The chairman of the Commons committee which interrogated Dr David Kelly three days before his death is giving evidence to the Hutton inquiry.
Donald Anderson will be asked if the committee was too hostile to Dr Kelly, who apparantly committed suicide after convincing the committee that he could not have been the BBC's source for a story that the government had embellished evidence of Iraq's weaponry.
After his death, the BBC confirmed Dr Kelly was the original source.
What are your views of the inquiry so far? Send us your comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
"Mr Smith said the prime minister had become increasingly worried about weapons of mass destruction after the 2001 US terror attacks." Yes but, the attacks were done with AIRPLANES. That's what's always puzzled me, and made me very suspicious about this WMD thing.
Richie, UK
 |  I am ashamed of our Government |
Why Iraq, why then? Too darned right Mr Campbell. We went to war and invaded a country in no small part due to this dossier and now no-one seems to know how the 'sexier' bits got in there. I really do think it is shameful and I am ashamed of our Government. This 'unique threat' line now being adopted is a brilliant spin (is it a new addition?) Good luck Lord Hutton and may you be as brave as you have to be to do the right thing.
David Trent, UK Oddly enough the BBC coverage supports the BBC. And almost everyone else in the media doesn't.
Peter, UK
[In response to Peter, UK] Could it possibly be that the majority of the rest of the British media are against the BBC on this matter because a) The BBC got the story and not them, and of b) Rupert Murdoch is right behind Bush and Blair and would love to see the BBC lose favour? Perhaps Peter would like Sky to take over as Britain's main news outlet?
Richard Bryant, UK
Who actually put the 45 mins claim into the document please?
Sharon, England
Campbell denies having "sexed-up" the dossier. But he admits intervening, to tell Sir John Scarlett to tone it down and cut the rhetoric. This seems to indicate that he believes he had the power to influence the tone of the dossier. Nonetheless, it seems that the dossier actually became sexier after his intervention. Res ipsa loquitur or what?
Neil, UK
I lived in Brazil and for 20 years (1964/1984) the press was under censorship. I must say that the current row with the BBC does remind me of the generals' censors. All citizens should stand up and defend the BBC and the freedom of the press. Blair and his cronies act as generals: neglect the people and disrespect the press.
Juneia Mallas, UK
Very little which has emerged at the inquiry so far alters the view I formed before Dr Kelly's highly regrettable death. The government relied on a single uncorroborated source for the 45 minute claim. The BBC relied on a single uncorroborated source that Number 10 had influenced the inclusion of the claim in the dossier. It looked and still looks as though neither claim was correct. As the inquiry continues, perhaps greater attention can turn to solving the awful problems facing the people of Iraq now.
Tom Marshall, Scotland
Mr Tony Blair has destroyed all his stockpile of trust. He has shown, he is only and just a common politician.
Carmelo, France
I have been following this story for a while, but I confess I don't know what the inquiry wants to find out. Intelligence data from any source is, at best, an educated guess no matter how reliable the source. It is the decision maker's prerogative to either act on it or disregard it because it is the decision maker, not the intelligence provider, who is ultimately accountable for the decision made. If Prime Minister Blair agreed with his intelligence providers or if he disagreed with them, he had just as much of a chance of being right as they did. It is tragic that Dr. Kelly committed suicide, but the reason is probably more personal and emotional for him than simply being identified as a critic of the government's policy toward Iraq. Journalists used to have a code of conduct about verifying sources of information before going public. Now, it seems perfectly acceptable to simply throw uncorroborated stories out and let others jump to conclusions and stir things up. That's not responsible journalism.
Gene D. Smith, United States This whole debate moved away from the rights and wrongs of the war some time ago. It is now solely about the way the Tony Blair and his colleagues handled the intelligence information in their possession and the truthfulness of what they told the public and media. Currently it looks as if they were willing to say or do anything to make their case and were very far distant from the "whiter than white" ethical government they promised to be when elected in 1997. The BBC may have its faults in this case, but it's the government that needs to be 100% trustworthy, I don't think they are.
John R Smith, UK
If no one is willing to discuss or even mention the very real possibility of David Kelly having been murdered rather than committing suicide, then the inquiry may well be a waste of time and money.
Benn, U.S.
Alastair Campbell is not elected and it seems that the whole state of government hangs on Mr Campbell's evidence today. I do not believe that this is right. The Government itself should be taking centre-stage and delivering many of the questions that are being posed. Is Mr Campbell eventually to be the political scapegoat for this whole sorry mess or is someone in Government going to come forward and state unequivocally that the dossiers were far from convincing and they were going to war with Iraq regardless.
Mark Dowe, UK
| Currently the BBC's news coverage has a blatant political agenda |
I was brought up to regard The BBC as a bastion of impartiality, honesty and integrity. Currently the BBC's news coverage has a blatant political agenda which irritates me and the millions that don't slavishly follow the Guardian/Independent newspaper line. I believe that unless the BBC returns to its fundamental values quickly the charter review will be the beginning of the end.
Stuart Eakins, UK Why aren't all the drafts of the dossier being made available? Each draft existed in both paper and electronic form. It's stretching the bounds of credibility to suggest that such drafts do not exist. Having access to all the drafts would go a long way to settling the arguments about who did what when and why.
