[[Image:ac.hutton.jpg|frame|Brian Hutton led the inquiry that concluded that Dr. David Kelly had taken his own life.]] The Hutton Inquiry was a United Kingdom judicial inquiry chaired by Brian Hutton, appointed by the British government to investigate the death of a government weapons expert, Dr. David Kelly. The inquiry opened in August 2003 and reported on January 28, 2004. Its terms of reference were to "urgently[...] conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly".
In his report, Hutton began by saying that he was "satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life". He then concluded that the British Broadcasting Corporation's allegations that the government had knowingly "sexed up" a report into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — the "September Dossier" — were unfounded. The inquiry's findings prompted the immediate resignation of the BBC's chairman, Gavyn Davies, its Director General (chief executive) Greg Dyke, and the journalist at the centre of the allegations, Andrew Gilligan. Lord Hutton retired as a Law Lord following the report's publication.
==Background==
[[Image:Dr David Kelly.jpg|thumb|left| Dr David Kelly, an expert on biological warfare, leaked information on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction to a journalist. His death precipitated the scandal.]]
Kelly had been the source for reports made by three BBC journalists that the Government, particularly the press office of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had knowingly embellished the dossier with misleading exaggerations of Iraq's military capabilities. These were reported by Andrew Gilligan on BBC Radio 4's ''The Today programme'' on May 29 2003, by Gavin Hewitt on the Ten O'Clock News the same day and by Susan Watts on BBC Two's ''Newsnight'' on June 2. On June 1 Gilligan repeated his allegations in an article written for the ''Mail on Sunday'', naming government press secretary Alastair Campbell as the driving force for alteration of the dossier.
The Government angrily denounced the reports and accused the corporation of poor journalism. In subsequent weeks the corporation stood by the report, saying that it had a reliable source. Following intense media speculation, Kelly was finally named in the press as the source for Gilligan's story on July 9. Kelly apparently committed suicide in a field close to his home on July 17 (although this will not be officially confirmed until a coroner's report is released). An inquiry was announced by the British government the following day. The inquiry was to investigate whether the Government had indeed "sexed-up" the report or, if not, uncover why it had been claimed that it did.
==The inquiry==
The inquiry opened on August 1. Hearings began on August 11. The first phase of the inquiry closed on September 4. A second session of witness-calling began on Monday September 15, where some witnesses from the first session, such as Andrew Gilligan, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, BBC chairman Gavyn Davies and Alastair Campbell were recalled for further questions arising from the first phase, and some witnesses were called for the first time. The taking of evidence closed on Wednesday September 24. The inquiry heard evidence on 22 days, lasting 110 hours, from 74 witnesses. Examination and cross-examination came from five Queen's Counsels, representing the Inquiry, the Government, the BBC, the Kelly family and Andrew Gilligan.
==The report==
Hutton initially announced that he expected to be able to deliver his report in late November or early December. The report was eventually published on January 28, 2004. It ran to 750 pages in 13 chapters and 18 appendices, though this was mainly comprised of excerpts from the hundreds of documents (letters, emails, transcripts of conversation, and so on) that were published during the inquiry. The main conclusions were:
[[Image:Tonyblair1.jpg|150px|thumb|Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired the meeting where the decision was taken to release David Kelly's name to the public.]]
* Hutton was "satisfied that Dr. Kelly took his own life"
* There was "no underhand [government] strategy" to name him as the source for the BBC's accusations
* Gilligan's original accusation was "unfounded" and the BBC's editorial and management processes were "defective"
* The dossier had not been "sexed up", but was in line with available intelligence, although the Joint Intelligence Committee, chaired by John Scarlett, may have been "subconsciously influenced" by the government
* The Ministry of Defence (MOD) was at fault for not informing Kelly of their strategy that would involve naming him
The report exonerated the Government much more completely than had been expected by many observers prior to its publication. Evidence presented to the inquiry had indicated:
* That the wording of the dossier had been altered to present the strongest possible case for war within the bounds of available intelligence
* That some of these changes had been suggested by Alastair Campbell
* That reservations had been expressed by experts within the Intelligence Community about the wording of the dossier
* That David Kelly had direct contact with the dissenters within the Defence Intelligence Staff and had communicated their reservations (and his own) to several journalists.
* That, following Kelly's decision to come forward as one of Gilligan's contacts, Alastair Campbell and Geoff Hoon had wanted his identity made public
* That the Prime Minister himself had chaired a meeting at which it was decided that Dr Kelly's name would be confirmed by the Ministry of Defence if put to them by journalists
* That Kelly's name had been confirmed after journalists had made multiple suggestions to the MOD press office.
Despite this evidence the government was largely cleared of any wrongdoing by Hutton. In large measure this was because evidence to the Inquiry indicated that the government had not known of the reservations in the intelligence community: it seemed they had been discounted by senior intelligence assessors (the Joint Intelligence Committee) — thus Gilligan's claim that the government "probably knew" the intelligence was flawed, was itself unfounded. Furthermore, the Inquiry had heard that these were not the words used by Gilligan's source, but his own inference. Meanwhile, Hutton determined that any failure of intelligence assessment fell outside his remit, and the Intelligence Services thus also escaped censure.
Instead the report placed a great deal of emphasis on evidence of the failings of Gilligan and the BBC, many of which had been explicitly acknowledged during the course of the Inquiry. In particular, it specifically criticised the chain of management that caused the BBC to defend its story. The BBC management, the report said, had accepted Gilligan's word that his story was accurate, rather than check Gilligan's records more thoroughly.
Davies had then told the BBC Board of Governors that he was happy with the story, and told the Prime Minister that a satisfactory internal inquiry had taken place. The Board of Governors, under Davies' guidance, accepted that further investigation of the Government's complaints were unnecessary. In his report Hutton wrote of this:
: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.
