Hutton inquiry: Your views

The Hutton Inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly finished on Thursday with televised closing statements.

Lawyers for the government, Dr Kelly's family, the BBC, reporter Andrew Gilligan and the inquiry itself each put their case.

The inquiry has heard more than 74 witnesses over 22 days and studied thousands of documents.

What are your views of the inquiry?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

In ascertaining why Dr. Kelly took his own life, the government's case for war is under close scrutiny. Lord Hutton's report could add legal momentum to an already unfavourable public opinion. This is the significance of the Hutton enquiry. Claims against the BBC are relevant to circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. However the BBC do not stand accused, like the government does, of making the wrong political decision of its declaration of war on Iraq.
Joanna Crystal, UK

what about the core issue of government misleading the public? Rakesh, UK

Andrew Gilligan had some flaws while reporting, agreed. But what about the core issue of government misleading the public? We should be grateful to Andrew Gilligan for something. He made public what we all knew ¿ government manipulating/fabricating intelligence reports in order to win support for war. How can intelligence go so wrong that, let alone Iraqi retaliation within 45 mins with WMD, more than 6 months after the war is over, team of 1500 specialists can't even find 'minute quantities' of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons? Shouldn't this be a case for Blair resignation?
Rakesh, UK

Whilst as a nation we should be proud of judges of the calibre of Lord Hutton, what the Hutton enquiry shows is that our politicians are beneath contempt in the way they will lie and misrepresent anything and everything to preserve their own skins.
John, UK

The key government players in this shabby episode are a pair of barristers and a porn writer. That's the government we elected Paul Rowlands, United Kingdom

The Kelly family have really summed it up well in accusing the government of a "cynical abuse of power". The government is supposed to work for our benefit, but instead puts personal ambition and glorification ahead of what's good for the nation. The key government players in this shabby episode are a pair of barristers and a porn writer. That's the government we elected.
Paul Rowlands, United Kingdom

How very sad to finally have it confirmed that this government thinks we are all stupid, that it can lie with impunity, can do exactly what it wants for its own ends and that the PM doesn't find it necessary to apologise for or explain his actions to anyone. Well Mr Blair, history will judge you, but perhaps not as you would wish. Would you please now explain exactly why you did decide to invade Iraq? Do you think you now owe it to the memory of Dr Kelly and the British soldiers who also lost their lives? I for one am extremely worried that we have a government with no conscience and no accountability.
Freddie, UK

The Hutton Inquiry has revealed machinations and duplicity of many of the parties represented, and the reputation of the BBC has been severely tarnished. The News Department of the BBC has a duty to provide people in the UK with balanced and accurate reporting and not attempt to "make" the news. That is what Britons who pay a hefty annual license fee expect, and should demand, as do the rest of us in many countries throughout the world who rely on the BBC World Service. It is all very well for Mr Davies to say that the "impartiality and integrity" of the BBC had been assailed and a vigorous defence was required. Mr Gilligan's "errors" brought into question precisely those elements which Mr Davies believed had to be supported. Now is the time for the BBC to take stock of its policies and strategies and determine how it can best revert to the role for which it had earned such an enviable domestic and international reputation and yet still be responsibly proactive when it can and when it must. Surely the Board of Governors and Management of the BBC owe that to us and can accomplish the task transparently without returning us to the days of "Aunty".
Stephen Kinsman, Canada

To me the inquiry on Dr. Kelly is just a case of playing "righteous" and following "due process" The number one witness is dead and all we can make do with, is other people's sense of judgement and perceptions/opinion on what they felt were the events leading to the death of Dr. Kelly. How accurate these numerous witnesses are, only God and to an extent Dr. Kelly's presence can tell. Where is Dr. Kelly to respond? For the sake of the family he left behind and his memory, I think the public ridicule and analysis of a dead man should cease!
Niyi Olaloku, Lagos, Nigeria

Quite simply we went to war as a result of being completely misled by the government Steve, UK

So Andrew Gilligan made some minor errors in a few of his broadcasts. But did these alter the basic truth of his news report? No. Quite simply we went to war as a result of being completely misled by the government, as subsequent evidence from Iraq has clearly shown. It seems to me that either the government are completely dishonest or completely incompetent and either way they should be removed from office at the first opportunity.
Steve, UK

I have been following this inquiry and wish to tell the British they should be proud to have such a system including the BBC and judges of the calibre of Lord Hutton.
Subrata Datta, India

As a teacher of ethics and morals I am deeply concerned with our attitudes and disregard to the things that make us who and what we are - dignity, honesty, responsibility and humbleness. Our politicians have to be willing to be vulnerable, to be open and to be totally honest about everything. I hope the Hutton Inquiry will make a breakthrough such as we haven't experienced and then we can all come clean and start afresh. Think of the possibilities!
Professor Georges Didier, Sweden

The inquiry is just arguing over semantics, and as the government is in control, no real truths will ever come out. What needs to happen now is for the leader to take the blame; Blair should not be allowed to get away with making Hoon the scapegoat!
Tobias Bucks, UK

It should be remembered that the information provided by both the BBC and the Government has been volunteered Peter, UK

