[propertius]

I think this is a little unfair on Kelly. Yes he talked to Gilligan, which he admitted to the enquiry. But he also told the investigation "I do not believe I could be the source." This clearly suggests that Gilligan grossly distorted what Kelly told him, making it so unrecognizable that Kelly assumed the BBC had another source. Gilligan probably made up the Campbell 45 minutes, sexing up his story even more. Kelly was foolish but not a traitor. The BBC has behaved in a disgusting manner. Gilligan must go and, under British law, could, I believe, even face criminal charges. The whole corporation must then undergo a massive overhaul...

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Gilligan must go and, under British law, could, I believe, even face criminal charges.

Is this true? Tell me more, please. I've been wondering what "news" is so important (barring national disasters or other immediate physical risks) - what byline, 24/7 deadline, prize - can excuse a mainstream reporter's use of unverified facts and unreliable sources to create a 'scandalous' banner headlined article that smears someone unjustly or endangers our troops, or our war efforts.

The museum looting, trumpeted as it was around the world just after our troops entered Baghdad to flowers and cheers - should have cost at least one journalist a job, imho. Parroting another journalists work is no excuse.

[DB]

The BBC claims it has audio tapes of the interview supporting their position.

I haven't heard anymore on that front.