In Reply to: Re: Judges do have a special position arsing from their office. posted by Peter on 13 February 2004 at 00:36:10:
What a strange and unusual interpretation. You don't think he was or was even capable of showing bias. Well, let's try another few then!
It is clear (to most people anyway) that whilst we do not know exactly what Kelly said to Gilligan, that the central allegations made by Gilligan of what happened are correct and that is (and I paraphrase):
1. That whilst the public thought that the "intelligence" was data from "intelligence sources" it had been represented to be more compelling than it's authors felt it should have been. In fact it had become propaganda and ceased to become "intelligence"
2. That the central implication that "we were at imminent risk" was totally untrue. Without that claim being believed the PM knew that he would not receive the support of Parliament or the public - so he knew it needed to be "sexed up". It has since transpired that the PM didn't know or seem to feel he ought to have known that the WMD meant theatre weapons rather than inter-continental.
3. During his evidence Hoon was asked :-
Q. Would your Department be responsible for correcting any false impression given by the press on an issue of this importance?
A. I think on an issue of this importance it would not simply have been the Ministry of Defence that was solely responsible. There would have been an effort across Government.
Q. Are you aware that on 25th September a number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting that this related to strategic missiles or bombs?
A. I can recall, yes.
Q. Why was no corrective statement issued for the benefit of the public in relation to those media reports?
A. I do not know.
Q. It must have been considered by someone, must it not?
Hoon then went on to give a number of excuses as to why no correction was given. At no time did he claim he didn't see the newspaper reports at the time. This evidence seems to be at variance with the statement he gave to a parliamentary committee a couple of weeks ago that he "didn't see the reports". His excuse then was that he wasn't even given the newspaper cuttings. Why was none of this given as evidence to Hutton when it would have been the obvious albeit unbelievable thing to say?
When will Hutton ask him to come back and explain these anomalies?
4. Hutton concluded that when BBC journalists report what people tell them that they must check that what they have been told is correct - a responsibility that is plainly daft. There is a difference between reporting issues the BBC claim are facts to reporting what they say they have been told by others are facts. The 6.07 report was fairly unimportant until Campbell made it important. However the "45 minute claim" was pivotal to the government's case for going to war and at the heart of "imminent risk" - and mentioned twice in the dossier. But Hutton was happy that this was from a single questionable source, was misleading as it didn't apply to WMD as most understand it - and Hutton did not comment on these aspects at all.
5. When will Hutton call Campbell before him and ask him directly whether he passed any of the contents of his personal copy of his report to the editor of the Sun - the editor of which auctioned Campbell's copy for "charity" a few days later?
Wasn't he a touch unbalanced?
GG