As students of politics and government, the Hutton Inquiry has been a marvellous case study of the workings of Government (and the BBC). However despite all the revelations, I don't think it has been quite as forensic as we might think from the blizzard of so-called "inside information" we have been shown (e-mails, diary entries etc, etc). It should be remembered that the information provided by both the BBC and the Government has been volunteered. Hutton has not had the powers to go in and requisition documents from any of the parties, so he has only seen what the various parties have agreed to show him.
Peter, UK

Let's not forget that during the Falklands war even the enemy was tuning into the BBC to get the most accurate news about the war while it was being criticised by some Tory MPs as being unpatriotic. It is ironic that some twenty years later a Labour PM is acting like a lap dog for the president and levelling accusations against the same institution.
Seha Alturk, USA

I find it depressing that some of your correspondents think that this matter is boring or should not be examined in public. It seems to me that Andrew Gilligan is being harried for some fairly minor presentational details in a spontaneous broadcast, whereas our government are shown to be fine tuning their propaganda over many days and still ending up telling us blatant lies.
Kenneth, Scotland

With everything we've learnt through the Hutton inquiry about Tony Blair and how his government operates, I really would be appalled if he should be voted in again at the next election. If that should happen, then this country really deserves everything it is already getting from him.
Jeannette, UK

The inquiry is doing exactly the job that the government set it up to do Steve F, Notts, UK

The inquiry is doing exactly the job that the government set it up to do. It is shifting public focus to the BBC and the decision to release the name of Dr Kelly. As such it is deflecting the public gaze from the real question of 'Did we perpetrate an illegal war against Iraq by fabricating evidence against it and by fuelling global paranoia?' By the time the inquiry is over the nation will be so bored by the subject that it will be satisfied that since an inquiry has been held, governmental public accountability has been served.
Steve F, Notts, UK

This inquiry has been very useful in that because of the insight into the way government information is conveyed to the people. I am now left wondering about other matters such as the stymied commons vote on House of Lords reform. What would an inquiry into the way information was conveyed to MPs before that vote reveal? I think we need much more open government and a very liberal freedom of information act because the present system teeters on the edge of deceit and tyranny.
Keith, England

In response to Paul Brandwood: As a public servant, I do like the fact that you think we are all dishonest and have no honour. Please do not tar us with the same brush. Yours truthfully, a 31 year old (non-crony)!
Mark, London

I am very pleased that the Judge has broadened his remit to delve into the reason for going to war, whilst he may not comment on that aspect, we have been given an insight into a government so morally corrupt. A good man has lost his life, a family bereaves, 50 of our young men have lost their lives and many thousands of Iraqis are either dead or homeless for what reason?
Robert Sebastian, UK

I read Teresa S's comments with interest about the mess that the US and UK have created in Iraq. I presume that she would be happy to sit passively by and watch a despotic dictator create even more of a mess whilst killing very many innocent Iraqis. Please let us have some balance in all of these arguments.
Chris, England

As important and newsworthy to editors as the Hutton inquiry is, it is a smoke and mirrors event to distract attention away from the irrefutable fact WMD have not been found, when we were told they existed by the UK and the US. Not even 'evidence' of WMD has been found!
Let the BBC demonstrate itself as remaining the finest news reporting organisation in the world. Pursue THIS story to either exonerate or expose those who took us to war producing thousands of casualties. This is the story people who want answers to not the semantics of who was to blame for the death of one man who courageously chose to speak out.
Ian, UK

I have just read the rambling report on Gavyn Davies appearance before the Hutton Inquiry. Once again the article jumps all over the place and only serves to confuse and hide the facts. Talk about spin. Please start reporting the facts and stop clouding the issues. The BBC should admit it was wrong to back Gilligan, apologise to the Government and start re-building its tarnished image.
Hugh, Leicester, England

Has politics reached the point that winning is all that counts? Andy, UK

What alarms me most about the latest revelations from Campbell is the level of antagonism, indeed near war, seen in many of our leaders and people of influence. Are they not called to be peacemakers or has politics reached the point that winning is all that counts? To his credit, Blair appears to have risen (slightly) above these grudge tactics, but it must be very hard when surrounded by such attitudes.
Andy, UK

It just reinforces that we can expect no honesty and honour any longer from any of our politicians or public servants (cronies).
Paul Brandwood, Exmoor, UK

Putting aside for one moment reasons for Hutton, it becomes increasingly apparent from the transcripts of the inquiry that our governmental review processes by parliamentary select committee are inadequate when reviewing major areas of public concern. One questions whether the FAC conclusions would have been different if presented with the evidence and statements elicited under a thorough impartial judicial review!
John, UK

In response to David of England, you DO NOT speak for the vast majority of the country when you say that "this whole thing is a total bore". You seem to accept almost as a matter of fact that the Government has lied and that the media has potentially distorted the facts. This whole saga cost Dr Kelly his life and may have taken our troops into an unjust war, so if that isn't an important thing that is "going on in the world" then what is?
GBS, UK

I think I might speak for the vast majority of the country when I say that this whole thing is a total bore. Yes, the Government has been telling lies, but it always does, regardless of political hue. Yes, the media has been distorting the facts, but it always does.
It's a great shame about Dr Kelly, but for goodness sake, doesn't the media, and the BBC in particular, realise there are more important things going on in the world?
David, England

The Hutton inquiry has become obsessed with the internal machinations of the BBC and the government Robin, Edinburgh, Scotland

