It was four years ago today that Lord Hutton delivered his report "into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly", though many saw it as a report "into the circumstances surrounding Britain's participation in the Iraq war", a question the law lord was careful to remind us was outside his remit.
Our archive of Hutton coverage is still there to remind you of the key points of Hutton's conclusions, how events unfolded, how the media, especially the BBC, were affected and what were the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/hutton/documents/0,,1021218,00.html" key documents. Or you might want to take Steve Bell's very succinct summation, which may serve as well as anything else.
So what's changed in Britain since then? The following day Greg Dyke left the BBC, closely followed by Andrew Gilligan, and there's no doubt the BBC has been a changed - and chastened - organisation since then.
But have Westminster and Whitehall changed? The public dutifully reelected Tony Blair's government barely a year later, so not much change there. Gordon Brown has since made it his selling point that he would champion substance over spin, but the election false alarm arguably showed that was more of an aspiration than a programme.
One thing that may have changed is the attitude of intelligence agencies to their masters. After the key claim (more or less dismissed by Hutton) that the government had sexed up intelligence material to prop up its intention to go to war, some spies have been spooked, so to speak. US intelligence agencies last year made a point of saying that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme, at a time when some, including the Observer, were worried that US hawks would use such a programme as a casus belli.
To take the question the other way round: what might the world look like if Hutton had decided differently?
