daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Edited title due to spelling error.

Ok, normally I'm happy just sat on the sidelines watching other interesting topics get raised and played out on here, either agreeing or disagreeing in my own private way, but I have to bring this up purely as a question to gauge what others think.

Well, five questions really......

1) Is Sir Jeremy Heywood the real Prime Minister of the UK?

The reason I ask is this....

2) Why can't the elected leader of the UK, by democratic process, tell Sir Jeremy Heywood that this report needs publishing now and not after the next election? There has been a Guardian piece on this quoting the PM as being disappointed by the delay. To the average punter the PM is supposedly in charge.

3) How exactly does the Civil Service system work?
4) Is Sir Jeremy Heywood a publicly elected figure?

I don't get it. It's not something I was taught in school or sought to study until I became an adult and this business of news/politics/business became part of my adult life. 5 years ago I probably could have said without any doubt how things ran. It seems more often than not that I am pulling a "buffer face" every time I read stuff like this.

5) Is it any surprise that the theory of conspiracy is allowed to flourish when things just don't make sense unless you are almost forced to look at the ulterior motives option because being taken simply for an idiot doesn't sit well?

My stance on it is simply this. If the report is done and is of clear public interest GET IT OUT THERE. I have no experience of running a Country, save the odd Marathon, so I am more than happy to be classed as being naive. I'm trying to redress this by asking questions.

So yeah. Let's see what you've got. I genuinely feel like I don't have a clue with this stuff after reading that guff in the report. For reference purposes here is the link! Please note how I have managed to bypass the headline grabber as I think that is a side show.......again possibly due to being naive or overthinking it.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...ort/ar-AA8reBp

Martin2005

I think the issue here might be that the PM has no power to command an independent equiry to do anything. They will report it when they are happy that they have done what they need to do.

Chilcot btw

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Oh god, horrendous spelling. No excuse! Thanks for pointing that out

Almost renders the questions null and void.

Re: your viewpoint. Brings me to question 6. Who orders the independent enquiry?

Tidgy

hasn't he said he's still working on some of the interviews hence the delay?

Martin2005

Dave, it's not my 'viewpoint', it is what it is

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Cool and noted Martin. Thank you. Merely trying to personalise the reply rather than dismiss you out of hand. You are bound to see things differently to me, it's not how I saw it reading that article hence the multiple questions. I'm trying to understand the IT of the IS as I just don't get it. I've read Jeremy Heywood's name in articles in the past and it just "appears" like PMs are answerable to him. As I stated from the get go, this is probably down to being naive/I'll informed.

So going back to what you've just stated in your first reply can you help me understand who orders a public enquiry? I don't understand the process. Someone orders/requests it then presumably the order maker/requester can expect it when done. I don't understand why an independent report publication hinges on an election if it is independent.

Martin2005

I think it was Gordon Brown that ordered it, the rules and terms of reference were agreed upon by all the main party leaders - I think that's right anyway

This enquiry should of been published a good while ago, but there has been issues with getting agrrement from the civil service due to nation security concerns (basically should conversations between the President of the US and the PM by disclosed).

Also a member of the committee has been seriously ill

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Interesting stuff. Thank you. It's quite frustrating trying to understand these things purely on the glaringly obvious knowledge gaps. For me, it's all about accountability. If conversations between world leaders are catalogued, it does beg the question why? It comes across as almost pointless if it's of no use in the real world.

stipete75

It's all bullsh1te anyway, justice will not be served, there will be a cover-up on certain things, the full conversations between the two main terrorists I mean blair and bush will be taken out of context to show they did what they did on good authority and evidence at that time.
Not one single person will be brought to justice over this blatant illegal war that has caused thousands upon thousands of innocents deaths.
A down right travesty.

hodgy0_2

It certainly won't bring anyone back

And will it really tell us anything that we don't know

I will be interested whether it takes a view on the religious faith of bush and Blair

And if that had any bearing on events

Maz

iTrader: (34)

It'll be another whitewash just like the Hutton report.

stipete75

Exactly, they know they can get away with anything including mass genacide.
Just like the Westminster abuse report.
Just like the Diana inquiry.
There is not a thing we can do about it. We have no say, we have no hope.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

It is now accepted the 'dodgy dossier' was 'sexed' up to enable the UK to join the war against Iraq. The sad thing is NOBODY has been brought to task. The nearest anybody got to being properly questioned was on They Think It's All Over.
Alastair Campbell who was on one of the teams was asked by Rory McGrath his time for the Marathon. Campbell answered only for McGrath to say 'what took you so long, the Hutton report weighing you down?!'
Campbell had a face like thunder. He continued to get stick throughout the show from McGrath, Jonathon Ross and the audience. Great show and a better questioning of Campbell than Paxman managed on Newsnight.

