AN APOLOGY.....

When the Chilcot Inquiry began in November 2009, I wrote this in my first blog post on the subject:-

"I see that Sir John is seventy years old (a feeling I know only too well) so I cannot see why he, on whom so many hopes are riding, doesn`t do us all a favour and, at the end of his Inquiry, tell it like it really was. After all, what has he got to lose? I think we probably know what the outcome should be - Blair, Campbell, Scarlett, Goldsmith and most of the Cabinet of the day guilty of dragging us into a conflict on a false prospectus so as to keep `in` with Bush and his maniac administration - but I wonder if Chilcot will have the courage to confirm it and, if he does, what the consequences might be for those responsible."

Since then, as the Inquiry has dragged on and on, my suspicions grew that we might be heading for yet another establishment whitewash, as per the Hutton Inquiry that predated Chilcot.  This was based largely on the inordinate delays surrounding such issues as the `Maxwellisation process,` which gave those likely to be criticised in the report the opportunity to respond in advance of the report being published.  

In short, I expected the worst.  But instead, we have had not only a measured, thorough and in many ways the courageous report that I hoped for all of seven years ago; moreover, we had Sir John Chilcot`s impressive presentation of the report to the waiting world which was full of quiet authority, sound reasoning and considered judgement.  

So it seems only fair for me to apologise to Sir John and his distinguished colleagues for ever doubting that they would indeed produce a report which truly would `tell it like it really was.`   So, along with my apology go, I`m sure, the thanks of a grateful nation for an Inquiry that has done much to restore some confidence in `the establishment.`

Watching Sir John deliver the Inquiry`s findings, I was reminded of David Steele, white haired, bespectacled, going out to bat against the rampaging Australians in a Test Match all those years ago.  He took them on, scored his runs for England with a skill and determination that restored pride in English cricket and earned him the headline `The Bank Clerk goes to War.`  We need more David Steeles and more John Chilcots to help us through these troublesome times.

TIME FOR ANOTHER ONE ?

I see that the other day Dave Cameron was asking for a timetable for the publication of the Chilcot Report into the Iraq debacle.  I`ve just about given up with this.  The Iquiry began in 2009 and finished taking witness statements over four years ago, since when progress towards final publication has been thwarted by the process of allowing those who are likely to be criticised in the report to be `consulted.`  

In addition, of course, there has been the ongoing wrangling about whether the details of the Blair/Bush communications in the lead up to the war can be included in Chilcot`s report.  Not so much "Yes, Minister," more "Not sure about that, Minister."  What compounds the litany of felonies is the fact that the Inquiry has so far cost us taxpayers over £10 million and still no sign of any answers.   No wonder Dave is getting annoyed - or so he says - and he has now demanded that Sir John Chilcot comes up with a timetable and a publication date which of itself may take some time to materialise, if indeed it ever does.

Seems to me the only real solution is to have a full Judicial Public Inquiry into why the Chilcot Inquiry is taking so long to finalise its report. That should keep the establishment happy for another few years whilst continuing to prolong the agony of the families who lost loved ones in that abominable misadventure.

I know I always feel and say the same every time I get home from a time away in the south west and this time is arguably worse than others.   After a week of being a long way away from it all in the sanctuary of Cornwall, I come home only for my senses to be assaulted where they left off by the cacophony that is the General Election campaign.

That`s depressing enough but I`m sure that the events in Nepal, Lampedusa, Sicily, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere in this troubled world perhaps put the General Election campaign into the realms of irrelevance in the great scheme of things, so perhaps I shouldn`t complain quite so much.

But I think I have a genuine case for grievance when I learned last week that `it is unlikely that the Chilcot Inquiry report will be published until 2016 at the earliest.`   Maybe again I shouldn`t be surprised at yet another Establishment stitch-up, following on from countless others over the years - whichever government may have been in charge at any time.   They look after themselves, it seems, rather than looking after those they are supposed to represent and respect.