==Immediate aftermath of publication==
It was because of the report's criticism of his actions that Davies resigned on the day of publication, January 28. Reporters from rival news organisation ITN described the day of publication as "one of the worst in the BBC's history". Greg Dyke resigned two days after the publication of the report, following a meeting of BBC Governors where it is reported he only retained the support of one third of the board. However, after announcing his resignation, Dyke stated:
:I do not necessarily accept the findings of Lord Hutton. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3441181.stm]
Andrew Gilligan resigned because of his part in the affair on January 30, making three BBC resignations in three days. However, in his resignation statement he questioned the value of Hutton's report:
:This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446443.stm]
Blair, who had been repeatedly under fire for the "sexing-up" allegations, told the House of Commons in the debate following the release of the report that he had been completely exonerated. He demanded a retraction from those who had accused him of lying to the House, particularly Michael Howard, the Leader of the Opposition:
:The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. And I simply ask that those that made it and those who have repeated it over all these months, now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly. [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page5256.asp]
Howard sidestepped the demand for an apology. However, immediately after the Board of Governors had accepted Dyke's resignation Lord Ryder, as Acting Chairman of the BBC (Davis's replacement), apologised "unreservedly" for errors made during the Dr David Kelly affair. Dyke, who has not given the conclusions of the Hutton report his full backing said that he "could not quite work out" what the BBC was apologising for. The Independent subsequently reported that the BBC governors had ignored the advice of BBC lawyers that the Hutton report was "legally flawed", although this was denied by the BBC.
Deliberately or otherwise, Dr. Kelly had raised wider questions about the quality, interpretation and presentation of intelligence that Hutton had left unanswered. Some of these are to be addressed in a new Butler Inquiry, announced by the government on February 3 2004.
At the end of the report Hutton recalled how the final part of David Kelly's life had not been representative of his whole career in the civil service:
:The evidence at this Inquiry has concentrated largely on the last two months of Dr Kelly's life, and therefore it is fitting that I should end this report with some words written in Dr Kelly's obituary in The Independent on 31 July by Mr Terence Taylor, the President and Executive Director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Washington DC and a former colleague of Dr Kelly: "It is most important that the extraordinary public attention and political fallout arising from the events of the past month do not mask the extraordinary achievements of a scientist who loyally served not only his Government but also the international community at large."
==Leaking of the report prior to publication==
The report was leaked by an unknown party to ''The Sun'' the night before the official publication date. The Sun and consequently most other newspapers in their later editions ran with the leaked version of the report. Delivered by an unnamed source over the telephone to Sun Political Editor Trevor Kavanagh, the leaked version accurately described the report's main findings. All sides involved in the Inquiry denounced the leak. Lord Hutton launched a further inquiry into how the report came to be leaked. This second inquiry, carried out by a solicitor, reported on 11 August 2004, but failed to find the source of the leak. It also said there were "no particular weaknesses" in the security of the report and so offered no suggestions of how a similar leak might be prevented in the future.
==Media reaction to the report==
Several national newspapers judged the report to be so uncritical of the Government that they accused Hutton of participating in an "establishment whitewash". The right-wing ''Daily Mail'' wrote in its editorial "We're faced with the wretched spectacle of the BBC chairman resigning while Alastair Campbell crows from the summit of his dunghill. Does this verdict, my lord, serve the real interest of truth?". ''The Independent'' included a large, mostly empty, white space above the fold on its front page containing just the word "whitewash?" in small red type.
The ''Daily Express'' headline read "Hutton's whitewash leaves questions unanswered" — referring to the fact that an investigation into Britain's reasons for joining the war in Iraq was beyond the scope of the inquiry. None of the newspapers presented evidence of a cover-up, but they questioned whether the conclusions were supported by the evidence.
Other newspapers such as ''The Times'', ''The Sun'' (both owned by News Corporation and usually critical of the BBC) and ''The Daily Telegraph'' concentrated on the behaviour of the BBC criticised in the report and called for Greg Dyke to resign, as he did later that day (January 29).
In assessing the media response to the Hutton report, it needs to be remembered that most British newspapers are highly partisan in their editorial policies. The reactions of papers supportive of the Conservative Party (UK), such as ''The Daily Mail'' and ''The Daily Telegraph'', in part reflected the Conservatives' disappointment that the report did not find that Blair had misled the House of Commons or the public, which might have precipitated his resignation.
On the other hand, left-wing newspapers such as ''The Guardian'' and ''The Daily Mirror'', while supporting Blair against the Conservatives, strongly opposed British participation in the war in Iraq, and sympathised with what they (and many others) saw as the anti-war stance of BBC journalists such as Gilligan. While they probably did not want Blair forced from office, they would have welcomed a finding that Alastair Campbell had falsified the September Dossier.
As Martin Kettle wrote in ''The Guardian'' on February 3: "Too many newspapers invested too heavily in a particular preferred outcome on these key points. They wanted the government found guilty on the dossier and on the naming, and they wanted Gilligan's reporting vindicated. When Hutton drew opposite conclusions, they damned his findings as perverse and his report as a whitewash. But the report's weakness was its narrowness, and to some extent its unworldliness, not the accuracy of its verdicts."
Thousands of BBC workers paid for a full-page advertisement in ''The Daily Telegraph'' on January 31 in order to publish a message of support for Dyke, followed by a list of their names. The message read:
:The following statement is from BBC employees, presenters, reporters and contributors. It was paid for by them personally, not the BBC itself.
:''Greg Dyke stood for brave, independent BBC journalism that was fearless in its search for the truth. We are resolute that the BBC should not step back from its determination to investigate the facts in pursuit of the truth. Through his passion and integrity Greg Dyke inspired us to make programmes of the highest quality and creativity. We are dismayed by Greg's departure, but we are determined to maintain his achievements and his vision for an independent organisation that serves the public above all else.''