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

I have been busying myself on wikipedia swatting up on this Heywood chap. Either he is Teflon-Coated or has dirt on everyone. Quite how you can get into a job that powerful with some of the documented failings he has presided over is pretty astonishing.

From what I can make out, he's a Mandarin/Quango. According to info (also on Wikipedia) relating to the Civil Service, they aren't meant to interfere with policy making in Parliament. From what I've read, the script is meant to go Minister says do this. Civil service actions it.

So having a Senior Civil Servant as a policy advisor........right!

Is it any wonder why I find this sort of stuff a little hard to get? All things being equal, the Crown's Civil Service is, on paper, allegedly meant to facilitate policy not decide it.

I know wiki isn't be all and end all. Lazy man's library if you like. I can live with that.

lordharding

iTrader: (1)

Just another Goverment cover up
10 millions quid and years to produce with 100 interviewed
Another waste of public money

Blair / brown / Cameron
All waste of space dishonest and you couldnt trust any of them

Sooner we get road of Tories and labour the better

Carnut

Clarkson for prime minister

Matteeboy

How can the report say anything but "we got roped in by the Yanks to fight a totally pointless war?"

c_maguire

Does a few more months make the blindest bit of odds to the outcome or implications of this enquiry?

Unlikely, were we not soon to be having a General Election which may or may not be influenced in a major, or more likely minor way. In any event the release of this report will not occur before the General Election (whatever the politicians are saying in public).

hodgy0_2

part of the delay is because everyone who has been criticised in some way in the report has the right of reply - before publication

so this obviously takes time

and some of these people only saw the report in its entirety in November last year

scoobyskool

iTrader: (1)

This

Andaru

I don't see why people think it's some cover up for the election when releasing it will only ***** up Labour's chances or winning the election. It doesn't matter what the outcome of it as as everyone will still complain, we all have 20/20 hindsight but people frequently forget what we knew at the time. Which is that Saddam continually blocked inspectors and was totally uncooperative.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yet had no WMDs!

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Evidence????

Andaru

here

richie001

iTrader: (3)

We were told the war was about WMD's,which was a complete lie.It was all about regime change and George Bush's lust to finish the job his father never could and that was to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

The state Iraq is in and the rise of ISIS is because of the mess we and the yanks made and left behind.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Pretty much how I see it. The fact that most of the Bush administration did well out of the war is purely coincidental.

hodgy0_2

It was a farce, if you listen to Hans Blix the head on the UN inspectors

He kept asking the US government where the weapons were located, where exactly were the WMD sites located

The US kept saying they new 100%, but every time they gave Hans Blix details it turned out to be some rusty old buses in the middle of the dessert - he went to over 500 sites, where the US had told him "yep deffo we know they are there"

And Saddam knew that the US were using the inspections as a pretext for spying/espionage on Iraq - which they were

I think part of the problem was Saddam actually pretended he might have them - to keep the west on there toes

But I seem to remember right at the last stages - in the weeks / months before the invasion - the penny dropped for Saddam and he realised that the UK/US were going to invade - he then made concession after concession (but he could obviously not give up the WMD that he did not actually have)

And the rest is history, by then the "coalition" were going to attack WMD or not

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No that's not evidence, it's nonsense!

This below is the truth!

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I recall the opening salvos of operation Shock and Awe. A slightly troubled Rageh Omar (who left his job a short while after) did his best to surmise the events unfolding. Over half million people dead since those first explosions. For what? World safety? Money? I struggle to accept any consideration that would justify the war and subsequent loss of life.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Me too It is one of our darkest times frankly!