Dr Kelly and the BBC - Is the fix in?

It appears that the BBC is now trying to cover for Blair over the dossier that claimed that Iraq was capable of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.

The enquiry now ongoing is being told by all and sundry that the claim that the "45 minutes" reference was added at the behest of 10 Downing Street and Alistair Campbell in particular is somehow correct yet incorrect.

Gilligan himself has "admitted" that he "didn't use the right language" and the editor for the 'Today' programme where the story originally broke said "This story was a good piece of journalism marred by flawed reporting."

Now, Susan Watts, is saying that she was pressured to make her story conform to Gilligan's and that she was unhappy about that.

It is clear that what is coming out at the enquiry is making the BBC look wrong, and it appears to be coming from the BBC itself.

But guess what? If you actually go back and look at what Gilligan actually reported, there is actually very little wrong with it.

For instance, Dr Kelly did in fact tell both reporters that Number 10 had insisted on the addition of the "45 minute" claim. It is also clear that Dr Kelly told both reporters when asked who included it that he felt Campbell was responsible.

In her testimony, Watts read some shorthand notes she took where Kelly had said Campbell was responsible, but that she took it to be a glib statement. However, Gilligan says much the same thing. He said that he asked Dr Kelly how the transformation of the dossier (the 'sexing up') had happened and that Dr Kelly answered with a single word: "Campbell".

So in other words, everything Dr Kelly told Watts is exactly the same as he told Gilligan, yet both Watts and Gilligan and the BBC are trying to make it sound like Gilligan misreported what was actually said.

So the question is, why? Why are the BBC trying to back off from their claim? Why are they trying to mislead us as to the facts of the case, without actually disputing them?

It seems that the only plausible reason for this is that the BBC knows that everything that Gilligan reported was true, but that they are trying to protect Blair from the repercussions of those facts.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3090681.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1017956,00.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/08/week_2/10_hutton.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3146283.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1010937,00.html

and her spin on her own notes and the reccording isn't adding up.
just read:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1018315,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1018315,00.html

or the full transcript of the Kelly's reccording:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/08/13/sjw_1_0037-0043.pdf

Well the spin is slowly starting to go along those lines. The blame is increasinly being heaped back on David Kelly. From yesterday's Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/08/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/08/13/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=123910

And from today's Independent

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=433405

And here just to complete it all is our good freind AP trying to smear Dr Kelly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=171139#174664

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1017747,00.html
From Ms. Watts notes:

"a mistake to put in, Alastair Campbell seeming something in there, single source, but not corroborated, sounded good"


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1018241,00.html

From Ms. Watts statement to the Hutton inquiry:

"To my mind he specifically denies that Alastair Campbell was involved,"


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1017883,00.html
With the phone reccording:

Watts asked Dr Kelly to expand on the issue of the 45 minute claim: "So would it be accurate then, as you did in that earlier conversation, to say that it was Alastair Campbell himself who..?"

Dr Kelly replied: "No I can't. All I can says is the No 10 press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell so I can't," Watts interrupted: "They seized on that?" The scientist continued: "But I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it."



By saying that "he specifically denies that Alastair Campbell was involved" Susan Watts is making a stretch on a par of linking
Campbell directly to the insertion of the specific 45 min. claim,
as Gilligan is accused of doing.

i'd say it is rather unlikely the BBC did a 180 from being critical towards Blair, to covering for Blair.

Although the MoD does not look entierly blameless either. I don't think that any party involved in this whole sad affair is going to come out untarnished, least of all Blair & his government. I will start off by posting the Hutton enquiry website

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3151261.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3149495.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1018813,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/14/ukelly.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/08/14/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=157384

But this one seems the most interesting to me

http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1018727,00.html

David Kelly was read a "version of the riot act" by his bosses at the Ministry of Defence after they found out he had spoken to BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan.

It also emerged Dr Kelly was warned by his MoD superiors that further breaches of guidelines on contact with the press could lead to disciplinary action.

But even at the end of a severe grilling, his two managers were convinced Dr Kelly was not the source of Gilligan's report on Radio 4's Today programme, the Hutton inquiry heard today.

After admitting he spoke to Gilligan, Dr Kelly was told a public statement might have to be made and warned that, if he was lying, the truth would catch up with him because it was possible Gilligan could have taped their meeting.