Chilcot Report

[Hope]

I hear that families of British soldiers killed during the Iraq War are threatening to take legal action against Sir John Chilcot if his Report isn't published by the end of the year.

He has said publication of his report has been delayed to allow those who have been criticised to respond.

Lawyers for the soldiers' families claim he acted unlawfully by refusing to set a deadline for publication.

The five-member panel, led by Sir John, began its work in 2009 and held its last hearings in 2011.

The inquiry took evidence from hundreds of witnesses, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and is set to cost taxpayers £10m.

The delays, to allow those who might face criticism in the report to argue their case, have led to frustration among some of the soldiers' families.

'Black cloud'

Lawyers acting for 29 of them have written to Sir John calling for him to set a deadline for witnesses to respond and to promise the report will be published by the end of the year or they will take their case to the High Court.

Should people who were to be criticised in the report been given this chance to 'argue their case' prior to the report's publication.

Is 4 years an excessive time period for pulling stuff together in view of the complexities of the matter?

[floo]

I can understand why the families are getting very frustrated.

[L.A.]

The inquiry was announced in 2009 - that's a hell of a long time ago!

Presumably Blair's lawyers keep making threatening noises.

Personally I think someone ought to just stick the whole thing on the internet and have done with it.

[Outrider]

I hear that families of British soldiers killed during the Iraq War are threatening to take legal action against Sir John Chilcot if his Report isn't published by the end of the year.

He has said publication of his report has been delayed to allow those who have been criticised to respond.

Lawyers for the soldiers' families claim he acted unlawfully by refusing to set a deadline for publication.

The five-member panel, led by Sir John, began its work in 2009 and held its last hearings in 2011.

The inquiry took evidence from hundreds of witnesses, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and is set to cost taxpayers £10m.

The delays, to allow those who might face criticism in the report to argue their case, have led to frustration among some of the soldiers' families.

'Black cloud'

Lawyers acting for 29 of them have written to Sir John calling for him to set a deadline for witnesses to respond and to promise the report will be published by the end of the year or they will take their case to the High Court.

Should people who were to be criticised in the report been given this chance to 'argue their case' prior to the report's publication.

Is 4 years an excessive time period for pulling stuff together in view of the complexities of the matter?

I don't think it's unfair to allow people an opportunity for rebuttal in the modern era where anything put into print is indelibly locked into history, regardless of the truth or otherwise.

That said, if the last public hearings were over four years ago then everyone's had more than enough opportunity to make their rebuttals. If they were that bothered they'd have submitted their pieces by now. It's time to publish.

O.

[L.A.]

If ever there was a case for Wikileaks . . . .