Talk:Hutton Inquiry

message: The introductory text is way too long.
Most of it should be moved into the body text.
I am boldly replacing the current 3 paragraphs, with a single paragraph summary from British political scandals, which I think is nice and short.
===proposed===
The suicide of Dr David Kelly and the Hutton Inquiry. On 17 July 2003, Kelly, an employee of the Ministry of Defence, committed suicide after being misquoted by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan as saying that Tony Blair's Labour government had knowingly "sexed up" the "September Dossier", a report into Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. The government was cleared of wrongdoing, while the BBC was strongly criticised by the subsequent inquiry, leading to the resignation of the BBC's chairman and director-general.
===current===
The Hutton Inquiry was a British judicial inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, appointed by the United Kingdom Labour 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.
An unexplained inconsistency within the Hutton report is that evidence provided to the enquiry by BBC journalist Susan Watts confirmed that Kelly had indeed had serious doubts about the "45 minutes" claim published by the British government, and that he considered the Number 10 press office to be responsible for the inappropriate insertion of this claim into the published dossier on WMD. This was probably one of the reasons why the report was greeted with a wide degree of scepticism by the British public and media. 
The 
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. David Martland 14:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hutton said he "was satisfied" that Kelly committed suicide. Is it in any dispute whatsoever? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual quote is the first line of paragraph 467 of the report. "I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life..." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. David Martland 14:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Got him. The third was Gavin Hewitt, who broadcast it on the Ten o'clock news on 29 May. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. Washington irving 09:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  introductory paragraph 

message: The Hutton Inquiry was a British judicial inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, appointed by the United Kingdom Labour 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.
An unexplained inconsistency within the Hutton report is that evidence provided to the enquiry by BBC journalist Susan Watts confirmed that Kelly had indeed had serious doubts about the "45 minutes" claim published by the British government, and that he considered the Number 10 press office to be responsible for the inappropriate insertion of this claim into the published dossier on WMD. This was probably one of the reasons why the report was greeted with a wide degree of scepticism by the British public and media. 
The 
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. David Martland 14:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hutton said he "was satisfied" that Kelly committed suicide. Is it in any dispute whatsoever? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual quote is the first line of paragraph 467 of the report. "I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life..." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. David Martland 14:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Got him. The third was Gavin Hewitt, who broadcast it on the Ten o'clock news on 29 May. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. Washington irving 09:54, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: current

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
=== Alastair Campbell? ===
Should something be included about the fact that Alastair Campbell resigned from the head of the communications office for Prime Minister Tony Blair on August 29th, 2003, a month after Kelly's death, and soon after the opening of the Hutton inquiry?
Also, it is slightly dissapointing how the media backlash against the Hutton Inquiry is chalked up to partisan politics.
=== Sources put on that do NOT support the claim ===
The sentence "At the conclusion of the Inquiry there was widespread approval of the process conducted by Hutton" is "supported" by a reference to a CNN article that does NOT support this claim if the CNN artilce is read. The article merely describes the process and does not make any qualitative assertions on the matter like the sentence suggests.
I suggest this sentence is completely removed for its biasedness.
In addition, I suggest a more thorough filtering of the sources by us all. We make a big effort to make sure we have sources for the claims but not nearly as much to make sure the reference supports the claim in question.
-- joaosaa (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: The sentence "At the conclusion of the Inquiry there was widespread approval of the process conducted by Hutton" is "supported" by a reference to a CNN article that does NOT support this claim if the CNN artilce is read. The article merely describes the process and does not make any qualitative assertions on the matter like the sentence suggests.
I suggest this sentence is completely removed for its biasedness.
In addition, I suggest a more thorough filtering of the sources by us all. We make a big effort to make sure we have sources for the claims but not nearly as much to make sure the reference supports the claim in question.
-- joaosaa (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources put on that do NOT support the claim 

message: I recall the Sunday Times being described in evidence as a conduit for "intelligence light" - anyone have a citation for this? The official inquiry site has no search facility.--Shtove 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sunday times 

message: "Kelly . . . committed suicide after being misquoted by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan" is an excessive simplification of the known facts. --smb1971 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph, oversimplification 

message: I've added a POV tag as after the statement of the conclusions this seems to be a long critique of the report, biased and without references so largely original research. Either it should be rewritten so it properly attributes the views given to sources with references (e.g. who are the "many observers" mentioned early in the section) or it needs to be removed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of [[Hutton Inquiry#The report]] 

message: Shouldn't this article and the one on the Iraq Inquiry each be modified to mention the other? This article on the Hutton Inquiry says it "cleared the government of wrongdoing":  Isn't it fair to say that the July 2016 Iraq Inquiry report says the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry were wrong?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  mention [[Iraq Inquiry]]? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hutton Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://today.yougov.co.uk/pdfarchives/after-publication-hutton-report
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316105656/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/rulings.htm to http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/rulings.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721023015/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/sjw/sjw_1_0038to0043.pdf to http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/sjw/sjw_1_0038to0043.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721023015/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/sjw/sjw_1_0038to0043.pdf to http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/sjw/sjw_1_0038to0043.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified