Hutton enquiry .... establishment whitewash ???

[xaphod]

I was amazed that the verdict exonerated the Government totally without any 'shades of grey' to speak of. Various Eurpoean commentators echo my opinion that there should have been some minor censure of the Government, or people would have dismissed the whole exercise as a whitewash. Xa

[Skirted-UK]

I am annoyed that the BBC has lost a good Director General while we are still stuck with Tony Blair. It would have been better for all of us if Tony Blair had resigned and Greg Dyke had stayed on. Things in this country just seem to get worse!

[Francis]

I'm just wondering how much Lord Hutton was paid for that report? If he was paid by the government (likely) then he delivered glowing results. If it was tax payers money then he best pay it back to the people! Tony Blair came out of this mess with a clean slate and the BBC is going to have to carry all the blame. WHITEWASH !! SCAPEGOAT !! H.G.Wells wrote more factual stories than Lord Hutton. And I totally agree! This country has got far worse since Towny Tony got in. The social divides are becoming greater again. The rich get richer and the poor become homeless. Care in the community? Only if you afford it! And we still have no evidence of WMD or if they were planned or intended to be used against western countries. The real reason is again, OIL !! Blair needs to take himself into a darkened room and shoot himself. We've not had a bigger bulls up since Maggie lost it !!

[Firefox]

Complete whitewash. There's compelling evidence that Bush and Bliar lied to the peope to justify this stupid war. Where are the so called weapons of mass destruction? The evidence is at the very least circumstantial and Gilligan was right to draw attention to their manouvres. A policy which has been proven corrct by recent events. A labour appointed judge, and geuss what verdict he came up with. Now you know why they didn't have a public enquiry.

[WarrenB]

Sorry folks, the BBC is far too biased.

[shyguy]

Mr. Blair was too cock sure of the outcome of this from the start for it to be anything but a propaganda message for "New Labour"'s gain. I do not trust Blair, or this current government, they don't do the will of the people, as elected to do, they have their own (Tony Blairs) agenda of getting him into somewhere higher (European Governor would be nice for him, hence the rush to get us tighter in with the Eurozone). Dunno much about Greg Dyke, but for once the BBC has turned on the hand of its' benefactors and someone had to pay. Most of the time the BBC seems to be pro the current government, whoever it is, and they need to suck up a bit to keep their "unique way of funding". Where does this leave the license fee debate??

[j-turbo2002]

Well, I have been watching the BBC World News on digital cable television here in America on BBC America and I must admit that it is way too biased and it does not tell the full truth – rather half of the truth. I am not quite sure what to say about this “theory” of the BBC being a “puppet” of the current government over there in Brittan. However, based on what I have been watching lately, I believe that the BBC is a “puppet” of the people. I mean, after all the BBC is partly taxpayer funded and in my opinion, they are telling the people what they want to hear. When you watch the BBC World News now-and-days you usually see and hear a lot of anti-American, pessimistic and negative trash that is mixed up with what I call “Conspiracy Theory” – a lethal combination. Believe-it-or-not, there is an overwhelming majority of black hearted people residing in Brittan today who eat this news like this up faster than a Big Mac at McDonald’s. These people, in my mind are a cancer that is eating Brittan alive and the BBC is doing nothing more than feeding the cancer the fuel that it needs to survive. If there is a list of organizations in Brittan today that are responsible for flushing England further and further down the toilet the BBC should most definitely be on that list. ***Edit*** Just to add a quick note. the statements above were largely based on the television program BBC Evening News or the BBC Evening Report - I cannot remember the exact name. They used to air it on BBC America at the exact time that it went on TV in Brittan. I remember watching it at around noon time here in America which would be early evening in Brittan. The BBC Evening News is a bit different than the BBC World News - yet they are both biased and negative. BBC America took some heat a while back for being too biased and anti-American and after that issue the BBC Evening News (or Report - whichever) was taken off the air and then replaced with the more "toned down" BBC World News.

[Dr. Shoe]

The Hutton Enquiry had nothing to do with the war in Iraq or whether the BBC is biased or not- at least not directly. The Hutton Enquiry was an enquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly. Do I believe that he was "hung out to dry" by the MOD? Absolutely Do I think that Tony blair and Jeff Hoon lied to the panel? Of course they did! Do I believe that Dr Kelly was made a scapegoat? Of course, this labour government is all about blame, it's always someone else's fault. Yes, the BBC is biased, but so is any other broadcaster, newspaper or any other media outlet. Of course they are going to go along with the views of their paymasters. That's why Greg Dyke had to resign over something published by Andrew Gilligan a lower echelon journalist. The whole Hutton fairytale was a total whitewash reminiscent of the best that Goebels ever dreamt up!

