The Hutton Report
Posted by: MichaelC on 27 January 2004
Leaked to the Sun according to Sky News.
Blair escapes criticism
BBC editorial defective
Not being cynical but I guess the leak originated from the government ... spin, spin, spin.
Not sure that The Sun should have published this either knowing that distribution of the report is being limited to interested parties until tomorrow am.
Mike (your roving reporter)
The Hutton Enquiry Part II - who leaked - you read it here first
Blair escapes criticism
BBC editorial defective
Not being cynical but I guess the leak originated from the government ... spin, spin, spin.
Not sure that The Sun should have published this either knowing that distribution of the report is being limited to interested parties until tomorrow am.
Mike (your roving reporter)
The Hutton Enquiry Part II - who leaked - you read it here first
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by MarkEJ
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
I think in the fullness of time Hutton will prove to be Campbell's finest achievement -- the government was facing huge and difficult questions from a disgruntled public and parliament about being seemingly duped into going to war and somehow it all got reduced to an argument about some dodgy reporting by the BBC.
Seconded. On the button.
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Alex S.
And the 'fullness of time' seems to be about now for most people I know.
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Jo Sharp
However.....
1. Michael Howard's accusation was that Blair mislead the public when he said to journalists on a flight in July that he had not authorised the strategy to deal with the release of Dr Kelly's name. Sir Kevin Tebbit's evidence to Hutton seemed to be pretty clear that Blair had chaired the meeting that approved the Govt's strategy. But this was not an issue addressed by Hutton. So Blair has still not answered Howard's point and Howard has nothing to apologise for...yet.
2. It would be interesting to see the additional evidence submitted to Hutton by the Govt in 'rebuttal' of the earlier submissions by other witnesses. This has not been made public.
3. I am surprised that even though it is reported that Alistair Campbell's diary stated that the priority was to get Dr Kelly's name into the open and to f*** Mr Gilligan, the Report still clears the Govt.
1. Michael Howard's accusation was that Blair mislead the public when he said to journalists on a flight in July that he had not authorised the strategy to deal with the release of Dr Kelly's name. Sir Kevin Tebbit's evidence to Hutton seemed to be pretty clear that Blair had chaired the meeting that approved the Govt's strategy. But this was not an issue addressed by Hutton. So Blair has still not answered Howard's point and Howard has nothing to apologise for...yet.
2. It would be interesting to see the additional evidence submitted to Hutton by the Govt in 'rebuttal' of the earlier submissions by other witnesses. This has not been made public.
3. I am surprised that even though it is reported that Alistair Campbell's diary stated that the priority was to get Dr Kelly's name into the open and to f*** Mr Gilligan, the Report still clears the Govt.
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by JeremyD
Eric,
As for the selection of Hutton, I assume that if a legitimate alternative mechanism existed the BBC would have made a big deal about why it was not used. Maybe I missed it (as I go through phases of avoiding all news coverage for several days at a time) but assuming I didn't it seems to be a constitutional matter, with no new implications for press freedom.
It is very difficult for us to do anything about the privately owned media but at least with the publicly owned BBC I think the public has every right to demand the highest standards of journalism from the BBC, and the BBC has no right to hide behind spurious arguments about freedom of speech. Otherwise why have a publicly funded broadcaster at all?
Finally, I hope this whole affair will result in the BBC cleaning up its act and providing us with the objective news service that we pay for. They have shown they know how to do it in the award winning [I think] children's news programme Newsround, which for many years was a paragon of objective, if simplified, reporting.
quote:To the best of my knowledge it was not a trial and Hutton was not empowered to apply any kind of sanction against the government or the BBC. How does this restrict press freedom?
Originally posted by ejl:
I certainly wouldn't advocate having no legal recourse (for slander, libel, etc). But look at the legal challenge in this case; the party who claims to be harmed (Blair) gets to pick the judge. That is worrisome.
As for the selection of Hutton, I assume that if a legitimate alternative mechanism existed the BBC would have made a big deal about why it was not used. Maybe I missed it (as I go through phases of avoiding all news coverage for several days at a time) but assuming I didn't it seems to be a constitutional matter, with no new implications for press freedom.
quote:Nobody suggested it.
As far as the "presenting opinion as fact" thing goes, let me just say that it's an unreasonable and overly-restrictive standard to insist that journalists be prohibited from publishing anything false (under threat of lawsuit, etc.).
quote:This really isn't the issue. I don't believe for a moment that the journalists responsible for most of the crap broadcast daily by the BBC have any more difficulty than I do in distinguishing between statements of fact [i.e. what you would call examples of warranted assertability] and the kind of statements of opinion that they routinely present as fact. I would be interested to know what their defence is for what they do. My guess is that they would claim the average citizen is intelligent enough to know the difference, which clearly is not the case.
The reasonable standard is warranted assertability, not truth, and the distinction is important.
It is very difficult for us to do anything about the privately owned media but at least with the publicly owned BBC I think the public has every right to demand the highest standards of journalism from the BBC, and the BBC has no right to hide behind spurious arguments about freedom of speech. Otherwise why have a publicly funded broadcaster at all?
quote:It is absurd to imply that a journalist of any integrity could be repressed by Hutton. I'm sure a lot of journalists now feel unhappy and defensive - and so they should, as far as I am concerned. The fact is that senior BBC staff made a serious mistake in defending an indefensible broadcast. Nothing could have made the BBC apologise had this not been the case. And nothing could have made the BBC heads who resigned do so [bar ousting by their BBC colleagues] unless they thought it was the right thing to do.
Repressing journalists for saying false things is a favorite tactic of repressive regimes (witness Charles Taylor last year in Liberia). It's a mistake to think it's justified.
Finally, I hope this whole affair will result in the BBC cleaning up its act and providing us with the objective news service that we pay for. They have shown they know how to do it in the award winning [I think] children's news programme Newsround, which for many years was a paragon of objective, if simplified, reporting.
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by JeremyD:
The fact is that senior BBC staff made a serious mistake in defending an indefensible broadcast.
The fact is that senior government ministers made a serious mistake in launching an indefensible war.
That's the issue - all this Hutton stuff is an attempt to divert attention from that point.
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Jo Sharp
The one thing that I find mildy amusing in this whole sorry affair is that the BBC, a trendy leftie organisation that only advertises its job vacancies in the Grauniad and whose recently departed Chairman (or DG?) bunged large wads of cash at the Labour Party, should end up being shafted by the Blair Government...
Jo
Jo
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Jo Sharp:
However.....
1. Michael Howard's accusation was that Blair mislead the public when he said to journalists on a flight in July that he had not authorised the strategy to deal with the release of Dr Kelly's name. Sir Kevin Tebbit's evidence to Hutton seemed to be pretty clear that Blair had chaired the meeting that approved the Govt's strategy. But this was not an issue addressed by Hutton. So Blair has still not answered Howard's point and Howard has nothing to apologise for...yet.
2. It would be interesting to see the additional evidence submitted to Hutton by the Govt in 'rebuttal' of the earlier submissions by other witnesses. This has not been made public.
3. I am surprised that even though it is reported that Alistair Campbell's diary stated that the priority was to get Dr Kelly's name into the open and to f*** Mr Gilligan, the Report still clears the Govt.
Sorry to quote the whole of Jo Sharp's comment but it contains issues that remain unanswered. This whole saga culminating with "The Hutton Report" leaves me thinking that something is (seriously) amiss.
My feeling is that the report is too "black and white" in it's outcome. What I would like to see are the minutes of the meeting Sir Kevin Tebbit attended...
Mike
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
The one thing that I find mildy amusing in this whole sorry affair is that the BBC, a trendy leftie organisation that only advertises its job vacancies in the Grauniad and whose recently departed Chairman (or DG?) bunged large wads of cash at the Labour Party, should end up being shafted by the Blair Government...
The BBC's editorial independence will last how long now?
As of now it may have to tow a far more rigid line of its paymasters - i.e: the Blair Government.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Mick P
Talk of the Beebs independance being stifled is way out of line. Blair will have to rubber stamp the two new replacements who will be selected by the Board of Govenors.
The main issue was that Gilligan exgerated the story and no checks were made by the Beebs management chain to verify the truth.
Gilligan was in the wrong and the Beeb negligent.
Common sense dictates that it if the Beeb was going to make serious statements which brought about questions over the integrity of the Prime Minister, then a thorough check on the accuracy of those statements should have taken place.
Because of this negligence, resignations have rightfully taken place and Michael Howard has been made to look a fool.
Blair must be grinning all over his face behind the closed doors of Number 10.
Regards
Mick
The main issue was that Gilligan exgerated the story and no checks were made by the Beebs management chain to verify the truth.
Gilligan was in the wrong and the Beeb negligent.
Common sense dictates that it if the Beeb was going to make serious statements which brought about questions over the integrity of the Prime Minister, then a thorough check on the accuracy of those statements should have taken place.
Because of this negligence, resignations have rightfully taken place and Michael Howard has been made to look a fool.
Blair must be grinning all over his face behind the closed doors of Number 10.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by David Stewart
quote:
Blair must be grinning all over his face behind the closed doors of Number 10.
On the contrary. I suspect the smirk of Wednesday will by now have been replaced by a worried frown, as he surveys with concern the additional damage the weeks events have wrought to his already fragile credibility. "Those who live by the sword ......"
David
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Alex S.
One of Blair's main problems is the amount of inane grinning he does in public.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by matthewr
Jo Sharp said "The one thing that I find mildy amusing in this whole sorry affair is that the BBC, a trendy leftie organisation that only advertises its job vacancies in the Grauniad and whose recently departed Chairman (or DG?) bunged large wads of cash at the Labour Party, should end up being shafted by the Blair Government..."
The contradiction is being caused here by your migsuided view of the BBC as "trendy leftie". The BBC is mostly full of high Tory patrician types (Paxman and Dimblebey are good examples) and of the several BBC journalists I have known/met they represent a wide range of political views as one would expect. And of couse the man at the centrre of this Gilligan is yer typical aggressively modern right winger. Also the BBC is about as "trendy" as the Rotarians.
The real contradiction here is that the right professes mock concern for the conduct of the government knowig full well it supported them all the way and has no interest in finding out what happened about Iraq or challenging the idea that the decision to go to war was wrong. Their only interest has been to trap Blair in a lie so he is obliged to resign. They seem to ignore the fact that all this lying comes baout becuase there was no case for attacking Iraq and the government had to make one up.
On the whole though I do agree with the idea that the report was pretty abysmal as it's conclusions stretch credulity to such a degree that basically nobody beleives it and still thinks the Government was seriously at fault.
By contrast the BBC has lost an excellent DG in Greg Dyke and will suffer grievously in the short term. Long term though I think they will be ok although their remains concern that they will be stuffed by the government in the Charter review.
Overall though it cannot be repeated enough that the main point is that instead of asking serious questions about the how and why the government started war we are instead talking about this ludicrously trivial BBC issue.
Matthew
The contradiction is being caused here by your migsuided view of the BBC as "trendy leftie". The BBC is mostly full of high Tory patrician types (Paxman and Dimblebey are good examples) and of the several BBC journalists I have known/met they represent a wide range of political views as one would expect. And of couse the man at the centrre of this Gilligan is yer typical aggressively modern right winger. Also the BBC is about as "trendy" as the Rotarians.
The real contradiction here is that the right professes mock concern for the conduct of the government knowig full well it supported them all the way and has no interest in finding out what happened about Iraq or challenging the idea that the decision to go to war was wrong. Their only interest has been to trap Blair in a lie so he is obliged to resign. They seem to ignore the fact that all this lying comes baout becuase there was no case for attacking Iraq and the government had to make one up.
On the whole though I do agree with the idea that the report was pretty abysmal as it's conclusions stretch credulity to such a degree that basically nobody beleives it and still thinks the Government was seriously at fault.
By contrast the BBC has lost an excellent DG in Greg Dyke and will suffer grievously in the short term. Long term though I think they will be ok although their remains concern that they will be stuffed by the government in the Charter review.
Overall though it cannot be repeated enough that the main point is that instead of asking serious questions about the how and why the government started war we are instead talking about this ludicrously trivial BBC issue.
Matthew
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
By contrast the BBC has lost an excellent DG in Greg Dyke and will suffer grievously in the short term.