The General Election looks to be heading for a bit of a mess, leaving political parties scrabbling for position and the electorate in a state of confusion.  Maybe that almighty muddle might bring a change in attitude, but I seriously doubt it, and so there is likely to be no escape from the oppressive self interest of the Establishment.  So you can hardly blame me for wanting out again - and in a couple of weeks I`ll be off to my spiritual home of the New Forest.   Not much changes there either, thank goodness.

NOTHING TO SAY ?..

Some months ago now, Prime Minister Dave Cameron said that he expected the long awaited report of the Chilcot Inquiry to be published "before the end of the year." That was in May and now there are only four weeks left of the Parliamentary Year, so the prospect of Cameron`s expectation being fulfilled looks decidedly unlikely.

I think it was in July that letters were sent to the main participants in the Inquiry setting out detailed conclusions and, by law, anyone who faces criticism in a public inquiry must be warned as such and given the opportunity to challenge any negative findings.   Our old friend, Tony Blair, is possibly among those to whom such letters are believed to have been sent.

All of this process leads to yet more delay in the report`s publication and, as well as Parliamentary time running out, some members of the Houses of Parliament are now seriously suggesting that it would not be right for the report to be published before next May`s General Election.  Words like felony and compounded spring to mind.

It`s reported that a spokesman for the Chilcot Inquiry has declined to comment on the current state of affairs;  a spokesman for Tony Blair`s Office has gone on record as saying, "No comment;"  and Jack Straw, another thought to have received a letter from the Inquiry, could not be reached for comment.

It all comes as nothing of a surprise and seems as though too many people have nothing to say about this festering sore, which will only heal once the report is finally published, although I`m beginning to doubt whether that will be in my lifetime.  

TOO MUCH TO ASK ?

I suppose at my age I should know better but it seems that the older I get the more frustrating things become.   And important things too.   For example, the Chilcot Inquiry into the run-up to the Iraq War, which is already four years late thanks to a ridiculous wrangle between the Inquiry team and the unelected chief mandarin, Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The argument was all about the release of communications between Tony Blair and George Bush with Heywood citing confidentiality and compromise to the so-called `special relationship` between whoever might be the future US President and the UK Prime Minister.   Last week, in a blaze of indifference, reports emerged of a deal whereby the `gist` of some of those communications could be released but not the actual detail of what went on.   Fudge masquerading as progress.   What will now follow is the extraordinary process of `Maxwellisation` whereby anyone likely to be remotely criticised by the Inquiry will be sent drafts of the Inquiry report and invited to submit comments which might be reflected in the final report.

And so it goes on and despite indications that the final report might appear `before the end of the year` I`ll believe it when I see it - or what`s left of it following doubtless copious `redaction`, aka censorship.   Sometimes the truth seems forever out of reach and I wonder if it`s too much to ask for people to have the courage to tell it like it is - or was in this case - and understand that `the public` will be more impressed with honesty, however painful, than with obfuscation and denial.

It`s the same with the often promised referendum on the EU.   We are seriously supposed to believe that IF the Tories get back into power after next year`s General Election, IF Dave Cameron can successfully renegotiate Britain`s relationship with the EU and IF the other 27 EU countries led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel will all agree to Cameron`s demands then we will have a referendum in 2017 which the Tories will campaign for the UK to stay in Europe anyway.   

It`s all Alice in Wonderland stuff.  Once again, reality seems to be elusive and out of reach and I wonder if it`s too much to ask that politicians might one day keep their manifesto promises and for once, just once, heed the frustrations and expectations of those they claim to represent.   

But then I`m a Saints fan, so I know all about frustration and expectation, don`t I?  To be fair.

SOUNDS LIKE IT TO ME...

I think it was as long ago as November 2009 that I first wrote about Sir John Chilcot`s Inquiry and since then I have commented on the progress or otherwise of this £7million look at the run up to the Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq.  And still we wait.

