What on earth to do over the death of Dr Kelly.....

I have always been suspicious about circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, and how its aftermath was dealt with by the authorities.

I was, therefore, very interested in how the new UK government, which was critical of Labour’s handling of the situation, would react to the disquiet that is felt about the possibility of a cover up.

Today's news is that English Attorney General Dominic Grieve is prepared to intervene, although he vacillates a bit saying he doesn’t have any actual evidence to suggest that there was a cover-up. Then he admits that it is important to investigate the matter properly so that the public can have confidence in the outcome, but says that it's the job of the English Justice Secretary to release the papers.

Certainly, in opposition he seemed stronger in his condemnation.

The original inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, which was chaired by Brian Hutton, an establishment man with a superb pedigree, was held in place of a normal open inquest and labelled a whitewash at the time, most particularly by the Independent newspaper. Now doctors who have studied the case are casting doubt on fact that it was physically possible for Kelly to have killed himself in the manner accepted by Hutton, who is, for all his legal experience, not a coroner.

Hutton’s insistence that the papers on the case, including the post mortem report, be buried for 70 years, seems an extreme measure to take in order to protect Dr Kelly's family from pain. After all people are exposed to the pain of relatives’ deaths, even by suicide, reasonably frequently, and they are not protected by the force of law from knowing the full facts for 70 years.

Given the enormity of the consequences of the possibility that there was a cover up (and of what was covered up), the possible involvement of the government and the then prime minister, Tony Blair, I would have thought that it was essential to get this matter cleared up as quickly as possible. The importance of it is fundamental to people’s trust in the integrity of government. So, in theory, it needs to be resolved.

But on the other hand, what is the likelihood of any government, even one so opposed to Blair’s New Labour as the current bunch, allowing it to be found that a government department was involved in covering up the death of a very senior and extremely knowledgeable weapons expert who doubted the veracity of the content of a government approved 'dodgy dossier' and. therefore. the justifications for war.....and was prepared to say so to the BBC?

Can anyone seriously imagine this?

No, I thought not. So there's our moral dilemma. Do we have another inquiry into the inquiry, that will surely find pretty much the same thing as the first inquiry... because that's the only explanation that any government can allow, or should we save the money that an inquiry would cost and accept we'll never know the truth....because they don't want us to know the truth?

I PUT MY HANDS UP M'LUD

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. How we did laugh.

I thought I’d take a few minutes off reading stories about how the three “main” parties, so beloved of the press, are going to make my life in this country better for me, despite the fact that we all know it’s a pile of pants. Four weeks of this. Heaven help us!

Anyway, I’m glad I took a break, for here we have England’s, Wales’s and Northern Ireland’s highest legal officer, The Rt Hon. and Learned The Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC (ironic name for the woman in charge of the law in England, Wales and NI, but we’ll let that pass) and guess what. She was done over by her cleaner. Yep, you heard me right. (OK you read me right!)

I’m glad she’s not in charge of law in this country. The idea that her cleaner is cleverer than she is is scary, you’d have to agree. Maybe they shoud swap jobs?

Scotland said she bitterly regretted not making copies of the documents Loloahi Tapui presented to her before she took up her role as housekeeper and dog walker at Scotland’s London home.

The case is embarrassing for Scotland, whose failure to do as she was obliged to do, meant that she was in breach of the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act that she brought to law when she was a Home Office Minister.

I have to do it for every non British national that I interview, never mind employ. Perhaps Baronesses are different, them being aristocrats and all.

Anyway, there’s something a wee bit fishy going on here. You see, she (Scotland that is) says that she explained to Tapui that, because she was a lawyer, everything had to be above board. This seems to indicate that she was being mindful of her obligations, but still, after all that, she forgot to get the stuff photocopied. Sloppy or what? (She says in her defence that there had been bereavements in her family and it had been a hard time for her......)

Worse still, Tapui told her that she knew who Scotland was, despite the fact that she said that “I didn’t use my title”. Tapui said that her husband had seen her on tv.

So, my question is. Would you, if you were an illegal immigrant, apply for a job with the Attorney General, knowing who she was, and knowing that she was likely to look into everything and want to keep records very very carefully because it was more than her job was worth to mess up?

(Well OK, I take that last bit back but the woman’s from Tonga for heaven’s sake. She wasn’t likely to know how corrupt the British government was.)

I think the answer is no. I think you would avoid applying for a job with any member of the government or any high ranking official. I think you’d be looking for someone who was tight, and dodgy from the legal point of view, who’d be happy to turn a blind eye to your illegal status and, in return not pay you properly and you wouldn’t be able to complain! Well that’s what I think...

What do you guys think?

.............

Pictures: The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music....?