In its second phase, the Hutton inquiry has become obsessed with the internal machinations of the BBC and the government and seems destined not to completely fulfil its objectives. In relation to Dr Kelly himself, the inquiry appears to be no closer to establishing his motives for talking in an unauthorised way to journalists or to making a substantive link between his apparent suicide and his treatment at the hands of journalists or government officials. More light would surely have been cast on both these areas had Lord Hutton the courage to put members of the Kelly family back on the stand for cross examination.
Robin, Edinburgh, Scotland

The Hutton Inquiry should be left to a strictly governmental issue, the public should not have to know about this, it is an unwanted, unnecessary presence of media influence. This is the government's problem, not for the public to speculate on who is to blame.
Aaron, England

It seems clear that the scope of the official secrets act needs to be redrawn so that it can not be used as a fig leaf to protect the mendacity of a government and a security service determined to deceive the people they are meant to serve. It is unfortunate that it has taken the death of a good and honourable man to shine a light into the dark heart of the government machine.
Joe, UK

The inquiry has unearthed some very worrying questions about how the government operates. There should be a public inquiry into why Britain went to war. Let's see what light Alistair Campbell's diary can throw on how these decisions were made.
Antony Francis, England, UK

The Hutton inquiry produces the headlines and distracts from what should be our main concern Teresa, UK

We all know that politicians and journalists are generally not to be trusted and that scientists can be naive - that about sums it up. The Hutton inquiry produces the headlines and distracts from what should be our main concern - how to solve the mess which the US and UK have created in Iraq.
Teresa S., UK

When Campbell organised the strengthening of the language of the dossier that was sexing-up. And his non effort to correct the public's perception of the 45-minutes claim is unbelievable in comparison to his effort to correct a technicality of Gilligan's reporting.
Michael Harris, Cork, Ireland

I find it ironic that poor Gilligan is being dissected with tweezers, whilst monstrous distortions from the government are ignored. The limited scope of this inquiry is distorting the important issues - which are that the government took us to war on the basis of distorting vital intelligence and the people who did it are still in power.
Mark Tarver, UK

Have to agree with those who are saying that this is now going too far. It's becoming clear that Kelly was a misguided individual who I suspect broke both his contract of employment and the Official Secrets Act by speaking to Gilligan when he should have known better. As it turns out, Gilligan's broadcast interpretation of what he said turned out to be quite incorrect. That being the case, bearing in mind the grave and sensitive nature of the allegations, it is quite reasonable for him to be named as the source of this misinformation. He couldn't cope with the consequences of his own actions and killed himself. Truly sad for his family, but not worthy of the current attention.
Paul, UK

Dr Kelly must have been aware that by talking to any press person that he was in breach of the official secrets act and as such if identified could have been prosecuted. He was naive to think that he could blab and get away with it. So he probably realised this and took his own life. Naming him by the MOD was his own fault.
Richard Fergusson, UK

After serving in the Royal Navy for 34 years at all times I came under "The Official Secrets Act" which I and other service personnel signed. During my semi-retirement I have had several jobs within the civil service and was still liable under this Act. Not to speak ill of the dead but surely Dr. Kelly in his senior positions during his career must also have been liable to this act. At no time have I heard this mentioned, or was Dr David Kelly excused this. I know that all the civil servants I have worked with also came under this act.
Robert Blachford, Gosport, Hampshire, UK.

Whilst having the utmost sympathy with Dr Kelly and his Family I agree with the comment regarding the Official Secrets Act. As an employee of the MoD he must have signed on to the Act. This being the case then he should not have spoken to journalists, unless he wished to be a whistle blower, in which case he would name himself.
James E Burns, England

This morning's evidence makes Geoff Hoon's position entirely untenable Anthony Poole, Oxford, UK

Regardless of whether he may be seen as a "fall guy", this morning's evidence makes Geoff Hoon's position entirely untenable. His initial evidence that he had "no role" in the naming of Dr. Kelly and "protected his anonymity at all times" is in direct contradiction to his admission today that he agreed the policy of naming him. Whether his naming was inevitable or not is irrelevant - Mr Hoon lied to a judicial enquiry, and so has no option but to resign.
Anthony Poole, Oxford, UK

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Do we, the public, make it difficult for politicians to tell the truth because actually we don't really want to know, or do politicians not know what it is. I felt uncomfortable with the government before the inquiry started - words cannot describe how scary I find them now!
Lynn, UK

What a complete waste of time and money this inquiry is. Dr Kelly is a suicide that should have been dealt with by way of a coroner's inquiry. This has just been instigated as a means of distracting the public from the real issues of the suspect actions of our Government in Iraq and the pathetic way our so-called "Parliamentary enquiries" conspire to maintain the status quo. Let's have a full judicial enquiry into the War - with real sanctions for complacent and dishonest politicians if (when!) found wanting.
David Elliot, UK

Dr Kelly was a MoD employee and as such subject to the official secrets act. In speaking to the press about his work therefore he was in breach of that Act and as such subject to criminal prosecution. His suicide had less to do with the 'pressure' he was put under and in my view, more to do with the fact that he knew his career was finished.
Tim, UK

The Hutton enquiry seems like a good diversionary tactic from the main question - WMD Riyad, UK

The Hutton enquiry seems like a good diversionary tactic from the main question-WMD and false pretences on which the Government belittled the intelligence of the population.
Riyad, UK

