategy. Blair was aware that there was not a majority backing of the war and is not naive enough to believe an amended document would change public opinion. It is sad that someone lost their life of course but to pin this on the government is ridiculous and people should be wary of hostile-press inspired conspiracy theories.
Jamie May, UK What difference will all this make? A man took his own life and we may never know for what reason. Nothing this inquiry can do will change that. The politicians are never fully accountable for their actions; yes they resign or are sacked. Big deal! It is a total waste of money and time as it will achieve nothing. What is interesting is the continued use of the phrase "apparently committed suicide"; is there some doubt over that, or is there evidence to suggest otherwise?
Charles, UK
This Government took us to war based on a dossier, which included claims from a single uncorroborated source. But when a journalist comes up with a story against the Government from a single source, all hell lets loose. So its alright to go to war on the word of one witness, but it is not alright to question the Government on the word of one senior member of the MOD? Double standards!
T Davis, UK
Will the BBC ever admit that they were the ones who "sexed up" their story, and will they ever apologize to the British people?
Jennie Taliaferro, U.S.A.
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Hutton report: video
