Hutton Report: Dyke Quits

[downquark1]

If Dyke had actually done his job properly and checked if Gilligans story was correct instead of blindly defending him none of this would have happened.

Dyke is still sticking by his decision, he said he didn't know why they were appologising - sounds like even with all the evidence you still believes Gilligan. And you can't call him biased against the government -he's a labour donator.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Nor

You feel sorry for Greg Dyke ? Its more his fault Kelly died than anyone elses. You want to believe its the govt but... Gilligan lied about what Dr Kelly had told him, Dyke then defended Gilligan saying his story was 100% accurate, this is what led to the stand off, the enquiry, the death of Dr Kelly and the subsequent Hutton Enquiry. If Dyke had actually done his job properly and checked if Gilligans story was correct instead of blindly defending him none of this would have happened.

Its laughable that you can say you feel sorry for someone who caused it all. By all accounts he was one of the best DG the BBC have had in decades, but it doesn't excuse his major role in this and his failings. Some people just wanted the Hutton Report to confirm their prejudiced views and when it didn't its automatically a whitewash.

Gilligan reported that David Kelly had doubts about the capacity of Iraq to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. The government said that the information was supplied by British intelligence, which is confirmed by Hutton. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and the resignation of the investigator charged with finding them on the grounds that he doesn't believe that they will ever be found, would surely support the view that they couldn't possibly launch those weapons in 45 minutes, which was the basis on which we went to war i.e.that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the UK and the USA. This vindicates Kelly's remarks and the BBC's support.

[Nor]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Gilligan reported that David Kelly had doubts about the capacity of Iraq to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. The government said that the information was supplied by British intelligence, which is confirmed by Hutton. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and the resignation of the investigator charged with finding them on the grounds that he doesn't believe that they will ever be found, would surely support the view that they couldn't possibly launch those weapons in 45 minutes, which was the basis on which we went to war i.e.that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the UK and the USA. This vindicates Kelly's remarks and the BBC's support.

You've completely missed the actual important issue. The important issue is that Gilligan said Dr Kelly told him the government PROBABLY KNEW that there was no WMD threat but were including that there was within the dossier. Thats the important issue, thats what the whole incident was about.

The fact is... Dr Kelly never told Gilligan that at all, Gilligan made it up to 'sex up' his story. But instead of Dyke actually checking out Gilligans story, he didn't and replied to the governments complaint telling them they wouldn't apologise for the story and that it was 100% accurate. Then Dyke et al actually got round to checking the facts of Gilligans interview with Dr Kelly and there was no mention of that point which Gilligan made. The BBC then subsequently removed that allegation from all stories. Yet they did not apologise when they themselves knew they were wrong, with Dyke believing it was somehow a battle about the independance of the BBCs and their journalistic integrity. If Dyke had checked the facts before dismissing the governments complaint and going on the attack none of this would have ever happened.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Nor

You've completely missed the actual important issue. The important issue is that Gilligan said Dr Kelly told him the government PROBABLY KNEW that there was no WMD threat but were including that there was within the dossier. Thats the important issue, thats what the whole incident was about.

The fact is... Dr Kelly never told Gilligan that at all, Gilligan made it up to 'sex up' his story. But instead of Dyke actually checking out Gilligans story, he didn't and replied to the governments complaint telling them they wouldn't apologise for the story and that it was 100% accurate. Then Dyke et al actually got round to checking the facts of Gilligans interview with Dr Kelly and there was no mention of that point which Gilligan made. The BBC then subsequently removed that allegation from all stories. Yet they did not apologise when they themselves knew they were wrong, with Dyke believing it was somehow a battle about the independance of the BBCs and their journalistic integrity. If Dyke had checked the facts before dismissing the governments complaint and going on the attack none of this would have ever happened.

What made the whole thing worse than it neaded to be was Mr Campbell Writing a VERY stern letter to the BBC about the allegations.