An ICM public opinion poll, commissioned by the News of the World and published on February 1 2004, showed that 54% of respondents believed Tony Blair's reputation had deteriorated. Only 14% thought his status had improved after being vindicated in the report.
In some countries the reputation of the BBC in fact improved as a result of its attacks on the British government during the Dr David Kelly affair. The BBC is sometimes viewed, especially outside the UK, as a puppet of the government. The BBC's willingness so publicly to accuse the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defence of wrongdoing, despite the mistakes the BBC itself acknowledged it had made, boosted its credentials as an impartial and unbiased news source.
Hutton himself defended the report, speaking before a Commons select committee on May 14 2004. He stated he had not thought it appropriate to embark on a study of the pre-war intelligence: ''"I had to draw the line somewhere."'' He felt the allegations against Gilligan were ''"far graver"'' than questions concerning the quality of the intelligence, and that it was right that a separate inquiry, the Butler Review, was being conducted. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Politics/kelly/story/0,13747,1215907,00.html]
==See also==
* UK topics
* Downing Street memo
* Operation Rockingham
==External links==
* [http://news1.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/documents/pdf/hutton_inquiry.pdf The Hutton Report] (Portable Document Format), published as ISBN 0102927154.
* [http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ The official site of the Hutton Inquiry], carrying a full transcript of proceedings.
* [http://www.hutton.softblade.com/ Unofficial site (www.hutton.softblade.com)] with improved navigation (including search tools), more readable transcripts and cross-references to evidence. Automatically updated as new information is released.
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/default.stm BBC News - In Depth: The Hutton Report]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/0,13822,1021216,00.html Guardian Unlimited - Special Report: The Hutton Report]
* [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1034300.htm Agence France Presse report] on media reaction
*[http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317836/us317916/us147927/us269889/us290317/us290319/us10151623/us10152821/us10174173 LookSmart - David Kelly and the Hutton Inquiry] directory category
*[http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Government/Inquiries/Hutton_Inquiry/ Open Directory Project - Hutton Inquiry] directory category
*[http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/United_Kingdom/Government/Politics/Political_Issues/Iraq_Crisis/Dossier_on_the_Iraqi_Regime/ Yahoo! - Dossier on the Iraqi Regime] directory category
Government reports
---- I still don't see how you can justify the comment that David Kelly committed suicide until the coroner's report is available. I don't think that's what Hutton actually said, and even if it did, surely it's the coroner's inquest report that counts. User:David Martland 14:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Hutton said he "was satisfied" that Kelly committed suicide. Is it in any dispute whatsoever? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Actual quote is the first line of paragraph 467 of the report. "I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life..." User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :::The article makes the suicide claim in the "Background" section. I have made a footnote at this point. The other points in the article it is just us reporting Hutton's view so the footnote is not required. ---- The article refers to three BBC journalists, yet only one is mentioned. This should be checked and verified, and possibly expanded, or alternatively corrected. User:David Martland 14:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :There are definitely at least two, Andrew Gilligan and Susan Watts. I have been troubled by the mention of three see I started adding stuff to the article because I have only heard of those two. But hadn't dared to do anything about it until now. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Got him. The third was Gavin Hewitt, who broadcast it on the Ten o'clock news on 29 May. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::You mentioned that the Gavin Hewitt link is still red. I have been trying to fill in some of the gaps (e.g., Susan Watts, but Gavin Hewitt (good journalist, I'm sure) doesn't really inspire. and his role in the Kelly Affair/Hutton Inquiry was fairly limited. I'm more concerned about Geoff Hoon who played an important part in the Kelly Affair, has a very brief bio at present. He has also been at the centre of controversy about failings in the supply of key material to the Iraq theatre, which lead to the death of at least one British soldier. Someone should have a crack at bringing his page up to date. User:Washington irving 09:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::Yes Geoff Hoon is pretty appalling (the article that is, no comment on the man :-) but it would be a genuine bit of work to do a decent article on him. Gavin Hewitt however was a no-brainer - ain't much to say - and the red link in a sea of blue was getting on my nerves so I got rid of it. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 11:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- I just spotted a beautiful quote from Andrew Gilligan's statement on quitting the BBC (from [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446391.stm this article], full text [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446443.stm here]):
"This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers." Could this be added somewhere? I suppose we'd need more quotes from other sources (Hutton, Blair, etc) to balance the article though. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 22:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I've put it in a quotes section. Needs more, as you say. - User:David Gerard 00:18, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) ::I'll see what the BBC has to offer... User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 03:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) Here are some suggestions: Blair, from [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page5256.asp PM statement on Hutton report]:
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. And I simply ask that those that made it and those who have repeated it over all these months, now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly."
and
"There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to name Dr Kelly. He was named for the reason we gave. And again I ask that those that have repeatedly claimed that I lied over this issue or that Sir Kevin Tebbit did, now withdraw that allegation also, unequivocally and in full."
and
"We can have the debate about the war; about WMD; about intelligence. But we do not need to conduct it by accusations of lies and deceit. We can respect each other's motives and integrity even when in disagreement." Hutton, from his [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/hutton_report/html/chapter12.stm summary of his conslusions]:
"Dr Kelly's meeting with Mr Gilligan was unauthorised and in meeting Mr Gilligan and discussing intelligence matters with him, Dr Kelly was acting in breach of the Civil Service code of procedure which applied to him."
and
"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."
and
"There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media." The quote within this quote from Hutton's [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/hutton_report/html/chapter13.stm final observations] (might make a good ending to the quote section?):
"The evidence at this Inquiry has concentrated largely on the last two months of Dr Kelly's life, and therefore it is fitting that I should end this report with some words written in Dr Kelly's obituary in The Independent on 31 July by Mr Terence Taylor, the President and Executive Director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Washington DC and a former colleague of Dr Kelly:
'It is most important that the extraordinary public attention and political fallout arising from the events of the past month do not mask the extraordinary achievements of a scientist who loyally served not only his Government but also the international community at large.'"