John M, Lyne Meads, UK
Your reports are still far too one sided - what about the fact that Dr Kelly himself was in favour of the war effort, that he did believe that Saddam posed a threat, that he did believe there were weapons of mass destruction - all hidden - and he himself was looking forward to getting back to Iraq to wheedle them out? Of course the government had to put a report together to support its own political strategy. No information was invented. The real problem to have emerged from this is that of the media and its own form of spin.
Jacquie Italy
It must be obvious to most people by now that this was a war that really had nothing to do with a threat to us but revenge for sep 11th. The Government never gave us a convincing reason for going to war and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Congratulations to the BBC for not backing down under so much pressure from this control freak of a Government
Peter Adams, UK
| Focus on the real issues, getting Iraq's economy running and under the control of the Iraqi people |
Who really cares if the government glorified the 45 minute claim? Every government will take the worst case scenario to help their case. We cannot change the past and it would be much more sensible to focus on the real issues, getting Iraq's economy running and under the control of the Iraqi people before the whole region turns massive civil war.
Glenn Jones, England As this enquiry drags on I see more and more the BBC in the invidious position of being prosecution and defence at the same time. Why should money from licence fees (our money) be spent on watching the BBC defend itself by attacking others.
Nick, UK
To Ashley Sansom, UK: Perhaps the reason that there are a few reactions from abroad is that the discussion and inquiry are very much downgraded to a British internal party-political and government vs. BBC fight. The internationally significant side is lost a bit; whether or not we, as citizens of countries in a position to start, support or oppose wars together with our leaders can rely on the integrity and factual correctness of the information presented to us by world leaders.
Frans, Netherlands
I understand that Dr Kelly was well regarded in his field, and I certainly agree that his death was a terrible loss, BUT for the purposes of a public policy discussion, why does everyone assume Dr Kelly is the sole voice of truth? Isn't it important to recognize that many people contributed to the report and that all of the evidence is "intelligence".
Gail Lammers, USA
| Thank goodness Dr Kelly had the conscience to speak out |
I'm interested to read the comments from the States. It's even more interesting to see what fellow Europeans think. Let's see more from Germany, France and Italy. I'm sure there are strong feelings that the Brits fell flats on their faces in the rush to fall in line with the White House. Thank goodness Dr Kelly had the conscience to speak out about his concerns and thanks also to the BBC for keeping the investigative spirit going in the face of fierce government pressure. Sure the Beeb may have made a few errors of judgement. Compare those with the massive confidence trick attempted by Bush and Blair. They almost made it!
Ashley Sansom, UK
Behind all this is the PM's cooperation with the USA. Winston Churchill had exactly the same approach that put first the survival of these islands. I do not remember the media and other interested parties calling him a poodle.
James Westerman, UK
It is fascinating reading the comments here. We are in the first week of an inquiry that will probably take several months, and people are able to categorically state that 'so and so ' was at fault. Let's wait a while to see ALL of the evidence before we rush off like a news reporter with a deadline.
Barry P, England
| Dr Kelly said himself that he was not against government policy over Iraq |
Whether Dr Kelly gave away state secrets to Gilligan and Watts is immaterial; the fact is he had unauthorised meetings with them. It seems quite obvious to me that that he was under far more pressure from journalists than he was from the government; after all the media wants to get Tony Blair by whatever means possible. Oh, and everyone also seems to have forgotten that Dr Kelly said himself that he was not against government policy over Iraq, but simply the terms in which the justification for going to war was put.
Steve, UK Kelly was wrong to break the rules by talking to journalists. Gilligan was wrong to overstate the case against the government and the government were wrong to spin the dossier as they did and then to lean on Kelly in an attempt to embarrass the BBC. Most people knew this weeks ago so why is the inquiry going over and over these points? Surely the most important points are did Kelly commit suicide or not? If so why? And if not who killed him? I'm not sure the inquiry is getting any closer to these answers.
Robert, UK
The Hutton Inquiry is not going to give us, the ordinary guys, any idea about what really happened. Hutton was wrong to say this should not have been televised, it should. How can he say that putting Gilligan on TV (or Watts or Campbell etc) would make it more uncomfortable for them?! I don't care HOW uncomfortable it is for them, it's time for some truth. This inquiry will turn out to be useless.
Dr David Gable, USA/UK
| This debate has become unhelpfully polarised |
This debate has become unhelpfully polarised. The anti-war groups are stabbing away blindly at the smallest of chinks in Blair's armour. The loyal and faithful are defending their leader and dissing the BBC. Yet none of us can win here - whatever the outcome of Lord Hutton's travails. The truth is that either we were right to go to war and the reasons given were valid (in which case that threat remains somewhere) or we were wrong, and therefore let down or misled by government. Either way we are faced with a stark and menacing reality.
Steve Buttercase, UK What is infuriating is that this inquiry is allowing the British media to ignore the real news, the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Only this past week the worldwide media have publicised the discovery of orders given by Saddam Hussein to fire chemical shells at coalition troops. Thanks to British intelligence work Iraqi commanders ignored these orders. I find it offensive that such stories are ignored in favour of a sideshow.
Andrew Paterson, UK
It's very naive to expect a civil servant can make such a colourful allegation against his employer and yet have his name kept secret. Surely everyone with that kind of job should expect to be held accountable for their actions?
AS, UK
My father taught me to tell the truth, because you can always tell it twice. Having learned over the 'new Labour' years to distrust just about everything that comes out of the No 10 spin machine, it's a pity that their fathers didn't teach them the same basic rule of life.