Now you would be correct in accusing me of becoming obsessive about this and you might be right, but I really do think that we are due an explanation as to how this misguided and quite possibly illegal  conflict was allowed to happen in our name.   Someone once described it as the most humiliating moment in British foreign policy since Suez and who would argue against that analysis?

Anyway, in recent days Dave Cameron has got interested in the delay in publishing the Inquiry`s Final Report and today he has expressed his wish that the report is published `before the end of the year.`   The fly in the ointment seems to be one Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and thus the head honcho of the Civil Service.   His problem appears to be a worry that disclosure of allegedly private communications between Blair and Bush might jeopardise the `special relationship` between Britain and the USA.  

Now of course, he is entitled to his opinion about that, although I tend to the view that any `special relationship` that might still exist is more likely to be jeopardised by obstructing the Chilcot Inquiry to tell us the truth of what took place all of eleven or twelve years ago, rather than trying to hide it to avoid any `embarrassment.`

Dave says that `It`s frustrating but it is not in my gift;  this is an independent inquiry.  My understanding is that they will be able to publish before the end of the year and I very much hope they can deliver on that timetable.`   Sounds good but unless I`m mistaken, Sir Jeremy Heywood is a paid official - a very important one, maybe, but still a paid official - whereas Dave Cameron is the Prime Minister with all the power and authority at his disposal.   

So maybe it`s time for him to use that power and authority to tell Sir Jeremy his fortune about just who really is in charge and order the publication of the Report without further delay.   If not, people will suspect this is a case of the tail is wagging the dog.  Sounds like it to me.

WORTH THE WAIT ?

I can`t comment too much on the Rebekah Brooks et al court case as it`s ongoing, sub-judice and all the rest of it. But just two words from her e-mail to James Murdoch, given in evidence yesterday, triggered a whole series of memories.   The words were, of course, "Hutton style," referring to the Inquiry by Lord Hutton into the death of David Kelly and immediately that reference not only raised again the scepticism, not to say cynicism, of all matters concerning Blair and his entourage but it also nudged the memory stick into wondering whatever happened to the Chilcot Inquiry into the run-up to and conduct of the Iraq War.

Now this Inquiry has been going on since on was first established by, of all people, Gordon Brown getting on for five years ago; it took ages to hear all the witnesses and has been bogged down ever since over the reluctance of Whitehall mandarins to agree the release of `communications` between Blair and Bush as well as some Cabinet papers. Moreover, the Inquiry`s final report has also been confounded by the process known as "Maxwellisation," whereby witnesses are privately sent previews of any criticisms made about them and then invited to comment.

And so it goes on.  It`s over ten years now since the Hutton report was published and with Chilcot`s supposedly being released `later this year,` the grass has grown even longer and a once baying public may by now have lost at least some of their interest. And yet there may be some hope for a positive outcome.   Despite Chilcot himself being yet another Whitehall mandarin, it seems inconceivable after all this time, all that money, all that effort and all the ducking and weaving that another whitewash will be tolerated.   I just hope it will have been worth the wait.   

SOMETHING TO HIDE ?

I suppose that with the Olympics in full swing in London and Parliament once more `in recess,` someone in high places thought it would be a good time to attempt to bury `awkward` news.   So, with a stroke of his pen, yesterday the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, in a last minute ruling blocked the release of minutes of crucial ministerial meetings leading up to the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.   This is, in fact, a repeat of the decision made in 2009 over the release of the same papers.


The now familiar `reasons` were again trotted out to try to support this decision - "Holding back the papers is necessary to protect the privacy of Cabinet discussions; releasing the minutes could undermine the frankness of decisions made in the future;  Ministers must not feel inhibited from advancing opinions that may be unpopular or controversial......."   We`ve heard all this trite nonsense before, of course.