User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 03:38, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :They are all good quotes. Great research. I would suggest that rather than have a quotes section they be inlined into the article body at the relevant points... would make for a much better article. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 09:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::You've done a great job. I agree, they look better (and make more sense) inserted inline. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 18:16, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) Can anyone confirm the text of the advert in the Daily Telegraph? The small picture of the advert on the BBC news story [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446819.stm here] seems to only show part of what I found quoted in all the other news sources. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 18:16, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I think it is safe to trust the other news sources.. there may have been more at the bottom of the page. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) I've spilt "the report" into two sections as it was getting quite long: "the report" and the "immediate aftermath of publication". I think that the timeline (publication then three resignations) is clearer now, and I added a few quotes and that the BBC had apologised. But it needs fresh eyes, I just reread the beginning of "immediate aftermath of publication", it doesn't quite stand on its own as a section, could someone rephrase it so it's not quite so repetative and so that it doesn't seem to start almost in the middle of a paragraph? :) User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 19:02, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :The splitting is a good idea. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) --- Fabiform - you put in a para about press reaction outside Britain, have we got references for that? (c.f. the refs for British press reaction) - User:David Gerard 19:11, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) :That was based on general reading over the last two days, you're right it does need a source. I'll have a look and find something suitable. Thanks for your general copyediting, by the way. :) User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 19:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::I'd be very interested to read those references too, from a personal perspective as well as getting this article substantially complete - hopefully things will calm down next week so that it is possible! User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3444797.stm Here] is the article I had floating round in my memory. BBC correspondants commenting on the perception of it all in the countries they live in. Here are some snippets: Matt Wells - New York: :BBC news has never been as well regarded in New York as it is now. :Public radio and television carry hours of output, and I have lost count of how many people tell me that BBC News Online is their home page. :Ironically, it is mistrust of their own commercial media, and the sense that it fails to question government policy enough, that has driven so many New Yorkers to overseas outlets. Susannah Price - UN Headquarters in New York: :One UN official said it was not seen as a big deal and had just reinforced earlier opinions about the BBC: "Those who love it continue to do so, and the same with those who dislike it." but... :One ambassador said the BBC was a very respected network and he did not believe the Hutton report had damaged it in any way. Caroline Wyatt - Paris :In an editorial, it [the left-wing newspaper Liberation] also says "hats off to the English", commenting that the inquiry itself and the reporting on it by the BBC showed a lively democracy in action, and one which should inspire the French and France's own political classes. -- To be honest, there's a wide range of opinions of the BBC at the moment, I only focused on one of them. But while I was searching for this article again, I found a fantastic one with quotes from newspapers all over the world about the Hutton report, Dr David Kelly, the War in Iraq etc etc. We should link to it even if we don't quote from it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3444299.stm Some examples: :If the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and some of those close to him, mainly the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, are free of the blood of the British weapons expert, David Kelly, as it appears in the judicial inquiry, then they are certainly guilty of the blood of thousands of Iraqis who died and are still victims of this war. '''Syria's Al-Ba'th :The report now looks a little too politically convenient... For a matter as charged as the fallout from the Iraqi conflict, it was risky to appoint one man, however honourable he might be, to investigate it. Kenya's Nation :The error made by reporter Andrew Gilligan on such a crucial matter was a huge one. He must now bear the consequences... Lord Hutton may have cleared Mr Blair and his government, but the suspicion that the British people were misled - through bad judgment, at least - over the reasons for going to war is one which long remains. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post''' :Not even Mr Blair's most devoted spin doctors could have delivered a more devout defence... Hutton has resolved the conflict. He lays practically all the blame on the BBC... The obvious conclusion is that Hutton submitted a report which served the interests of the state. Blair won a short-term victory, democracy suffered a defeat. '''Sweden's Aftonbladet :Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has given an impressive demonstration of how good governance can also be smart politics... Its report leaves him substantially vindicated, even though the reporting of British intelligence agencies on Iraq now appears to have been disastrously inaccurate... Establishing that the British Government did not lie is not the same as showing that it proceeded wisely or even competently in this area. US daily New York Times''' etc etc.... fascinating reading! User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 21:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :For obvious reasons, it'd be nice if we could find a good "the media likes the BBC" page that wasn't put up by the BBC ;-) - User:David Gerard 21:47, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) ::I like linking to the BBC because it's archive is so stable. But, you could always follow the quotes to their cited sources if you prefer (it would be better, you're right). A good starting point for more research would be http://news.google.com/ User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 00:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) I'd be a little wary of padding out this article with too many quotes from the world's liberal media sympathising with each other. The fact is that Hutton, whose integrity was recognised by all at the time of his appointment, has found that Gilligan acted unprofessionally, that his story was wrong, and that the BBC management were negligent in checking Gillgan's story - and the rest of the liberal media falsely accused Blair of lying about it. Their opposition to the war led them all into error. Editors here should be careful not to make the same mistake. User:Adam Carr 00:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Apart from the paragraph about how the episode may have changed the perception of the BBC outside Britain (which I am not sure about even with the apparent substantial evidence from BBC Monitoring :-), I think this article is hanging on in there in terms of neutrality - maybe a bit of expansion on what the right-wing dailies said before Dyke resigned. However Andrew Gilligan needs some work - an anon has just greatly extended the basic bio I threw in there and spiced it up a with a few of his own opinions that are too-pro BBC/Gilligan. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 00:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I was the anon who made the slighly biased extension to Andrew Gilligan. I am a fairly new contributor (though I have read a lot), and had not created an account. For the same reason I may not quite have sussed out how to use the talk pages (apologies in advance). I tried to make the Gilligan article balanced (e.g, said he broke a cardinal rule of investigative journalism), but I confess that it could do with balancing further - it is a bit editorial in tone. I just think it should not be entirely critical of Gilligan who after all did raise a matter of grave public interest. I have made some related changes to this page (Hutton Inquiry) as I feel that the previous version did not make clear why it was expected that the government would be criticised. A lot of the evidence to the Inquiry was pretty damning of the Government, and this had not been mentioned. I think in the interests of blance, some of the evidence that implies goverment wrongdoing should be summarized here to offset the one-sided view presented by Hutton himself. I run the www.hutton.softblade.com website, and I have followed the evidence to the Inquiry very carefully. User:Washington irving ::For what it's worth I think Washington's contributions have been among the better ones here and the standard is very high. I have been following this very carefully from the beginning. I don't believe the Hutton report was entirely fair. In Australia (where I am at the moment) the press coverage has more or less universally been along those lines. I have also read the online editions of several of the UK newspapers and the BBC and www.hutton.softblade.com web sites as well as parts of the Hutton report itself. The NPOV must, I think, reflect that Hutton has been a little too kind to the Govt and a little too harsh on the BBC. Let's be clear: Hutton did not say there were WMDs. And, reading his report, I fail to see how he avoided the conclusion that the dossier was "sexed-up". They sent it back to be rewritten in the strongest way possible to be consistent with single-source second hand evidence, that they didn't know was wrong because they had deliberately donned their blinkers. I know my last sentence might not be seen by everyone to be entirely NPOV but it is at least as NPOV as Hutton's. Please keep up the good work, everyone. And thanks! User:Psb777 15:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Thanks for your supportive comments Psb777. I have no intention of distorting the record. I was quite careful about the way I phrased my contributions to the Hutton Inquiry article, and I believe they are factually correct. I think Pete/Pcb21 has a fair point about the Andrew Gilligan article though -- I tried to keep it balanced but maybe I did "sex it up" a little. I'll have a crack a toning down the rhetoric, and keeping it factual. Check it later, and see if you think it needs further revision... User:Washington irving 21:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::: Nice to meet you, Washington. I'll be happy to read any revisions you do/did. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) In general I agree that given the strong views all of us have (one way or the other) about these issues, the article is admirable in its balance. User:Adam Carr 02:34, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- == Date of retirement == The article on Lord Hutton says he retired on January 11. This article says he retired after the release of the report. One must be wrong. User:Adam Carr 12:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Originally this article said "Hutton is set to retire after the publication of the report." which was what the press was saying in August/September time. This got changed in this article so that it fitted in with the report being published. So my guess, but no confirmation, is that Jan 11 was the official date. Course, what exactly this means I am not sure as he hasn't finished his Inquiry work just yet - has yet to appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee - I guess the Kelly work is distinct from Law Lord work. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: I added it as the 11th, after a report published somewhere on BBC News that said he had retired effective of that day; ISTR that the pre-retirement wording was that (paraphrasing, of course) Hutton was to retire just before the publication of his report... :: User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester 09:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- I like the picture of Hutton at the top! I think I might add a couple more pictures, nothing too big, but this new thumbnail feature is very convenient. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 23:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :There is acres of white space to the right of all the pictures, which doesn't look great, at least on my screen. Is it possible to use this new feature in the same way as the old manual way - so that the text fills in wherever available? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Also re the pictures... sadly I think their use is a little dubious. They are from the BBC, right? There is no mention of their source of their image pages. They are British images uploaded by a British user in an article about British people... these images probably would not be permissible under British law... but we are using US law.. so we are just about getting away with it... but it must be heavily restricting how this article could be re-used... but I really am nowhere near being a lawyer... anyone have any thoughts? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Perhaps you should ask on the pump about this too. I'm no legal expert either, but the things we do must conform to US law, so I saw no reason not to make use of "fair use" as well just because it was useful rather than restrictive. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 09:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::Actually I just saw that some discussion of this topic is going on at the mailing list. As per current policy and guidelines your actions were absolutely correct, I think. Sorry if I sounded critical - was writing things as they poured out my head :-). ::By the way, they aren't all from the BBC, they are from a variety of different sources. And when have I mentioned my nationality? User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 09:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::Must've dreamt it if you haven't mentioned it. Apologies! As for the former point - at least one was from the BBC and I jumped to a conclusion on the others.... all the more reason to cite a source... whether fair use or GFDL or public domain :) User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 11:26, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- Am I the only one who doesn't like the new Thumbnail/enlarge thing? It doesn't look very neat to me. Having the magnifying glass icon in the bottom right of the caption makes it all look lob-sided. User:Mintguy User talk: Mintguy 08:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I agree with you. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::I don't mind the look of the new thumbnails, they are a lot easier to put in the page, and you only have to upload the large picture, the thumbnail is generated for you (halving the work required!). (The three-in-a-row I did don't look so good, I agree, if anyone wants to play with them to make them more the same size, and/or remove the "thumb" from the markup... go right ahead, although in that case you'll need to include the captions in the table, etc). User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 09:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) I love the new photo thing, although it is going to greatly increase the number of very large photos people (well me anyway) upload. I hope the servers can cope. User:Adam Carr 11:41, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Actually pictures are not a big problem - they just bandwidth more than computation power, I believe. The new markup is great, the only bit I didn't like was the magnifying glass. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 14:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I like the thumbnail thing, not so much for the magnifying glass, but because of the border around the pic and caption which sets it nicely apart from the text. Just my humble opinion. The pictures look fine either way.User:Washington irving 15:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- This article has just been nominated by Kingturtle on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. :) User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 08:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :It is now listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 08:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Gilligan's editor not summoned to inquiry? == Although I think this is a great article, there is one later development that seems to be missing. The editor of the Today programme on which Gilligan broadcast his complaints, Kevin Marsh, publicly complained that he had not been summoned to the Hutton Inquiry. (See [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13845,1143700,00.html The Guardian, 8th Feburary 2004], for example. There were articles elsewhere, but I can't find any). I'm not sure how important this is, but I think it's worth a sentence at least Keep up the good work! == Request for references == Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles Wikipedia:Cite sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check has more information. Thank you, and please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit§ion=new leave me a message] when a few references have been added to the article. - User:Taxman 18:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
#redirect Hutton Inquiry
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Hutton_Inquiry:
Hutton_Inquiry
Hutton_Inquiry
Hutton_inquiry
Hutton Inquiry
[[Image:ac.hutton.jpg|frame|Brian Hutton led the inquiry that concluded that Dr. David Kelly had taken his own life.]] The Hutton Inquiry was a United Kingdom judicial inquiry chaired by Brian Hutton, appointed by the British government to investigate the death of a government weapons expert, Dr. David Kelly. The inquiry opened in August 2003 and reported on January 28, 2004. Its terms of reference were to "urgently
| ''Gavyn Davies'' | ''Greg Dyke'' | ''Andrew Gilligan'' |
Hutton Inquiry
---- I still don't see how you can justify the comment that David Kelly committed suicide until the coroner's report is available. I don't think that's what Hutton actually said, and even if it did, surely it's the coroner's inquest report that counts. User:David Martland 14:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Hutton said he "was satisfied" that Kelly committed suicide. Is it in any dispute whatsoever? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Actual quote is the first line of paragraph 467 of the report. "I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life..." User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :::The article makes the suicide claim in the "Background" section. I have made a footnote at this point. The other points in the article it is just us reporting Hutton's view so the footnote is not required. ---- The article refers to three BBC journalists, yet only one is mentioned. This should be checked and verified, and possibly expanded, or alternatively corrected. User:David Martland 14:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :There are definitely at least two, Andrew Gilligan and Susan Watts. I have been troubled by the mention of three see I started adding stuff to the article because I have only heard of those two. But hadn't dared to do anything about it until now. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Got him. The third was Gavin Hewitt, who broadcast it on the Ten o'clock news on 29 May. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 15:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::You mentioned that the Gavin Hewitt link is still red. I have been trying to fill in some of the gaps (e.g., Susan Watts, but Gavin Hewitt (good journalist, I'm sure) doesn't really inspire. and his role in the Kelly Affair/Hutton Inquiry was fairly limited. I'm more concerned about Geoff Hoon who played an important part in the Kelly Affair, has a very brief bio at present. He has also been at the centre of controversy about failings in the supply of key material to the Iraq theatre, which lead to the death of at least one British soldier. Someone should have a crack at bringing his page up to date. User:Washington irving 09:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::Yes Geoff Hoon is pretty appalling (the article that is, no comment on the man :-) but it would be a genuine bit of work to do a decent article on him. Gavin Hewitt however was a no-brainer - ain't much to say - and the red link in a sea of blue was getting on my nerves so I got rid of it. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 11:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- I just spotted a beautiful quote from Andrew Gilligan's statement on quitting the BBC (from [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446391.stm this article], full text [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446443.stm here]):
"This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers." Could this be added somewhere? I suppose we'd need more quotes from other sources (Hutton, Blair, etc) to balance the article though. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 22:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I've put it in a quotes section. Needs more, as you say. - User:David Gerard 00:18, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) ::I'll see what the BBC has to offer... User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 03:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) Here are some suggestions: Blair, from [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page5256.asp PM statement on Hutton report]:
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. And I simply ask that those that made it and those who have repeated it over all these months, now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly."
and
"There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to name Dr Kelly. He was named for the reason we gave. And again I ask that those that have repeatedly claimed that I lied over this issue or that Sir Kevin Tebbit did, now withdraw that allegation also, unequivocally and in full."
and
"We can have the debate about the war; about WMD; about intelligence. But we do not need to conduct it by accusations of lies and deceit. We can respect each other's motives and integrity even when in disagreement." Hutton, from his [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/hutton_report/html/chapter12.stm summary of his conslusions]:
"Dr Kelly's meeting with Mr Gilligan was unauthorised and in meeting Mr Gilligan and discussing intelligence matters with him, Dr Kelly was acting in breach of the Civil Service code of procedure which applied to him."
and
"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."
and
"There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media." The quote within this quote from Hutton's [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/hutton_report/html/chapter13.stm final observations] (might make a good ending to the quote section?):
"The evidence at this Inquiry has concentrated largely on the last two months of Dr Kelly's life, and therefore it is fitting that I should end this report with some words written in Dr Kelly's obituary in The Independent on 31 July by Mr Terence Taylor, the President and Executive Director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Washington DC and a former colleague of Dr Kelly:
'It is most important that the extraordinary public attention and political fallout arising from the events of the past month do not mask the extraordinary achievements of a scientist who loyally served not only his Government but also the international community at large.'"
