Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police has decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.
David Cameron provided a "bluffer's guide to the Hutton Inquiry" in his Guardian article, Hutton in five easy steps.
Today his bluff ws called.
He simply had no idea what he was talking about. His "bluffer's guide" was written by the bluffer, not for the bluffer.
David Kelly didn't have an inquest that complied with the requirements of the Coroners Act 1988.
Are you paying attention, Prime Minister? David Kelly didn't have a lawful inquest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth noting also the Parliamentary question by David T.C. Davies last year
ReplyDelete13 Sep 2010 : Column 595
T6. [14547] David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): The circumstances of the death of former Ministry of Defence employee, Dr David Kelly, continue to leave many people feeling profoundly uneasy. Are those concerns shared within the Ministry of Defence and, if so, will the Minister be pushing other Departments to come up with a full, open and transparent investigation as soon as possible?
Nick Harvey: This matter is predominantly the responsibility of the Attorney-General. I am pleased that he has indicated that if any new evidence is put before him that would flesh out the concerns that have been expressed about the circumstances of Dr David Kelly's death, he would be willing to instruct that a fresh inquest should take place."
Thanks, Felix.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware of that PQ from David Davies.
...and from Sir Peter Tapsell himself on 22 October 2003:
ReplyDeleteSir Peter Tapsell: The Foreign Secretary started the present section of his speech by rubbishing the legal opinion of Lord Alexander of Weedon, a former chairman of the Bar, who said that resolution 1441, taken together with previous resolutions, did not provide a justification for war. That is why France, Germany and Russia did not support it at the United Nations. As the Foreign Secretary knows very well, resolution 1441 said that there would be "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply. It did not say that the United Nations would go to war without a second resolution, and the Government failed to get that second resolution. That is the legal position and that is why the Attorney-General has been discredited.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should calm down. Lord Alexander, whether he was chairman of the Bar or not, was wrong on this issue. The factual basis of what he said was wrong. He claimed on the radio that resolution 1441 required that the matter went back to the United Nations Security Council for decision, but that was not the case. He was wrong about that, and the hon. Gentleman should at least have the good grace to agree with that. Lord Alexander has many merits—I know and like him—but that was not the most impressive
Sir Peter was quoting I think an article by Clare Dyer in the Guardian , 15 October 2003,Goldsmith ‘scraped the legal barrel’ over Iraq war, which seems to have disappeared from the web.