The Governors were right to take the view that it was their duty to protect the independence of the BBC against attacks by the Government and Mr Campbell's complaints were being expressed in exceptionally strong terms which raised very considerably the temperature of the dispute between the Government and the BBC.

they reacted in a predicatable way about this. To be fair, it then goes onto say that.

The Government's concern about Mr Gilligan's broadcasts on 29 May was a separate issue about which specific complaints had been made by the Government. Therefore the Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints, no matter how strongly worded by Mr Campbell, that the allegations against its integrity reported in Mr Gilligan's broadcasts were unfounded and the Governors failed to give this issue proper consideration.

The only thing we can ever be sure about is that at the end of any enquiry these days one or the other side and even both will always claim victory or that it's a whitewash.Hardly ever seems worth having an enquiry under those circumstances especially as the things are so chuffingly expensive if no one is ever satisfied with the results.

I think we need less of these processes.No one ever thinks the results are right and a whitewash is always claimed by conspiracy nuts.

Frankly I'm bored by investigations,enquiries,select committees as no one is ever pleased by the results and nothing ever gets resolved. :tongue in cheek smiley:

Incog

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Nor

You've completely missed the actual important issue. The important issue is that Gilligan said Dr Kelly told him the government PROBABLY KNEW that there was no WMD threat but were including that there was within the dossier. Thats the important issue, thats what the whole incident was about.

The fact is... Dr Kelly never told Gilligan that at all, Gilligan made it up to 'sex up' his story. But instead of Dyke actually checking out Gilligans story, he didn't and replied to the governments complaint telling them they wouldn't apologise for the story and that it was 100% accurate. Then Dyke et al actually got round to checking the facts of Gilligans interview with Dr Kelly and there was no mention of that point which Gilligan made. The BBC then subsequently removed that allegation from all stories. Yet they did not apologise when they themselves knew they were wrong, with Dyke believing it was somehow a battle about the independance of the BBCs and their journalistic integrity. If Dyke had checked the facts before dismissing the governments complaint and going on the attack none of this would have ever happened.

Greg Dyke's failure as you put it to check the facts led to a row between the BBC and the Government. Tony Blair's failure to check the facts supplied by British Intelligence led to a war with Iraq.

[Iago]

1) Kelly claimed to be a high-ranking member who had a large role in the dossier, in fact, he was a mid-ranking member who had almost no role in the dossier. It was reported as a senior member in the MOD who was one of the main people invloved with the dossier. The BBC did not know kelly was lieing and reported the veiw so it looked like truth instead of someones point of view!

Most of that is Kellys falut for lieing and making out to be more Important then he was and Gilligans for the wording. You also cannot expect the BBC is be able to edit what a reporter said iin a live broadcast.

This is Kellys and Gilligans falut no-one elses

[Iago]

Also no-one has ansered nors question WHEN DID BLAIR LIE

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Iago

Also no-one has ansered nors question WHEN DID BLAIR LIE

He lied when he said that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction and that they could launch an attack in 45 minutes, which plainly wasn't true. He said that in the House Of Commons in the Iraq debate on live TV before going to war.

[Iago]

There is a diffrence between lieing and being wrong

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Iago

There is a diffrence between lieing and being wrong

Good job the papers did not get mixed up - It would be " Dyke report - Hutton Quits "

I wonder who will replace him ? I bet the wages are good !

[downquark1]

There still seems to be a great deal of sympathy for the BBC. The Question time poll yesterday said that only 18% said dyke should have resigned. The good thing about the publicness (coin a word) of the enquiry means people can draw their own conclusions.

The BBC's own reporting on this has been wonderful.

Originally Posted by downquark1

There still seems to be a great deal of sympathy for the BBC. The Question time poll yesterday said that only 18% said dyke should have resigned. The good thing about the publicness (coin a word) of the enquiry means people can draw their own conclusions.

The BBC's own reporting on this has been wonderful.

I see Gilligan hasn't resigned!

Originally Posted by Iago

There is a diffrence between lieing and being wrong

Good point though for some such a fine distinction and attempt at impartiality will be discounted.

Incog

[downquark1]

Seems he definately does not accept the Hutton report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3443241.stm