Ian Olive, Azerbaijan
| These unelected officials seem untouchable |
I hope the civil servant who leaked Dr Kelly's name to the press now knows a little of how he felt. It will never turn out to be a civil servant's fault, though. These unelected officials seem untouchable, no matter how grossly incompetent they have been; in contrast to the rest of us, whose fault it always is when the civil service messes things up.
David Hazel, UK Just a small voice I want to add to the masses : please can we get the chance to vote for Mr Campbell. He's the most powerful man in the UK and he can't be touched. That's bad for democracy.
John, UK
This may as well be called the "mutton" enquiry. Sure, a scapegoat or two will be found. However the real instigators behind the Iraq war will not allow themselves to be exposed, they are simply too powerful. Tony Blair will never tell us the real reason he took us to war - it certainly wasn't WMD or UN resolutions, that much is obvious.
Jane, Lancaster, UK
There is civil servant in the government who is responsible for the dodgy dossier. According to the Blair administration this person has made a "mistake". In my opinion that was actually intentional fraud and these things just don't happen by accident. In my opinion this person has been protected by the Blair administration and hasn't explained how this "mistake" has happened. Now the Blair administration has to explain why a person breaking the law (by altering a plagiarized thesis and presenting it as if it was a intelligence report) is being protected while another breaking confidentiality regulation is thrown to the wolves.
Miltos Makridis, Greece
I think all this concern over how Dr. Kelly's name came to be released is misplaced. He was a senior MoD official concerned with highly sensitive security matters and yet was giving unauthorised briefings to the press attacking the government he was working for! Of course his name should have been released! If the government faces leaks it has to be able to expose them and force those who do the leaking to repeat their claims publicly (or withdraw them). Otherwise confidentiality won't exist in government at all.
Andrew, London, UK
| The semantics over who said what is obscuring the main question |
Don't expect the truth to come out, the enquiry is sponsored by the Government, its terms of reference set by the Government. The semantics over who said what is obscuring the main question, did Blair take us into a war knowingly using dodgy dossiers to persuade Parliament/us to agree to war that was in effect already committed to months earlier. For the lives lost to date and those who will lose their life before this is finished, Blair, Hoon and Campbell should resign now.
Mike, England
Can someone explain to me why the prime minister's spokesman, Tom Kelly, who apologised after suggesting Dr Kelly was a "Walter Mitty" character, was not dismissed instantly? The idea that someone with such grossly poor judgement is still working in Downing Street shows that abysmally low levels of competence are considered acceptable and normal in government offices.
Paddy, Switzerland
It is amazing that only comments critical of the Blair administration are making it in BBC's discussion of the Kelly affair. Far be it for the BBC to show a little journalistic integrity and actually admit that it made a mistake.
PJ Swenson, USA
"Res ipsus loquitor" - things speak for themselves. In my view, the Blair administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, persecuted Dr. Kelly for trying to set the record straight, attempted to intimidate the BBC as well, and is now trying to brazen it out in front of the Hutton inquiry. I am one of many Americans who wish that Blair had not been our ally in this dreadful affair, and hope that he is forced to resign.
Glenn W. Smith, United States
It seems plain from the documentary evidence available on the Hutton Inquiry website that Mr Campbell was a regular complainant about the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war. It is little wonder that he was then able to "lose his top" when the Gilligan report came out.
Edwin Thornber, UK/Romania
| This inquiry is a brush up job |
The BBC will come out the losers. This inquiry is a brush up job, yes some heads may roll, but not the heads that should go. Blair will still be there with his pious attitude, "Not me guv." This could mean a shuffle at the BBC but won't affect the coming contract. No government is that daft to break up the Corporation, but will there be some side effects, change at the top? Maybe. It is Blair who should go along with Campbell and Hoon. As it stands a black cloud is over the BBC, everyone is putting the knife in.
Gil Bolton, England Everyone seems to now be splitting hairs on the sideline issues in the Hutton inquiry, about who may have said and done what? When? And where? The real issue is to be told the precise chemical and physical detail of the weapons that can be deployed within 45 minutes and have mass destructive capability? How did they get lost? And will they ever be found?
Mike, UK
Lord Hutton's inquiry is an example to us all for its thoroughness, honesty and integrity. It is an example that New Labour and the BBC would do well to follow.
Graham Shelton, England
I do hope that Lord Hutton will not tolerate any spin from Alastair Campbell and the staff of Downing Street when they appear before him. People of Britain have been lied to long enough.
Hyder Ali Pirwany, England
Poor Dr Kelly. He was obviously enjoying the excitement of being the "mole" and was terrified when the whole story came to light. He misled the enquiry because he was afraid - anyone would have behaved the same. Disgrace on the politicians who threw him to the wolves. Pity his heartbroken family. We grieve for them. Shame on the government for leading us to war on such flimsy evidence. Laud the BBC for having the courage to question the authenticity of the evidence. Ignore Mr Campbell's ranting. He's history.
Maureen Bassill, England
| Dr Kelly found himself embroiled in the ongoing feud between the BBC and the government |
I fully support the decision to have an inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly. Dr Kelly found himself unintentionally embroiled in the centre of the ongoing feud between the BBC and the government. The BBC has a duty to honestly and truthfully report the news; not to add its own spin, and manipulate people's words. As we have seen from this episode the consequences often lead to people's lives being turned upside down. As Dr Kelly testified to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee; he regretted ever talking to journalists. Unfortunately one outcome of this sad episode will be that government officials and civil servants will be tight-lipped and news reporting will suffer.
