Talk:John Widgery, Baron Widgery

message: There seems to be some dispute about how to report what happened after the Widgery Report was published. Until recently the article cited three sources for the rather vague statement that Widgery was "denounced by many". They were not the best sources: the first was an opinion piece from the Morning Star (repeated by the Irish Democrat) which used the recent death of Edward Heath to discuss both Widgery and the UK government's reactions to Bloody Sunday. This is a partisan source which has been removed from its original context which was to report reaction to Widgery among Irish nationalists, a wording which has long since disappeared from the article. The second source was another opinion piece from February 2004 by Nick Cohen which only briefly touches on Widgery but is largely there to justify the emotive but frequent term "whitewash". The third source is from the BBC News Online's 'On This Day' section - which purports to be a contemporary report but was in fact written years later.
In summary none of these are actually contemporary, and two are opinion and not reportage. The important point to be made and sourced seems to me to be this: the purpose of a Judicial inquiry is to produce a report which is accepted as widely as possible as a true description of what happened. Widgery never came anywhere near that as Irish Nationalists immediately denounced his findings. Instead of clearing up the incident, the Widgery report became an additional part of the problem and a stain which Irish Nationalists were determined to remove.
It is also important to note the timeline. The previous wording in the article jumped immediately from the Widgery report to saying that it "Labour politician Tony Blair" (an unusual formulation of words) was one of those who denounced it. When did he do that? At the time, when he was preparing to go to Oxford? Surely not. The article has leapt forward 26 years to the point where Blair is Prime Minister and has ordered the Saville inquiry. This time lapse needs to be noted because it is highly unusual for a second inquiry to be ordered 26 years after a first.
This is a biography of Widgery rather than a general discussion of Bloody Sunday, so excessive reportage of the Saville Inquiry's conclusions would be inappropriate (and I'm not sure about including David Cameron's apology either - Tony Blair had already apologised for Bloody Sunday on behalf of the UK Government some years before). However it's important to note that the reasons given by Blair for setting up the Saville inquiry were that Widgery's inquiry had been deficient in its processes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you said in a previous edit summary is exactly right, The focus has to be on the Widgery's personal contribution, not Bloody Sunday generally. Widgery was responsible for a notorious whitewash, which reflects on his values and is an important part of his biography. Cameron's "unjustified and unjustifiable" comment seems important because it implicitly undermines Widgery's finding of justification. A few days ago this section was error-strewn and largely nonsensical, your latest edit gives it coherence and lucidity, I hope it is allowed to stand.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction to the Widgery Report and Saville