It sounds like one reason for DG resigning was to allow himself an unfettered response to the Hutton whitewash, without necessarily being seen to be representative of the views of the BBC.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Overall though it cannot be repeated enough that the main point is that instead of asking serious questions about the how and why the government started war we are instead talking about this ludicrously trivial BBC issue.
Couldn't agree more. The staging of the Hutton inquiry was a very clever bit of politics.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Former member
Originally post by Mick Parry:
(with just a couple of minor ammendments)
Spot on Mick - as usual.
[This message was edited by Patrick Dixon on SATURDAY 31 January 2004 at 13:58.]
(with just a couple of minor ammendments)
quote:
The main issue was that Blair exgerated the story and no checks were made by the Cabinet to verify the truth.
Blair was in the wrong and the Government negligent.
Spot on Mick - as usual.
[This message was edited by Patrick Dixon on SATURDAY 31 January 2004 at 13:58.]
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Former member
quote:
Overall though it cannot be repeated enough that the main point is that instead of asking serious questions about the how and why the government started war we are instead talking about this ludicrously trivial BBC issue.
It's a brilliant political move, and the Hutton report has done EXACTLY what it was required to do - distract attention away from the real issue at hand.
ag
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by matthewr
Or as a brilliant political analyst put it way back in June last year "Meanwhile Campbell has reduced the whole issue to, essentially, did he put the 45mins thing into the report. From the start it seemed inconcievable to me that he hadn't and could prove so or else he would never have mentioned it. Very skillfully he has reduced the whole subject to a single keystone issue that will ultimately be resolved in his favour".
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Former member
Mystic Matthew - please can you let us all know what the winning lottery numbers will be tonight?
ag
ag
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by ken c
without going into the details of the mertis of the case one way or another, michael howards performance during the hutton debate was one of the worst i have ever seen.
enjoy
ken
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by JeremyD
Jo,
My current hypothesis is that the BBC is suffering from "institutional stupidity", lacking the necessary "servo mechanisms" to prevent incidents like Gillgan from occurinf. I think that once someone in authority in the BBC recognises the nature and extent of the problem they will find it relatively straightforward to deal with it simply by changing the structure and systems of the BBC news and current affairs organisation. I don't believe any sackings/resignations will be necessary. And the key to it all is simply an understanding that a disctinction should be made between "objective" reporting and "subjective" commentary, which has nothing to do with verifying facts to a higher standard or submitting news reports to a Ministry of Truth and everything to do with recognising that a news report that veers into offering us a choice of two alternative explanations of Blair's base motives is no longer a news report but a personal commentary, and worse and personal commentary that is often disguised by its "disattributional" style [e.g. "It is widely believed that..." instead of "In my opinion..."]. Fox News should be compulsory viewing for BBC news and current affairs staff. Once they've stopped falling over laughing at its loudmouthed, right wing attitude they may begin to face the shocking truth that Fox generally does a better job of separating factual reporting from personal opinion.
quote:First a shocking confession: I haven't read Hutton. However, as I understand it Campbell stated that this was his priority rather than the government's. Can you (or anyone) clarify this? [I'm afraid I have other things on my mind and am too lazy to check].
...I am surprised that even though it is reported that Alistair Campbell's diary stated that the priority was to get Dr Kelly's name into the open and to f*** Mr Gilligan, the Report still clears the Govt.
quote:The BBC may contain a mildly disproportionate number of "trendy lefties" but that doesn't make it a left wing organisation. This would not explain the pattern of bias in the BBC over the last 30+ years: pro-Conservative from the late seventies (if not before) until the mid nineties, pro-Blair for a while and only in recent times anti Labour (government). I am not aware of discontinuities in the make-up of the BBC that would explain this.
The one thing that I find mildy amusing in this whole sorry affair is that the BBC, a trendy leftie organisation that only advertises its job vacancies in the Grauniad and whose recently departed Chairman (or DG?) bunged large wads of cash at the Labour Party, should end up being shafted by the Bair Government...
