Whitewash at Westminster?

[max_tranmere]

I saw on the news today that Chilcot got his last witness interview in the can in February 2011. That's four years ago. Tony Blair's biographer said tonight on TV that there were illnesses on the inquiry panel which could be part of the reason for a hold up. This is clearly ridiculous - four years since the last interview! Tony Blair's biographer has nothing to do with the inquiry, obviously, but seems to want to cast Blair and the inquiry in the best light possible - defending things he's got nothing to do with. I wouldn't be surpised if the thing is moved from the spring this year to the autumn and then to next year. I don't know what Chilcot is waiting for, apart from the re-edits to come back, where certain people aren't vilified in as strong terms as they were in the first draft.

If this inquiry totally lambasts Blair, Campbell, and some of Blair's senior ministers at the time, then this will mean two things will happen: it will be a first in British history where someone once as senior as Blair will have been called a liar, have it implied he is a bad dishonest man, and one who should never have been in politics; and second Chilcot will be blacklisted for the rest of his life and ostracised by the Westminster elite. He is now 75 apparently and has largely retired after many years in public life - but if he was younger that saying they use in Hollywood would apply, the one used when someone really pisses off a powerful person: "you'll never work in this town again!".

[Arginald Valleywater]

As an aside what is Bliar doing in Davos? Who is he getting paid to represent?

[David Johnson]

Rightly or wrongly on Newsnight last night, they said that the main reason for the latest delay was the opposite of what you think.

IN other words instead of no-one getting blamed, there are potentially umpteen people getting blamed. And before the report can be published a draft has been sent to each of the people who are involved and they are given the right to reply. Those individuals then given their side of the case and if need be seek legal advice first as part of their reply in case they believe they may be libelled in the report. Then agreement, or not. is reached.

That is why it is taking even longer than expected.

[Milk Tray Man]

David Johnson wrote:

> Rightly or wrongly on Newsnight last night, they said that the
> main reason for the latest delay was the opposite of what you
> think.
>
> IN other words instead of no-one getting blamed, there are
> potentially umpteen people getting blamed. And before the
> report can be published a draft has been sent to each of the
> people who are involved and they are given the right to reply.
> Those individuals then given their side of the case and if need
> be seek legal advice first as part of their reply in case they
> believe they may be libelled in the report. Then agreement, or
> not. is reached.
>
> That is why it is taking even longer than expected.


Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole object of having a thorough and "independent" inquiry though?

Kind of like several years of detailed and painstaking work to finally get to the bottom of it and uncover the crooks and liars - but then running your findings by them first to make sure they're OK with it (and of course we all know what their answer will be).

[David Johnson]

Yep, see what you mean. This process is called apparently, Maxwellisation.

[max_tranmere]

I think it's very odd that the people being criticised in these things have a right to see the critique, before it is published, and can then decide to take legal action if they see fit. If I did something bad and deserved to be vilified for it, I would be - the write-up about what I'd done would happen, be published, and that's that. I hope those criticised by Chilcot aren't able to get certain things removed from the report just because it is unfavourable to them, and they have a clever legal team who know how to get the text softened: wording like ""he knew in advance this wasn't true..." becomes "there is a possibility he knew beforehand that this may not have been the case..." and so on. I am still certain that senior public figures will never be called liars by reports like this. The Westminster club, as I've said already, don't do that to their own.