Nigel, UK
Apparently it is unfashionable in the UK to inquire into the cause of death at an inquest. Were it otherwise, it would seem there is suspiciously little evidence to conclude Dr Kelly was in a suicidal frame of mind. Indeed, he seems to have been quite eager to resume his work. Coupled with the fact that as a cause of death, knife wounds can be inflicted as easily by another party as by the victim, one has to wonder whether this was truly a suicide or something more sinister.
Larry Coates, USA
Having read the transcript of Susan Watts' conversation with Dr Kelly I am somewhat surprised at her forthright 'spin' on the conversation. As far as I can see from the transcript, Dr Kelly clearly intimates that the September document was filtered through the Blairspeak of the PM's press office, aka Alistair Campbell. I can see no reason whatsoever to suggest that Kelly's conversation with Watts in any way contradicts Gilligan's report.
Stevie Anderson, Scotland
It is heartening for me to see the UK investigating its highest officials disgraceful conduct. We in the United States are not allowed to question the Bush and Republicans illegal, unethical, dishonest actions. The Bush/Republican administration violently represses any such freedoms in the United States of America or anywhere else in the world.
David Richards, USA
| I think he took his own life because he could not bear the guilt of not having spoken sooner |
I believe that Dr Kelly's anguish and despair started when he first read the dossier before the war even started. I think he took his own life because he could not bear the guilt of not having spoken sooner and exposed the lies, and possibly could have halted the rush to war and the many lives lost. He obviously needed to talk to someone about his guilt and Gilligan was the one. I also don't think he was too concerned about the exposure. I can't help but think of the poor man alone on that hillside with so much to bear. May he rest in the peace of God and his family rejoice, he was truly an honourable man.
Rod Macleod, Scotland
The government ruined the future of one of its top advisers who dared to speak out. The man couldn't take the humiliation brought upon him. The way how justice is implemented by this government is also not my view about justice.
Pierre Beerkens, Netherlands
I knew from the start that the government was laying about the reasons to attack Iraq, hence my complete boredom and lack of interest in this smokescreen and diversion tactic of an inquiry.
Greg Brown, UK
I think that anyone given evidence should take the oath, not to do so makes a mockery of this inquiry, I bet some of the next lot have already got their answers ready
ken smith, UK
I hope this inquiry will not result in another death.
Lansana Konneh, Bangladesh/ Sierra Leonean
Now I am even more clearly in what the saying 'Like opening a can of worms' means. If Blair had been honest in the reason for going to war was to be rid of a vicious dictator I am sure he would have got substantial backing. As things stand I doubt if he will survive this and will succeed in getting his name in the history books which he craves but certainly not the way he wanted. As a life long Labour supporter I feel badly let down by him and his cronies.
Bill Edwards, UK
I am afraid that the British media and the public have converted the whole issue to the most exciting reality show, in which every one can take part. No one cares about Dr Kelly, the occupation of Iraq, the sufferings brought to its people and least of all to the fact that they are being deceived by their leaders.
Sarath Sasi, Germany/India
| Lord Hutton, I feel sure, will not leave a stone unturned |
My heart goes out to Mrs Kelly and her family. I hope that they find the strength to come through all this anguish and that finally they will have some solace when the people who hounded him and tried to use him as a scapegoat, face up to what they have done. Lord Hutton, I feel sure, will not leave a stone unturned to find the answers we are all seeking.
Juliet, Cornwall My concern about the Hutton Inquiry is that it will slalom through the issues without addressing them head-on. Are these lawyers qualified to recognise a motivation for suicide? The key issue that remains from the Iraq War is why Tony Blair was convinced it was necessary. The population of the UK was not convinced by the arguments and if one accepts that Blair is an intelligent man one has to conclude that he would not have been convinced either by that evidence. This is why the various dossiers were 'hardened up' and why the Government was so clearly desperate to make it appear that Iraq had WMD. So, what did Tony know, or what pressure did Bush apply to him, that persuaded him to pursue the war?
Bill Redway, UK
A government of integrity, which commands the respect of the people, would have had no need to resort to furious mudslinging to try to correct a reporting inaccuracy (if that is what it was). However, things are as they are.....
Bob, UK
The inquiry should focus on the new role the BBC finds itself in; that of being anti-American, anti-government, and anti-Dimbleby in its style of "reporting" the news.
Paul Nelson, Australia
| Nothing in the full transcripts to date suggests that Gilligan was right to infer that Campbell 'sexed up' the dossier |
Nothing in the full transcripts to date suggests that Gilligan was right to infer that Campbell 'sexed up' the dossier. Watts and Hewitt describe complex, heavily qualified conversations with Kelly that they then reported without inference. By contrast, Gilligan's overly colourful journalism is bound to be cited by Hutton as the first step down the path that led to Kelly's needless death.
David, UK There is no honour in this inquiry and no honour in a prime minister that hangs on to power like a third world dictator. This government's credibility has already vanished, yet they twist and turn at the expense of a dead man and his family.
Gerry Noble, UK
Whatever the outcome of this enquiry, Tony Blair is going to pay the price at the next elections. I just can't believe he has the nerve to stand for a third term! Is there no end to this mans ego?
Gerry Noble, UK
Why do I read so much about what the government did wrong or lied about in the BBC and almost nothing about Ms Watts' comments? It's the lead story on the Kelly inquiry in every other news venue on the planet.