I think Gilligan's report was substantially correct - and certainly more correct than most stories we get from the tabloids. Unfortunately if a government lives by deceit and spin and does everything in its power to conceal the truth then the only alternative is investigative journalism which may get certain facts wrong - if you do not want errors in reporting - tell the truth!
David Elliot, UK

Blair and Bush want to go to war so they both, in my view, lie. A decent civil servant spills the beans to a BBC reporter and is hung out to dry and is offered the "Rommel" solution. The BBC although possibly factually incorrect has got the gist of the lie. Blair says he is totally responsible. So what is the problem? Vote of No confidence - Blair and his cronies go and we return to the humdrum of backhanders in politics.
Tony, Kent, UK

Has anybody else noticed that 'with the benefit of hindsight' is fast becoming the standard way of avoiding having to apologise or show remorse for having fouled something up? Is it too much for us lesser mortals to expect that these Great Ones should demonstrate their superiority by showing a bit of foresight now and again?
Andrew, UK

Brent East says it all John Farmer, UK

The people have already made their minds up about who is to blame for releasing Kelly's name and his suicide. Brent East says it all.
John Farmer, UK

Time for all sides to learn lessons and move on. I hope no future government will take us to war on so dodgy a basis. I hope the BBC will learn that it is a reporting organisation, not the unofficial opposition.
Steve, England

Well done! Even more spin everyone has forgotten that we went to war because we where told by the government that Iraq had WMD. No one is asking any question about that fact any more it's all the Hutton inquiry! So get back to the point where are the Iraqi WMD, oh there isn't any so why did we go to war then? I'm sorry for Dr Kelly's family. But totally bored of the inquiry it's not got to change anything.
Kevin, UK

I think the result of the Brent East by-election is an indicator of where public opinion is going thanks to this inquiry.
Nicholas Simpson, Malta

Oh well, we're all tired of the arguments, the politicians are still blaming the BBC, the BBC are saying it won't happen again (what won't?), everyone can go home, look at their pay checks, think about a Winter holiday, have a drink and a laugh at all the high-blown politics and intrigue. Mr Campbell can write his memoirs and buy a nice new house. Dr David Kelly is dead.
Steve, UK

The BBC is arguably the most important news source in the UK and must realise the importance given to its reports. It is absolutely astounding that one of its employees should be allowed to go on the air attacking the integrity of the government of the day without the facts having been checked at a high level.
James Westerman, UK

To those howling for Mr Gilligan's blood, I ask the following question: How much of your own work, whatever your profession, would stand up to the scrutiny which his has received - with some pretty powerful opponents? Would you be prepared for your career to be decided by such standards -or is it a case of one standard for him, one for me?
Jon , UK

The Hutton Inquiry has become another of Blair's Weapons of Mass Distraction. Just where on earth are the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? How long have we got to wait? Years? Decades?
Lo, UK

The fault is with the government in not providing all the facts to begin with, not with Mr Gilligan Vic, UK

The answer is quite simple. In future, the government responds immediately and completely truthfully to questions journalists raise. Then stories such as Mr Gilligan's will be instantly verified or modified as required, and the truth will be known to the public. Otherwise, there is the risk that good journalists, seeking the truth, and having less than the full story, will speculate about gaps. This has happened here; the fault is with the government in not providing all the facts to begin with, not with Mr Gilligan.
Vic, UK

Fair is fair - if Gilligan misled the BBC's listeners, then he should resign - provided that Blair and his entire government, who also misled the public with far graver consequences, also step down. But if Blair can stay in office, Gilligan deserves another chance.
Steven Lange, Germany (US citizen)

The inquiry has been examining the circumstances. Lord Hutton's conclusions will summarise the evidence. No-one has been charged with an offence and the protagonists have all made it clear that they did not decide anything much as individuals, and do not know who did. Only people who had a broad view of the Iraq situation and who determined policy with `vision` and at high level could be held accountable for what has happened. Clearly only parliament can call them to account, and it will be for MPs of all parties to do this if the electorate is to be satisfied. Interesting to see what happens in the end
Christopher Havers, UK

Seems to me like this Hutton Inquiry was put on to distract us from something else Steve, UK

I still don't understand what Mr Gilligan really did wrong. Journalists are never accurate, and no one expects them to be. Mr Gilligan's story would have disappeared if the government hadn't gone berserk and started throwing threats and demands around. Seems to me like this Hutton Inquiry was put on to distract us from something else (burying bad news); I wonder what?
Steve, UK

We shall have to wait and see what the final Hutton Report finds and more to the point, the recommendations it makes. I hope that this will not be a replication of the recent Parliamentary Report that was quite simply, a whitewash and a disgrace!
Papadoupolous Kouros, USA

Well if the US/ UK can go on a war which wrecks a country just by assuming that there are WMD buried somewhere in the desert then why should one fuss over Mr Gilligan's reporting, at least not until the hypothetical WMDs make their appearance!!!!
Ispita, India

You have to feel sorry for poor Mr Gilligan. Sure, he got some of his facts wrong. But as anyone who has ever read or listened to any journalism on a subject that they actually know about will tell you, journalists get their facts wrong every day. Gilligan was just unlucky enough to have every line of his report dissected and the errors dragged into the public.
Adam, UK

