I am so depressed and angry at the way Blair and Campbell are attacking the BBC and the reputation of David Kelly, and the valuable role of whistleblowers.

Far from submitting, I wish the BBC would examine what drove David Kelly to go to Andrew Gilligan. If he felt that his concerns based on his unique knowledge were not being taken into account, and that his conscience required this to be taken into account, then this should be examined. It was outrageous that Lord Hutton spoke so disgracefully about David Kelly's character.

Lord Hutton's judgement was pure "interpretation" (and "interpretation" and "presentation" are central to Blairism and Campbellism). Nearly every statement was preceded by a phrase such as "I am satisfied that ..." His opinion should carry no more weight than that of anyone else given that he has examined the "facts" that are now available to all of us to examine (all credit to him for that), and has now demonstrated his own bias by ignoring evidence critical of the government.

My own suspicion is that Blair and Campbell had something to hide, and are now immensely relieved. Why did Blair chose not to reveal to the public that he had been warned that an attack on Iraq would likely lead to a more dangerous situation internationally? What did David Kelly feel we should know, at such great cost to himself?

This is a sad day for democracy.

Why not have an e-poll to see whether the public wants news to be driven by those in political power?