It will be difficult for Lord Hutton to deflect public attention from the questions that remain about why and how England went to war

It is England, after all. The murkiest of things — lies, betrayals, suicide, inquiries, resignations, even war and its aftermath — must happen impeccably. Lord Hutton has spoken. Mr Tony Blair and his men are clean; nobody could have known that David Kelly would kill himself; and the BBC must mend its ways. Nothing could have been better for Mr Blair, and worse for the BBC. These twinned outcomes are reflected in the fact that the run-up to the fateful renewal of the BBC’s charter coincides with the run-up to a general election. But, for the moment, decency must prevail. Lord Hutton has questioned the BBC’s editorial system and standards of management. Therefore, not only have its chairman and director general resigned in quick succession, but the acting chairman has also apologized “unreservedly” for the BBC’s errors of judgement. Mr Blair now considers the accusations against him withdrawn. So he wants to “draw a line and move on”.

But faith has never been purely a matter of judicial evidence. So lines cannot be drawn as promptly and as neatly as the prime minister would like to imagine. England has a vibrant civil society, which likes to think and judge for itself. And this indomitable body sees the nation’s standards of democratic accountability compromised on some vital counts. With the Hutton report’s indictment of the BBC, those who value the legendary editorial independence of this “public service broadcaster” have begun to fear that nothing less than this fiercely guarded autonomy might be at stake now. The BBC has held its own against the government throughout its eighty-odd years. Through World War II, the Suez crisis and the Falklands war, it has taken on Winston Chur- chill, Anthony Eden and Ms Margaret Thatcher respectively. But Mr Blair and the Iraq war seem to have landed it in a crisis of what looks like rudderless panic.

Like the protests and demonstrations all over Britain among BBC employees, following the resignations, recent polls show that three times as many people still prefer to place their trust in the BBC than in Mr Blair’s government. More people believe that he should have resigned rather than the BBC’s top men. Lord Hutton has cleared Mr Blair on the matters that he had been specifically asked to look into. He has repeatedly reminded the public of the narrowness of his remit, of what does not fall within the “terms of his reference”. But outside this judicial boundary lies a vast grey area, of dubious actions and complex truths. In this wider and darker arena, nothing seems to have been resolved at all. And much larger, more disturbing questions of why and how England went to war remain unanswered. Mr Blair may not have lied, but are not gullibility and misjudgement with regard to intelligence just as culpable? Why does Lord Hutton have to quibble on the double meaning of “sexing up”, and then choose the meaning that serves the government best? Why does he have to invoke the “subconscious” to talk about Mr Blair’s influence on the joint intelligence committee? It will be difficult for this establishment law-lord to deflect public attention from the only question that should, and still does, really matter: why then did England go to war?