I feel that the government are completely milking the whole incident. It is getting so boring.
James Partridge, England

Am I the only person who thinks that if Dr Kelly expressed an opinion to the press he should have been aware of the repercussions Linda Trapnell, England

Am I the only person who thinks that if Dr Kelly expressed an opinion to the press he should have been aware of the repercussions and kept his mouth shut if he didn't want to take the consequences of his actions? What he did is no different to what happens in all walks of life from Education to Industry except we are expected to take responsibility and use our discretion. Right or wrong, you stand as your own judge of your own actions.
Linda Trapnell, England

No ones reputation will emerge undamaged from the Hutton enquiry. The BBC's behaviour in airing the heavily biased and dangerous report by Gilligan and then unconditionally supporting it without gathering the facts was shameful and highlights the need of more rigorous measures of regulation to be in place. Number 10's and in particular Campbell's reaction rather than tempering the situation exacerbated it revealing a lack of judgement. Kelly's reputation too will be tarnished by his unprofessionalism in briefing journalists. The most despicable thing however, which ultimately led to Kelly's death, was the MODs total disregard of their employee's welfare. In revealing his name without offering Kelly protection is abhorrent.
Dr Kevin Eardley, England

I am extremely concerned by the MOD claim that they could not deny that Dr Kelly was the source, if directly asked if he was. Whilst we cannot expect the MOD to lie - Why can't they simply answer such questions with 'No Comment' or "That Information is Confidential'. I am amazed that the MOD has not been asked why they did not choose to do this or even if they considered 'No Comment" as an option. If the MOD is always obliged to give truthful YES or NO answers then - no state secret is safe as they could all be determined through a process of elimination.
DLK, UK

Whatever he says, Gilligan can have no excuse for accusing a government of bad faith on the strength of one un-attributable source. Absolutely unprofessional practice. He must go! Why the "apparent" suicide of Dr. Kelly. Is there some implication that the "removal men" were sent in to avoid government embarrassment ?
Travers, U.K.

Dr Kelly is being used unscrupulously even after his death Tony, UK

I am sick, tired and fed up of seeing the rubbish posted here. An enquiry is underway. The judge in charge has a reputation for being impartial. So why don't we just let him get on with it and then see what he says. I'll tell you what I suspect. I suspect that those with an ax to grind are using the old propaganda trick of repeating lies often enough for them to be believed. In the meantime, they just convince me that Dr Kelly is being used unscrupulously even after his death. Shame on the lot of you.
Tony, UK

According to the new explanation it wasn't the dossier that was misrepresenting (among other things) the 45 min claim it was the people who read who misinterpreted what was being said in it. Even if that is true wasn't the Blair administration aware that people had misinterpreted the claim? Why didn't Blair administration make any attempt to clarify it claim? How did they manage to give to the public a document that everyone misinterpreted although they worked for two weeks to "perfect the language" that was being used?
Maria Papakosta, Greece

Am I the only one in thinking that the media, the Opposition etc, are ignoring a very important fact - it was Mr. Kelly himself who decided to speak to the BBC. Once he had taken this action, he couldn't stand the heat. It was his own decision to take his life. Why should the government or anyone else take the blame for Mr. Kelly's actions?
P Fatania, England

The day after the 45 minute claim I read in the paper that the 45 minutes was referring to battlefield weapons. But the media continued to bang on as if we were about to be nuked in our own homes. The media have only themselves to blame for the misinterpretation. They could have printed the truth but I guess it didn't fit their agenda.
Tim h, UK

Mr Blair has made two diametrically opposed comments regarding Dr Kelly's death Danny, UK

What seems to be absolutely clear is that Mr Blair has made two diametrically opposed comments regarding Dr Kelly's death. I frankly don't care which one is true. What I do care about is that the other one MUST be a lie. Why, if someone like myself, with no legal training at all, can see this, cannot it be seen by someone as esteemed in the legal profession as Lord Hutton? And incidentally, why is Mr Blair still in office, having clearly lied to the public?
Danny, UK

Here we go again with the anti-war, anti-government brigade trying to rubbish the dossier and the government by splitting every possible hair in a dossier none of them have ever read. So contributors to this column declare that the 45 min claim only referred to battlefield weapons and not weapons capable of hitting other countries. Then, they go on to state that battlefield weapons only refer to mortars (they probably don't even know what a mortar is) just heard it in a pub somewhere. I really believe that we should bring back conscription so that these 'experts' at repeating media disinformation could learn a few facts.
John, UK

I still get the feeling that the result of this will be an expensive inquiry, shouldered by the taxpayer, which will end up with no-one being brought to task. It's a boys club at the top and I don't think anyone these days can honestly believe that justice exists in this part of society.
Bill Spindloe, Philippines

Isn't it obvious that Dr Kelly's name would always come out as the source? Patrick, UK

It would seem that most people are relying on the media's reporting of the Hutton inquiry. Anyone who has actually read the transcripts on the inquiry web site will know that the reporting bears very little resemblance to what is happening (A case of media spin). In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the reporters are at the same inquiry!
Phil Allwood, UK

All this enquiry proves is that anyone in power, be it government or the BBC, is corrupted by their position and have their own personnal agendas rather than serving the electorate. As far as I'm concerned, Blair, Hoon, Dyke and Gilligan should either resign or be sacked.
Fred, England