BR, Hong Kong
I don't see written here about Ms Watts' revelations that she had to hire a separate legal brief because BBC bosses were 'leaning' on her to force her to lie under oath and support Andrew Gilligan. Everywhere else has reported it.
Richard H, UK
How tragic this whole affair has become. No one it seems is helping to assuage the grief Dr Kelly's family are engulfed in at this time; in fact the Hutton enquiry is prolonging it. And what will be the result? It will find everyone and yet no one to blame for David Kelly's death. Had the government acted as honourably in the beginning as did Dr Kelly, he might still be alive today. Yet, like a dog with a bone, the government still will not let go, such is their desire to appease a nation horrified at the possibility of being led into a war on suspect intelligence. At the end of the enquiry everyone involved will be found to be blameless, there will be handshakes all round and our apathetic nation will soon forget the death of an honourable man.
Ron Scrase, UK/Norway
This inquiry is a sham and all it will do is add more stress to the family of Dr Kelly. The outcome is already becoming obvious with the government spin doctors vindicated and the BBC the evil news demon. It is a shameful period in British politics which has ultimately lost a great mind and its credibility with its people and the rest of the world.
MS, London
It is a tragedy that David Kelly has died as a result of the war in Iraq. I am sure he was essentially a good man and a good public servant. My sympathies are with his family. But those who question the decision of the Defence Secretary to sent him before the Select Committee on the basis that this was a political arena - and no place for a Civil Servant - are missing the point. If David Kelly had had kept out of politics - and recorded discussion he had with Susan Watts is surely evidence that he had chosen to enter the realms of politics - there would have been no need for his department and the Secretary of state to contemplate how to satisfy the public interest in what he did indeed to say to journalists. I am afraid that in spite of my sympathies for David Kelly and his family it cannot be and should not overlooked that when he left his brief and "gossiped" with journalists that he put his reputation and career at risk.
Ian Ducat, UK
| There isn't anyone emerging from this sorry saga with credit |
There isn't anyone emerging from this sorry saga with credit. The Government lied (again), the BBC (by its own admission) misrepresented the facts, and all this contributed to the death of Dr Kelly. And to those bleating that the Conservatives are just as bad, Labour has now been in power more than 6 years. Just remember why they were out of power so long themselves, as they seem to have forgotten!
Jamie, UK I find it amazing that people can apparently be so shocked and outraged at a mistake in BBC reporting that would have gone unnoticed were it not for Alastair Campbell's complaint, and yet not see the irony inherent in this. The BBC mistake pales into insignificance next to the mistake the government has made over Iraqi WMD. This attack on the BBC is a classic diversionary tactic from a government in severe hot water, and it seems people have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Let he who is without spin cast the first stone Mr Campbell!
Gez Smith, Bristol, UK
The BBC reported and confirmed basically what the public expected: That the substance of the reasons given for war were exaggerated. Parliament had reservations about the war but No 10 pushed it through. Now we see no substantive evidence to support the 'intelligence' produced by No 10 and a scapegoat was sought. They pushed too hard and a respected scientist has died along with a large number or Iraqis and those remaining have a standard of living that has gone down hill. This is not joined up thinking and we deserve better from world leaders. What has Blair and Bush to be proud of? They should both quit immediately.
A Walker, UK
| I think BBC reportedly correctly. Unfortunately this was not what the government wanted |
I think BBC reportedly correctly. Unfortunately this was not what the government wanted. Personally I got my news from the BBC and Arabic channels and could see the BBC was the best of the Western media but still left out much of the truth.
A Rana, London, UK If the MOD hadn't released Dr Kelly's name none of this would have happened. It was entirely out of order for No 10 to disclose his name and throw accusations in such a public light.
Dana, England
Don't know about anyone else but I'm bored of the whole affair. The fact appears to be that we went to war for reasons that seemed dubious to the majority including the intelligence professionals and nothing has been found since. All this bickering and posturing has resulted in the tragic death of Dr Kelly. Let's just work on the exit strategy from Iraq, learn from the mistake and move on.
Martin, UK
This country will be for ever indebted to Dr David Kelly for his openness in laying bare government manipulation of intelligence information to further its own political ends. I intend no political bias here for I believe that the Conservatives are just as likely to be guilty. Like many, I am now intensely distrustful of politicians and the whole UK civil service machine. Although the BBC are not coming out of this terribly well, were it not for their reporting, issues now being analysed by the Hutton enquiry would never have come to public notice.
It is essential that we defend the independence of the BBC against hinted government interference next year. Both Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies have my wholehearted support. The US with its Patriot Act is now effectively, a police state. We risk a similar situation occurring here unless news media continue to expose political intrigue.
Peter Williams, UK
This whole business is a smokescreen. Where are the terrible weapons we were told Iraq has and was able to deploy within 45 minutes? Where are the things which made Iraq such a threat that all those UN sanctions were necessary and led to war? Where are they, Mr Blair and Mr Bush?
Tony Patman, UK
The substance of Gilligan's story was obviously correct - there were important government officials who felt that the weight of evidence about WMD was exaggerated. But the whole story was blown out of all proportion. It was obvious to anybody semi-informed that the government was exaggerating the importance of its specific WMD evidence. But that didn't really matter, because those of us (like myself) who wanted to go to war with Iraq were not centrally concerned with these particular WMD claims anyway! All a waste of time, money energy, and (very sadly) human life.
