"The unprecedented row between the Government and the BBC took a dramatic twist last night when Andrew Gilligan, the reporter at the centre of claims that Number 10 deliberately 'sexed up' evidence against Saddam Hussein, announced he was ready to sue a serving Minister. "
A year ago, I heard Daniel Ellsberg on C-SPAN, speaking inside the Beltway, calling on patriots in the Pentagon to come forward with the truth (and that was before the unilateral military adventure in Iraq). Such men and women are I believe coming forth now, in different ways. What the NYTwits and the WASHPs will do with the evidence is another question. Meanwhile, at least we know that in the UK, the primary news source is not kow-towing or trembling...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,987492,00.html
A year ago, I heard Daniel Ellsberg on C-SPAN, speaking inside the Beltway, calling on patriots in the Pentagon to come forward with the truth (and that was before the unilateral military adventure in Iraq). Such men and women are I believe coming forth now, in different ways. What the NYTwits and the WASHPs will do with the evidence is another question. Meanwhile, at least we know that in the UK, the primary news source is not kow-towing or trembling...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,987492,00.html
BBC set to sue Minister over Iraq 'lies' claim
Legal threat deepens crisis over weapons dossiers
Kamal Ahmed and Martin Bright Sunday June 29, 2003 The Observer
The unprecedented row between the Government and the BBC took a dramatic twist last night when Andrew Gilligan, the reporter at the centre of claims that Number 10 deliberately 'sexed up' evidence against Saddam Hussein, announced he was ready to sue a serving Minister.
Gilligan, the defence correspondent for Radio 4's Today programme, said that he would take legal action against Phil Woolas, the Deputy Leader of the House, unless he received a full apology for allegations made against him.
The threat of legal action centres on a letter sent by Woolas to Gilligan which claimed that the reporter had misled the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the Government's handling of the run-up to war.
The letter was released to the media on Thursday before Gilligan had received it.
'On Thursday, you made the extremely serious allegation that I had "misled" Parliament in my evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee,' Gilligan's response to Woolas says. 'You have clearly not read my evidence, or else have disregarded it.
'In the light of the incontrovertible evidence of what I said to the committee, I regard the allegation in your letter, which was released to the Press Association long before it reached me, as defamatory, casting grave doubt on my professional integrity and honesty.
'Unlike the claims made by Alastair Campbell [the Government's Director of Communications and Strategy] against me in the committee on Wednesday, your claim is not protected by parliamentary privilege.
'I now require a full apology and retraction of your claims, which were widely reported on Friday morning, are entirely unsupported by evidence and were clearly intended to blacken my character. In the absence of this, I will have no option but to put the matter in the hands of my lawyers.
'I should make clear that I write this letter with the full knowledge and support of the BBC.'
Gilligan's letter pushes the row between the BBC and the Government into uncharted territory. It is unprecedented for a member of the BBC's staff to threaten legal action against the Government.
The committee itself, which will publish its report in eight days' time, is likely to censure Campbell for his failure to properly control the contents of the 'dodgy dossier' on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for allowing the Prime Minister to claim in the House of Commons that 'fresh intelligence' had been laid before Parliament despite much of it being cribbed from the internet.
Sources close to the committee said that Campbell should have known that the second dossier on WMD was based on the plagiarised work of an academic.
The committee is also likely to distance itself from claims that Number 10 deliberately 'sexed up' the first dossier to make the case for war by inserting a claim that the Iraqi dictator could use chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes.
Officials said that the 'weight of evidence' reveals that the 45-minute claim was based on a direct assessment of the intelligence services. Number 10, the committee will say, did not intervene to make sure the claim was put in the dossier.
Evidence laid before the committee by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in private session on Friday revealed that the claim was originally contained in a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment.
The criticism will come as a blow to the BBC, which has refused to back down on allegations in reports by Gilligan that Campbell sexed up' the dossier.
The latest disclosures in the battle between the and the Government came after Campbell appeared on Channel Four News on Friday night and angrily rounded on the BBC.
In what appeared to be a concerted strategy by Labour loyalists, other MPs lined up yesterday to attack the BBC.
There was a furious row on the Today programme between Ben Bradshaw, a junior minister, and John Humphrys, the presenter, over claims that Gilligan had checked his story with the Ministry of Defence.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon later backed the call for a BBC correction over Mr Humphrys's remarks. In a statement issued by the Ministry of Defence, he said: 'Comments made by John Humphrys ... this morning ... need to be corrected. Andrew Gilligan did not call the MoD to discuss WMD or the dossier. He spoke to the MoD about an interview request for the following day on a different issue.
'When he was asked what other stories would be on the programme, Mr Gilligan mentioned that he was planning a story on WMD. However, he said the WMD story was not an issue for the MoD. He did not give any details or ask for a response.
'I strongly support the request to the BBC to correct this morning's misleading comments. They are simply not true.'
Posted by richard at June 30, 2003 10:24 AM