Adrian Monck on Andrew Gilligan

Adrian Monck has an interesting little story about Andrew Gilligan (whose dubious journalism led to the Hutton Inquiry). Adrian says:

Here is Gilligan, who gave David Kelly up to John Maples and Richard Ottaway on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee [PDF here]. Just read the email to them in full if you have any lingering regard for him as a journalist. Here it is:

John and Richard,
We have been doing some research on David Kelly. Aside from the MoD’s red herring of a source-hunt, he is an extremely interesting witness in his own right – probably, if he answers fully, the best you’ll have had.

Where it gets really interesting is in the anonymous comments on Adrian’s post, which appear to come from an Associated Newspapers computer and find the post via a Technorati search set up to track all blog posts on “Andrew Gilligan”. Now just remind me where does Andrew Gilligan work? Ah yes, it’s Associated Newspapers. It couldn’t be, could it?

Let’s just remind ourselves what Lord Hutton had to say about Andrew Gilligan’s credibility:

Having heard and considered Mr Gilligan’s evidence about how there came to be two versions of his discussion with Dr Kelly on his personal organiser, and how he lost his manuscript note which he made the next day, and how his memory of his discussion with Dr Kelly is not now entirely clear, I have considerable doubt as to how reliable Mr Gilligan’s evidence is as regards what Dr Kelly said to him…


About Stuart Bruce

International communications consultant and PR trainer specialising in online public affairs, digital corporate communications, online PR and social media; frequent national media commentator and conference speaker.
  • Ross Brown

    Stuart – whilst we both share broadly the same political leanings, I've got to take issue with you, as I believe your 'devotion' to the cause is clouding a few facts.

    "…Andrew Gilligan (whose dubious journalism led to the Hutton Inquiry)…"

    You know, as well as I do, that the Hutton Inquiry was called "to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly." These are not one and the same thing. You may argue there was a causal link but that isn't fact.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Gilligan was guilty of many things – stupidity, arrogance, panic – but don't forget that Kelly's name was confirmed (to all intents and purposes) by the MoD press office and that there still remain questions about Campbell and Scarlett's role in "sexing up" the dossier.

    And contrary to what you – I assume from your tone – and many others deep within the Party may think, there is still a general feeling that the Inquiry was little more than PR exercise.

    Look at the responses to the original CiF piece that Monck refers to: 122 comments before it was shut. And, by quick reckoning, a slight majority appear to agree with the sentiment that viagra was employed when drafting the Dossier.

    Nobody won the fight and please don't start believing otherwise.

    Ross

  • http://www.ourmaninnewcastle.com ourman

    Agreed – about the "cause" that is.

    Let's not forget that there were no WMDs so that dossier really was dodgy.

    Let's also remember that the dossier was used to sell a war that has led to hundreds of thousands of people being killed.

    I'd say your cause (and client) has far more blood on its hands.

    Oh hang on though – it was all about regime change wasn't it?

    And there remains no satisfactory end in sight.

  • http://www.rainierpr.co.uk/blog Stephen Waddington

    What's your point here? That Alistair Campbell acted honourably, and that the war in Iraq was justified?