So - it was quite all right for Government to state that Iraq had wmds on 45 minutes' readiness without any proof because they believed their source was reliable, but utterly wrong for the BBC to broadcast a report that they couldn't prove but was based on a source they believed to be reliable?
And is it only me who thought we were innocent until proven guilty? Hutton stated that he could not rule on what Kelly actually said to Gilligan - but he was satisfied he didn't confirm the story. That sounds awfully like a presumption of guilt to me.