What is all the fuss about?
September 23rd, 2003 at 1:30 pm by David FarrarI have followed the Hutton inquiry quite closely and unlike NZ Pundit , have resisted killing several cyber rainforests describing it.
However I have managed to reach some conclusions, which I will share:
1) Andrew Gilligan and the BBC lied
2) David Kelly lied (his testimony to the select committee was contradicted by a tape reording)
3) There has not been a shred of proof Alistair Campbell did what was claimed, or that he has lied.
So what is all the fuss about? As far as I can tell – just two things.
a) Alistair Campbell offered suggestions on wording. Well f**k me did – that is his job. That is totally ordinary
b) The Government helped release Kelly’s name. Well personally he should never have been told it would be kept private. He leaked to the media (a sackable offence), lied to the media and lied to Parliament. Civil Servants can’t do that.
It is very sad that he killed himself, but IMO he is largely a victim of his own actions.
No tag for this post.
September 23rd, 2003 at 8:18 pm
A few comments:
1) Dr Kelly’s misleading statement to the effect that he had never talked with Susan Watts is unlikely to have been the result of a deliberate lie on his part. Testimony has been heard from various people (such as his sister and a companion at the FAC inquiry) that a) he was thrown by the question and b) he was thinking that it referred to a meeting rather than a telephone conversation. Gradual realization of what he had done may have been the trigger for deciding to take his own life.
2) There is conflicting testimony on whether Dr Kelly was told that his name would not be released. The MoD say that he was made aware that while his name would not be initially released, it would be eventually released. His wife and a few others say otherwise but this may have been the result of wishful thinking on Dr Kelly’s part. IMO Lord Hutton is unlikely to criticize Dr Kelly for obvious reasons.
3) Dr Kelly did have the right to brief the media on background. How far this extended is not clear but it was part of his job description. Even though he should not have been briefing journalists on intelligence disputes, the lattitude to which journalists were allowed access to him (i.e. having his mobile number) diminished the importance of the media protocols that he should have been following. Which really makes it a failure in system rather than a personal failure.
–Peter Metcalfe
Vote:September 24th, 2003 at 11:21 am
You’re obviously not reading the NZ Herald. It’s readers will have come to an completely opposite conclusion.
It continues to amaze me why the NZ Herald publishes all this crap from The Indepdent. But as the end of that newspaper is near, we hopefully don’t have to put up with it much longer.
Vote: