I write this as a voter, a taxpayer, a licence fee payer. I am a BBC employee but as I write without the consent of the Corporation, my words should not be interpreted as being the opinion of the BBC. They are not.

Today has been very bad for the BBC. After months of speculation, Lord Hutton castigated the Corporation and exonerated the political classes over the death (seemingly suicide) of government weapons expert David Kelly.

And I'm furious.

Not because I believe the BBC was not at fault - it was, at least in part, as admitted by the boss. Only concern for my own job stops me saying anything more on this matter. I may be angry, but I'm not suicidal.

The government and civil service, however, seem to have got off with barely a stern look or raised eyebrow from the man investigating the whole sorry affair.

How?

I'm not saying the inquiry was a fit-up from start to finish but...

Hutton criticised the false claims, inaccuracies and choice of language in Andrew Gilligan's reporting, but when commenting on the September dossier on Iraq's WMD, he said:

The Prime Minister's desire to have as compelling a dossier as possible may have subconsciously influenced the Joint Intelligence Committee to make the language of the dossier stronger than they would otherwise have done

So if I'm reading that right: yes, they used the words that would make the strongest case for war, but it was okay because, hey, you know, it's like a really big deal for the boss, and we want him to know that we care too.

Bull.

Am I wrong in thinking that a document which carries the argument for going to war should be anything less than fastidious (or as Mum put it "have military precision") with its use of language? If journalists reporting sources should be 100% accurate in their choice of words for a fairly routine two-way or package, then shouldn't those sending men to their possible death be expected to meet even higher standards when articulating their arguments?

Hutton also said that it had not been within his remit to assess the quality of intelligence in the WMD dossier. Quite apart from the fact that this immediately let the government off any kind of hook, I can't see how he could satisfactorily complete his inquiry without looking at the wider issue of whether everything the government's document claimed was true.

And whether by fault or by design (of which the government's been cleared), it wasn't.

We now know the claim that Saddam posed a threat to the UK with weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed within 45 minutes was less than watertight. Or, putting it bluntly, wrong. 45 minutes to hit the deserts of Iraq or Iran, maybe. Ipswich or Ilfracombe? Not quite.

Whether the result of careless research or careless writing, Blair still used this misleading information - albeit probably in good faith - to help persuade both the Commons and the nation at large of the need to go to war. And someone should answer that charge.

But according to Judge Brian, that doesn't matter either, and nor does anything else the intelligence services may have got wrong.

In failing to address the issue of accuracy in the dossier, Hutton conveniently spared the civil service and the government the tongue-lashing that he gave the BBC for pretty much the same reason. Now, class, can you say double standards?

There's much more to the story than meets the eye, or than I could attempt to cover here, even if I had the energy or ability to do so. But after the day I've had, getting these couple of things off my chest will have to suffice.

Long ago I learnt that life isn't fair. But this really takes the piss.

And as a great spin doctor once wrote, something's definitely rotten in the state of Denmark...