Named ... and shamed?

[andy hughes]

It's very early days yet, but the Hutton Report appears to lay most of the blame for the arms info. fiasco firmly at the door of the BBC. As it is 'our' BBC, as they never tire of telling us, can we assume that someone will be held accountable for what has gone on, or will we get the usual mealy-mouthed 'lessons have been learned' brush off? Any thoughts?

[geofbob]

Gavin Davies, the Chairman, has now resigned, and others may follow. But what is disturbing is that Davies's resignation statement and another issued this afternoon by the BBC Director General, Greg Dykes, indicate that they are still in denial. They simply will not face the facts that Gilligan's original report was grossly inaccurate, misrepresented what Kelly had said to him, and falsely accused the Government of a deliberate deception. Contrary to what you imply, Andy, I think that it's less important that head roll, than that the BBC should take clear action to ensure that such an episode never occurs again.

[incitatus]

gilligans report may have been inaccurate but i simply refuse to believe that the government is as angelic as they are protrayed in huttons bizarre worldview. Personally dont think anyy heads should have rolled at all. They apologised, thats an end of it. Havent noticed much in the way of a reality check ffrom labour. Interesting that huttton was deeply involved in the widgery report. Are ther any great whitewashes of our time he hasnt helped to author?

[geofbob]

It's not a matter of anyone being "angelic", but of whether people were doing the jobs for which they were being paid. Gilligan didn't - he broadcast a fallacious report, accusing the PM of lying to Parliament and public. The BBC management were given ample opportunity to investigate his report and to apologise if they found the accusation was not well founded - they didn't. Everything else - including Dr Kelly's tragic death - stemmed from those BBC failures. Any possible Government failures (eg Alastair Cambell going ballistic and the toing and froing about naming Dr Kelly) were reactions to a difficult situation that would never have arisen if the BBC had behaved competently in the first place. That's why - in my opinion - Lord Hutton has concentrated his fire on them.

[incitatus]

explain to me why kelly was named? Why did the governement not say "no comment" to everything? given that journalists do and have gone to prison to protect sources and the government cheerfully throws employees to the wolves within a few days of a mild media storm i think it is pretty clear that the government can have no claim to any integrity at all. Huttons report is grossly one sided. it is quite plain that blair and co value political expediency over common deceency. politicians are often protected from shame by the actions of civil sevants. shame politicans dont have the backbone to reciprocate.

[incitatus]

whether there was an intent to mislead on behalf of the government, the fact that they behaved in such a shameless, self serving, self preserving, cowardly mealy mouthed and morally bankrupt manner should cause them to hang their heads in shame for the rest of their lives.

[geofbob]

In answer to your question, Incitatus, the Government couldn't simply persist in saying "no comment" because they would have immediately been accused of a cover-up, especially by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which was currently investigating Gilligan's report. Just because the Press feel they have to protect their sources, doesn't mean that everyone else has to - after all, if you were an employer and knew that one of your employees had spoken out of turn to a journalist leading to you being accused of deception, would you feel that you had to protect his identity? Personally, I feel that the best course, when Kelly came forward, would have been for the MoD to persuade him to let his name be divulged straightaway, rather than go through a charade, knowing that his name was bound to come out very soon.

[incitatus]

I disagre strongly. there is a huge difference between persuading him to come forward and dobbing him in. Any company that doesnt feel it owes a duty of care to its employees is not worth working for. Look at a similar ministerial case....the "bast*rds" of john major perhaps...they were never named. despite press specul;ation. Ministers are protected from their mistakes for thirty years or more on a regular basis. but of course that is politically expedient, which is the governing principle of the blairy bunch.