Andrew, London, UK
Contrary to the popular view, I expect Blair and Campbell are smiling all over their faces as the media attention has been so completely diverted from the real issue, namely that Blair knowingly and deliberately misled Parliament by placing huge emphasis on a claim that he knew to be dodgy.
John Moss, UK
| It is no use to maintain that Dr Kelly believed that the government gave Iraq fictional WMD capabilities |
The September dossier was/is consistent with previous assessments published by UNSCOM and the Institute For Strategic Studies. These in the main were consistent with the views of Dr Kelly. It is no use to maintain that Dr Kelly - or any serious authority - believed that the government gave Iraq fictional WMD capabilities in the September dossier. That is why the specifics of what Gilligan said in the 6.07 broadcast are fundamental. He said that the government knowingly included content that was probably wrong. That is, the BBC allowed a reporter to accuse the government of lying in order to justify a possible war. Dr Kelly never said that. But because Gilligan did, he misrepresented and compromised Kelly, setting up the tragic chain of events that led to the Hutton inquiry.
David, UK Why does there not seem to have been any critical textual analysis of the September dossier which was the basis for convincing public and Parliament to take this country to war? The 45 minute claim occurs four times in the dossier, once in the foreword by Tony Blair and three times in the text. On all four occasions it is the last sentence of the paragraphs in which it is mentioned. At no point is it the primary subject of a paragraph. It has simply been "tacked on".
This is the easiest way to insert an item into a pre-existing text and clearly shows that it was added at a late stage. It should be clear to anyone, even those who wish to bash the BBC that all the evidence so far from the Hutton inquiry and before points to the government having hyped up the case for war.
Alan Godfrey, UK
Some of these government supporters would continue to deny any wrong doing by the government even if a taped confession from Blair and co were to surface. The BBC didn't release Kelly's name, the government did. The BBC didn't attempt to smear Kelly's character. The government did. So Dr Kelly didn't specifically accuse Campbell of 'enhancing' the dossier. As a professional he wouldn't make such statements unless he was absolutely sure. Sadly the same cannot be said of our government.
Mike, UK
The BBC journalists were reporting their sources to the best of their abilities, probably under severe time pressure. Government spin on the dossier and the MoD disclosure of Dr Kelly as the source of information are symptoms of the dark side of modern politics. However, just because he is now dead, does not mean that no blame can attached to Dr Kelly. If his feelings were so strong why did he not resign and air his views in public rather than leaking them anonymously to the press?
Vivien, UK
| I hope Greg Dyke has the courage to apologise now |
I hope Greg Dyke has the courage to apologise now, after the disgraceful attempts by the BBC to do nothing but try covering their own backs. The comments made by the MPs on the panel (See the newspaper as they won't appear on the BBC website) were well deserved. The BBC are going to come out of this far worse off than even they imagined and the one person who must take the fall is Dyke. A message from the people of the UK: Greg, resign now while you have the chance.
Rick, UK Good for Susan Watts! Finally someone has shown that there are still people of integrity and honesty working for the BBC. We expect lies and deceit from politicians but the way some reporters and the senior management of the BBC has behaved in this episode has tarnished its reputation, perhaps irreparably. Unfortunately it is clear that their goal has not been to uncover the truth but to defend themselves at all costs.
Dr Dean Jones, Germany
The evidence so far reinforces my view that it is quite wrong to assert that the BBC and all of its journalists are somehow out of control - Susan Watts's Newsnight report might not have been favourable to the government, but it still stood up as a reasoned and apparently well-researched piece of journalism. Andrew Gilligan's account does not appear to be nearly so credible - Richard Sambrook clearly has some questions to answer and I am also astounded by the continued assertion by Gilligan's former boss, Rod Liddle, that it somehow doesn't matter how Gilligan reported the story as "everyone apparently knew that the government was making things up" to support it's case for war - I suggest that there is a serious lack of judgement there?
Robert Crosby, Nottingham, UK
Why have BBC news services failed to report Ms Watt's claim that the BBC attempt to defend Andrew Gilligan's report was "misguided and false"? It is the lead item on virtually every other newspaper and news source in the UK today.
Jonathan Leopold, UK
As tragic the death of Dr Kelly is, it seems to be that holding this inquiry is itself a victory for the Government. Through focussing all attention on the "45 minute" claim in the dossier, we are being diverted from the real issue - where are the weapons of mass destruction? Our government took us to war on false pretences, they cannot worm themselves out of it.
Tjeerd Hendel-Blackford, UK Is it only me who can see the blatant BBC bias? I've carefully followed all the transcripts so far and the BBC's claims have simply collapsed. Indeed the biggest eye opener was the revelation of Susan Watts needing to seek independent legal advice because of the BBC seeking to 'mould' her story. Yet when one turns to the BBC reporting it is simply regurgitating the BBC line. If someone had testified to the government pressurising & attempting to mould a story, the BBC would be going on and on about it. Why so partisan?
Joseph, Newport, South Wales
Reading other peoples comments confuses me - people talk about government lies and yet the BBC says that their reporters have never said the government lied. The whole thing seems to be about the 'sexing up' up the dossier, but this is such a woolly phase! Everything in the dossier including the '45 minute' item all came from the intelligence services (this is not in dispute). A few people within the intelligence services and from the MOD (including Dr Kelly) did not agree with everything within the dossier but the overwhelming majority did and saw Iraq as a real threat. The whole thing I feel has been a storm in a tea cup, the information from the secret service by its very nature cannot be fact but their best guess which must then be used by our government to act upon. If the information turns out to be false surely it's the secret services that should be in the dock and not the government or BBC.