My current hypothesis is that the BBC is suffering from "institutional stupidity", lacking the necessary "servo mechanisms" to prevent incidents like Gillgan from occurinf. I think that once someone in authority in the BBC recognises the nature and extent of the problem they will find it relatively straightforward to deal with it simply by changing the structure and systems of the BBC news and current affairs organisation. I don't believe any sackings/resignations will be necessary. And the key to it all is simply an understanding that a disctinction should be made between "objective" reporting and "subjective" commentary, which has nothing to do with verifying facts to a higher standard or submitting news reports to a Ministry of Truth and everything to do with recognising that a news report that veers into offering us a choice of two alternative explanations of Blair's base motives is no longer a news report but a personal commentary, and worse and personal commentary that is often disguised by its "disattributional" style [e.g. "It is widely believed that..." instead of "In my opinion..."]. Fox News should be compulsory viewing for BBC news and current affairs staff. Once they've stopped falling over laughing at its loudmouthed, right wing attitude they may begin to face the shocking truth that Fox generally does a better job of separating factual reporting from personal opinion.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Jo Sharp
Come off it people - the BBC has been soft left for years; very anti-Thatcher and any of her successors. Especially on the Today programme.
The hugely redeeming feature of the Beeb has always been the World Service which is, in my opinion, a true standard setter for the rest of the world.
Jeremy:
The reports of this suggest that it was a priority agreed between Campbell and Hoon, but we will never know the full truth I suppose.
One additional point; if Blair and his chums were so confident that they had done nothing wrong and would therefore be cleared by Hutton, why have they been behaving in such an obviously nervous fashion over the last few weeks: they gave it away by their massive public outburst of relief on Wednesday.
Poor Gordon Brown; he has had to cancel the removals people......
Jo
The hugely redeeming feature of the Beeb has always been the World Service which is, in my opinion, a true standard setter for the rest of the world.
Jeremy:
quote:
However, as I understand it Campbell stated that this was his priority rather than the government's. Can you (or anyone) clarify this? [I'm afraid I have other things on my mind and am too lazy to check].
The reports of this suggest that it was a priority agreed between Campbell and Hoon, but we will never know the full truth I suppose.
One additional point; if Blair and his chums were so confident that they had done nothing wrong and would therefore be cleared by Hutton, why have they been behaving in such an obviously nervous fashion over the last few weeks: they gave it away by their massive public outburst of relief on Wednesday.
Poor Gordon Brown; he has had to cancel the removals people......
Jo
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Jack's takin Tony's place !
Fritz Von I'malrightjohn
Fritz Von I'malrightjohn
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Mick Parry quote
I agree...what I find fascinating is:
(a) Nobody found anything to criticise about Hutton DURING the enquiry
(b) It seems that a majority of "the public" feel that the conclusions were one-sided, without having even read the report.....
IMO this just goes to show what a successful job the BBC has done, in kidding us all that it is impartial, whilst really peddling heavily biased propoganda. As mentioned above, when you read crap in the likes of the Daily Mail, at least you are aware that the opinions being expressed (no pun intended)are heavily biased.
The sinister side of all this is that the BBC CLAIMS impartiality, and unfortunately, this is widely believed to be true.
All the bleating about the one sidedness of Hutton is, IMO, just sour grapes from those who did not get the "result" they wanted and expected
Heads have rolled at the BBC, ..I say rightly so...they have displayed incompetence and crass arrogance IMO, so good riddance.
Standing back from all this, I muse over the fact that we are living through the longest sustained economic "good time" probably in my lifetime.....record low inflation and interest rates, high employment,....etc
Sure there are things that could be better, but I can recall the catastophic times this country went through with Wilson/Heath/Callaghan/Thatcher/Major
To coin a phrase..we really havn`t ever had it so good. I am not uncritical of Blair, but at least he is not idealogically driven, unlike some others on his front bench.
We had enough of ideaology with Thatcher....Blair is exactly what the country needs right now...an intelligent, pragmatist who is not frightened to put his own neck on the block when reason suggests that it is the right course of action to take
My view is.....we went to war we removed a murderous unstable Saddam Hussein.....who HAS used chemical and biological weapons and would almost certainly do so again if given the chance
The excuse that the internal affairs of another country are no concern of our, does not , IMO, wash...yes to a certain extent, the end does justify the means...when lives are at stake
I see paralells here with 1939.....Churchill could have easily acceptepted peace terms wth Hitler, and left him with continental Europe...after all, Hitler said hehad no interest in war with Britain, and of coursae, Hitler`s worde could be trusted, right?