Now it`s true that Cabinet minutes are not normally released for 30 years but a spokesman for the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said that his view "is that the significant public interest in this matter justified an exception to the general rule.  The Commissioner is disappointed that the Ministerial veto has been used to override his recent decision notice concerning the minutes of two Cabinet meetings held immediately prior to the commencement of military action in Iraq in 2003."


So there we are.   The Commissioner, whose job it is to protect the rights of the public regarding matters of governmental data and privacy, has come out clearly and critically against this latest refusal by the Attorney General.   It seems that, as a result, the Chilcot Inquiry, who have seen the papers, will not be able to release them and one is left to wonder what effect this may have if and when their long awaited report is finally published.   I think I know the answer, especially as Dominic Grieve`s decision yesterday  was only taken after consulting `relevant former ministers` (no guesses who they were) as well as coalition partners and the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband.   I doubt it takes a genius to work out what they all said when they were consulted.


Now, I know all about innocence until proven guilty, but if the players in that game are confident that they acted properly and with due consideration, then surely the release of the minutes will vindicate them.  Trouble is,  Grieve`s decision appears `convenient` and almost confirms that there might be something to hide after all.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST ?..

The above illustration is a copy of page 73 of the 93 pages of `evidence` given in private to the Chilcot Inquiry by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the foreign intelligence service.   These pages have been released to the public but not before some enthusiastic `redacting,` formerly known as censorship.

Now this might be something of an extreme example, but it doesn`t help the cause of the new age of alleged open transparency that the long awaited report of the Chilcot Inquiry will not now appear until well into next year, because `officials` are refusing to allow private messages between Blair and Bush to be published.  (Note the reference to unelected `officials.`)

To be fair to the Iraq Inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, it is he who is complaining that his ability to publish the report is being undermined by the refusal of Whitehall officials.   Sir John wants to be able to release intelligence papers, private letters between former President George W Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair and to show details of deliberations in Cabinet and the degree to which ministers were kept in the dark about the case for going to war.

The Cabinet Office officials, led by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, have argued that publication of the private letters would compromise candour between future leaders, whilst former Cabinet Secretary Lord O`Donnell told the Chilcot Inquiry that the release of   Blair`s notes would damage relations with the USA and `would not be in the public interest.`

And so the wait goes on and the longer it does the more the suspicions grow that too many people have too much to hide.  And worryingly it seems that it is the officials rather than elected representatives who are not only blocking progress but also deciding what constitutes `the public interest.`  So I`m drawn to two conclusions.

The first is that if publication of likely embarrassing correspondence might damage relations with the US, then so what?   The second is that there are times when it might well be right to publish and be damned, although it is becoming increasingly clear that it won`t be Sir John Chilcot and his chums who are damned but those who seek to hide the truth, delay the publication of the report and hide behind lame duck excuses.

When the report is finally published, I hope `the public` will find it of `interest` for it is us humble taxpayers who foot the huge bills for the Iraq War, the seemingly unending Inquiry and, of course, the `officials` who seem bent on telling us what`s good for us and what`s not.   Welcome to the alleged new age of open transparency!

There`s all the fun of the fair at the Leveson Inquiry as a succession of former Prime Ministers, the current incumbent,  various `personalities` and media people provide ongoing entertainment as we look deeper into the murky relationships between the media and politicians.   Goodness knows how long it will go on for or how long it will take before the Inquiry finally issues its report.

But if the experience of the Chilcot Inquiry into the lead up to the Iraq war is anything to go by, then we`re in for a very long wait indeed.   That Inquiry began as long ago as 2009 and here we are three years on and well over a year since it stopped taking evidence and still no sign of any outcome.   My suspicion is that the conclusions were in fact reached some time ago but the process of consultation and negotiation is such that we`re still waiting.  The last we heard was that these processes would take until Summer 2012 and probably longer to complete before even the draft report could be produced.   Well, summer`s here and it`s all gone quiet over there. 