Gary Gatter, UK
What is evident is that Dr Kelly was victimised, the proverbial scapegoat, as a spin-off from the government's war justification exercise. An acceptable price to pay to support the government's war agenda? I think not.
A Highfield, UK
| The BBC continues to defend the indefensible |
The BBC should concentrate on reporting the news in an unbiased way. Unfortunately they are still continuing to spin; interpreting the facts to support their preferred viewpoint. This is not good for democracy. The Government does not have it's own media machine for churning out its views and depends on impartial and responsible reporting of the facts from all media sources. With 24 hr news channels and partisan reporting (including the press) public perception is being biased to suit a few vested interests. In this case the BBC continues to defend the indefensible. They should admit their sloppy reporting, apologise and of course heads should roll. Senior managers have showed a mind boggling lack of judgement and a serious lapse in controls to ensure accuracy in their reports. If they have any principles, Sambrook and Dyke should resign or else be sacked.
Tony, England Let's not lose sight of the real issue. Blair is in deep trouble after ordering forces into an illegal invasion without public support, and then finding no evidence of the imminent threat that was supposed to justify it all. All of the rest of this, and the tragic death of Dr Kelly, result from the increasingly desperate efforts of No 10 to deflect public anger onto anyone but themselves (mostly the BBC). It won't wash. People are tired of being lied and spun to, and angry about the war and the continuing bloody mess that is the occupation. The government won't get off the hook this time.
Ben Drake, York, UK
Quite hilarious reading the different interpretations of the inquiry by different media. The safest approach is just read the transcripts. I also do not think this inquiry is set up to find out Blair's real motive for war.
Peter Morris, New Zealand
It has been the trade of political and religious leaders since the dawn of time to present their message in the most persuasive way. For a scientist at any time to present other that the unvarnished truth is to permanently risk destroying his/her reputation. When these two disciplines meet - as they have in the case of the Iraq dossier - then either, or both, are bound to disagree with the final draft. Why are we supposed to be surprised, shocked or amazed since everybody expected the facts to be presented in whatever way supported the politician's case?
James Rae, England
| The media increasingly hounds our leaders |
I hope the Hutton inquiry seeks a systemic understanding of how the media increasingly hounds our leaders - spreading a culture of suspicion, blame and mistrust - to a point where whoever we elect has an impossible job from day one. There's something incestuous about the media's self-reporting of these issues. Who invented the word "spin"? The media of course.
Julian Simcox, UK I used to be an ardent supporter of the BBC. Recent events have changed my opinion of the honesty and integrity of this organisation (perhaps for good!). These journalistic slip-ups seem extremely suspicious. Almost everything reported has since been contradicted. The position of the BBC news is untenable and the reputation of this great British institution is damaged.
Dr Paul MacAry, UK
This inquiry is and will be a whitewash, with no conclusion. Like the so-called select committee report, it will take such a long time to complete with all the conclusions open to interpretation, so the BBC will be vindicated as will Blair and co!
Lloyd, UK
| The spin doctors must be working furiously to find other news |
The spin doctors must be working furiously to find other news to take people's minds off this inquiry. Last night we had the 'missile' story, I wonder what it will be tonight? The capture of a notorious terrorist perhaps? Those in charge of this government will stop at nothing to get off the hook. What a sordid business this has become - poor Dr Kelly. Let's hope that from his death some good will come.
RC Robjohn, UK So far it seems to me Gilligan has been vindicated and Campbell and Blair should seriously think about their futures.
John, UK
I think all the evidence should have been heard by Lord Hutton before the press were able to give their very biased opinions. Each day the views change. It is impossible to give a reasoned opinion until we have all the evidence before us.
Sylvia Dunn, Wales
Whatever the outcome of this inquiry, the methodology used - no TV cameras, but daily transcripts via the website - should stand as an example of the public's right to know, and the need for a dignified and thorough inquiry.
Derek Adams, UK
| Nit-picking over the wording of one report is of no interest |
I am surprised by the concentration on the BBC reporting as the evidence seems to support what has been reported. Nit-picking over the wording of one report is of no interest. A civil servant such as Dr Kelly should not have been identified as the source of the BBC reports for political reasons. It is the political interface with the civil service and the substantive truth in what has been reported that should be investigated.
David Huckett, UK I wholly supported the war, but can see the evidence piling up against the government. Alastair Campbell and others in the government, including the PM, are in serious trouble!
Dave, UK
After three days of the Hutton inquiry and Susan Watts' tape of her conversation with Dr Kelly, no one can be in any doubt that the British Government lied to justify war. After years of doubting the BBC's integrity , I have changed my mind. Well done . Sima
Sima Imani, Britain
Can we really expect a news organisation to impartially report a story which so closely involves itself? Time and again on news reports I am hearing BBC reporters ending a piece by quoting a selected piece of information which in effect supports the BBC side of the argument.
Keith Duncan, UK
I wait with interest the final conclusion of the full enquiry. It would have been good to have a comprehensive enquiry into all the "evidence" that the government produced since, for an educated reader in world matters, it always looked like non-evidence but rather carefully selected propaganda that was used as evidence hoping people would buy it.