I actually believe that Blair was caught in a trap at the time...I believe that he did not want to go to war, but basically had to choose between siding with France/Germany or the US...hasn`t history taught us anything?
The UN has been exposed for the sham that it really is...whenever it comes to the crunch, individual self interest of the member states always overrides "justice"
I am much more likely to vote for Blair now than I was 18 months ago
Laurie S
quote:
Common sense dictates that it if the Beeb was going to make serious statements which brought about questions over the integrity of the Prime Minister, then a thorough check on the accuracy of those statements should have taken place.
Because of this negligence, resignations have rightfully taken place and Michael Howard has been made to look a fool.
I agree...what I find fascinating is:
(a) Nobody found anything to criticise about Hutton DURING the enquiry
(b) It seems that a majority of "the public" feel that the conclusions were one-sided, without having even read the report.....
IMO this just goes to show what a successful job the BBC has done, in kidding us all that it is impartial, whilst really peddling heavily biased propoganda. As mentioned above, when you read crap in the likes of the Daily Mail, at least you are aware that the opinions being expressed (no pun intended)are heavily biased.
The sinister side of all this is that the BBC CLAIMS impartiality, and unfortunately, this is widely believed to be true.
All the bleating about the one sidedness of Hutton is, IMO, just sour grapes from those who did not get the "result" they wanted and expected
Heads have rolled at the BBC, ..I say rightly so...they have displayed incompetence and crass arrogance IMO, so good riddance.
Standing back from all this, I muse over the fact that we are living through the longest sustained economic "good time" probably in my lifetime.....record low inflation and interest rates, high employment,....etc
Sure there are things that could be better, but I can recall the catastophic times this country went through with Wilson/Heath/Callaghan/Thatcher/Major
To coin a phrase..we really havn`t ever had it so good. I am not uncritical of Blair, but at least he is not idealogically driven, unlike some others on his front bench.
We had enough of ideaology with Thatcher....Blair is exactly what the country needs right now...an intelligent, pragmatist who is not frightened to put his own neck on the block when reason suggests that it is the right course of action to take
My view is.....we went to war we removed a murderous unstable Saddam Hussein.....who HAS used chemical and biological weapons and would almost certainly do so again if given the chance
The excuse that the internal affairs of another country are no concern of our, does not , IMO, wash...yes to a certain extent, the end does justify the means...when lives are at stake
I see paralells here with 1939.....Churchill could have easily acceptepted peace terms wth Hitler, and left him with continental Europe...after all, Hitler said hehad no interest in war with Britain, and of coursae, Hitler`s worde could be trusted, right?
I actually believe that Blair was caught in a trap at the time...I believe that he did not want to go to war, but basically had to choose between siding with France/Germany or the US...hasn`t history taught us anything?
The UN has been exposed for the sham that it really is...whenever it comes to the crunch, individual self interest of the member states always overrides "justice"
I am much more likely to vote for Blair now than I was 18 months ago
Laurie S
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by JeremyD
Excellent post, Laurie.
Other glaring failings of the UN are the facts that half its members clearly do not agree with its charter, and that other prominent UN memebrs [e.g. the UK] fail, for no apparent reason, to fulfil some basic obligations.
Nevertheless, the UN is doing a great job in other areas (health and education) despite being handicapped by a ridiculously small budget by international standards.
The only long term solution I can think of right now would be for states that agree with the UN charter to form a new organisation with a similar charter and to police themselves, with the UN losing all its military functions.
Other glaring failings of the UN are the facts that half its members clearly do not agree with its charter, and that other prominent UN memebrs [e.g. the UK] fail, for no apparent reason, to fulfil some basic obligations.
Nevertheless, the UN is doing a great job in other areas (health and education) despite being handicapped by a ridiculously small budget by international standards.
The only long term solution I can think of right now would be for states that agree with the UN charter to form a new organisation with a similar charter and to police themselves, with the UN losing all its military functions.