Hutton sputters again
Tony Blair is said to be in even deeper doodoo after yesterday's final, final Hutton inquuiry evidence that he chaired the meeting that led to the 'unmasking' of Dr Kelly. Leave aside the question of whether this meeting actually decided on a strategy designed to name him. Can anyone enlighten me why a civil servant, who had revealed unauthorised intelligence material to journalists and had apparently broken his duty of trust by covertly attacking his employers, should have felt entitled to expect that his name would be kept secret?

I have followed the Dr. Kelly saga fairly closely over the past few weeks and not until now have I seen any one state what to me seemed so obvious that I was beginning to wonder just what I was missing, that is as Melanie states in the above that essentially Dr. Kelly betrayed the trust of his employers and talked.I have read that people considered Kelly had been treated unfairly, that his name should not have been released but kept secret and so on. Surely the point about all this is that if the gentleman in question had kept his big mouth shut his outing and subsequent suicide followed by the Hutton inquiry would not have been necessary.

A month or so ago in The Spectator, Ron Liddle said we needed an answer to a question that still has not been accorded an answer: It is said that Dr Kelly was approved to give informal, not-for-attribution occasional briefings to the press. Is this true or not? Why does the MoD refuse to address this question? What are they still hiding?

In my previous job it was pointed out to everyone that to give an unauthorised briefing to the press was considered gross misconduct. Gross misconduct being grounds for dismissal. I was working for a supermarket at the time.
It isn't clear why Dr Kelly wasn't facing some kind of internal discplinary procedure. Of course it may have been in the pipeline, but just hasn't come out to save the feelings of his family.