Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!
Posted on 17 Jun 2005 5:31 pm
I thought that protocol required that when an MP inadvertently misleads the house, they should correct this at the earliest possible opportunity. Rather than writing a private letter, he should have made a public statement. His failure to do so is surely a matter for resignation.
He could shelter behind semantics, by claiming that he was only reporting what the US said, but there is a clear implication in his initial statement that Mk77s had actually not been used, not merely that he was reporting the US line which might or might not be true. In any case he was asked 'whether firebombs had been used', not 'whether the US publically admits that firebombs had been used'.
Given the widespread reports of the use of Mk77s including statements from US troops on the ground, it seems strange that Ingram did not do a little more digging to check whether the US assurances were correct, particularly when he was repeatedly asked similar questions. To fail to do so seems negligent.
Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.
Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates – simply and clearly.
Get insights on TheyWorkForYou and other mySociety sites, in our popular newsletter
Your donations keep this site and others like it running
mySociety is a registered charity in England and Wales (1076346) and a limited company (03277032). We provide commercial services through our wholly owned subsidiary SocietyWorks Ltd (05798215).