User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 03:38, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :They are all good quotes. Great research. I would suggest that rather than have a quotes section they be inlined into the article body at the relevant points... would make for a much better article. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 09:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::You've done a great job. I agree, they look better (and make more sense) inserted inline. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 18:16, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) Can anyone confirm the text of the advert in the Daily Telegraph? The small picture of the advert on the BBC news story [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446819.stm here] seems to only show part of what I found quoted in all the other news sources. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 18:16, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I think it is safe to trust the other news sources.. there may have been more at the bottom of the page. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) I've spilt "the report" into two sections as it was getting quite long: "the report" and the "immediate aftermath of publication". I think that the timeline (publication then three resignations) is clearer now, and I added a few quotes and that the BBC had apologised. But it needs fresh eyes, I just reread the beginning of "immediate aftermath of publication", it doesn't quite stand on its own as a section, could someone rephrase it so it's not quite so repetative and so that it doesn't seem to start almost in the middle of a paragraph? :) User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 19:02, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :The splitting is a good idea. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) --- Fabiform - you put in a para about press reaction outside Britain, have we got references for that? (c.f. the refs for British press reaction) - User:David Gerard 19:11, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) :That was based on general reading over the last two days, you're right it does need a source. I'll have a look and find something suitable. Thanks for your general copyediting, by the way. :) User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 19:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::I'd be very interested to read those references too, from a personal perspective as well as getting this article substantially complete - hopefully things will calm down next week so that it is possible! User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3444797.stm Here] is the article I had floating round in my memory. BBC correspondants commenting on the perception of it all in the countries they live in. Here are some snippets: Matt Wells - New York: :BBC news has never been as well regarded in New York as it is now. :Public radio and television carry hours of output, and I have lost count of how many people tell me that BBC News Online is their home page. :Ironically, it is mistrust of their own commercial media, and the sense that it fails to question government policy enough, that has driven so many New Yorkers to overseas outlets. Susannah Price - UN Headquarters in New York: :One UN official said it was not seen as a big deal and had just reinforced earlier opinions about the BBC: "Those who love it continue to do so, and the same with those who dislike it." but... :One ambassador said the BBC was a very respected network and he did not believe the Hutton report had damaged it in any way. Caroline Wyatt - Paris :In an editorial, it [the left-wing newspaper Liberation] also says "hats off to the English", commenting that the inquiry itself and the reporting on it by the BBC showed a lively democracy in action, and one which should inspire the French and France's own political classes. -- To be honest, there's a wide range of opinions of the BBC at the moment, I only focused on one of them. But while I was searching for this article again, I found a fantastic one with quotes from newspapers all over the world about the Hutton report, Dr David Kelly, the War in Iraq etc etc. We should link to it even if we don't quote from it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3444299.stm Some examples: :If the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and some of those close to him, mainly the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, are free of the blood of the British weapons expert, David Kelly, as it appears in the judicial inquiry, then they are certainly guilty of the blood of thousands of Iraqis who died and are still victims of this war. '''Syria's Al-Ba'th :The report now looks a little too politically convenient... For a matter as charged as the fallout from the Iraqi conflict, it was risky to appoint one man, however honourable he might be, to investigate it. Kenya's Nation :The error made by reporter Andrew Gilligan on such a crucial matter was a huge one. He must now bear the consequences... Lord Hutton may have cleared Mr Blair and his government, but the suspicion that the British people were misled - through bad judgment, at least - over the reasons for going to war is one which long remains. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post''' :Not even Mr Blair's most devoted spin doctors could have delivered a more devout defence... Hutton has resolved the conflict. He lays practically all the blame on the BBC... The obvious conclusion is that Hutton submitted a report which served the interests of the state. Blair won a short-term victory, democracy suffered a defeat. '''Sweden's Aftonbladet :Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has given an impressive demonstration of how good governance can also be smart politics... Its report leaves him substantially vindicated, even though the reporting of British intelligence agencies on Iraq now appears to have been disastrously inaccurate... Establishing that the British Government did not lie is not the same as showing that it proceeded wisely or even competently in this area. US daily New York Times''' etc etc.... fascinating reading! User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 21:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) :For obvious reasons, it'd be nice if we could find a good "the media likes the BBC" page that wasn't put up by the BBC ;-) - User:David Gerard 21:47, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC) ::I like linking to the BBC because it's archive is so stable. But, you could always follow the quotes to their cited sources if you prefer (it would be better, you're right). A good starting point for more research would be http://news.google.com/ User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 00:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) I'd be a little wary of padding out this article with too many quotes from the world's liberal media sympathising with each other. The fact is that Hutton, whose integrity was recognised by all at the time of his appointment, has found that Gilligan acted unprofessionally, that his story was wrong, and that the BBC management were negligent in checking Gillgan's story - and the rest of the liberal media falsely accused Blair of lying about it. Their opposition to the war led them all into error. Editors here should be careful not to make the same mistake. User:Adam Carr 00:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Apart from the paragraph about how the episode may have changed the perception of the BBC outside Britain (which I am not sure about even with the apparent substantial evidence from BBC Monitoring :-), I think this article is hanging on in there in terms of neutrality - maybe a bit of expansion on what the right-wing dailies said before Dyke resigned. However Andrew Gilligan needs some work - an anon has just greatly extended the basic bio I threw in there and spiced it up a with a few of his own opinions that are too-pro BBC/Gilligan. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 00:26, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I was the anon who made the slighly biased extension to Andrew Gilligan. I am a fairly new contributor (though I have read a lot), and had not created an account. For the same reason I may not quite have sussed out how to use the talk pages (apologies in advance). I tried to make the Gilligan article balanced (e.g, said he broke a cardinal rule of investigative journalism), but I confess that it could do with balancing further - it is a bit editorial in tone. I just think it should not be entirely critical of Gilligan who after all did raise a matter of grave public interest. I have made some related changes to this page (Hutton Inquiry) as I feel that the previous version did not make clear why it was expected that the government would be criticised. A lot of the evidence to the Inquiry was pretty damning of the Government, and this had not been mentioned. I think in the interests of blance, some of the evidence that implies goverment wrongdoing should be summarized here to offset the one-sided view presented by Hutton himself. I run the www.hutton.softblade.com website, and I have followed the evidence to the Inquiry very carefully. User:Washington irving ::For what it's worth I think Washington's contributions have been among the better ones here and the standard is very high. I have been following this very carefully from the beginning. I don't believe the Hutton report was entirely fair. In Australia (where I am at the moment) the press coverage has more or less universally been along those lines. I have also read the online editions of several of the UK newspapers and the BBC and www.hutton.softblade.com web sites as well as parts of the Hutton report itself. The NPOV must, I think, reflect that Hutton has been a little too kind to the Govt and a little too harsh on the BBC. Let's be clear: Hutton did not say there were WMDs. And, reading his report, I fail to see how he avoided the conclusion that the dossier was "sexed-up". They sent it back to be rewritten in the strongest way possible to be consistent with single-source second hand evidence, that they didn't know was wrong because they had deliberately donned their blinkers. I know my last sentence might not be seen by everyone to be entirely NPOV but it is at least as NPOV as Hutton's. Please keep up the good work, everyone. And thanks! User:Psb777 15:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Thanks for your supportive comments Psb777. I have no intention of distorting the record. I was quite careful about the way I phrased my contributions to the Hutton Inquiry article, and I believe they are factually correct. I think Pete/Pcb21 has a fair point about the Andrew Gilligan article though -- I tried to keep it balanced but maybe I did "sex it up" a little. I'll have a crack a toning down the rhetoric, and keeping it factual. Check it later, and see if you think it needs further revision... User:Washington irving 21:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::: Nice to meet you, Washington. I'll be happy to read any revisions you do/did. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) In general I agree that given the strong views all of us have (one way or the other) about these issues, the article is admirable in its balance. User:Adam Carr 02:34, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- == Date of retirement == The article on Lord Hutton says he retired on January 11. This article says he retired after the release of the report. One must be wrong. User:Adam Carr 12:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Originally this article said "Hutton is set to retire after the publication of the report." which was what the press was saying in August/September time. This got changed in this article so that it fitted in with the report being published. So my guess, but no confirmation, is that Jan 11 was the official date. Course, what exactly this means I am not sure as he hasn't finished his Inquiry work just yet - has yet to appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee - I guess the Kelly work is distinct from Law Lord work. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: I added it as the 11th, after a report published somewhere on BBC News that said he had retired effective of that day; ISTR that the pre-retirement wording was that (paraphrasing, of course) Hutton was to retire just before the publication of his report... :: User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester 09:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) --- I like the picture of Hutton at the top! I think I might add a couple more pictures, nothing too big, but this new thumbnail feature is very convenient. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 23:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC) :There is acres of white space to the right of all the pictures, which doesn't look great, at least on my screen. Is it possible to use this new feature in the same way as the old manual way - so that the text fills in wherever available? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Also re the pictures... sadly I think their use is a little dubious. They are from the BBC, right? There is no mention of their source of their image pages. They are British images uploaded by a British user in an article about British people... these images probably would not be permissible under British law... but we are using US law.. so we are just about getting away with it... but it must be heavily restricting how this article could be re-used... but I really am nowhere near being a lawyer... anyone have any thoughts? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Perhaps you should ask on the pump about this too. I'm no legal expert either, but the things we do must conform to US law, so I saw no reason not to make use of "fair use" as well just because it was useful rather than restrictive. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 09:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::Actually I just saw that some discussion of this topic is going on at the mailing list. As per current policy and guidelines your actions were absolutely correct, I think. Sorry if I sounded critical - was writing things as they poured out my head :-). ::By the way, they aren't all from the BBC, they are from a variety of different sources. And when have I mentioned my nationality? User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 09:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::Must've dreamt it if you haven't mentioned it. Apologies! As for the former point - at least one was from the BBC and I jumped to a conclusion on the others.... all the more reason to cite a source... whether fair use or GFDL or public domain :) User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 11:26, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- Am I the only one who doesn't like the new Thumbnail/enlarge thing? It doesn't look very neat to me. Having the magnifying glass icon in the bottom right of the caption makes it all look lob-sided. User:Mintguy User talk: Mintguy 08:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I agree with you. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 08:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::I don't mind the look of the new thumbnails, they are a lot easier to put in the page, and you only have to upload the large picture, the thumbnail is generated for you (halving the work required!). (The three-in-a-row I did don't look so good, I agree, if anyone wants to play with them to make them more the same size, and/or remove the "thumb" from the markup... go right ahead, although in that case you'll need to include the captions in the table, etc). User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 09:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) I love the new photo thing, although it is going to greatly increase the number of very large photos people (well me anyway) upload. I hope the servers can cope. User:Adam Carr 11:41, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Actually pictures are not a big problem - they just bandwidth more than computation power, I believe. The new markup is great, the only bit I didn't like was the magnifying glass. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 14:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I like the thumbnail thing, not so much for the magnifying glass, but because of the border around the pic and caption which sets it nicely apart from the text. Just my humble opinion. The pictures look fine either way.User:Washington irving 15:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- This article has just been nominated by Kingturtle on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. :) User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 08:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) :It is now listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 08:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Gilligan's editor not summoned to inquiry? == Although I think this is a great article, there is one later development that seems to be missing. The editor of the Today programme on which Gilligan broadcast his complaints, Kevin Marsh, publicly complained that he had not been summoned to the Hutton Inquiry. (See [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13845,1143700,00.html The Guardian, 8th Feburary 2004], for example. There were articles elsewhere, but I can't find any). I'm not sure how important this is, but I think it's worth a sentence at least Keep up the good work! == Request for references == Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles Wikipedia:Cite sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check has more information. Thank you, and please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit§ion=new leave me a message] when a few references have been added to the article. - User:Taxman 18:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hutton inquiry
#redirect Hutton Inquiry
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Hutton_Inquiry:
Hutton_Inquiry
Hutton_Inquiry
Hutton_inquiry
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