Regrading the Leveson Inquiry I have to confess to being a bit impressed with how it`s been going.   Elvis Costello`s incisive questioning of witnesses is measured and assured and Lord Leveson himself seems to have it all under control whilst displaying a kind of avuncular benevolence and all in all I have the feeling something positive might emerge from it all.

Sadly for Chilcot and his cronies, given the interminable delay, one is forced more and more to the conclusion that the longer we wait, the more they hope the whitewash has been lost in the long grass and that we will have forgotten what it was all about....or whether it ever happened at all.  But as Cameron said only yesterday, "That`s politics."

TIME WE HEARD ?

I think it was in July, 2009 that the Chilcot Inquiry into the events leading up to the Iraq War was set up, although it was November of that year before the first witnesses were called.  Those open sessions went on until February, 2011 - over a year ago - so I wondered why we haven`t yet heard about the publication of the Inquiry`s Report.

It seems as though the process has been beset with `difficulties,` including an ongoing wrangle with Government Departments about the declassification of certain material, and problems with the turnover of the Inquiry`s support staff.   Nonetheless, the `good news` is that, having concluded the public hearings over a year ago, the written and oral evidence received by the Inquiry members `is currently being analysed` and the report being drafted.

The not so good news is that the co-operation of Government Departments might at best be slow and reluctant and then there is the problem that, if the Inquiry wishes to criticise any individual (names on a postcard, please) then in line with the agreed protocol relating to witnesses, the individual would need to be informed of said criticism and offered the opportunity to make representations to the Inquiry before the report can be finalised.   

The latest information is that  the Inquiry has advised the Government `that it will need at least until summer 2012 to produce even a draft report - and very probably longer.   And so it seems we have all the classic hallmarks of fudge in the making - booted into the long grass citing problems of process and protocol, in the hope that by the time the `negotiated report` is finally presented to the Prime Minister, the great British public will have forgotten what it was all about anyway.

Until March 2010 - two years ago - the Inquiry had already cost £2,300,000 never mind `incidentals` such as the sum of £27,000 just for Tony Blair`s security when he deigned to attend, so the cost in the end is going to be very substantial indeed.   Now I won`t mind that if at the end of it all we get a clear, rational, informative, incisive report that we can trust and believe in.   Trouble is, I`m not that keen on fudge and I have the feeling we might well be getting quite a lot of it.   If we ever get it at all.

GO FOR IT, CHILCOT

I hope David Byrne`s prophecy that `We`re on a Road to Nowhere` isn`t about to return to haunt us once more with the opening today of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War. We`ll see how it pans out, but already there are good signs and bad signs.

On the good side, at least and at last we are having an Inquiry, "to consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath." And it is being held mostly in public. On the other hand, it`s going to take a long time and cost a fortune and already it has been announced that the final report may not be published until 2011, possibly late 2010 but most assuredly not before the General Election next Spring.

Having said all that, I am quite impressed with at least the statements of intent made by the Inquiry Chairman, Sir John Chilcot, hopefully not to be confused with former Bath and England prop, Gareth, seen above doing his after dinner speaking turn. And yet, maybe Sir John might take a leaf out of Gareth`s book, for he was a fearless opponent, not averse to putting the boot in where it hurts and refusing to yield in the face of those who would challenge him.

I see that Sir John is seventy years old (a feeling I know only too well) so I cannot see why he, on whom so many hopes are riding, doesn`t do us all a favour and, at the end of his Inquiry, tell it like it really was. After all, what has he got to lose? I think we probably know what the outcome should be - Blair, Campbell, Scarlett, Goldsmith and most of the Cabinet of the day guilty of dragging us into a conflict on a false prospectus so as to keep `in` with Bush and his maniac administration - but I wonder if Chilcot will have the courage to confirm it and, if he does, what the consequences might be for those responsible. If not, we may once more be on David Byrne`s road to nowhere, where we have been before with Hutton.

Go for it, Chilcot....you know you want to. Much more here - http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/