Isn't it obvious that Dr Kelly's name would always come out as the source, at some point in time? He surely could never expect to be able to say what he (supposedly) said and remain anonymous? It was just a case of how, when and by whom. The media certainly would never have given up with its relentless campaign to find the 'mole' - get a scoop... Dr Kelly unfortunately put the government, and himself by his own actions, into a 'no win' situation. And he alone decided to take his own life - no one else had any say or part in the decision he took.
Patrick, UK

This inquiry should have had cross examination of all witnesses from its beginning Bridget, London

I think this inquiry, which has apparently no precedent to follow, should have had cross examination of all witnesses from its beginning. The population of this country, the BBC, the armed forces and not least Dr Kelly's family, deserve to have the fullest information from Blair downwards, and however long it would have taken at least we would have had witnesses speaking under oath and actually telling us all what we need to know.
Bridget, London UK

It beggars belief that Greg Dyke did not insist on confirming what Gilligan was saying was true. Especially after it became such a full blown row. And especially when different members of the Government kept telling him it was all untrue. Let us not forget that Gilligan was not going to name Kelly even though Kelly declared that he might be Gilligan's source. Dyke should have confirmed in his own mind that Gilligan was telling the truth and insisted on interviewing Gilligan's source to make sure. After all, these serious accusations were leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister. Dyke was negligent in his duties as Director General and even now still refuses to apologise and admit he was completely wrong. Doing so would get him off the hook, but like Gilligan, he now just looks like a guilty man trying to save his own skin.
tim h, UK

Instead of having a full-blown public inquiry into why we went to war, Blair and his cronies have wriggled their way free by focusing attention on the plight of a single man. Why is this man so much more important than the thousands of men, women and children killed in the invasion of Iraq? Where is the inquiry into their deaths?
Ian Henderson, UK

People's opinions were fixed prior to this inquiry and they will be fixed after this inquiry Paul, UK

As I read through the "views" as published here I find it amazing (although all too depressingly familiar) that all the people here have actually been following the same inquiry. Some shout loudly "its all clear the government was wrong, they sexed up the document, they caused Kelly's death, they went to war for the wrong reasons" and some say the exact opposite yet drawing their conclusions from exactly the same facts. What does this tell us? That people's opinions were fixed prior to this inquiry and they will be fixed after this inquiry. The BBC will claim victory, the government will claim victory, the opposition will claim victory. As amusing as this sideshow might be to the more cynical of us, regardless of the reasons, we have a job of "winning the peace" to be getting on with and really we should all be focused on that.
Paul, UK

Is my license fee being used to pay for the BBC's legal representations at this inquiry?
Paul Wilson, London

I think that, by the time the enquiry reaches its conclusions and Lord Hutton tells us what he thinks, we'll all be so comatose that we'll miss it anyway. And I'm sure Tony and his cronies are banking on this!
LW, UK

As the press rightly picked up on after the PM's evidence, there are serious discrepancies between what Mr. Blair said on the day of Dr. Kelly's death and his evidence given to the inquiry. The questions raised by this go to the heart of the inquiry's remit. Why then has the PM not been recalled? That he has not - in the face of such blatant mismatches between his statements - makes me lose faith in the inquiry and in Hutton's independence. I now expect another whitewash - just like the FAC and ISC reports.
Hilary James, UK

There are no longer adequate editorial standards exercised over news reporting at the BBC Iain, Japan

It's become very clear now that there are no longer adequate editorial standards exercised over news reporting at the BBC. I want to know when Mr. Dyke will offer his resignation, and when Mr. Gilligan will be disciplined for the unacceptable quality of his reporting. For goodness sake let's at least get some standards back into the BBC as a result of this
Iain, Japan

The Hutton Inquiry will give its opinion in a few weeks or months. I don't really believe that it will be as scathing as it should be. We the public will get to give our opinion in the next election. I think it's quite clear that our conclusion is that this party lies, twists the truth and avoids the consequences. At least the Tories only had affairs!
Justin, UK

The only person who sexed up anything was Andrew Gilligan. In a desperate attempt to win the current 'Blair Baiting' game popular among journalists the objective of which is to become the big fourth estate hero by bringing down the government, he overstepped the mark and a man lost his life. Perhaps now the media will realise that this isn't a game and there aren't going to be any winners - just losers.
Joanne, UK

It is obvious through all the subterfuge and smoke screens, the information was adjusted to suite the governments needs Steven Steel, England

It is obvious through all the subterfuge and smoke screens, the information was adjusted to suite the governments needs, my basis for this is simply the lack of any one person accepting responsibility for the 45 minute claim, the most important piece of information is apparently authorless!
Steven Steel, England

The time has come for some honesty with regards to Dr Kelly. The facts are that time and time again he spoke beyond his official remit about highly sensitive information. In any number of other industries, if the same thing had happened, then the person who divulged the info would have been fired. You could even argue that Dr Kelly was treated too leniently. Many agendas are being played out here. There are those in whose interest it is to see Dr Kelly as being a martyr. I don't think he is. There is an element of choice in all things, including taking your own life.
Gary, UK