Miklos Nomad, Hungary
| It appears the BBC is in the wrong and the government is in the clear |
It seems to me that the more we hear the more it appears the BBC is in the wrong and the government is in the clear. Reading through the Kelly interview with Susan Watts he seems to make clear that he did not accuse Campbell of inserting the 45 minute threat claim. All the government did was present the dossier in a user-friendly format without fundamentally altering the facts or the meaning. That is perfectly understandable.
Richard, UK How much taxpayers' money is being wasted on this? Not all news reports turn out to be factually 100% correct so what's the fuss over this one? The government has ended up with egg on their face over the WMD issue and are trying to minimise the impact on their reputation by kicking up a fuss over the reporting of their mess. Whatever the outcome nobody in government will lose their job/pension/status. The sad thing is that someone has died for all this and a family has lost a husband and father.
Stuart, UK
| The basis of this enquiry is a mess |
Although Hutton seems to be doing a great job, the basis of this enquiry is a mess, I challenge anyone to clearly state its objectives. The best we can hope for is a recommendation for a full judicial enquiry into the government's war propaganda.
John Howard, Ireland The whole point about whether Gilligan used the right language or whether the BBC should have named Dr Kelly as its primary source earlier should not detract from the fact that Dr Kelly did indeed raise serious doubts over the accuracy and propriety of the government's dossier. This is the important fact since it was the dossier which was used as a means of convincing the British people that it was necessary to take military action.
Marius, London, UK
I think the BBC's coverage of the inquiry has been extremely partisan. There have been too many comments such as "It's been a good day for the BBC" or "The BBC took a knock today". The news reporting should stick to the facts, and be above the BBC/Alistair Campbell fight.
Mike Bailey, UK
| The issue is what did the MoD say to him after the Foreign Affairs Committee? |
I have to say it is very difficult to follow what is going on since we are drip-fed bits of testimony and the news bulletins seem to pick up different bits. It seems the crux is Dr Kelly had concerns at some of the content of the dossier. Whether it was Campbell or his team is by the by - No 10 wanted to put in as much as possible to justify going to war and getting Parliamentary backing for it. I think Lord Hutton has a job to unravel all the evidence, but the crucial issue now is what did the MoD say to him in the days after his appearance at the Foreign Affairs Committee?
Andy, UK There are two real questions to be answered here. Can we trust our government to tell us the truth about the risks poised by foreign powers and has the BBC abandoned its policy of impartiality? Personally I think the government had decided we were going to war come what may - and the BBC had decided it was a bad idea come what may. So the answers are a no and yes. Let's see what Hutton thinks!
Bill Martin, UK
Unless some significant actual physical WMD turn up pretty sharp, it is the government rather the BBC that is going to face the tough and searching questions, which unfortunately are beyond the remit of the Hutton inquiry.
Barry b, UK
This whole thing is boiling down to such slight differences in perspective which were blown out of all proportion by the desire of those who heard a 6.07am vs 7.32am version of the Today programme to 'newspeak' us with a 'public truth'
Richard, New York, US
It's a shame the Parliamentary Committees couldn't have conducted their enquiries in a similar manner to Lord Hutton's.
Debbie, UK
| So much focus on one slightly questionable word |
Hutton is conducting the enquiry in a very thorough and independent way. I am amazed that so much focus is being put on one report at 6.07am which possibly had the use of one slightly questionable word. It is perfectly clear from the transcript of Dr Kelly's talk with Susan Watts that the country went to war with Iraq unnecessarily. The government over-exaggerated the situation. That is the central point.
Paul, UK This inquiry is specifically about the events surrounding the sad death of one person. However, the bigger picture which we must all ponder is that this government led us into a war which is still going on and has caused many thousands of deaths. They led us into this war using spurious arguments based on 'vague' intelligence containing uncorroborated claims. Campbell, Blair and Straw should all resign.
Nick, London
So far the evidence presented strikes me as yet more evidence that the BBC was pursuing its anti-war vendetta against the government. I've read the transcript of the conversation between Susan Watts and Dr David Kelly and her conclusion was correct, it was 'gossipy' to suggest Campbell had put the 45 minute claim in.
M Thomas, UK
| The story is simple and tragic |
The inquiry has yet to unmask any significant developments to the story so far. This is probably because the story is a simple and tragic one. A government employee has grave doubts and concerns over the Iraq dossier and leaks his views. The government try to wriggle out of this in any way they can. I imagine that this will be the case until the end of the inquiry.
Peter M, UK I doubt if it will solve much or answer many questions. Both sides will take parts of the report to "prove" its own point of view. In reality this will only prove that life is in fact grey, and not black and white. It will do little to relieve the pain of Mrs Kelly and her family. But I hope, no doubt in vain, that it makes politicians and media realise how their own petty point scoring, ridiculous posturing, and pathetic little word games can effect ordinary people caught in the middle.
Pete, UK
I think that the BBC should abandon its 'gutter journalistic' approach and concentrate on reporting the news and not trying to make it.
Tim Dyer, UK
The Hutton inquiry can have no possible result that will have the slightest relevance to the real issue, which is: where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Dr Timothy Chappell, Scotland
To Dr Chappell: In actual fact, the WMD were moved to Syria and the Beqaa valley in the days before hostilities started to allow Saddam to embarrass the coalition forces, encourage the anti-war protesters, get the troops pulled out of Iraq, set the stage for large scale civil war between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and thus provide the conditions for Saddam's triumphal return. This whole Dr Kelly show is going right according to the plan. Be warned!
Dave, US/UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Hutton report: video
