If ever a public inquiry needed to be meticulous in its procedures and equally robust in its conclusions, then surely the gravity of the subject matter points to Chilcot.
But why should those who fear that the facts may damage their reputations be given opportunity, and seemingly unlimited time, to challenge – and presumably modify – the inquiry’s conclusions?
The integrity of the inquiry may be compromised in the eyes of the waiting public, especially those with a personal interest. Responses to implied criticism should follow publication, not precede it.
It won’t happen, but it would be interesting to see the original draft and the final report published simultaneously alongside one another.