Dr. Stephen Frost: The Chilcot Inquiry. The British Government's Role in the War on Iraq.
Margaret Aldred and the Judicial Coverup. The Chilcot Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot, was launched in 2009, by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with the mandate to inquire into the role of British government in the Iraq War. There have been five inquiries into the role of British government in the Iraq War. There have been five inquiries in the in the United Kingdom into the Iraq War. There have been five inquiries in the United Kingdom into the Iraq War. the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), the Hutton Inquiry, the Butler Inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry, the Iraq Inquiry. Not a single word of evidence at any of those inquiries has bean heard under oath. Sir John Chilcot, presently chairing the Chilcot Inquiry, the Iraq Inquiry. Not a single word of evidence at any of those inquiries has been heard under oath. Sir John Chilcot, presently chairing the Chilcot Inquiry, has the unique distinction of sitting on those inquiries: the Butler Inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry. Does this not constitute a conflict of interests? The person running the Chilcot Inquiry on behalf of Chilcot is one Margaret Aldred, an unelected civil servant, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, is not fit to be running any inquiry, she has infamously ordered Came Ross before he gave evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, not to mention Dr David Kelly and outlined the consequences if he did so, and certainly not the Chilcot Inquiry because of an overwhelming conflict of interests, and other reasons, as carefully outlined below. Margaret Aldred is fatally tainted by a huge conflict of interests. Stephen Frost: Elfyn Llwyd MP outlines in a Westminster Hall debate why Margaret Aldred should not be running the Chilcot Inquiry: Elfyn Llwyd: It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Williams, ably chairing this debate, as always. One of the vital prerequisites of a Government initiated inquiry is that it should be utterly independent and devoid of any conflicts of interest that might undermine its credibility and the veracity of its conclusions and findings. I shall detail why I have grave misgivings about the independence of the Chilcot inquiry process, may be flawed and even compromised from the beginning. I realize that those are grave allegations, but I do not make them lightly. Before I detail the problems as I see them,, I should mention that about three years ago, some documents were dispatched to my office from an unknown source, bearing a note saying that they were top secret. Some were British in origin, others may well have been from other intelligence sources. They showed that in 2001-02, active discussions were taking place on how to move against Saddam Hussein using overwhelmingly military force.