[Calv]

I thoroughly agree, the whole enquiry was a whitewash. It conveniently found flaws in the BBC editorial process and used them as the crux of the matter. As Greg Dyke pointed out, the government were given the benefit of the doubt but the BBC were made the scapegoats. Thought - If the report had been critical of the government would it have been leaked to the Sun? I think not. To hear Alastair Campbell on the radio last Thursday, he was crowing like a kid with a new toy.

[Bubba136]

God! conspiracy theories abound. You guy's would never let any amount of evidence that the report was true come between you and the conspiracies

[new_look]

i think its a load of crap myself. i hate blair and this government. they coulndt run a bank never mind a country. roll on the election, saying that, is the competition any better????

[Firefox]

I think the conservatives will be even worse. Mind you Blair is a Tory in all but name.

[shyguy]

Agreed FF, Blair was the tory alternative to a tory government (could this be classed as a slur on the tories?). Labour as it stands in power has none of the original values of it's former days. In fact Labour isn't Labour, it's just blairites, the people are not represented, they are being herded to facilitate one mans goals.

[JeffM]

Shyguy said

the people are not represented,

I dont what the government in the UK is like because I dont live there but I was interested in this statement.

Is there a country anywhere that has a government that represents the people?

Jeff

[Bubba136]

I don't know how much closer a government can get to actually representing the wishes of the people than a parliamentary system. After all, you can recall your elected officials at any point through a vote of no confidence. The only other way I can see that total representation could be achieved is if nationwide votes were taken on every issue -- and then, those that lost would still be "carping" because those voted for the winning opinion were "out of touch."

[j-turbo2002]

I only have one thing to say about the Hutton Enquiry: Thank God for Tony Blair. Here is a good question for everyone, if Lord Hutton's report is false, whitewash, scapegoat, etc., why exactly are all of these people at the BBC resigning? If they were innocent wouldn't they just stay at the BBC and protest their innocence? Perhaps wait until they have their day in court?

[coolshoes]

Is it just me, or does it seem that most people on this thread backing the Hutton report are from the U.S. and those finding fault with it are from the U.K. Wouldn't be fans of President Bush would they?

[j-turbo2002]

Is it just me......

Yes my friend, it is just you!

[shyguy]

Here is a good question for everyone, if Lord Hutton's report is false, whitewash, scapegoat, etc., why exactly are all of these people at the BBC resigning?

the government here in Blighty makes us all pay a license fee to watch tv. The government uses said fee to pay for the bbc which is (supposedly) a non profit organisation, and over the last few years there have been debates as to the validity of the license fee, and even the bbc needing it as they now sell programs worldwide, and make cash on branded merchandise (Teletubbies, Fimbals and dvd's of programs made with the money the public pays). If the government decides to scrap the license then no more money for the BBC, so it's in the interest of BBC people that these critics of the government "leave".

The Beeb needs to keep the government of the day happy or they may vote for scrapping the fees paid to it.

[j-turbo2002]

the government here in Blighty makes us all pay a license fee to watch tv. The government uses said fee to pay for the bbc which is (supposedly) a non profit organisation, and over the last few years there have been debates as to the validity of the license fee, and even the bbc needing it as they now sell programs worldwide, and make cash on branded merchandise (Teletubbies, Fimbals and dvd's of programs made with the money the public pays). If the government decides to scrap the license then no more money for the BBC, so it's in the interest of BBC people that these critics of the government "leave".

The Beeb needs to keep the government of the day happy or they may vote for scrapping the fees paid to it.

This is a very good point indeed. However, I have been reading that this so called "license fee" only accounts for about 11% of the BBC's income. The BBC is without doubt the most powerful TV News network in the world. Now, I don't know about you but 11% (if this is a true statistic) to me is nothing to worry about at all. In other words, I doubt that the BBC would make people resign just to get 11% in income. Yet, then again, money will always be money.

[Dr. Shoe]

This is a very good point indeed. However, I have been reading that this so called "license fee" only accounts for about 11% of the BBC's income. The BBC is without doubt the most powerful TV News network in the world. Now, I don't know about you but 11% (if this is a true statistic) to me is nothing to worry about at all. In other words, I doubt that the BBC would make people resign just to get 11% in income. Yet, then again, money will always be money.

The BBC get around £2.6 billion from licence fees if this is only 11% how much do they make!!??

Could they afford to do without it?

[Dr. Shoe]

I only have one thing to say about the Hutton Enquiry: Thank God for Tony Blair.

Here is a good question for everyone, if Lord Hutton's report is false, whitewash, scapegoat, etc., why exactly are all of these people at the BBC resigning?

If they were innocent wouldn't they just stay at the BBC and protest their innocence? Perhaps wait until they have their day in court?

This is because the BBC were indeed at fault, it is impossible to have a scapegoat if they were not carrying some of the blame to start with.

However, the Government should have carried some of the burden of responsibility because there are considerable discrepancy between what the government claimed about Iraq and what history has told us the true facts to be.

At the end of the day, the Hutton Enquiry was an enquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly and not meant to be a criticism of either the BBC's editorial process or any kind indictment of the government, neither was it meant as a defining endorsement of the War.

What it did do was to highlight the deficiencies in the BBC management without doing anything to expose the comparable weaknesses in the civil service.

This affair reminds me of Stephen Byers' mishandling of the Rover debackle, he didn't last too long after that either. I'll bet any money that Jeff Hoon will be gone by Summer Reccess.

[j-turbo2002]

The BBC get around £2.6 billion from licence fees if this is only 11% how much do they make!!??

Could they afford to do without it?

Yes, I have seen figures in the Wall Street Journal that total £3 or 4 billion for the BBC but that was total gross worldwide revenue.

The BBC's net income for last year was what I believe to be £274 million ($500 million US).

Yet still, 11% of 274 million is about £3 million - a pretty good chunk of change and hence a more realistic number for licence fees.

The BBC get around £2.6 billion from licence fees? When you think about this amount logically it just does not make any sense. Especially from licence fees. The average Brittish taxpayer could not support that amount. At least I don't think so. However I could be wrong - which I doubt.

[shyguy]

Hmm these figures for the BBC income seem to indicate that the British taxpayer is once again being lied to about the money they give. We are often told how without the license fee the BBC could not operate in it's "independant" way.

What it did do was to highlight the deficiencies in the BBC management without doing anything to expose the comparable weaknesses in the civil service.

Then it was a whitewash, as both were obviously at fault. And where do all these leaks come from in this top secret world of the government?

Without the leaks there would have been no story for the men at the beeb to investigate originally.

Without leaks David Kelly would have been left alone.

Whichever way it's spun it all goes back to the government.

[j-turbo2002]

Well, let me ask a question. If you live in the UK, how often do you have to pay these "licence fees"? Is is monthy, yearly, etc.?

[Firefox]

It is yearly and about £110 a year. If 24 million households in the UK have one, (I don't know the exact figure), that would be 24,000,000 x £110which equals 2640 000 000. That is 2.6 billion, if a billion = 1000 x a million. I belive the american billion is a 1000 x a million which concurs with these figures (The old English Billion was 1 milllion x 1million ). Hence I don't see what is the problem with the 2.6 billion figure.

[j-turbo2002]

Well, I am not going to argue about how much each household pays and how many households there are because I do not live in the UK. Besides, it is irrelevant. This is what I have a problem with: As of last year 2003 the BBC grossed nearly £5 billion in revenue. Now if it is indeed true that "licence fees" contribute £2.6 billion that would mean that the Brittish taxpayers contribute to half of the BBC's income. Is this what you expect me to believe? If this is true, it is outrageous. The article that I read in the Wall Street Journal some time ago broke the BBC's total sources of revenue down into percentages. Do not quote me on any of this because it has been some time since I have read the article but I remeber something about advertising being the biggest source of revenue followed by a number of other things and then there was that small percentile of revenue that it collected from the taxpayers. This is why I had a problem with the 2.6 billion figure. I guess that I just never imagined that the Brittish taxpayers would be so stupid as to give the BBC that much money. I would not give that "shit-ass" news organization one penny. The BBC sitcoms would be another story.

[Firefox]

Well, I am not going to argue about how much each household pays and how many households there are because I do not live in the UK. Besides, it is irrelevant.

It was you who asked the question, and you who could not conceive how that figure was arrived at in your earlier post

There is no direct advertising on the BBC, at least not in the UK. They are not allowed to run commercials

That is what is unique about the BBC.

Mind you, that aside, the finances of the BBC are somewhat irrelevant to how biased the Hutton report was. Hutton was a Labour appointed peer and therefore biased as evidence by his sham of a report.

[coolshoes]

j-turbo2002-- Well, I guess you told me. Just for the record of those folks who id their nation, for the UK 4 (skirted uk, francis, firefox, calv) say whitewash, 1 (Dr. Shoe) had the affrontery to say what the investigation was really about, but faulted the report for only critizing one side, and 1 (Daz) faulted the report. For the US 3 (WarrenB, j-turbo2002, and Bubba136) praised the report. Not one US person faulted the report. Seems pretty obvious to me that Houston you have a problem, if you cannot notice and accept such a simple statistic. Sorry, but an ad hominem attack even with a smiley face is still not an answer, nor an argument.

[j-turbo2002]

FF,

Well, I must appologize - It looks like I got my sources mixed up.

The reason that I said that it was irrelevant is because it sounded to me like you were not to sure about your numbers. It sounded to me like you were taking an educated guess.

I fully well know what the BBC does in the UK. However, when BBC America first aired I remember watching commercials. However, I think that they have stopped since then. Come to think of it, the article that I read was about BBC America. I don't know what the differences are between BBC America and that in the UK - I thought that it was all the same entity.