I am surprised and more than a little concerned to hear that Mr Howard and others at the MoD, No 10 and from within Parliament for that matter, are of the opinion that the MoD had little option but to confirm Dr Kelly's name if put to them. The one and only option was for everyone to have stated 'we are not naming the person involved at this time' no matter whose name was put forward. It seems to me that the BBC displayed integrity and determination in not naming their source, whilst the MoD and all the political merchants involved couldn't wait to name Dr Kelly and throw him the wolves if they thought it would help their personal agenda. It's an absolute disgrace for most involved. Sympathies lie with Dr Kelly and his family.
George Kearse, United Kingdom

The BBC must admit it was wrong to have backed the report from Andrew Gilligan Peter, UK

The BBC must admit it was wrong to have backed the report from Andrew Gilligan. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt by the enquiry. The naming of Dr Kelly by the MoD was correct (though with awful, unforeseen consequences). It would have been indefensible for the MoD to lie about or refuse to name a source which was key to the whole affair - it would have appeared to be a cover-up.
Peter, UK

Most odd that our government types would start a witch hunt which ended in the death of Dr. Kelly, incensed that Andrew Gilligan's report was based on a "single source" while their own "45 minute" point, itself based on a "single source", was solid enough to be the prime reason for taking out Saddam. How could our "whiter than white" government (c.f. the 97 election) justify going to war using a point provided by only one source while vehemently denying Mr. Gilligan's story, criticising it for being based on only one source? I hope we do not have double standards here or have I missed something? Let's not forget that Saddam is now out, though regrettably still alive, though David Kelly is dead. If only it were the opposite.
Stephen Innes, UK

No-one should be in any doubt that it is perfectly acceptable and standard professional practice for any public relations or information officer to refuse to disclose the names of patients, passengers, guests or employees to the media. Our role is to promote and protect reputation not pander to a media feeding frenzy.
Peter L. Walker, UK

I personally have no faith at all remaining in the current government after all the spin and lies (admittedly the only things that I agreed with were the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq) but now it is just a fiasco. I think that this has come at just the right time to relieve pressure on Iain Duncan Smith who now has a chance to lead the Conservatives to an election victory and thus save Great Britain from the levels of spin, red tape and meddling bureaucracy together with Blair's "control-freak" mentality that allowed the fiasco to start and lead to the tragic death of an innocent bystander (the late Dr Kelly).
Mark Herbage, GREAT BRITAIN

So far the inquiry has only proven that the government did not insert the 45 minute statement knowing it was untrue as stated by Gilligan on the BBC. The BBC have lost the trust of so many people in this country and there must be changes from the top down. The only people who seem to attack the government are the usual suspects from the far left and from the right.
Gary Gatter, UK

I thought the Hutton inquiry was trying to get to the bottom of all the lies. Why then is Tony Blair not recalled to give evidence when clearly there is a contradiction in the evidence given by him!?
Etienne, England

Weren't the intelligence services given an opportunity to proofread the dossier before its release and point out Mr Blair's confusion? Rob, UK

Apparently the famous 45 minute claim was meant to refer to deployment of WMD on the battlefield, and we, the public, have misinterpreted it. Well we're not the only ones. In his introduction to the dossier, Tony Blair asserts that it proves Saddam Hussein posed a serious and immediate threat to us. Weren't the intelligence services given an opportunity to proofread the dossier before its release and point out Mr Blair's confusion? If not, why not? And if they were, surely this suggests that the ambiguity was deliberately retained to mislead us.
Rob, UK

No one can believe, surely, that Lord Hutton will be allowed to uncover any truths that Tony wants to keep secret?
Chris Boote, UK

What a farce. British politics is rotten. Who wants to form a new political party?
Iain, UK

Iain UK, there IS a new political party. It's called the BNP. You don't want it, I don't want it. But watch it grow.
Richie, UK

If "the 45 minutes" relates only to mortar type short range missiles. Then Gilligan and Kelly were right. The Government did "sex up" the claim. Because the public were led to believe that the weapons were long range and capable of reaching other countries.
Carol Johnson, England

I thought that the inquiry was to be about the death of Dr. Kelly. So far it appears to have completely missed the point and concentrated on the "45 minutes" intelligence rather than the true matter.
Cliff, UK

Three cheers for Darren Robinson, I too am bored, bored, bored by the whole thing. My sympathy is with Dr. Kellys family, who surely want to be left alone by now.
All Joe Public has had to go on from the beginning of this farce has been subjective opinion, be it from the BBC, the press, MPs, even the so called experts. Now we are down to arguing over what words were used, and I am supposed to be interested. Forget it.
D. Routledge, UK

One thing this has shown to its credit is that if you lie you get found out. Where were the WMD's in Iraq? the war has been going for 4 months and none have been found.
Safina Aziz, UK

The '45 minute dossier' is getting all the attention. What about the original doggy dossier that plagiarized a PhD thesis and was presented as evidence to the UN by Colin Powell? Who was responsible for that dossier which was the basis of a lie to the whole world? Will Lord Hutton have an opinion on that?
R. Chang, England

Whilst the text of Gilligan's reports may not have been 100% accurate the sense of them was.

It is eminently clear the government has not been straightforward. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth is the required standard for UK citizens appearing before a court.

The government has not held to [this] standard, rather their statements have been partially true and included much that can not be accredited as true. In a UK court evidence of the type of the 45 minutes claim would be dismissed as hearsay.

It seems Andrew Gilligan's piece(s) went to air without much editorial control or judgement Mark, Scotland

Gilligan, and the BBC, should be exonerated and applauded for raising the questions. What procedural errors and somewhat minor exuberance/overreaction the BBC may have portrayed pale in to insignificance compared to the deliberate and planned manipulation of the facts that the government has demonstrated.
Jake, UK

When a number of senior intelligence people say that the facts behind the dossier where mis-interpreted but nevertheless true, it raises the question whether information of this kind should be made public at all. Certainly, the dossiers have proven to be the wrong way. Thus, the government has mis-handled intelligence information.
EN, UK

The whole Hutton affair reminds me of the recent case of the "journalist" from the New York Times who fabricated his stories. It seems Andrew Gilligan's piece(s) went to air without much editorial control or judgement.

Is this what we are to expect from BBC News, which once prided itself on the quality of its reporting and reporters, yet now seems more interested in "glamorous" presenters and flashy graphics? (Andrew Gilligan is not included under the "glamorous" umbrella...)
Mark, Scotland

I am not waiting for outcome of this inquiry. I have already made my own judgement from death of Dr Kelly and WMD inspection status in Iraq.
Sangam Dhruva, USA (India)

Why does nobody seem prepared to speak up for Andrew Gilligan? It seems to me he did a good investigative job, and in view of the pressure he was being subjected to was justified in doing what he could do to preserve his reputation - his suggested line of questioning was at least trying to encourage the truth to come out, whereas the government's was trying to suppress it.
John Crouch, UK

The inquiry continues to reveal things the government would love to keep hidden Alex, Scotland

Prime Minister Tony Blair would have gotton away with the fib had it not been for the apparent suicide of an honourable scientist Dr. Kelly. Mr Blair is still lucky that he is in power. It is because he has backed off and knows how to back off with grace, an intelligent man indeed.

There will be a fall guy soon and i suspect Mr. Hoon will be the sacrificial sheep, but no one in their right mind will ever trust what Mr. Blair and company says anymore.

BBC keeps the trust as it always has because it knows the risks of losing credibility too well...besides, its not a stooge for the government and i don't think it ever will be... dr. m. kothari
Mayank K. Kothari, M.D., USA

The inquiry continues to reveal things the government would love to keep hidden. It has proved be a huge embarrassment for Blair, and proving more and more that the war on Iraq had a sinister hidden agenda.

I wonder whether the Hutton enquiry will ever reach the conclusion that many now see as obvious: The Israel factor in getting rid of a potential Muslim threat, and the oil/economic factor that benefited America.
Alex Wilson, Scotland

It's possibly the most boring thing ever to be thrust down the public's throat. I mean, I'm sorry for poor old Dr. Kelly and all, but do we really need this hoo-ha filling the media?

I think not. At least one good thing may come out of it, if fewer people will blindly trust Tony Blair and his lapdogs in future.
Darren Robinson, UK

The media version of the Hutton inquiry - that the government spun the country into a needless war, that Hoon sacrificed Kelly on Downing Street's orders, that Gilligan might look dodgy, but the gist of his report was true - is easily dispelled by reading the Hutton transcripts, the dossier, and the reports coming out of Iraq that Saddam ordered the use of battlefield chemical weapons against coalition troops.

This might not fit the anti-war, no WMD, Blair lied case, but, nonetheless, it fits very well with Kelly's actual views.
David, UK

Well, finally the smokescreens put up by the BBC are starting to clear. It appears Greg Dyke 'wasn't aware' of what was going on within his news 'empire' (compare with the media vilification heaped upon Geoff Hoon for an alleged similar offence).

For all the nonsense we have heard, we might just as well ask the ebullient ex-Iraqi Information Minister Robert Malcolm, England

But already we see the media 'gutter press' pack and the anti-war brigade rallying to the false BBC cause with their familiar 'Goebbels style' anti-war, anti-government chants, selective interviews, and a public disinformation news campaign. I await tomorrow's headlines with interest, while patiently looking forward to the conclusions of the Hutton enquiry and the return of the BBC to reporting the news honestly and objectively.
John, UK

 One problem is that no one seems to know what the 45 minutes claim actually refers to. It certainly wasn't referring to the time to deploy weapons of mass destruction. So 45 minute for what? For all the nonsense we have heard, we might just as well ask the ebullient ex-Iraqi Information Minister: his answer couldn't be any worse than the ones we have heard so far!
Robert Malcolm, England

The Hutton inquiry has so far become a media circus making it very difficult to decipher the true debate concerning the ethical justification of the Iraq war. True, an obviously talented and intelligent man has tragically died as the result of government petulance. However, coverage of the inquiry should be less partisan and accusatory, and more diplomatic and analytical.
Matt, Sutton Coldfield, England

The seriousness of the charges against the government would appear to be lost on those people who say the Hutton inquiry is a witch-hunt, that the issue should be laid to rest, put behind us and so on. The death of David Kelly is, without doubt, a terrible tragedy but, multiply that figure by several thousand and that's the number of terrible tragedies that occurred in Iraq as a result of the Anglo-American invasion.
Garth, UK

At present the Hutton inquiry has revealed some ambiguities. I personally would have like to have seen the recalled witnesses giving evidence under oath. Perhaps the pressure of this would subsequently reveal more of the spin tactics of this government over the public.
Malcolm Schofield, England