It is certainly my sense of what he said.”Earlier, Mr Campbell stuck by his insistence in earlier evidence that his role in the drafting of the September dossier on Iraq was purely “presentational”. When asked why he was so keen to get Dr Kelly’s name into the open, he said: “I think the mood around No 10 and much of the rest of the Government by now is that … the whole thing is taking up a huge amount of energy.”The BBC were not going to accept they were wrong It was frankly just going nowhere. “I was aware that that was the policy they had agreed,” Mr Campbell said.As Mr Campbell chairs the daily meeting, his comments suggested for the first time that the confirmation strategy did have Downing Street’s approval and blessing.

But the inquiry was shown an entry in Mr Campbell’s diaries on 9 July, which stated his view that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. When asked if this meant identifying Dr Kelly, he replied: “That was my view.”Mr Campbell also revealed he had been “aware” of the MoD’s tactic of confirming the scientist’s name to journalists through the Q&A approach.Either Pam Teare, the ministry’s director of news, or Kate Wilson, her chief press officer, had told Mr Campbell of the plan at a daily No 10 meeting of press chiefs. Alastair Campbell wanted Dr David Kelly’s name to be made public because he was in favour of “a clear win not a messy draw” in the Government’s battle with the BBC.
Tony Blair’s outgoing director of communications became the first member of the Government to admit to the Hutton inquiry yesterday that Downing Street wanted the scientist’s identity revealed.Geoff Hoon and other witnesses have repeatedly insisted that the Ministry of Defence’s question-and-answer material was not part of a strategy to put Dr Kelly’s name into the public domain. “There is a possibility that different people might have judged, with the benefit of hindsight, that decisions could have been taken slightly differently,” he said. “I don’t believe this would have had any material effect.”Ben Russell. But he said that Dr Kelly had fully accepted that his name would become public at some stage, and Mr Hoon strongly defended the way the MoD had behaved.He said the only choices other than confirming Dr Kelly’s name were to lie or to offer no comment, which could have led to other people being wrongly identified.

Certainly, as far as I was concerned there was no such conspiracy.”Mr Hoon conceded that, “with the benefit of hindsight”, some of the details released about Dr Kelly could have helped journalists to identify him. But he denied seeing the controversial “Q&A” guidance for journalists, which accompanied the press release.He also said he had not known that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman, Tom Kelly, had given further details about Dr Kelly’s position at a briefing for political journalists on the afternoon of 9 July.”Counsel is suggesting there was some sort of conspiracy right across Government for all these people to be involved in giving out small parts of information which he has concluded provided a picture,” Mr Hoon said “But there is just no evidence of that. They have denied it and I deny it.” He added: “I don’t believe there is the slightest shred of evidence for that assertion.”The Defence Secretary said he saw and approved the Ministry of Defence press statement revealing that an official had come forward as the possible source of Mr Gilligan’s story.He said he also authorised plans to confirm Dr Kelly’s name if journalists put it to the MoD press office. He denied there was a government strategy to release the government scientist’s name to the press.Mr Gompertz said: “I would suggest to you that there was a deliberate government strategy to leak Dr Kelly’s name into the public arena without appearing to do so?”Mr Hoon replied: “You have put this point to a number of witnesses. The Defence Secretary replied: “That’s a question you would have to put to journalists and the editors responsible.”Mr Caldecott asked: “Do you accept that you have an absolute duty to correct it?” Mr Hoon answered: “No, I do not.”Mr Hoon repeatedly clashed with Jeremy Gompertz QC, counsel to the Kelly family, as he was pressed over the decision to confirm Dr Kelly’s name. He said he did not think a correction had been considered.Mr Caldecott said: “But Mr Hoon, you must have been horrified that the dossier had been misrepresented in this way. It was a complete distortion of what it actually was intended to convey, was it not?”The Defence Secretary said: “I was not horrified, I realise journalists write things that are more dramatic than the information on which it is based.”Mr Caldecott asked if Mr Hoon felt people were “entitled to be given a true picture of the intelligence, not a vastly inflated one”.

He was questioned closely by Andrew Caldecott QC, for the BBC, on the Government’s failure to correct such reports.Mr Caldecott said the Government failed to issue a correction because “it would have been politically highly embarrassing because it would have revealed the dossier as published was at least highly capable of being misleading”.Mr Hoon said: “I do not accept that.” He said he had asked Ministry of Defence officials what weapons were referred to by the claim that Saddam could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so.He was told the claim related to shells and battlefield material. But, Mr Caldecott asked: “Are you aware that on 25 September a number of newspapers had banner headlines suggesting that this related to strategic missiles or bombs? Why was no corrective statement published in relation to these reports?”"I do not know,” Mr Hoon replied. He defended the decision to confirm Dr Kelly’s name, insisting he still believed it was the right thing to do.Mr Hoon said press reports on the extent of Iraq’s arsenal after the dossier was published were “exaggerated”. He also acknowledged that Dr Kelly’s televised appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee would have added to “pressure” on the scientist.Mr Hoon conceded that “with hindsight” some decisions may have been different, but he insisted they would have had no material effect on the handling of Dr Kelly’s case. From documents inside the Boiler Room, with Jefferson Management headings, and from the websites – Jefferson’s is almost identical to Franklin Asset Management – it has become clear that the two operations are connected.One of the key tactics of Boiler Rooms is to change their names and, if necessary, their offices, to avoid detection. Anyone who shows interest is faxed more information, and encouraged to visit the company’s website. We at Franklin don’t just recommend shares and forget about you.